Reply
Fri 18 Mar, 2005 10:33 am
Oh, good. More governmental interference in people's private lives.
Joy.
It's beginning to look like Frist is in both a coma and a vegatative state. Is recovery possible?
I welcome goverment interference in private life when the issue is whether to kill someone or not. Seems appropriate and reasonable.
so then i guess the government can intrude "the sanctity of marriage".
it's not logical to on one hand say that marriage is between "one man and one woman", and, that it is such a precious state of being that it must be defended against all attacks by the government...
only to then...
insist that the government turn around and attack the very state of being that exists between "the one man and one woman".
then the statement becomes "the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, their respective parents, their children, their religious leader, his flock, other leaders and their flock, local politicians, state politicians, national politicians, circuit judges, state supreme judges, the supreme court (usa), all lawyers, all doctors, the media, millionaires, and, of course, tico and dtom"...
not much "sanctity" of any kind in that scenario.
I don't believe the government should be involved in the Shiavo case at all. It's nothing more than grandstanding for the constituents.
Ticomaya wrote:I welcome goverment interference in private life when the issue is whether to kill someone or not. Seems appropriate and reasonable.
Show me where the government has a compelling interest in this case.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:so then i guess the government can intrude "the sanctity of marriage".
it's not logical to on one hand say that marriage is between "one man and one woman", and, that it is such a precious state of being that it must be defended against all attacks by the government...
only to then...
insist that the government turn around and attack the very state of being that exists between "the one man and one woman".
then the statement becomes "the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, their respective parents, their children, their religious leader, his flock, other leaders and their flock, local politicians, state politicians, national politicians, circuit judges, state supreme judges, the supreme court (usa), all lawyers, all doctors, the media, millionaires, and, of course, tico and dtom"...
not much "sanctity" of any kind in that scenario.
Was that directed to me, DTOM? I've read it several times now, and I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or exactly what you are saying .... but it might just be all the cold medicine coursing through my veins, right now ...
Let this be a lesson to everyone - get your living wills signed, sealed, and witnessed based on the laws in your state. Make sure copies go out to all immediate family members so everyone knows what you want.
DrewDad wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I welcome goverment interference in private life when the issue is whether to kill someone or not. Seems appropriate and reasonable.
Show me where the government has a compelling interest in this case.
The Florida government has a very compelling interest .... I don't see that the US Congress does.
DrewDad wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I welcome goverment interference in private life when the issue is whether to kill someone or not. Seems appropriate and reasonable.
Show me where the government has a compelling interest in this case.
The government has a compelling interest in determining under what conditions someone may be euthanized. It may well be that the woman's husband has an ulterior motive, and the law should protect her from this possibility. She is perfectly healthy and is not being "allowed to die" but rather killed. The government certainly has an interest in determining when someone can be killed, and how the helpless of society are treated. There are many legal questions about this case that ought to be answered. Terri Schiavo has never been represented by council, even though she is the one whose food will now be witheld. Had her parents not existed, who would have spoken for her at all?
Asking the question which the poster did, in and of itself makes me wonder about the poster's capacity for empathy.
Perfectly healthy.
That poor woman.
Brandon9000 wrote:... She is perfectly healthy ...
you have a very strange definition of "perfect health".
DontTreadOnMe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:... She is perfectly healthy ...
you have a very strange definition of "perfect health".
Do you believe that a brain damaged person cannot be described as healthy? She is certainly not on any form of life support. If she is not healthy, what disease do you claim that she has?
I believe a feeding tube is considered life support, as she will die without it.
FreeDuck wrote:I believe a feeding tube is considered life support, as she will die without it.
You will die without food too. I do not believe that people who cannot feed themselves, of whom there are many, are customarily described as being on life support.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace