Skip to comments.
Why We Don't Starve Humans
Catholic Match ^
| March 24, 2005
| Tim Drake
Posted on 03/24/2005 3:30:50 PM PST by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
To: MrBallroom
21
posted on
03/24/2005 8:24:21 PM PST
by
MarMema
("America may have won the battles, but the Nazis won the war." Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall)
To: NYer; Maeve
22
posted on
03/24/2005 8:29:33 PM PST
by
Siobhan
(No such thing as Democrats -- just DEATHOCRATS.)
To: Tench_Coxe
"I fear a day of reckoning is coming. Not for myself, but for Schiavo and his fellow travellers and abettors."
I long for that day to get here as soon as possible.
23
posted on
03/24/2005 9:34:27 PM PST
by
Proud Conservative2
(Gun control means being able to hit your target...)
To: muawiyah
We should revise our laws to require capital punishment for the offense of starving a human being. Yes. Kill those who kill. We are not hypocrites.
24
posted on
03/24/2005 9:39:39 PM PST
by
Jorge
To: NYer
25
posted on
03/24/2005 9:41:01 PM PST
by
djreece
(May God grant us wisdom.)
To: MadIvan
I know what you mean. And I keep thinking to myself, as angry (and sad) as I have become during this whole process I can't can't even imagine what the Schindler family must be going through.
Comment #27 Removed by Moderator
To: Jorge
There are those guilty of murder. You keep them around they'll keep on killing. YOu get rid of them the murders stop.
It's a sad fact of existence.
28
posted on
03/25/2005 4:30:58 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: NYer
If a person has an injury, such as a chemical burn of the esophagus, and cannot eat any more, everyone would say that the person should be given a stomach tube. Yet, when you have a person with Alzheimer's, some people will say that they have lived their life and can slowly die of starvation by failing to place a stomach tube. When you do that, you're basing the entire decision upon intellectual ability and worth. If you take IQ out of it, you would treat the two people the same. If you argue that someone can't process the food otherwise, they should be given a stomach tube, then you need to give it to everyone. I've never seen anyone who could challenge that argument.Amen to that.
It's wrong in any circumstance, regardless of whether she said she didn't want it or her husband says she didn't want it. It's inherently evil to deny food and water to anyone unless it's going to make the person worse or death is within a few hours. It's independent from what she or her husband has said.
That too.
29
posted on
03/25/2005 4:42:31 AM PST
by
agrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson