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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (99513)	3/25/2005 12:10:49 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Because I just had to put Buster....my best and coolest cat to sleep. He wasn't in pain but he was dying from a form of diabetes that they can't regualte in cats. It was a downer! Now for the question - why didn't/don't we starve them? Starvation might be painless but neither you nor I would do it to an animal. So why on earth would you think its the right thing to do with a human being? It's Good Friday so I'm going to stop with this post. But I want you to dig deep and ask yourself why you would have more concern about how an animal dies, how we slaughter cattle, how we treat animals, how we abort a fetus/child than you would about starving a human being to death when there is simply no reason for it. The husband should hand that girl over to her parents and allow them to take care of her and pay the bills. That much is so clear that it shouldn't even be questioned. I don't know why the parents can't seem to let go but its not my place to question them or their love for their daughter. The husband has moved on and while he believes this is what Terri would want there is no conclusive proof of that. Nothing in writing. So we have a disagreement between those who knew her the best. Now which side should we err on?