RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of jack syme
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:48 PM
> To: Glenn Morton; 'Bill Dozier'
> Cc: 'ASA'
> Subject: 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.

Given that my point is EXACTLY that animals and mass murderers get
treated better when put to death than this poor woman, you would NOT be
derailing the conversation. You would be AVOIDING the point. That is why
you state that you don't want to go there. Of course you don't because
it exposes the utter moral weakness of your position. You would treat a
dog better than a human.

As to the issues being two separate things, they aren't. You want them
to be, but for many of us, they aren't. You can't simply argue that
because YOU think they are two separate things therefore you don't have
to present a cogent and well thought out position on why. The above
doesn't do that. It states your believe, but lays no philosohical basis.

Are you arguing that because she is supposedly PVS (but as Bill Dozier
points out the tests have not been run), that therefore she has no inner
mental life? If you say that would make a difference between the dog
and her--that PVS makes a human an non-spiritual being, makes them a
thing, like a rock--- then you have to present evidence of why you think
that. What evidence do you have, does anyone have of her subjective
inner mental state?

You need to state clearly why PVS denies her as a US citizen the basic
rights given her in the Constitution (or rather by her God). The right
of life is the first mentioned, yet you think she is not deserving of it
or that someone has a right to deny her this right. On what basis? The
testimony of a man of whom the court it self noted that he could not be
considered impartial because he stands to get a lot of money????

Tell me what crime this person did to deserve such a horrid death? Tell
me why she is no longer at the level of protection offered animals. I
would say that even if your dog was the most PVS dog in the world, you
wouldn't be allowed to starve him. You could give him a shot to put him
to sleep, but you couldn't starve him. PETA would not allow that. They
complain at the quick deaths given cattle when slaughtered for human
food so I can't see them going silent if you torture a dog, even a PVS
dog. IT would be illegal, inhumane and evil to starve a PVS dog.. Give
him a shot!

As to PETA, you may not have seen their tactics in the UK or you might
not say what they wouldn't do.
Received on Sat Mar 19 09:23:00 2005