Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (48579)	3/23/2005 11:01:07 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 59480

Here's the way I see it, In the ORIGINAL trial NONE of this stuff against Michael came up, either it wasnt known, or no one was then willing to testify for fear of losing their jobs. After that FIRST trial no NEW EVIDENCE was ever allowed in, its just appeal after appeal based upon the original facts. Now the Media has gotten involved and through their pressure and the protection of public info. new facts have surfaced, they ought to be considered. If they are lies, then appropriate punishment should be meted out, if they are truthful Michael's claim to guardianship should be removed. Incidentally, it is almost CRIMINAL that everyone involved has an attorney EXCEPT TERRI. jdn

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (48579)	3/23/2005 11:16:12 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I tried to hold myself to that as well and found that it was impossible. The case is just too compelling. "Law and Order SVU" aired an episode last night in which a child suffered brain damage similar to Terri's, owing to, it turned out, the shaken baby syndrome. The police gave everybody the third degree, including a poor nanny, an unlicensed private investigator, registered offenders, a daycare owner, the lover of the child's mother, and anybody that was just standing around. The evidence ultimately led to the charge that the mother herself did the shaking. During the trial she refused to remove the feeding tubes, because she couldn't bear to lose her child? or to avoid being charged with murder? Finally, she broke down and admitted that she had shaken the child, and to please remove the tubes to end her child's suffering. Truth stranger than fiction? It's a toss-up. I've personally said my first and last piece on this and am going to default to the people that are actually there since I know for a damn certainty I can't rely on the press to bring me the true and unbiased story.

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (48579)	3/23/2005 11:52:01 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

A slightly different aspect of this case. Lets say that, for the sake of argument, all parties agreed that she should be set free and allowed to die. Why can't we come to some form of anesthetic injection that would replace starving the body of fluid and or food? I know there are a ton of issues involved with this case but one of the hardest is the way in which she'll pass. Heroic measures and basic nourishment and water are pretty far apart. Things to make the heart pump, the lungs breathe etc. are heroic measures. Without them the person passes quickly. Taking away food and water takes longer and IMO strikes people as a bit more barbaric. In short, I think one of the main issues here is the means and not the end. Maybe if we address how patients who wish not to be kept alive are allowed to pass we can figure out a less alarming/horrifying means to an end. When I mention this keep in mind I'm trying to avoid the "assisted suicide" label. This lady, IMO, was dead a long time ago