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 (99600)	3/26/2005 11:41:19 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

My position is both clear and rational. Based upon the fact that we have no signed document with a directive stating what to do I don't think we have the right to conclude she'd want to die. If she were unconscious and on life support I think many would feel different. Under those circumstances she would truly be being kept alive by machines. In this example we're talking about nutrition and water. Your problem with this case (and its so painfully obvious) is that you feel like a bunch of bible thumpers are trying to push an agenda and so you're pushing back. Fine. I say wait until the Gal is dead.....the backlash is going to be big. I don't think this is wrong based on religion....I think this is wrong based on a COMPLETE PROCESS OF REASONING! The husband has been granted the authority to take her life - thats wrong in this case. He's moved on, has kids and so clearly HER family should have more say than he does. But there is 2.5 million riding on a book deal. The book only has appeal when she's DEAD! The Movie rights will only have appeal when she's DEAD! I'd have moved on if I were him too but at this point I'd ask my in-laws what their wishes were - its their daughter. I would NOT have turned it into a media circus and he played a role in doing that. You may find their position delusional but its not for us to judge. All I would say is if they take custody of her they should pay the bills - not the state. WRT mentioning the deer hunter remarks I think its totally in line. It goes right to the core of your credibility. You have the audacity to question MY REASONING when your first reaction to a deer hunting camp massacre was relief no more deer would die? Those murders took place on the first weekend of hunting and we almost broke a record for the number of deer taken. So not only were more deer killed but 5 innocent people we killed as well and you were "relieved that no more deer would die." channel3000.com Don't you think you'd question me if my first remark to a PITA building being blown up was one of relief because now we could slaughter more beef? Personally I think these remarks - I sense that you are not getting to any of your answers by any process of reasoning You seem to be so emotional about this issue that you cannot absorb factual I have made my position clear on this subject several times, and I am not going to tolerate your false accusations. If you want to participate on this thread, you will have to stop doing that. - are totally driven by the fact that anyone reading this little discussion would probably be more likely to call into question YOUR REASONING based on the facts and past remarks.