Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox
The shoutbox is currently offline!

[ Smilies | BBCodes ]

     
 
Click Here and visit PuPPs FREE StuFF

This website contains controversial information that may be disturbing to some viewers.
The theories, conclusions and commentaries are presented in an attempt to reveal the hidden truths.
It is up to the viewer to determine what they choose to believe after evaluating all available sources of information.

 
     

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Does your government represent your best interests?


     
 
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.



POLITICAL ART GALLERY



IMPORTANT TOPICS

1. U.S. NEWS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
There is no law preventing the U.S. news media from intentionally lying to the public. Whistle blowers and honest reporters are fired for telling the truth.

2. FLUORIDE IS A TOXIN/POISON
Read the Poison Warning label on your toothpaste, then call the 800# and ask;
"Why do you put poison in my toothpaste?"

3. NEW FLU VACCINE IS LOADED WITH MERCURY
by Dr. Joseph Mercola

4. PEDOPHILES IN HIGH PLACES
Also: Conspiracy of Silence Video

5. ASPARTAME IS HARMFUL
Equal, Nutra-Sweet and over 6000 food and beverage products contain Aspartame

6. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 (2 Trillion) in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for.
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the [9/11] attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon the following morning would assure that the story remained buried.


http://drinkingwaterlosangeles.com
Serving the greater Los Angeles area,
Los Angeles Drinking Water is proud to offer Reverse Osmosis filtration systems
that remove trace elements such as arsenic, mercury, lead and fluoride
which are known to be in Los Angeles tap water according to
the 2013 DWP Water Quality report.
POLITICAL ART GALLERY









"If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within."
~ James Madison, President of the United States

  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, A look at where law and freedom collide


Universal Migrator
****
Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 440
Mood: 



Posted: Sep 10 2005, 01:30 PM
Quote Post
I just stumbled across this and it looks like an interesting read for anyone interested in law, freedom and where the boundaries of each are (and more importantly, where they ought to be!)

It's a bit of a point of interest for me as I've seen the dismal failure of our legal system from more than a few perspectives in my life, namely as the victim of some rather attrocious crimes whose perpetrator never even got a summons to court!! pissed.gif and also on the receiving end of the law as the "criminal," having hurt no one.

It's completely backwards. Murder or rape? Oh, well those kinds of crimes are "difficult to prosecute" so let's just drop the case. But oh boy, if your behavior is so much as frowned upon by society for any reason, you'll be convicted faster than you can blink an eye.

sigh.gif Anyways, this thread's not about me, so ignore my ranting and read on.


A nice bonus for us penniless folk, the entire thing's available to read online for free thumbsup2.gif

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

Here's the first section for anyone curious who doesn't feel like clicking any links.

QUOTE

AN OVERVIEW
(The Only Chapter In This Over-Long Book You Need To Read)

    THIS BOOK IS BASED on a single idea: You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

    Simple. Seemingly guaranteed to us by that remarkable document known as United States Constitution and its even more remarkable Bill of Rights. And yet, it's not the way things are.

    Roughly half of the arrests and court cases in the United States each year involve consensual crimes—actions that are against the law, but directly harm no one's person or property except, possibly, the "criminal's."

    More than 750,000 people are in jail right now because of something they did, something that did not physically harm the person or property of another. In addition, more than 3,000,000 people are on parole or probation for consensual crimes. Further, more than 4,000,000 people are arrested each year for doing something that hurts no one but, potentially, themselves.

    The injustice doesn't end there, of course. Throwing people in jail is the extreme. If you can throw people in jail for something, you can fire them for the same reason. You can evict them from their apartments. You can deny them credit. You can expel them from schools. You can strip away their civil rights, confiscate their property, and destroy their lives—just because they're different.

    At what point does behavior become so unacceptable that we should tell our government to lock people up? The answer, as explored in this book: We lock people up only when they physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

        Contained in this answer is an important assumption: after a certain age, our persons and property belong to us.
        Yes, if we harm ourselves it may emotionally harm others. That's unfortunate, but not grounds for putting us in jail. If it were, every time we stopped dating person A in order to date person B, we would run the risk of going to jail for hurting person A. If person B were hurt by our being put in jail, person A could be put in jail for hurting person B. This would, of course, hurt person A's mother, who would see to it that person B would go to jail. Eventually, we'd all be in jail.
        As silly as that situation sounds, it is precisely the logic used by some to protect the idea of consensual crimes.
        Arguments in favor of laws against any consensual activity are usually variations of "It's not moral!" And where does the objector's sense of morality come from? For the most part, his or her religion. Some claim "cultural values" as the basis of morality, but where does this set of cultural values come from? The sharing of a similar religion.
        To a large degree, we have created a legal system that is, to quote Alan Watts, "clergymen with billy clubs." Says Watts:

                The police have enough work to keep them busy regulating automobile traffic, preventing robberies and crimes of violence and helping lost children and little old ladies find their way home. As long as the police confine themselves to such activities they are respected friends of the public. But as soon as they begin inquiring into people's private morals, they become nothing more than armed clergymen.

        Please don't think I'm against religion. I'm not. Individual morality based on religious or spiritual beliefs can be invaluable. It can be an excellent guide for one's own life. But religious belief especially someone else's is a terrible foundation for deciding who does and does not go to jail.
        If people physically harm someone else's person or property, they go to jail. If not, they don't. Every other behavior we would like them to follow (for their own good or our own comfort) must be achieved through education or persuasion not force of law.
        In exchange for extending this tolerance to others, we know that unless we physically harm another's person or property, we will not be put in jail. This assurance gives us the boundaries within which we can live our lives. It allows us to explore, to take risks, and as long as we risk only our own person and property we know that at least one risk we won't be taking is the risk of being thrown in jail.
        With such freedom, of course, comes responsibility. As we take risks, bad things will occasionally happen that's why they're called risks. At that point, we must learn to shrug and say, "That's life," not, "Why isn't there a law against this? Why isn't the government protecting me from every possible negative occurrence I might get myself into?" When we, as adults, consent to do something unless we are deceived we become responsible for the outcome.
        We must become involved, educated, aware consumers and teach our children to be the same. Just because some activity is available, and just because we won't be thrown in jail for doing it, doesn't mean it is necessarily harmless.

        If it's not the government's job to protect us from our own actions (and whoever said the government is equipped to do so when the government can't seem to buy a toilet seat for less than $600?), then the job returns to where it always has been: with us.
        Consensual crimes are sometimes known as victimless crimes because it's hard to find a clear-cut victim. The term victimless crimes, however, has been so thoroughly misused in recent years that it has become almost meaningless. One criminal after another has claimed that his or hers was a victimless crime, while one self-appointed moralist after another has claimed that truly victimless crimes do, indeed, have victims. It seems easier to use the lesser-known phrase consensual crimes than to rehabilitate the better-known phrase victimless crimes.
        Please keep in mind that I am not advocating any of the consensual crimes. Some of them are harmful to the person doing them. Others are only potentially harmful to the doer. Still others are genetic orientations, while others are simply lifestyle choices.
        No matter how harmful doing them may be to the doer, however, it makes no sense to put people in jail for doing things that do not physically harm the person or property of another. Further, the government has no right to put people in jail unless they do harm the person or property of another. United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights the "supreme law of the land" prohibit it.

        People often use the word legal too loosely. They fail to give sufficient thought as to what legal and illegal really mean. When we say a given activity should be illegal, what we're saying is that if someone takes part in that activity, we should put that person in jail. When it comes to consensual crimes, however, when people say, "It should be illegal," what they usually mean is, "That's not right," "That's not a good idea," or "That's immoral." When using the word illegal, it's important to remember how forceful the force of law truly is. We are all entitled, of course, to our opinions about certain activities, but do we really want to lock up people who don't go along with our opinions?
        We all have the right to be different. The laws against consensual activities take away that right. If we let anyone lose his or her freedom without just cause, we have all lost our freedom.
        With this thought in mind, here are the most popular consensual crimes: gambling, recreational drug use, religious and psychologically therapeutic drug use, prostitution, pornography and obscenity, violations of marriage (adultery, fornication, cohabitation, sodomy, bigamy, polygamy), homosexuality, regenerative drug use, unorthodox medical practices ("Quacks!"), unconventional religious practices ("Cults!"), unpopular political views ("Commies!"), suicide and assisted suicide, transvestism, not using safety devices (such as motorcycle helmets and seat belts), public drunkenness, jaywalking, and loitering and vagrancy (as long as they don't become trespassing or disturbing the peace).
        Even if you don't want to take part in any of the consensual crimes, working to remove the consensual crimes from the books has a trickle-down effect of tolerance, acceptance, and freedom for the things you do want to do. (This may be one trickle-down theory that actually works.)

