Why We Don't Starve Humans

Catholic Match ^ | March 24, 2005 | Tim Drake

[MarMema]

Enjoy!

[Siobhan]

Bump

[Proud Conservative2]

"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.

[Jorge]

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.

[djreece]

marking

[evilsmoker]

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.

[muawiyah]

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.

[agrace]

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.