Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

Ok let me try to spell it out again.

If Mr Schiavo had taken his wife and tied her up in a room and didnt feed
her or give her water. He would be arrested.

That is not the same as her being in a PVS and him claiming that she would
not want to continue to get feeding via artificial means in that condition.

So, if I denied my dog food and water would I be in trouble? Yes. If my
dog was in a PVS and I denied him feeding via an artificial tube, would
anyone complain about that, even PETA? I dont think so.

Why do you think a person in a PVS that is being fed artificiallly, is the
same as a pet that is otherwise normal, that is being deprived of food for
no good reason?

That is why it is not a valid comparison. You are comparing completely
different things. I didnt want to address it, because I dont want to derail
the topic into a disussion of the worth of animals vs humans. I dont want
to go there. Your point is not a valid comparison, lets just leave it at
that.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'jack syme'" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "'Bill Dozier'"
<wddozier@mac.com>
Cc: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jack syme [mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:04 PM
>> To: Glenn Morton; 'Bill Dozier'
>> Cc: 'ASA'
>> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>>
>>
>> I think I have clearly answered your question. And I think I
>> have mentioned
>> more than once that comparing this to animals is not valid.
>> I am not going
>> to answer that again.
>
> Fine, but it seems to me highly inconsistent to extend protection to
> animals and not to humans. I might note that just because you think it
> isn't a valid comparison, doesn't necessarily make it invalid. Avoiding
> a cogent, clearly thought out position on the difference between cruelty
> to animals vs. cruelty to humans is no different than the YECs avoiding
> clearly thought out geological positions. They take the same tack you
> are--I won't answer again.
>
> Are you aware that a California city is considering making it a crime to
> declaw a cat because they think it is cruel? Of course starving a human
> whose inner life we know nothing of, can't be considered cruelty or we
> wouldn't do it. (we don't know if she is aware but totally unable to
> communicate in which case, think of the terror). She would get a better
> death in Texas, if she had been a mass murderer. We consider it cruel
> to electrocute a mass murderer so we give them some shots and we would
> never be allowed to starve them because that is cruel and unusual
> punishment. But if you are not being punished for a crime, it is ok to
> starve an innocent person. What a well thought out position you and
> David have. I admire the rubbery elasticity of it.
>
> And since David decided to tell his personal story, I will tell mine. My
> Dad had a massive heart attack. It was 10 minutes before the medics got
> there. His brain was without oxygen that long. The paramedics got his
> heart going again--but of course he wasn't there any longer. But I
> could not have starved him, even though, frankly, I didn't like my dad
> that much. He cut me off when I was 18 and never said boo to my three
> sons (yet I continued to visit him only to teach my kids to come visit
> me when I was old). Sometimes when he found out I was coming into town,
> he would leave. He was a selfish old bas...d but, I wouldn't have
> treated him like people want to treat this poor woman. It wouldn't be
> right.
>
Received on Fri Mar 18 23:49:02 2005