Sgt. Boomer Wrote:I don’t doubt Terri’s parents have tried some character assassination on Michael, but he’s certainly made it easy and I don’t think they’ve stretched the truth. Whether he tried to kill her is obviously speculation, though it wouldn’t be the first time someone has gotten away with murder. At any rate I think they’ve made the point that her life shouldn’t be in his hands.

From what I’ve read, they’ll keep her heavily sedated as they starve her so she probably won’t feel any pain. But if you tried to kill a dog, or a convict, that way you’d be in jail so fast it would make your head spin.

Saying you wouldn’t want to live like that – now, while you have all your faculties – is rather irrelevant. It would be like asking someone if they wanted to go on living with fleas, sleeping on the floor, licking themselves, and eating dog food. If that someone was a person, they would say no. If that someone was a dog they’d think they had it pretty good.

As I said before, it’s impossible to know what Terri wants, and odds are pretty good she’s too brain damaged to know either. It’s also very certain that Michael’s motivations are suspect – and I’m being understated here, there’s a lot more info on him if you’re still not convinced.

The question of euthanasia in this specific case is clear-cut, and it’s outrageous that the courts have made the rulings they have. There is a huge difference between unplugging a machine that keeps body functions going after the person is clearly brain-dead and deliberately killing someone because they need some help to survive. I don’t remember the public rallying support to unplug Christopher Reeve’s ventilator. When Reeve was given the choice to die, he chose to live.

As for the question of euthanasia generally, I’m against it in principle (but I suppose I’m resigned to democratic compromise :roll: ). I also believe in the “slippery slope”, and “please kill me” could quickly turn into “please don’t kill me”, like the cards they have now in Holland (If you have time, read this article : Right to die turns into 'duty'). And it seems like it’s headed in that direction with Terri. It should not be up to a small group of people to decide what is an acceptable quality of life, and to have the power to kill you if- in their judgement- you don’t meet that standard.

isoFlux Wrote:Iraq isn\'t about "freeing the Iraqi people". its an imperialist venture to help secure the most needed natural resource. period. Iraq didn\'t threaten the U.S. More people have died during the US/Coalition invasion and occupation than in Saddam\'s rule. If you think this war is about all that ideological nonsense about "freeing all those poor Iraqi slaves", then open a history book. the US has had a very specific and focused interest in the Middle East since the end of WWII. excluding our support of Zionism, none of our policies, actions, and whatnot have ever supported "freedom in the Middle East". the Middle East is the breadbasket for industrialized countries. it\'s no coincidence that rencent the political amd military actions in Iraq were set forth by oil jockies tightly involved in the Middle East have decided to sacrifice thousands of lives to obtain political, social, and economic control over a cache of resources.

Nazi Germany invaded 9 countries in 1939 (including North Africa). they formed and implemented the most gruesome form of mass genocide known to man, and kept a tight and unwanted grip on all of it\'s territories.

our military actions since WW2 have not been defending and liberating millions of people from a corrupt, destructive, and unjust form of totalitarianism. all they have done is disrupt, polarize, and destory cultures and people for petty political reasons. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. i dont think all the lives lost for those wars were worth their outcomes. Korea so far is the only pseudo-success story, and even then there are some catches.

Yellowbelly Wrote:BS. Iraq was not about a much needed natural resource. If we were that desperate, we would have drilled in Alaska.

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD Wrote:"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. …

I would imagine they had their facts straight! But anyhoo, I was flaunting the unprecendented economical statistics of 8 years of largely minding own bidniss.

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD Wrote:It is the motives behind and the arrogant refusal to cooperate with the rest of the world in ousting him (you know: with minimal bloodshed – yeah, we wussie euros are strangely weird that way), that bugs us.

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD Wrote:Oh, and the UN were founded to ensure that we never would see a war like WW2 again, through diplomacy, communication and understanding.