I agree with you there, but I think there might have been a good reason for not letting the parents in during her final moments, 1st letting them in would cause tension bewteen just about everyone there, and 2nd we've alread seen the parents turn this into a TV Soap Opera, who knows what they might have done afterwards... Just my Opinion

Draeld

First, I have no clue why the congress decided to make a law that only applied to one person, and didn't make a law that applied to all courtcases, but anyway...

When a Presidant goes on 'vacation' they mean he left the White House and is now in another location in the country that has all the same things he has in the whitehouse. A Presidant could easily never step foot in the whitehouse and conduct all the business that needs to be conducted. However, when signing a Bill, the presidant has to sign the physical piece of paper, he can't fax it or email it, like he can email or fax orders to accept the opinions of the war generals that are making the decisions for the day to day activities of the war.


Second, When people protest, they are protesting for overall larger ideals in the communities they are part of. The Civil rights protesters never paid black people more money when they worked with them, nor did they give them the seat on the bus they took. The people who did do those things for other people, didn't bother protesting. Thats why people protest, because they don't really do much of anything else.

I think the only valid argument against people who protest for the Lifes of others is that they also tend to find the Death Penalty as a legitimate form of Punishment. However this is easily explained that since Life is the most important thing, the best deterrant to commit something is the risk of losing that life. Another argument is that when you commit certain dids you forfeit your rights to live.

To say you hate 'activists' and then to say there is too much hate, is very odd to me.


When people say people should have thier own choices and society should not be involved...fine. But to say that 'vegetables' are useless? Where do you draw the line?


I for one know that I would never want to be killed, nomatter how many machines were keeping me alive. The only thing I enjoy more than dreaming and sleeping or 'being in my head' is accomplishing something important. But how often does that get to happen?

Are you going to have your head cut off and cryogenically frozen (or perhaps full body) on the off chance that science will one day evolve to restore you so you never have to die?

If my HMO covers it, why not?

Although, I figured out the real reason this was taking up so much media coverage.

Its another monica lewinsky story to make the reall issues of the day dissapear for a few months.

People can only handle serious subjects for so long.

That and people can use it to make themselves look good by grabbing the moral high ground over it.

The 'so much hate', was me saying how I hated those kind of activists and George W. Bush.

I wasn't commenting on any hate that they have. I like how you made a big post responding to mine, and you had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

And I called George W Bush, and the protestors who fight to keep someone alive, no matter what, and then just up and leave, offering no help, useless. Not vegetables. Wow, you completely misread the entirety of my post. I don't think there's a single sentence you understood. Try to understand something first before you argue back.

As far as Bush being able to manage while on his ranch, you took it seriously when he said that he can get everything done "with phones and faxes" but not "the internets"? =/

One's own life is most likely the most important "posession" one can have. Therefore, if anyone has the right to decide about what to do with this life, or whether to end it prematurely, is oneself.

The only argument that speaks against that is considering life something granted by God, and therefore sacred and not something any mortal has the right to decide about.

Ergo, either you are pro-life, which means no killing other people if they ask for it and no killing people for killing other people 'cause the judge said it's ok to, or you are not pro-life, which means everyone has the right to end it whenver they want, because in the end it's their own business and not ours to meddle in.

Apart from that, it's all a question of circumstances, people involved, consequences, and so on and so on, and I don't think anyone of us knows enough about any of these to really raise any loud voices about who deserves what.

The only thing that really disgusts me once again are the extremists of either side who think they've been spoon-fed the holy truth and know better than anyone else. And those who threaten to kill the bad husband who killed his wife because she asked for it, because killing people is a sin.

Actually, I was responding to more than just your post.

Someone else said Useless people should be allowed to kill themsevles, because its better for society since they are useless.


The Death penalty, Euthanaisa, and Abortion, all have to do with OTHER people taking the lives of other people. Only suicide is taking your own life, the rest is having somebody else doing it.