        While exploring the extremes of social prejudice, we can explore our personal prejudices as well. I suggest that, when we want to put people in jail for what they do to their own person or property, our individual tolerance and compassion probably need a little exercise.
        But this isn't just my idea. Here's how another person a carpenter by training put it:

                Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye," when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

        That, of course, was said by Jesus of Nazareth, that dear misunderstood man many people use as the authority to "lock the bastards up."
        The fact that we would find his idea so controversial 2,000 years later, and more than 200 years after we formed a government based on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," shows how much work we have to do.

        Here's the condensed list of reasons why having laws against consensual activities is not a good idea (each point has a chapter of its own later in the book):
        It's un-American. America is based on personal freedom and on the strength of diversity, not on unnecessary limitation and slavish conformity. The American dream is that we are all free to live our lives as we see fit, providing we do not physically harm the person or property of another.
        It's unconstitutional. United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights clearly give us the right to pursue our lives without the forced intervention of moralists, do-gooders, and busybodies.
        Laws against consensual activities violate the separation of church and state. The Constitution guarantees that not only can we freely practice the religion of our choice, but also that the government will not impose religion upon us. Almost all the arguments in favor of maintaining laws against consensual activities have a religious foundation. The government is then asked to enforce these religious beliefs by arresting the nonbelievers and putting them in jail.
        Laws against consensual activities are opposed to the principles of private property, free enterprise, capitalism, and the open market. If everything thus far has sounded hopelessly liberal, here's a nice conservative argument: Our economic system is based on the sanctity of private property. What you own is your own business; you can give it away, trade it, or sell it for a profit or a loss none of which is the government's business. This is the system known as capitalism. We recently fought (and won) a forty-five-year cold-and-hot war against communism to maintain it. For the government to say that certain things cannot be owned, bought, given away, traded, or sold is a direct violation of both the sanctity of private property and the fundamental principles of capitalism.

        It's expensive. We're spending more than fifty billion dollars per year catching and jailing consensual "criminals." In addition, we're losing at least an additional $150 billion in potential tax revenues. In other words, each man, woman, and child in this country is paying $800 per year to destroy the lives of 5,000,000 fellow citizens. If we did nothing else but declare consensual crimes legal, the $200,000,000,000 we'd save each year could wipe out the national debt in twenty years, or we could reduce personal income tax by one-third. Another economic high point: moving the underground economy of consensual crimes aboveground would create 6,000,000 tax-paying jobs. And then there's the matter of interest. The $50 billion we spend jailing consensual "criminals" is not just spent; it's borrowed. The national debt grows larger. Six percent interest compounded over thirty years adds $250 billion to that $50 billion figure a dandy legacy for our progeny.
        Lives are destroyed. Yes, by taking part in consensual crimes, people may destroy their own lives. This is unfortunate, but that's their business. The problem with making consensual activities crimes, however, is that the government moves in and by force destroys the life of the consensual "criminal." A single arrest and conviction, even without a jail sentence, can permanently affect one's ability to get employment, housing, credit, education, and insurance. In addition, there is the emotional, financial, and physical trauma of arrest, trial, and conviction. If any significant amount of jail time is added to this governmental torture, an individual's life is almost certainly ruined.
        Consensual crimes encourage real crimes. Because consensual crimes are against the law, taking part in them costs significantly more than is necessary. In order to pay these artificially inflated prices, some of those who take part in consensual crimes go out and commit real crimes: mugging, robbery, burglary, forgery, embezzlement, and fraud. If the consensual activities were cheap, real crimes would decrease significantly. In addition, to someone who is regularly breaking a law against a consensual activity, all laws may start to seem unimportant.

