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

To: Lane3 who wrote (105731)	3/24/2005 10:30:42 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793707

>>We do not know she wants to die. But we do know that a lot of people in her circumstances want to die.<< What the hell kind of an argument is that????

To: Lane3 who wrote (105731)	3/24/2005 10:36:13 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793707

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 as a sounding board 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. first of all.... when i say i am tired of the specious argument wrt carrying out HER wishes, it is because each and every argument i have read in favor the state killing her is based upon the accepted (by some) notion that this was terri schiavo's desire. this is the crux of the matter, and i contend that in no WAY was there ever any proof of this being her wish, only the hearsay 'evidence' of the 'husband'... so a little dose of reality here... i'm not going to engage in a theoretical discussion that issues forth from a false premise again, it is a specious argument second of all 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 the answer is simple you do not kill people based upon your subjective view of their quality of life... 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. false. 1. the two are not mutually exclusive 2. without life, there is no liberty...meaning only terri schiavo has the liberty to take her own life we are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for us collectively or individually to PROJECT our notions of what constitutes liberty and happiness as a MEANS to distinguish life is a slippery, slippery slope indeed... the whiff of fascism is in the air <edit> no quite the stench, the supremes have denied terri schiavo her right to live

To: Lane3 who wrote (105731)	3/24/2005 11:44:23 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793707

We do not know she wants to die. We "know" that she wants to die because a judge decided that she does, based on evidence presented to him at a full trial on the merits. Admittedly, the evidence was hearsay, but there are many, many exceptions to the rules against hearsay, and apparently in Florida this is one of them. I would feel a lot better with a law which required these thoughts to be expressed in writing, rather than leaving it to judges to divine the person's intentions based on the testimony of family members who may not have known the person as well as they thought they did, and may have a conflict of interest. But the Florida legislature just yesterday rejected an attempt to amend the law to require a written directive. If a judge decides a fact at a full and fair trial, it's a fact for the purposes of legal proceedings, which is what these are. With contested testimony, it could have gone either way, but the judge makes his call, and that's that.