Shiavo case

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Raider179
Here is the argument as easy as I can put it. SHE didnt want to live like that. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Her life, Her choice.

How do you know?

Maybe she stated that she would love to be starved to death too.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by genozaur
Raider, if a comatose woman could give birth to a child, had  she been dead for the ten previous years ? I think she was not dead.
Her human mind was not very much in sync with us chatting boxes, but one of the major woman's ability to carry children survived well.
I just would like to know the opinions of the brain doctors on this case. Is the childbearing function of the woman's body independant from brain functions ? I doubt it. But such an opinion casts dark shadows on the diagnoses of modern medicine stars who overestimate the "cognitive" aspect of brain functions.
Another link gives us another doubt. The comatose girl was on ventilator for ten years but after the removal of the machine she kept on breazing on her own. This fact definetely tells us about the improvement of her state of health.
Are there any true stories of the "awakening" of the comatose people after several years of "no life" ?

Genozaur the woman died in a coma after another 10 years. She didnt improve anymore than she could breathe on her own. That is not "improvement". No mental capacity = life sucks = let me die

I think pregnancy is just a bodily function that requires unconcious thought just like breathing when sleeping.

[TweetyBird]

Raider, all I can tell you is if someone wants the state to go through with the barbaric task of starving them to death if they become incapacitated, it should be written , witnessed and notorized and the state given the chance to object to such a thing. As far as I know, all we have is dear old hubby's word.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Raider179
I knew it was a matter of time before someone turned this political. Please stop jeez.

what do you mean?? It is political.....the US House and Senate are deciding it dumb chit.

And the dems/libs want her to starve to death, because they are the compasionate ones.

[Nash]

Well, I guess it goes back to the courts for a re-re-redo.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Here is the argument as easy as I can put it. SHE didnt want to live like that. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Her life, Her choice.<<

And we have that in writing, right?

Her husband said it. Thats good enough for me. Unless it is shown otherwise I will take his word.

 Like I asked earlier who would want to live like that? Anyone here? Anyone want to say they would rather be like she is than just starve? Again I will say not me and not anyone I know. Starving for 2 weeks seems a pretty small price to pay to end 17 years of what looks to me to be a horrible way to live.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Raider, all I can tell you is if someone wants the state to go through with the barbaric task of starving them to death if they become incapacitated, it should be written , witnessed and notorized and the state given the chance to object to such a thing. As far as I know, all we have is dear old hubby's word.

yeah It should have been, but you know what she was 26 when it happened. I am 27 and I don't have one either. My parents on the other hand in their 60s and 70s do have them. Probably felt like I do that nothing like that could ever happen this early in life.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Raider179
Her husband said it. Thats good enough for me.  

Kind of like Scott Peters saying he went fishing.....he said it, so it's good enough for you huh?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by NUKE
what do you mean?? It is political.....the US House and Senate are deciding it dumb chit.

And the dems/libs want her to starve to death, because they are the compasionate ones.

I meant someone on this board. But thanks for your kind words. Wonder if that will fall under the circumventing the language filter?? Try to debate an issue without name calling because as soon as you do your argument goes right out the window.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by NUKE
Kind of like Scott Peters saying he went fishing.....he said it, so it's good enough for you huh?

That case has no bearing on this case. but i see you are upset and being irrational now so I will go to sleep and let you vent.

[TweetyBird]

>>Her husband said it. Thats good enough for me. Unless it is shown otherwise I will take his word.
<<

Well its not good enough for me, and I hope it isn't good enough for the majority of this country. We're talking about killing someone, not whether or not they want yellow or pink flowers on their casket. It sure seems they should be some official instrument in place before you take up the task of starving someone to death to comply with their wishes. Was she of sound mind when she requested this? Did she know how dieing of thirst would feel? Were there more humane ways of killing her? Did she consider it suicide?

Seems there would need to be something in writing.

[NUKE]

I am amazed that people exist that would allow a human to starve to death......yet a lot of the same idiots are against the death penalty and are hugging trees and crying about owls and the environment.

It's a joke and 90% of the intelligent people know it. Too bad only about 2% of the people on this earth can be considered intelligent.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
Kind of like Scott Peters saying he went fishing.....he said it, so it's good enough for you huh?

Good enough? No.

But in both cases, folks considered the evidence and came up with a decision.

This fiasco in Congress wasn't the first time people considered her case. In fact, this latest consideration was the most lacking out of all.

Now it'll go back to people reconsidering what they've already reconsidered, and I just wonder what might happen if Congress once again finds that they aren't happy with their conclusion.

[NUKE]

Nash, there is no excuse for starving a human to death.

If I had a horse and decided not to feed it, I'd go to prison.

[Shuckins]

Nuke, the way I see it, two weeks of starvation will end fifteen years of hell.

I don't think the two are at all comparable.

When we die most of us will starve to death...debilitating illnesses rob people of their appetites through the onset of nausea.  

I watched my maternal grandmother die in that fashion.  She suffered a stroke one day and collapsed in a nursing home, striking her head on the edge of a coffee table.  The immediate effects of the stroke were not too severe...yet she was never again to leave the hospital.  She had numerous minor strokes after that first one which steadily eroded her mental functions.

Her family watched her slowly become a mental vegetable.  Unable to feed herself, she was placed on life-support.  If she hadn't been of old farm-family stock, and as tough as boot leather, her death might have been easier.  At the time of her death, three years later, she no longer recognized any of us and physically was a shadow of her former self.  Death was a blessing.

The plight of the Shiavo girl is not unfamiliar to me.  There are many things worse than death.

So don't dare tell me that I have no moral compass because my viewpoint on this matter is different from yours.  That smacks of self-righteousness.


"Libs and Democrats?"  That hardly applies to me.