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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159901)	3/31/2005 10:45:49 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

make sure you see: Message 21184507 or maybe you already did A friend pointed it out to me

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159901)	3/31/2005 10:52:45 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

No the battle moves to the autopsy results now. What did she not know and when did she not know it. Chris Matthews had a good point on IMUS this morning. Where are the doctors who deal with issue and families every day. Like when do you turn up the morphine or refuse the feeding tube or just give the family some options when death is near. I deeply respect the right to life position which sets up the markers for all of us to consider but i remain pro-choice because i can consider these very personal descisions. As a parent I understand what motivates the Schindlers. As an adult i understand why Terry herself may have said she wouldnt want to live this way. What i do not understand is how the husband violated his marriage vows and got a girlfriend and had two kids while all this was going on. Given that he did this, i somehow think he should have been disqualified from making this decision based on a case by case view of things. Would we let Scott Peterson make the decision on Lacy? There is some of that in this and thus the decision perhaps should have gone to the parents in this particular case. Mike