Its not bad being a minority

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
This has been happening to people for years guys,nothing new.

Just bush's ploy to turn your eyes away from the war.
The only reason why Fox news and Cnn even cover this.


"look over here...look over here"

Sheep.

Nonsense. The peoples eyes have been turned away from the war increasingly for months for various reasons.
Mainly by what the media itself decides to report on not and government entity.

Or are you saying Bush had something to do with the coverage of The Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson trials or any of a number of other headlines.

The War as far as the media is concerned just isnt big news anymore

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Seeker
So your modern revisionist versions say "murder"; and not the original text; which is "kill".

Actually I think Seagoon will confirm the original text is "Murder" not kill.
It was mistranslated when it was translated from anchient to greek, or the King James version (which is what most current bibles are based on) I forget which.
But in the original anchient Hebrew(which is the only one that matters) its "Murder"

Unfortunatey since he wont be back till monday and after tomorrow morning I wont be back for two weeks.

I wont be able to see which it is untill I get back.
If I even remember to look.

[DREDIOCK]

Actually he does confirm this in another thread.

Just looked it up

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Drediock,
Now, popping up to the higher level question, i.e. Christians and War. The 6th Commandment in the Decalogue is not "Thou Shalt not Kill" in the Hebrew it is "Lo Ratsach" - no murder. This is an important difference, for it allows for the slaughtering of animals for food, and gives the magistrate the power to wage war against evil doers and to use capital punishment (particularly in the case or murder). This is explicitly spelled out in Gen 9:6, and Romans 13:4.

SEAGOON

[Airhead]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!  If I have to start saying wrong in other languages, I'm going to be very pissed.

You're wrong no matter which language you use Lasorsailor- she has no brain function other than that function of involuntary movement controlled by the brain stem. She is, indeed, brain dead.

I'm curious what effect this will have on organ donations- by the logic of those "pro life" people who think she will magically awaken then there is no such thing as "brain dead." By thier logic we should use whatever means available to keep people physically alive in the belief they'll awaken.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Its nice to see an outpouring of fake morality over this issue. Brings a tear to my eye.

She's dead, her body is just barely alive.
-SW

[Airhead]

As Governor of Texas GWB signed a bill into law allowing hospitals the option of removing feeding tubes regardless of the wishes of the patients' family. Amazing he's so adamant about keeping this peticular feeding tube in, eh?

[VOR]

Tweety, you're right and we're wrong. Bask in your victory, you crusader.

[Maverick]

This one vastly publicised situation has brought out not one but multiple situations that are related.

In no particular order (other than the one that they popped into my head)
 
Does a person have a right to die?
If no, then end of discussion and medical people / family MUST expend everything to maintain any life no matter how low functioning it is.

If a person HAS a right to die, what method should be allowed?
We currently hold it is a blessing or mercy to cause an animal to die when they are in pain and there is no "reasonable" (slippery I know) hope of any comfortable or quality life.

Do Doctors have an obligation to "do no harm" that supercedes any desires on the part of the patient? Does forcing a patient to continue to exist constitute "harm"?

When does a patient REQUIRE a guardian? Is this a purely medical call or mental facility call?

Seagoon, carrying on one of your points. It is the will of God that life is granted. I accept that at face value. Does using exteme medical advances to proplong a life that would naturally cease mean that the medical community and family are acting in contravention of "God's will"? If God set the situation for a life that would certainly end had it happened in the time of Christ, are we acting against Gods wishes by using modern medical practices to force that life to continue?

I realise the above situation is extremely slippery not only based on the examination of it but also on the basis of the article (Doctor Nazi's, albeit an editorial or opinion piece) Seagoon provided but also in the fight against disease. Example, if a patient contracts Cancer is it against "God's will" to treat it?

Does God recognise or condone ending ones life in any case? I'm not talking about taking anothers life, I mean deciding to end your own. I know that it is considered wrong in general Christian terms and certainly the Catholic church considers it a "mortal sin" (the most grievous kind) to commit suicide under any circumstances.

If medical assistance IS allowed for euthanasia on the part of a patient requesting it (or guardian) what is the basis for making that possible? Is there a legally (morally / ethical) definable and defendable as well as medical basis that can be made to authorize it? Who gets the final say?

There is more to the situation I know but these were the main points that kept coming up in my own mind.

For myself and my wife, we have "living wills" that spell out our wishes. We have discussed this issue and neither one of us wishes to continue to merely "exist" when there is no hope of having anything resembling what we feel is a true life experiance. That may be a bad situation for our "here after" but that is the decision that we feel is correct.

Feel free to comment but please try to be adult about it and not merely flame.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
[B KILLING her sounds harsh - so lets let her starve over two weeks?
. [/B]

First, define life.

Second, whats your position on the death penalty?

Third. where's the money coming from to keep her alive?

I agree that the whole situation is unfortunate, but pulling the tube is no different than turning off a respirator and having the patient suffocate.

There are countless people in hospitals who have the plug, or any equivalent, pulled on a daily basis. Will you champion for them as well, or will your passion fade as soon as the story moves off the front page?

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by Pongo
I would not starve her, But I would have her killed particularly if she had asked for that

Call Lazs2 in to shoot her, I'm sure he'd jump at the opportunity...

Originally posted by Nash
When was the last time that Homeland Security issued an alert? October? You remember what those are, right? The "Someone might get blown the shreck up" announcements?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Airhead
As Governor of Texas GWB signed a bill into law allowing hospitals the option of removing feeding tubes regardless of the wishes of the patients' family. Amazing he's so adamant about keeping this peticular feeding tube in, eh?

Dare we say it?

FLIP FLOP

[lasersailor184]

Brain Damaged, not brain dead.  

Retards mostly have brain damage.  That doesn't mean that we should go around euthanizing them.

[TweetyBird]

Here is another side of the story. I don't know if this link has been posted or not...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43427


And search for info on how it feels to die of thirst.

>>It's hard to imagine the suffering of an experience like that. We are told that death by thirst is one of the most excruciating experiences the human body can undergo. The reason it is so painful is that water is a basic physical need. We cannot live without water. Thirst is the one thing too dreadful to bear. Hunger is more tolerable than thirst. We can live longer without food than without drink. Hunger is due to a privation of the flesh, but thirst is due to a privation of the blood. That's why thirst is so painful, and why it leads so quickly to death.  (1)

<<

[RTSigma]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>That's why thirst is so painful, and why it leads so quickly to death.  (1)

<<

Hey, it leads quickly to death doesn't it? Any kind of a death is painful, I'd take quick personally.

[lasersailor184]

I think it means to say, "Quicker" death.  But how many people prufreed these days?