Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to THE REAL ISSUES AT HAND WITH THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE
amdg
If life had value to you then you would have respect for what life is, not just the idea of things being alive. If life were more than aa simple biological function to you, then we would never be having this debate because you would not being seeing Terri as anything but dead. You are right, she is not a dog. We treat dogs much better than we are treating her. We are way more kinder to dogs and other pets than we are to humans for some reason. Right there you help to show that you have no respect for life.
Once a house plants has died past a certain point you generally throw it away. An if the house plant were left outside it would either thrive of die on its own depending on its health and ability to survive. Should we just b put Terri out on her own and see how long she survives? Because houseplants really do not need us to survive. We have just taken the responsibility on ourselves.
I have yet to be inconsistent. I show how I have respect for life and value life beyond all things. But to me part of life is being able to live it, not just being alive. If our souls are as trapped in our bodies as you claim, then it is pure evil to keep her alive in that prison of her body. If I am right and her soul has left then it is pointless and a waste to keep her alive. I can see no agreements that would work to say we need to keep her alive.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 26, 2005 at 3:45 PM
| link to this | reply
life has great value to me
The difference in our positions is how we define life. For something to be alive it has to have an animating force, a life principle. Your house plant has one, your dog has one, and so do you. Vegetative, animal, rational. I don't reduce human life to a simple biological function. In fact, that's what you are doing. You call her a vegetable, I call her a human. I don't think her diminshed capacity reduces her essence. She's not a dog, a piece of broccoli, or a piece of meat. If she were one of the first two, she would have greater protection under the law than she has now. If she were a piece of meat, she'd be dead and they would have no reason to starve her. Do you starve a steak?
Consider a house plant. You don't regard it as dead just something you are keeping on life support. You know it dies WHEN you stop giving it the nutrients it needs.
Your inconsistency is huge. You can't be and not be something at the same time, in the same respect. You're dead or you're alive. You have a rational soul or you don't. Which is why you have to retreat to the creepy, slippery slope of deciding what lives have value. As I said before, way to go, Goebbels.
posted by
AnCatubh
on March 26, 2005 at 9:10 AM
| link to this | reply
Janes
Are you ever wrong there. I do not state things here as being facts unless they are proven facts. If they are opinions I clearly state them as my opinions. Just because you do not like them does not make them opinions. You have made this accusation before, but have yet to provide any proof of such. Every single time you dodge the issue and try to discredit my instead of proving me wrong. Just go and prove me wrong for once. Make me eat my words. I have openly told you several times that I will apologize and admit I am wrong about whatever it is, if you can prove me wrong. You will get a full post written by me saying I was wrong and you were right. You have always backed down and made excuses for it, but you have yet to prove me wrong. If you really wish to knock me down a few notices I have time and time again given you the chance to do it. Right here you have the chance yet again.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 24, 2005 at 11:35 AM
| link to this | reply
As I have said before, and will continue to say while I remain on Blogit,
your "proofs" as you call them, are nothing more than your inflated opinions. They are not necessarily factual. If you want facts, then go to my latest posting and you will see that I have included information taken from the Lancet, of all places, to support my theory.
3 lifetimes? No, make that 10+.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on March 24, 2005 at 7:35 AM
| link to this | reply
janes
I only go off of what you present of yourself here on blogit. And once more in your whole comment you do nothing but try to discredit me. You present no facts. You have no clue as to what I have seen of death. You are dancing around the issue and giving nothing to back up your views.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 24, 2005 at 7:09 AM
| link to this | reply
what a load of crap, Kooka
to assume you know me and my life and character, to make such assumptions. I deal with life and death issues on a daily basis. I've had plenty of opportunities to think through these difficulties -- far more than the average person. I have seen more death in my 38 years than you will see in probably three lifetimes. And yet you carry on with your self righteous accusations. Again, such a load of crap.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on March 24, 2005 at 7:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Janes
You have yet to ever show me one bit of credible information that goes against the information I have found. Your sources have too often proven to be much more biased than mine., This is not because they agree with my views, but because they go off of facts and reality, not religious views based on propaganda, misinformation and outright lies.
Stop acting so self righteous just because the truth of the matter doe s not agree with your views.
Go and read what you wrote and you will see you do not state a single proven fact, but instead are busy working hard to discredit me in any way you can find. That alone says you really can not prove me wrong, so you have to resort to the childish game of discrediting. I see this too often by those like you and it gets old.
If you can prove me wrong with credible sources, then do it. otherwise you just make yourself look the fool by dancing around trying to discredit me.
You really seem scared of truth, facts and logic an would rather live in a fantasy world based off of lies and misinformation.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 24, 2005 at 6:47 AM
| link to this | reply
amdg
Life has way more value tome that it does to you. You are reducing life to the simple biological function, while I view life as complex and based around a living soul. You have no true value at all for life, that is way too clear to me. You may think you do, and that seems more based off of fear of death than real value for life.
It is much more selfish to force someone to stay alive when they are very clearly dead than it is to allow them to die. Terri's parents are being the selfish ones here and are only thinking about themselves and living in denial over her death. Letting her die is thinking about what is best for her.
Nothing I said her has to do with what is best for me. It is all about thinking about Terri's interests. And I have yet to not follow my arguments to the logical and likely end. I always look at the end results of my arguments.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 24, 2005 at 6:39 AM
| link to this | reply
Yeah, Kooka,
you KNOW your information is correct, because you AGREE with it. Therefore, since you've said it's correct, it's correct. You're the GOD. And we all know that Koooka is always right, and everyone else is always wrong. I went to that web site you recommended, by the way, but found that some of the info on Terri's condition did not correlate with a lot of other information from other credible sites, not to mention my own knowledge of head injury and brain damage patterns.
As ever, I am not disappointed. I expected to read something from you that was filled with your very own variety of self righteous arrogance, and sure enough, you didn't disappoint.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on March 24, 2005 at 6:31 AM
| link to this | reply
Hey, Kooka I've decided that you're not a person
because your life has no value to me.
You know, it all sounds so nice, just live and let live. Everybody do what's best for them, no interference. The problem is what's best for me might kill you and deprive you of your right to live. You refuse to follow the logical and likely end of your arguments. Because you are only thinking of yourself. Everyone wants what they want and they don't want to think about the cost to others. Selfishness is a religion in this culture. When the Me generation gets the plug pulled on them, maybe this country can return to sanity and responsibility.
posted by
AnCatubh
on March 24, 2005 at 12:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Janes
Unlike you I look for credible sources. Of course once more you are showing a very hypocritical side here. Are you trying to claim that where you are getting your facts from is purely neutral sources in this? I would be willing to bet that my information is much more neutral than yours, considering that you are one who very often quotes propaganda and misinformation as being fact, even when there is positive proof saying otherwise.
I have researched my facts. I know the information I am giving here is about as close to the truth as we can get on this one. Anyone who tries to claim that Terri Schiavo has any chance of recovery is full of it. Any one who thinks Bush and congress has a right to interfere in this matter are very much misinformed about how our government is suppose ot work.
Just because you disagree with what is said, does not mean that it is uncredible. Get over yourself and see reality for once.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 23, 2005 at 8:32 PM
| link to this | reply
As ever, you're picking and choosing your facts and sources.
But that's nothing new.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on March 23, 2005 at 7:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Kaelen-Myril
Thank You for reading
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 23, 2005 at 6:37 PM
| link to this | reply
A very interesting writing and you make some very good points. Thanks for something to think about!
Kaelen
posted by
Kaelen-Myril
on March 23, 2005 at 6:03 PM
| link to this | reply