posted
Keith: Yes art, the state does and I love that right. But, who decides, family, court, politicians etc...
Art: Should be the decision of whoever pays. The treating hospital should have a delegated decision power, except in cases where the patient, patient's family, insurance, or charity pays, and then the payer decides.
In this case, I am sure that Florida is absorbing the cost.
Keith: Sadly theres a mental hospital near here with some heavy helmet wearing folks in a semi-vegetative state, can the court take them out.
Art: The payer of care should decide hopefully to kill when no recovery potential exists. The nation should provide for care of veterans injured in service only.
Keith: There is precedent that her husband is out for himself, and is not trustworthy. (I have no clue. Is he for her or him, her parents are for themselves.)
Art: Doesn't matter - the payer should decide. I am disturbed in this case by the million of insurance money - where did it go, does the husband have it, can it be used to continue care?
Keith: It has nothing to do with Terri. Sadly it has to deal with a rule, can we now take the institutionalized and exterminate them. Just the ones who couldn't live on their own....
Art: We should be able to when the payer of care decides this provides the greatets good for the greatest number, ala Hobbs/Mills utilitarianism.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
oh well Art, the dance was short, i guess we part ways here after all.. vegetative state is where i draw the line.. people with some cognitive brain activity are not on my list...
i believe every person has a spirit and i also believe that Terri's spirit is trapped in the prison that is currently Terri's body. i assume her family is religous because i saw them praying, so why don't they want Terri's spirit to be free and go to heaven if that is where her spirit wishes, or to be reborn if that is what her spirit wishes...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, not stating they do, saying they could, if not the court, the state, and husband.
One of the premises of the legal system is to protect US, in essence protect life.
on this premise, who's rights are being protected here, could be terri and her husband, and not the parents. that would be a split. Greater good is to arguable. If they pull her tube and a cure is found tomorrow who's liable.
There are claims that the husband caused this (i don't know) if so should he have a say?
Would scott peterson have a say if laci wasn't dead but vegatative?
I would definately use morphine and not starve. To me starving is just barbaric in this day and age. And the electricity in her room would cost more for those weeks than if we just shot her.(arts low cost sollutions)
Art: Her husband got a few million settlement against the hospital that screwed up her care. That money is probably being used to care for her. If he has her dead its in his pocket. conflict of interest.
She had private care at one point the caregiver said her husband was rotten and out for himself (i don't know)i do not know where the money is either, obviously he has or spent it... maybe he gambled it and now needs her life insurance to pay off the debts.
The argument itself sets up a slippery slope. Under your plan art, helpless people unable to pay for their own care should be killed in the cheapest way.
I dont know if that law cuts it. "Kill the Invalids" they cost to much. Sounds like a Jello Biafra song.
IP: Logged |
posted
how did this get by 19 other decisions if the husband is "out to get her"? i still have some trust in the judicial system....not as much as i would like,
BUT,
much more than any of the guys on capitol hill...or the white house
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
courts are there to interpret the laws. Not to create them.
congress, senate, pres and courts all have checks and balances against one another, this is one way to use it.
the court often won't enforce a state or fed law for a reason usually because the law is overreaching or takes away individual rights. just part of the checks and balances system.
IP: Logged |
posted
Problem I have here is this woman is not in a coma and not on life support. From what I can see she is being starved to death because she cannot eat. So should we also starve people who cannot walk? Do you notice the mainstream left wing press is all over her husband he has been on every major news program lately. Barbra Walters made me sick this morning the way she was kissing his rear. I have seen the rare interview from the Terri's family and some stated they beileved he may have more to do with her condition than we know and it may benefit him is she never recovers. Did you know that he has refused to allow her to have speech therapy? Im am looking into this now but it also appears he has refused to allow her many different types of therapy that may have helped her recover
IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think she should be kept alive, If I was in her condition I would not want to be alive and her husband said she dosent want to be alive eaither. She told him not to let her live if she got like that. There is no reason to let her live the way she is living.....she would be much happier in another place.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lucy Lastic: keithsan, you have offended me deeply.
to be offended is an incresingly rare experience for me, so i thank you. (gentle head-bow, hands in prayer position.)
To be related to Art is only the highest honor I can bestow on one. Accept this honor graciously, as you were.
