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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105735)	3/24/2005 12:34:18 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793716

MD.......there is something else going on that you and I and millions of others don't understand. kholt hasn't made it clear.....the courts haven't made it clear.....Michael Schiavo and his lawyer hasn't made it clear......and the ACLU hasn't made it clear. And even though an entire community of people have offered to lovingly care for this woman, you and I and millions of others still don't understand why the people with the power to make these decisions have decided to err on the side of death. This is not called progressive or advanced, logical or compassionate. It is called barbaric and uncivilized. I for one consider it murder until or unless they can convince me their actions are justified. a slippery, slippery slope indeed...whiff of fascism is in the air M

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105735)	3/24/2005 1:10:57 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793716

"no quite the stench, the supremes have denied terri schiavo her right to live..." They behaved even more cowardly than that by shirking their obligation to act positively on this issue. The disgusting stench will remain until and unless they are held accountable.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105735)	3/24/2005 2:39:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793716

you do not kill people based upon your* subjective view of their quality of life...* I don't think that's what's going on. I defined two sides to this. One side is the culture-of-life side and the other is the self-determination (choice) side, which is the side I'm on. There was a process in place under Florida law that tried to figure out, in the absence of clear evidence, what Terri's choice would be. They may not have come up with the right answer in this case, but that's the tack that the law specified and that's the tack they used. Trying to figure out what she would want is not remotely the same as imposing their views on her. I'll ask you the same question I asked bland--what process would you use, instead? How would you determine what the person would choose? Or would you not concern yourself with the person's wishes?