        Consensual crimes corrupt law enforcement. The law enforcement system is based on a perpetrator and a victim. With consensual crimes, perpetrator and victim are the same person. Whom are the police supposed to protect? Theoretically, they arrest the perpetrator to protect the victim. With a consensual crime, when the perpetrator goes to jail, the victim goes too. It's a sham that demoralizes police, promotes disrespect for the law, and makes arresting real criminals more difficult. Asking the police to enforce a crime that does not have a clear-cut victim makes a travesty of law enforcement. It's sad that the laws against consensual activities have turned one of the true heroes of our society, the honest cop, into an endangered species.
        The cops can't catch 'em; the courts can't handle 'em; the prisons can't hold 'em. As it is, the police are catching less than 20% of the real criminals those who do harm the person or property of others. There is simply no way that the police can even make a dent in the practice of consensual crimes. Even if the police could catch all the consensual criminals, the courts couldn't possibly process them. The courts, already swamped with consensual crime cases, can't handle any more. Real criminals walk free every day to rape, rob, and murder again because the courts are so busy finding consensual criminals guilty of hurting no one but themselves. And even if the courts could process them, the prisons are already full; most are operating at more than 100% capacity. To free cells for consensual criminals, real criminals are put on the street every day.

        Consensual crimes promote organized crime. Organized crime in America grew directly out of an earlier unsuccessful attempt to legislate morality: Prohibition. Whenever something is desired by tens of millions of people each day, there will be an organization to meet that desire. If fulfilling that desire is a crime, that organization will be organized crime. Operating outside the law as organized criminals do, they don't differentiate much between crimes with victims and crimes without victims. Further, the enormous amount of money at their disposal allows them to obtain volume discounts when buying police, prosecutors, witnesses, judges, juries, journalists, and politicians. And guess who finances some of those let's-get-tough-on-consensual-crime campaigns? You guessed it. Once consensual crimes are no longer crimes, organized crime is out of business.
        Consensual crimes corrupt the freedom of the press. Reporting on consensual crimes has turned a good portion of the media into gossips, busybodies, and tattletales (The Hugh Grant Syndrome). With so much important investigation and reporting to be done concerning issues directly affecting the lives of individuals, the nation, and the world, should we be asking one of our most powerful assets the free press to report who's doing what, when, where, how, and how often with other consenting whom's?
        Laws against consensual activities teach irresponsibility. If we maintain that it is the government's job to keep illegal anything that might do us harm, it implies that anything not illegal is harmless. This is certainly not the case.

There were seven times as many black women in prison as white women in 1994, and the proportion of black men incarcerated was eight times higher than that of white men. Almost 7% of all black men were incarcerated in 1994, compared with less than 1% of white men. Drug crimes played a major role in the prison population increase.
LOS ANGELES TIMES
December 4, 1995

        Laws against consensual activities are too randomly enforced to be either a deterrent or fair. The laws against consensual activities provide almost no deterrent whatsoever. If the chances of being caught at something are only, say, one in ten million, that's hardly a deterrent. In fact, their very illegality sometimes makes consensual crimes fascinating, glamorous, and irresistible.
        Laws against consensual activities discriminate against minorities and the poor. In selecting which consensual activities should and should not be crimes, the views of the poor and minorities are seldom considered. Therefore, many consensual activities that the mostly white, male, heterosexual, affluent, Christian lawmakers have deemed illegal do not necessarily reflect the preferences or experiences of minority groups. Further, the laws against consensual activities are not uniformly enforced the poor and minorities, for a variety of reasons, tend to receive the brief end of the stick.
        Problems sometimes associated with consensual activities cannot be solved while they're crimes. Some people take part in consensual crimes as a symptom of, or escape from, deeper problems. These problems are not easily addressed until we dispense with the irrational, illogical, and transparently inaccurate myth that participation in the currently illegal consensual activities is always wrong. It wasn't until after Prohibition, for example, that those who had real drinking problems could see, admit to, and do something about them. Maintaining the fallacy that participation in illegal consensual activities is always wrong keeps those for whom it is wrong from doing something constructive about it.
        We have more important things to worry about. The short list of national and global problems more deserving of our precious resources includes: real crime (robbery, rape, murder the chances are one in four that you or someone in your household will be "touched," as they say, by a violent crime this year), abducted children (more than 400,000 abducted children each year), insurance fraud (a $100-billion-per-year problem that adds from 10% to 30% to all insurance premiums), illiteracy (one in seven American adults is functionally illiterate; one in twenty cannot fill out a job application), poverty (14.2% of the population 35.7 million people live below the poverty level; a good number of these are children), pollution (all the pending environmental disasters cannot be summed up in a single parenthesis), our addiction to foreign oil (the Gulf War should have been called the Gulf-Standard-Mobil War), terrorism (the bombing of the World Trade Center was, in reality, a terrorist warning: the next time it might be an atomic bomb), AIDS (by the year 2000, the largest number of newly HIV-infected people will be heterosexual women), supposedly government-regulated but not-really-regulated industries (the $500 billion savings and loan bailout is an obvious example), and last, but certainly not least, the national debt ($5 trillion, and growing faster than almost anything in this country other than intolerance).

