SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105727)3/24/2005 10:13:24 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 793707
 
i'm really tired of this specious argument, kholt

We can stop this colloquy any time you want. I'm participating not to promote any POV because I know I won't change any minds but mostly as a sounding board for me and for folks who are clearly upset at what's going on. I'm trying to be helpful. If it's not helpful, we can quit.

we do not KNOW she wants to die, what we know is her INO husband SAYS she wants to die


You're right. We do not know she wants to die. But we do know that a lot of people in her circumstances want to die. So, what do we do about that when we can't ascertain someone's wishes with certainty?

If we're coming at it from a culture-of-life perspective, the default is automatically that anyone who has not spoken clearly will live, period. If we're coming at it from a culture-of-self-determination perspective, we respect both potential wishes--life or death--equally and use whatever means we have to sort out who is in which camp. One rates life over liberty. The other rates liberty over life.

These discussions have been helpful to my understanding. I'm more sensitive to the notion that maybe we should give less weight to disputed hearsay evidence from parties with a self-interest even though that removes from play the parties in the best position to know and even thought that would result in more people being forced to continue a painful life.