Art: Come on Lucy, admit you are my twin sister and I am your evil twin brother. Your rejection of me since I tried to chop your fingers off when we were kids has gone on long enough. Family should not let petty disagreements stand in their way.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
for those of you who are aware...we all are alive because we want to be... terry is alive..she wants to be..there is a reason why she is alive......
if she wanted to die of this earth plane she would off..for those that cant grasp this then..maybe next life you will.. but....yes..terry is alive because she wants to be..i dont know all intracies but let her live for 1)right to life 2) her family wants her alive..
lucy..you seem like a drunkard in a bar..abnoqiuos but yet to be aware...
your level of consciousness will never know..terry wants to be alive because she chooses to be...search nd you will find..
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: oh well Art, the dance was short, i guess we part ways here after all.. vegetative state is where i draw the line.. people with some cognitive brain activity are not on my list...
i believe every person has a spirit and i also believe that Terri's spirit is trapped in the prison that is currently Terri's body. i assume her family is religous because i saw them praying, so why don't they want Terri's spirit to be free and go to heaven if that is where her spirit wishes, or to be reborn if that is what her spirit wishes...
Well you agreed with me once, and Kate agreed with me once, so far this year, so that is twice that I have been right so far. That's a big improvement for my rate of validity.
What does everyone having a spirit mean in your view of killing some and not killing other parasites? We kill criminals, unborn babies, enemies of the nation, babies born as monsters (hideous looking anomalies) at birth, babies born with very serious health problems, other people of all ages in persistent vegetative states, etc.
We all die. To die to spare yoyr countrymen of an expense they do not wish to bear, thereby helping others, is every person's duty, and if you believe this is not true, that an individual has the right to live at the expense of others unwilling to bear this expense, then you believe in a criminal morality. Criminal's assert their needs above others, fulfilling their need at the expense of others who are do not agree with this assertion. This is what you advocate.
Now, Terri's parents are willing to bear the expense of her continued care, and they should be allowed to do this in the absence of strong evidence that Terri wanted to die in her present circumstance.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lucy Lastic: keithsan, you have offended me deeply.
to be offended is an incresingly rare experience for me, so i thank you. (gentle head-bow, hands in prayer position.)
To be related to Art is only the highest honor I can bestow on one. Accept this honor graciously, as you were.
Art: Come on Lucy, admit you are my twin sister and I am your evil twin brother. Your rejection of me since I tried to chop your fingers off when we were kids has gone on long enough. Family should not let petty disagreements stand in their way.
If she is unable to eat with those missing fingers can we refuse to feed her?
IP: Logged |
posted
Art:What does everyone having a spirit mean in your view of killing some and not killing other parasites? We kill criminals, unborn babies, enemies of the nation, babies born as monsters (hideous looking anomalies) at birth, babies born with very serious health problems, other people of all ages in persistent vegetative states, etc.
Glassman: caregiving CAN BE a spirit enriching activity Art, some spirits are in need of giving in order to attain their spirit "goals"...the giver is enriched in the unique way that IT requires.... some spirits may have earned a "free ride" by being a caregiver in a past life...even if they didn't? the caregiver has still achieved a "new " state thru the act of caregiving and the "state of the universe" is better.
i have a hard time with all of these immediate value questions...sometimes the value of a thing may not be apparent for centures or generations...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
keithsan: One of the premises of the legal system is to protect US, in essence protect life.
Art: No, as I posted to Glassman, we kill criminals, unborn babies, enemies of the nation, babies born as monsters (hideous looking anomalies) at birth, babies born with very serious health problems, other people of all ages in persistent vegetative states, etc.
We all die. To die to spare your countrymen of an expense they do not wish to bear, thereby helping others, is every person's duty, and if you believe this is not true, that an individual has the right to live at the expense of others unwilling to bear this expense, then you believe in a criminal morality. Criminal's assert their needs above others, fulfilling their need at the expense of others who are do not agree with this assertion. This is what you advocate.
Now, Terri's parents are willing to bear the expense of her continued care, and they should be allowed to do this in the absence of strong evidence that Terri wanted to die in her present circumstance.
Keith: I would definately use morphine and not starve. To me starving is just barbaric in this day and age.