        It's hypocritical. To give but one obvious example: Cigarettes do more damage and cause roughly one hundred times the deaths of all of the consensual crimes combined. Each year, 500,000 people die as a direct result of smoking. And yet, cigarettes are perfectly legal, available everywhere, and heavily advertised; tobacco growers are government subsidized; and cigarette companies are free to use their influence on both politicians and the media (and, boy, do they ever). How can we tolerate such contradictions in this country? We are, as Thomas Wolfe pointed out, "making the world safe for hypocrisy."

The legitimate powers
of government
extend to such acts
as are only injurious to others.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

        Laws against consensual activities create a society of fear, hatred, bigotry, oppression, and conformity; a culture opposed to personal expression, diversity, freedom, choice, and growth. The prosecution of consensual crimes "trickles down" into ostracizing, humiliating, and scorning people who do things that are not quite against the law but probably should be. "They're different; therefore, they're bad" seems to be the motto for a large segment of our society. We are addicted to normalcy; even if it means we must lop off significant portions of ourselves, we must conform.
        There's no need to accept the validity of all these arguments; the validity of any one is sufficient reason to wipe away all the laws against consensual activities.
        In this book, we will explore each of the consensual crimes, asking not, "Is it good?" but, "Is it worth throwing someone in jail for?" We'll explore the prejudice about consensual crimes the prejudices we have been conditioned to believe. You'll find that the number of lies within lies within lies is amazing.
        Responsibility is the price of freedom. So is tolerance.
        In the time it took you to read this overview, 342 persons were arrested for consensual crimes in the United States.




--------------------
You start out with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before emptying your luck.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteMSN
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Sep 10 2005, 10:22 PM
Quote Post
This is the ultimate LAW!

QUOTE
THIS BOOK IS BASED on a single idea:

You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.


Why is it a crime to take your own life, yet THEY can starve Terri Shiavo to death and that's not a crime? It makes no sense to me. It's my life, if I wish to end it, it's MY CHOICE!

On the other hand, depriving an invalid of food and water is murder - plain and simple.

I believe that man/woman should never be locked up like an animal unless they act like an animal and are a threat to others or the environment.

IMO, G.W. Bush and his entire administration, Congress, the Senate and most of the justices (judges) and the federal reserve bankers are a threat to us all and THEY should be behind bars.




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Universal Migrator
****
Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 440
Mood: 



Posted: Sep 10 2005, 10:43 PM
Quote Post
Absolutely...those bastards have got SO much blood on their filthy hands, and somehow they think that they have the right to tell not only the American people, but the ENTIRE WORLD what constitutes right from wrong and how to live their lives? It makes me sick to see sorry excuses for life (would say human but I don't know about that! snake.gif) like those preaching about freedom and compassion and life and liberty, all things that they know nothing about, while they get to play judge jury and executioner to so many.

QUOTE
On the other hand, depriving an invalid of food and water is murder - plain and simple.

I believe in a person's right to die, but if any of us were to do that to a dog, we'd be in jail. And rightly so.




--------------------
You start out with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before emptying your luck.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteMSN
Top


Intentions
**
Group: Members
Posts: 74
Member No.: 548
Mood: 



Posted: Sep 11 2005, 03:51 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE (PuPP @ Sep 11 2005, 01:22 AM)
This is the ultimate LAW!

QUOTE
THIS BOOK IS BASED on a single idea:

You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.


Why is it a crime to take your own life, yet THEY can starve Terri Shiavo to death and that's not a crime? It makes no sense to me. It's my life, if I wish to end it, it's MY CHOICE!

On the other hand, depriving an invalid of food and water is murder - plain and simple....


