BeeZarre

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

yup. it probably should, but it doesn't. either way, nominated is like being awarded the nobel.

oh boy! did i screw up here ! it should have read;

it probably should, but it doesn't. either way, nominated is not like being awarded the nobel.

apologies. late night session. little sleep. still on first cup o' joe. Confused

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
yup. it probably should, but it doesn't. either way, nominated is like being awarded the nobel.

Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel...

aw, ya took advantage of my mornin' fuzziness, mcg. Laughing

OUCH!

0 Replies

Arafat won a Nobel prize for peace ...... Laughing

Except it isn't funny.

0 Replies

At the time he deserved it. But like soz said, the Nobel peace prize is quite different from Nobel prizes in science.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

At the time he deserved it. But like soz said, the Nobel peace prize is quite different from Nobel prizes in science.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
At the time he deserved it. But like soz said, the Nobel peace prize is quite different from Nobel prizes in science.

<resisting the urge to launch into a discussion of how much Arafat supported terrorism over the years>

Foul! You can't say you're resisting the urge to say something if by saying so you are actually saying the thing you are supposedly resisting. But let me just say that at the time, he made the switch from terrorist to political leader and made the effort to contribute to a peace process. The fact that he didn't follow through later or that he didn't completely reject violence doesn't mean he didn't deserve it at the time, just as the others who recieved it along with him deserved it at the time for the steps that they took.

But back to the topic at hand. The guy wasn't nominated for a nobel prize -- a prize in science that does actually mean something -- but the folks who put him on the air to testify about something he couldn't know that much about repeatedly said that he was.

0 Replies

Don't you mean ... "fowl"?

0 Replies

Not unless you are a chicken.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Not unless you are a chicken.

So .... a duck is a duck, unless it farts, in which case it is fowl?

0 Replies

You are running afowl of my delicate feelings.

0 Replies

Putting aside the debate of whether she is responsive or not and putting aside the motives in the GOP for making this a political situation. I just think it is awful to let the poor woman to die by starving her to death.

0 Replies

The woman has no knowledge she is being starved. Being vegetative, she would not know.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Lets make this simple.
Lets take all of the mentally retarded,all of the severly mentally disabled,all of the severly handicapped,all of those people that are just a drain on finances and time trying to take care of them,and lets euthanize all of them.
That way,the left gets what they want in regards to individual right to life.
We would save millions of dollars,which could then be used for other social programs.
It would free up hospital beds for other people to use.

This seems like the best choice.The left gets everything they want,and it denies parents of all these people their right to help their kids.

Let's make this simple: thinking error.

Talk about a strawman....

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

The woman has no knowledge she is being starved. Being vegetative, she would not know.

She might or might not know, I don't know, but it still seems a bit inhumane to me. I know that if it were my daughter I wouldn't have it in me to OK a removal of a feeding tube knowing it would end her life. I imagine that it would take a very courageous person to do such a thing. It would also take a lot of faith in whomever you are relying on who tells you that your daughter is just alive by a feeding tube but in all other aspects is already dead. This is just a terrible situation made worse by the media and political motivations on all sides. Whatever anyone decides it seems to me that they have no choice but to play God.

0 Replies

As for suffering during starvation:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1241412#1241412

0 Replies

There's no doubt it's a horrible decision for anyone to have to make.

My uncle had to make the decision for himself. No more food, no more water. I don't know that I could have done that for him. I wish I could say that I know I would have been strong enough.

I think that allowing someone to die is one of the most difficult things to deal with. It takes an enormous generosity of spirit.

0 Replies

The woman's life ended 15 years ago. They have only kept her body alive. She has no brain.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

You are running afowl of my delicate feelings.

just let it run off of your back like water, fd. Smile

0 Replies

revel wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
The woman has no knowledge she is being starved. Being vegetative, she would not know.

She might or might not know, I don't know, but it still seems a bit inhumane to me. I know that if it were my daughter I wouldn't have it in me to OK a removal of a feeding tube knowing it would end her life. I imagine that it would take a very courageous person to do such a thing. It would also take a lot of faith in whomever you are relying on who tells you that your daughter is just alive by a feeding tube but in all other aspects is already dead. This is just a terrible situation made worse by the media and political motivations on all sides. Whatever anyone decides it seems to me that they have no choice but to play God.

i sympathize with your feelings revel. this must be very hard stuff for people with deep and sincere christian faith. i believe that you are one of those sincere people from our many chats. if i'm mistaken in your religion, i don't think i'm wrong about your being at least a very caring person.

what must be considered is what a person would want for themselves in such a situation. for myself, in the same situation it would be my will that i be released from this earth to move on to whatever lies beyond. also, it would not be fair to burden my wife and family in such a way that their lives would cease to be their own for the living.

i've been thinking a lot about what a permanent vegetative state might compare with.

it seems to me that it would be similar to a person under full anesthesia such as i was for my heart operation. complete nothingness where the parts of the brain are that contain our "self", our "being". no awareness of anything. no dreams. not there at all.

that, in my view, is not living.

i agree that there is an element of inhumanity in the current process. unfortunately, since we are not allowed to do the humane thing and end this kind of situation through the use of drugs, it is all that we have to carry out a person's wish to die with dignity.

0 Replies

DTOM and others, I understand what you are saying.

Does it not seem that in a way modern medicine has advanced faster than we can keep up with?

Maybe like someone said a while back, it will teach more people to have living wills--with legalized witnesses.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know