Art: Starvation is uncomfortable for the first few days, but the appetite goes away then, and death is actually easy and pleasant. People imagine otherwise, but they are wrong. But you are right - there are less costly and more humane ways as you suggested.
Keith: The argument itself sets up a slippery slope. Under your plan art, helpless people unable to pay for their own care should be killed in the cheapest way.
Art: Yes, if there is no chance they can ever be non-parasitic in contributing to the nation, and do not have insurance, and were not injured in arnmed service, and do not have family, friends or charity to support thier care. Yes. They are pets, and unless someone is willing to adopt them and paty for their care, they are unwanted pets and should be killed.
Keith: "Kill the Invalids" they cost too much. Sounds like a Jello Biafra song.
Art: Kill parasites, they cost too much, cost too much, cost too much, as sung to the music of "Mary had a litle lamb", to be sung in nursey schools once a day.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lucy Lastic: keithsan, you have offended me deeply.
to be offended is an incresingly rare experience for me, so i thank you. (gentle head-bow, hands in prayer position.)
To be related to Art is only the highest honor I can bestow on one. Accept this honor graciously, as you were.
Art: Come on Lucy, admit you are my twin sister and I am your evil twin brother. Your rejection of me since I tried to chop your fingers off when we were kids has gone on long enough. Family should not let petty disagreements stand in their way.
If she is unable to eat with those missing fingers can we refuse to feed her?
I can - don't know if you can.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
Art:What does everyone having a spirit mean in your view of killing some and not killing other parasites? We kill criminals, unborn babies, enemies of the nation, babies born as monsters (hideous looking anomalies) at birth, babies born with very serious health problems, other people of all ages in persistent vegetative states, etc.
Glassman: caregiving CAN BE a spirit enriching activity Art, some spirits are in need of giving in order to attain their spirit "goals"...the giver is enriched in the unique way that IT requires....
Art: So we should keep parasites alive so they can attain their goals? They also work on this in disincarante form. For some (evil) spirits, their goal is to kill and torture others, so we should allow people to do this? Not al spirits are good, some are evil, just like people. They fulfill their needs, good or bad, in material as well as in non-material existence. From this they learn causality (God).
Glasman:.. some spirits may have earned a "free ride" by being a caregiver in a past life...even if they didn't? the caregiver has still achieved a "new " state thru the act of caregiving and the "state of the universe" is better.
Art: Some need a free ride at time, some need to be disabled, poor, serial killers, etc., some need to die early, some to suffer in constant pain - you can learn different things from different lives, But you learn from the reaction of others, such as being killed when you are a parasite on society.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glassman: caregiving CAN BE a spirit enriching activity Art, some spirits are in need of giving in order to attain their spirit "goals"...the giver is enriched in the unique way that IT requires....
Art: So we should keep parasites alive so they can attain their goals? They also work on this in disincarante form. For some (evil) spirits, their goal is to kill and torture others, so we should allow people to do this? Not al spirits are good, some are evil, just like people. They fulfill their needs, good or bad, in material as well as in non-material existence. From this they learn causality (God).
once again i THINK you are missing my point, and i think this is something YOU need to hear... BEING a caregiver can enrich the soul/spirit of the caregiver... this has nothing to do with money or any physical thing....it is purely spritual...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Glassman: caregiving CAN BE a spirit enriching activity Art, some spirits are in need of giving in order to attain their spirit "goals"...the giver is enriched in the unique way that IT requires....
Art: So we should keep parasites alive so they can attain their goals? They also work on this in disincarante form. For some (evil) spirits, their goal is to kill and torture others, so we should allow people to do this? Not al spirits are good, some are evil, just like people. They fulfill their needs, good or bad, in material as well as in non-material existence. From this they learn causality (God).
once again i THINK you are missing my point, and i think this is something YOU need to hear... BEING a caregiver can enrich the soul/spirit of the caregiver... this has nothing to do with money or any physical thing....it is purely spritual...
Art: So we should keep Terri alive in order to give caregivers a chance to grow spiritually by wasting their efforts on an hopeless case while others with growth potential and jhealth problems are denied care?
What kind of sick morality is that?