I full well know how "the system" can be, when those who under the guise of helping, were pointing fingers & all but saying "you are killing your son". "THEY" would have taken him from me, put him thru an operation that just the anesthesia could kill him, and force food into him, when his body was shutting down. There is so much ignorance in the world, concerning how people start the process of dying. In my son's case, his elimination was stopping, he did not want to eat much... yet there are those who believe I done it to him.
When a person's kidneys shut down, forcing liquids into them, will cause horrid results, because the fluids have no place to go, same with food. Yet there are those who equate love & nourishment in the same genre, i.e., the doting mother...eat! EAT! You are too skinny...when the person is weighing 400 pounds!!!

I believe each case must be looked at individually, and not all categorized. Not all disabled people who do not have a voice, are treated in the same manner as Terri Schiavo. It pissed me off that ppl would compare my son's situation to hers, when it was so different, it was like night and day. While I cannot speak for Terri, I will say that personally, *I* would not want to live the way she was living. BUT THAT IS ME, MY CHOICE. I know my son well enough, his heart well enough, to know that he did not want to live the way that he was living either. Some say I was playing God. I say no, I was listening to my son's heart, and seeing what he was speaking with his eyes, as I had been for almost 25 yrs.

Bren died on a Friday, & the next Tuesday, I was scheduled to appear before a judge, to be granted the right, to say NO to putting a feeding tube in Brendan, and the other hell that the medical establishment had put him thru for almost a year. I had to do this because Brendan could never give me verbal permission to say no for him. The thing is, he said it in so many other ways.
I thank God, that I found a compassionate doctor for him, who truly listened to me, to Brendan- to what was going on with him, instead of accusing and fingerpointing. I am so glad that I did not have to go before that judge. Yes there are those who exploit & abuse, but there are those who truly love, and truly have their loved one's best in mind.

I agree... why should it matter what goes on in the privacy of our own homes, when no one is getting hurt... why don't "THEY" look at what crimes are being committed against humanity in the name of oil, greed & power trips? scratchinghead.gif




--------------------
"Come to the edge", he said.
They said: "We are afraid. "
"Come to the edge", he said. They came.
He pushed them & they flew."
(Guillaume Apollinaire)
PMEmail Poster
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Sep 11 2005, 09:19 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE
While I cannot speak for Terri, I will say that personally, *I* would not want to live the way she was living. BUT THAT IS ME, MY CHOICE.


I feel the same way...

BUT - please put me out of my misery quickly and painlessly!

Do not starve me for 13 days until I die. That is just plain cruel!

But of course, what rules the world today enjoys inflicting cruel and inhuman suffering on us all.

StarChilde, in your case, it was your son whom you loved and I believe you would have his best interests at heart.




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Universal Migrator
****
Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 440
Mood: 



Posted: Sep 12 2005, 01:09 AM
Quote Post
StarChilde, I'm so sorry to hear that on top of the grief, people would feel the need to start finger pointing and lay blame upon you sadoriginal.gif

Unfortunately there are many people who feel the need to beat their drums simply to affirm their own perspectives with little thought towards how their actions will affect those who are directly involved.

(What I mean is people sticking their noses where they don't belong and bringing their points of view, morality and overall perpective of the world into your business...not sure how clear that last sentence was)

QUOTE
I believe each case must be looked at individually, and not all categorized.


That's exactly it...everything is so polarized these days, the entire world seems to have forgotten concepts like "common ground" or case by case basis.

With this issue, you've got the pro-euthanasia groups who simply cannot fathom that there are people in this world who would want to continue living for as long as they can, regardless of their condition (I can't fathom it either, personally, but I know that they're out there and should have the right to live as long as they can hold on if they want to). On the other side of the spectrum, the lifers refuse to acknowledge that some people would rather die than live in a condition of helplessness or agony. What really irks me though is the people on the far end of the lifer spectrum who would keep a person in those conditions, even if they had, while still able, voiced their wishes to die upon reaching a certain level in their illness.

To those who use the "playing God" arguement, I have to ask, isn't keeping someone on life-support also "playing God?" Or what if God's decided that he/she/it is no longer going to hold our hands and spoon-feed us, that it's time for us to make some of our own decisions and grow rather than sitting and waiting for God to take care of everything for us? Would a truly benevolent god allow us to stagnate in the manner?




--------------------
You start out with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before emptying your luck.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteMSN
Top

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 



[ Script Execution time: 0.0481 ]   [ 16 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
~ James A. Garfield, President of the United States


MORE POLITICAL ART

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
~ Amschel Mayer Rothschild