Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Dead people don't have heart beats nor need to be fed.

Teri Schaivo was dead, Teri Schaivo's body was alive.

If she was dead they could have burried her without the need for the courts etc.

Well yes but it would of been smarter to harvest the healthy organs.

Touching. You remember that thread about moral relativism? This ^ is what I mean.

You've decided that her life is not worth sustaining and that the only reason to do so is to part her out. I'm not sure you fully grasp how repelling such a notion is.

How is calling a shell a shell repelling?

It is a biological fact that we are made up of lots of things. That's not what we are talking about. However, you've reduced human life to something no more meaningful than a junked car. That's a very troubling opinion.

What's troubling is that a dead consciousness is still a living person but a dead body is dead. If you think mere flesh, bone and blood constitutes life while what makes you 'you' doesn't... You have a vary twisted and vain opinion.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
What's troubling is that a dead consciousness is still a living person but a dead body is dead. If you think mere flesh, bone and blood constitutes life while what makes you 'you' doesn't... You have a vary twisted and vain opinion.

Life is a biological definition. It is not a qualitative definition which is what you're asserting - whether you know it or not. Life is life. You are assigning value to that life and if it is insufficiently valuable you suggest we should just use that life for spare parts.

That, is a twisted view.


and... one more time just for fun. I'm not saying we never take some one off life support. As I noted earlier; absent a clear life directive we need to err on the side of life. Why? Given the choice of options we should pick life... we canb change are minds later if need be. If we choose death we cannot.
 
Last edited:
Top