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
no Art, i haven't changed my position here... but you're logic seems to say that we should kill all non-working dogs...and most pets...
then we should start on everybody with an IQ of say 90 or less..... heck, why not raise that to 110, that will make the gene pool really strong.....
we have no idea what genes there are in our gene pol right now that don't appear to be useful, BUT WILL BE REQUIRED in the next 20 years for our very survival...that's the problem with these eugenic theories...one can only make guesses....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: keithsan: One of the premises of the legal system is to protect US, in essence protect life.
Art: No, as I posted to Glassman, we kill criminals, unborn babies, enemies of the nation, babies born as monsters (hideous looking anomalies) at birth, babies born with very serious health problems, other people of all ages in persistent vegetative states, etc.
This was a statement not a question. Laws are there to protect our rights. One of which is to stay alive.
Yes we kill lots of things and we should. If we're talking tax money I'm still more pissed about my welfare thieves and that whole cycle..
Your argument of not paying medical costs to the sick who won't become healthy is like world peace, a nice thought but unrealistic...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: no Art, i haven't changed my position here... but you're logic seems to say that we should kill all non-working dogs...and most pets...
then we should start on everybody with an IQ of say 90 or less..... heck, why not raise that to 110, that will make the gene pool really strong.....
we have no idea what genes there are in our gene pol right now that don't appear to be useful, BUT WILL BE REQUIRED in the next 20 years for our very survival...that's the problem with these eugenic theories...one can only make guesses....
Art: You once more either misinterpret or mis-state my ideas. We should only kill unwanted pets that their owners, or pet charities, refuse to support. The government should not use tax money to keep them alive. We should likewise kill human parasites under the conditions I specified before, and many very low IQ people should be killed, but many with IQs in the 50-70 range (IQ test with a standard deviation of 15, and not the one you scored 782 on) are needed in the work force as maids, dishwashers, unskilled laborers, politicians, etc.
As far as future needed traits, this will not be related to those with chronic incapacity, requiring life long institutional care or confinement. Such people will never be able to adapt and function independently in any kind of future changed environment - if, as a group, they could survive in nuclear fallout for some reason, they would still perish from lack of care from capable people who did not so survive. If such capable people did survive, their adaptability would be seriously compromised by having to care for the parasites.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: keithsan: One of the premises of the legal system is to protect US, in essence protect life.
Art: No, as I posted to Glassman, we kill criminals, unborn babies, enemies of the nation, babies born as monsters (hideous looking anomalies) at birth, babies born with very serious health problems, other people of all ages in persistent vegetative states, etc.
This was a statement not a question. Laws are there to protect our rights. One of which is to stay alive.
Yes we kill lots of things and we should. If we're talking tax money I'm still more pissed about my welfare thieves and that whole cycle..
Your argument of not paying medical costs to the sick who won't become healthy is like world peace, a nice thought but unrealistic...
Yes, we protect life but kill also. We kill those who threaten law abiding citizens, so we protect the lives of law abiding citizens. I am saying that we should only protect non-parasites, and parasites with some potential of becoming non-parasites, otherwise isolate or kill the rest in a way that will reduce the nation's support burden.
It is far easier to establish a government that rewards pro-group and pro-nation goal achievement and punishes the opposite, than to achieve world peace.
We had world peace under Dulles' containment policy, backed by a threat of nuclear retalition (which ended the Korean war when Eisenhower threatened the use of nuclear weapons against N. Korea)), but as we shifted to the limited conventional war concept, we have had to fight frequently - weakness invites aggression.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
this country is made up of a triangle. 3 corners.... judical, executive, congressional
the triangle has to lean towards one corner. and for the last 30 years its been leaning towards the judical... I believe it should lean towards our elected officals... in this country the judges legislate from the bench....
the judical should be the least of the three with no power at all... if the law or the constitution does not say it then they should be forbid from reading it into the law...
this is the greatest plague and greatest danger to our nation is these run away judges...
a prime example just happened.. the usda by order of the president opened the boarder to canada for beef... one lone judge shut it....but the constitution says foreign policy is left to the executive branch...the judge directly violated the constitution.
IP: Logged |
Yes, Blueranger, the judicial branch has assumed too much power relative to the executive and legislative branches, but each power source is flawed at times.
Too many governmental decisions, by either of the 3 branches, are made on the basis of emotional bias rather than rational empiricism as to the predicted effects of the decision.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
