Moderate Forum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: bentway who wrote (16370)	4/6/2005 11:35:33 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) of 20773

Life support is removed from TERMINAL patients frequently. Terminal means they are dying. The baby you mentioned in TX had a congenital defect which prevented his lungs from developing.* Terri Schiavo wasn't terminal when her food and water were cut off. She could have lived for decades with food, water and basic medical care. *(I am upset though that life support was cut off w/o the mothers approval, however - she wanted to "give him more time" in hopes of a miracle I suppose. I wish they'd given more time till she was convinced of the futility.) I don't understand why people in favor of starving Terri S. to death bring up executions of convicted murderers. I would think if one is hard-hearted enough to see a young woman put to death who is not terminal and not in pain and who has committed no crime, they would no object to putting to death people who have committed brutal murders. I find this highly hypocritical. Logically one who objects to execution of murderers, and I can see that many people do, should be even more concerned with the life of an innocent.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next