Re: Terri Schiavo
For me there is a difference between execution and active euthanasia.
I understand that for some parties (for example the vatican) there could be no difference and they would equal the two. This is why I point out another view on the matter. I was aware that some US states implemented the death penalty by lethal injection and I don't equate it with active euthanasia; although you tend to end up with a dead body there are different motives.
Terri's 2-week slow burn death from dehydration and starvation was absolutely inhumane.
I don't see it that way, I understand it can look that way and if you are convinced that Terri is conscious and struggling against it (like her sister said?) it would be inhumane, but so would be a lethal injection.
It's generally considered a humane (and legal) method. Use of lethal injection in hospitals is not legal, although considered humane (i think not in that context) and legal in a deathrow setting.
IF they were going to kill her, which is what they did, plain and
simple, then why not at least do it humanely? Why should a person
who's convicted of murder(s), rapes, terrorist acts, etc. receive a
quick, humane, painless death, while an innocent woman who's never
hurt anybody should die a long, drawn out, torturous death?
Because active euthanasia on Terri is not allowed in that state at this moment - even so like I said: it's considered to be painless.
they made the decision that they were going to kill her?
Does this make sense? Maybe to you, but not to me. THAT was the
point I was trying to make, bumblebee. If they were going to
"legally" kill her, why not make it as painless as possible?
Yes, I think there is little difference between lethal injection and this method
(physical) painwise (if you would discount the timeperiod). I understand that there is a difference of view whether one thinks Terri is conscious or not. For me it makes sense because I think she was in a PVS.
Maybe people find me naive here but I buy the official line, I don't see a 3D conspiracy (but i can speculate on a 4D one)... but I haven't seen the husband's interview yet - my view on him may change.
So bumblebee, if someone punched you out until you were
unconscious and half dead, and then you woke up in a brain damaged
state, completely reliant on others for your survival....including the
person who punched you out in the first place........ and then those
people eventually ceased your food and water supply while you lay
there, helpless in bed, unable to do anything about it, you wouldn't
consider those people to be killing you?
Yes, that would be a relatively painless murder, a murder nonetheless.
It would be killing.
If I was in PVS
-after looking into the 3 nurses, ex-girlfriend usw I still
currently think Terri was-
...and someone who knows me well (and loves
me) would decide it's enough I would consider it passive euthanasia,
not murder. I agree that the end result (me dying) is the same but
there is a qualitative moral difference - even if I was not in a PVS.
Perhaps for some people the case is clear because these people want a clean and clear view with a guilty party - for others the case is clear because they have reviewed all the facts and came to a personal look on the matter.
The whole public debate about Terri seems to be more about emotions, politics and morality then about Terri, a reflection of the 4D play - clash of the titans, fighting in heaven. There are clashes and earthquakes closer to home too, and don't forget the pope.
As a sidenote: Perhaps I come across as nitpicking in general for some, if so I apologize. Just ignore me or drop me a line about how irritating i am offlist I'd like to know as I am probably not aware of it.
