Baby_Hitler said:

She will die of dehydration actually, and if there is anything left of her mind, it will not be pleasant.

---

relativexistance said:

You never know maybe in another 15 years she will still be alive and by that time there will be enough advancements in medical technology such that they can fix her brain.

---

unbeliever said:

1) There were no living wills back when she entered into this permanent vegetative state.

---

Quote:

Sure, an injection would be more "humane" but only if you consider her still human, which she isn't.

---

Autonomous said:

unbeliever said:

1) There were no living wills back when she entered into this permanent vegetative state.

---

The first living will was written by attorney Louis Kutner in 1967. His arguments for it appear in the Indiana Law Journal.

---

shroomydan said:

Quote:

Sure, an injection would be more "humane" but only if you consider her still human, which she isn't.

---

If she is not human, then what is she?

That's a pretty bold statement. She is certainly still Homo Sapiens; she has human DNA. Her heart is still beating, she's breathing, so she's clearly alive.

Terri Schiavo is without a doubt a live human being. It seems to me that what you're trying to say is that she is not a person. If you can convince yourself that she is not a person, then you can justify killing her. Only persons have a right to live.

But how can a live human being not be a person?

---

Quote:

Please do not conflate religious moral beliefs with the law.

---

What is the basis of the law my friend? Should stealing and murder and rape be OK just because the bible says they are not OK?

Morality is merely an ethical system which declares that some actions should be done because they are right and other actions should not be done because they are wrong. Civil Law is also an ethical system which declares that some things should be done and that other things should not be done.

Someone must decide what the law will be. Those who decide the law will make decisions based upon what they believe to be right and wrong. And because right and wrong are moral judgments, it is impossible to legislate without legislating morality.

You have your morality and I have mine. Why should you be allowed to conflate your morality with law while denying me the same exercise of freedom?

You may wish that us pro-lifers would just go away, but that is not going to happen. You see, we are gnostics of a sort. We know right from wrong, good from evil. Please realize that even if you deny the existence of good and evil, then you are still making a moral judgment. You are saying that it is wrong to believe in good and evil and right to believe they do not exist. Of course judgments about what is right and what is wrong are moral judgments.

Now, you could say that there is no right and there is no wrong, but if you choose that path, then you will have to stop telling me that I am wrong.

Otherwise, realize that you are attempting to force your morality on others, and stop complaining when someone with a differing morality tries to influence the law.

shroomydan said:

Quote:

Please do not conflate religious moral beliefs with the law.

---

What is the basis of the law my friend? Should stealing and murder and rape be OK just because the bible says they are not OK?

Morality is merely an ethical system which declares that some actions should be done because they are right and other actions should not be done because they are wrong. Civil Law is also an ethical system which declares that some things should be done and that other things should not be done.

Someone must decide what the law will be. Those who decide the law will make decisions based upon what they believe to be right and wrong. And because right and wrong are moral judgments, it is impossible to legislate without legislating morality.

You have your morality and I have mine. Why should you be allowed to conflate your morality with law while denying me the same exercise of freedom?

You may wish that us pro-lifers would just go away, but that is not going to happen. You see, we are gnostics of a sort. We know right from wrong, good from evil. Please realize that even if you deny the existence of good and evil, then you are still making a moral judgment. You are saying that it is wrong to believe in good and evil and right to believe they do not exist. Of course judgments about what is right and what is wrong are moral judgments.

Now, you could say that there is no right and there is no wrong, but if you choose that path, then you will have to stop telling me that I am wrong.

Otherwise, realize that you are attempting to force your morality on others, and stop complaining when someone with a differing morality tries to influence the law.

---

Quote:

Some questions for you:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

---