Author Topic: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists  (Read 10788 times)

Jari

  • Guest
From CNN:

Quote
Emilio is 17 months old and has a rare genetic disorder that's ravaging his central nervous system. He cannot see, speak, or eat. A ventilator breathes for him in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Austin Children's Hospital, where he's been since December. Without the ventilator, Emilio would die within hours.

The hospital contends that keeping Emilio alive on a ventilator is painful for the toddler and useless against his illness -- Leigh's disease, a rare degenerative disorder that has no cure.

Under Texas law, Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate.

Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."

...wait, what?

"To die "naturally, the way God intended.""

Oh man, God must be more gifted than I give him credit for, I had no idea that he was making ventilators too. Also, I'm not quite sure how Catarina figures that dying while in ventilator is somehow "natural".


PS. I haven't - yet - checked what the right wing talking heads are saying, but I'll bet my pants that this will shape up to be yet another Schiavo-gate. There is delicious irony here, though; the law that allows the hospital to pull the plug regardless of parents' opinion was signed by none other than Dubya himself (which probably has to be an accident of some kind, considering that his law actually makes sense). So, this situation will no doubt really pull the panties of Malkin and Coulter into a serious bunch, considering that they can be pro suffering life and against their idol, or side with pro choice. :-D

RPGillespie

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/rpgillespie6
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #1 on: 2007-04-26 00:09:32 »
Who are you to judge whether or not a person should live? If we can keep him alive, why shouldn't we?

Is money worth more than human life, even if he does have a rare illness?

Could you (or would you) consciously kill (yes, that's what "pulling the plug" does) a person on life support if he/she had a rare "incurable" disease?

Jari

  • Guest
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #2 on: 2007-04-26 00:20:33 »
Who are you to judge whether or not a person should live? If we can keep him alive, why shouldn't we?

Is money worth more than human life, even if he does have a rare illness?

What money? Do you understand that the baby is in pain? And being kept alive solely for the mother's emotional benefit? And all you can think about is money (two people can play this game, you know)?

Why shouldn't we? Well, let's see: a) he is in pain b) he will continue to be in pain for the reminder of his artificially supported life.


Could you (or would you) consciously kill (yes, that's what "pulling the plug" does) a person on life support if he/she had a rare "incurable" disease?

What kind of a question is that?

This disease is much more than incurable - trust me, it really is incurable without any quotes - it's plain fatal to him if he's disconnected. Also, rarity of the disease does not factor into ending someone's life support in any way.

I'm going pretend that you wanted to ask whether I'd pull the plug in this case; then the answer is yes. Without a hesitation.

RPGillespie

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/rpgillespie6
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #3 on: 2007-04-26 01:47:08 »
All I know is, I don't want to be responsible for the death of this baby. So, if he dies naturally, that's one thing. Physically pulling the plug, however, is taking it into your own hands to deem whether the baby should live or not. True, the baby may be in pain (I wouldn't know, I'm not the baby), but does that give people the right to "put him out of his misery"?

The parents have the final say. You would want the same freedom if you were married. So, the parents made the choice. Why argue?

This disease is much more than incurable - trust me, it really is incurable without any quotes - it's plain fatal to him if he's disconnected. Also, rarity of the disease does not factor into ending someone's life support in any way.
The reason I put it in quotes is because miracles are not unheard of. Nothing is incurable.
« Last Edit: 2007-04-26 01:48:59 by RPGillespie »

L. Spiro

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 798
  • Karma: 13
    • View Profile
    • http://www.memoryhacking.com/index.php
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #4 on: 2007-04-26 03:05:51 »
Quote
Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."
Ignorant people piss me off.  And I hate the fact that America (my country of origin) is so completely full of them.
This type of ignorance is nearly the worst and most annoying kind as well, with Jack Thompson’s kind being first.


Quote
All I know is, I don't want to be responsible for the death of this baby.
Not to sound too harsh, but this is a pile of bullshit.
#1: You can’t be responsible for its death.  The disease already holds that responsibility.  You could only be responsible for prolonging its life, not creating its death.  So spouting out bullshit about pulling life support = being responsible for the death of the kid is, well, bullshit.
#2: Even if there was a God, and he had “His will” or whatever, logic (though this is not a clear concept on anyone who believes in God) would denote that he gave the kid the disease in the first place and obviously “intended” it to die.  It would be pretty hard to imagine a God who just wanted to use this human life as a toy test to see how far other humans are willing to go to prolong a torturous life.  “Sorry kid, I need your life to test the will of others.  Too bad for you eh?”.  If this is your God, I feel sorry for you.



Quote
Who are you to judge whether or not a person should live?
I think we’re supposed to be putting ourselves in the shoes of the parents.
So if your question is, “Assuming you are the parent, who are you to judge whether a person should live?”, my reply would be, “This question has nothing to do with anything.”
The child will die, period.  And soon, too, no matter how much life-support is given.
The kid lost its chance to live, and no one is to blame for that, under any circumstances.  No human gave that disease to the kid.  So standing by to watch an incurable disease runs its course leaves no one to blame, period.
If you want to be uptight about it, why not blame God?  No one could be more responsible for this child’s situation than He, of course.


Quote
If we can keep him alive, why shouldn't we?

Is money worth more than human life, even if he does have a rare illness?
What if we found out how to make roads come alive, but they couldn’t move or make noises, and we still drove over them?
Of course, being unable to see, move, hear, or taste, kind of removes all the great aspects of “life” in the first place, plus I have no doubts that blistering cold winters, steaming hot summers, and the constant weight of cars, would generally make the life of the road simple and utter hell.
Please, tell me, what aspect of life is this kid enjoying?  Does it awaken fresh in the morning every day?  Does it enjoy the taste of a sweet apple in the morning?  Does it stare at the sunset at night?  Does it listen to the latest hit album by They Might Be Giants?

People who go on about giving/keeping life at every possible chance, no matter how destructive that life actually is, remind me of people who claim C is faster than C++.
It’s something they heard from their friends, so they believe it and repeat it, even fight for it, without putting any actual thought into it at all to find a logical basis for the claim.
They just blindly go around claiming life is ever so important without even once considering it on a case-by-case basis.



Quote
The reason I put it in quotes is because miracles are not unheard of. Nothing is incurable.
Actually, yes, things are incurable.
But for the sake of argument let’s assume there was a glimmer of hope.  The years that pass by the kid now are the most important, developmentally speaking.  As of now, this kid is not learning to use toilets, it is not learning language, or about the world around it.
And if the kid really is in pain all the time, that’s probably a developmental hurdle right there.  If kids who are beaten grow up to be killers, imagine what a kid who simply lives to suffer, night and day, sleeping and awake, will be.  A doctor?  Erm, no, I don’t think so.
By the age of 4, if the kid hasn’t had this miraculous miracle, it would never learn to speak properly, if at all.
By the age of 6, with no miracle, it wouldn’t be able to socialize and would forever be an outcast, unable to even understand the world around it.  By this point, it would forever be missing the extra qualities of life that make it worth living, such as love, affection from a special other, etc.

I could go on.



Quote
The parents have the final say. You would want the same freedom if you were married. So, the parents made the choice. Why argue?
No, the point of the article is that the parents do not say.  Texas law.  If the hospital decides the treatment is painful and without medical benefit, they cancel it, regardless of what the parents say.

And frankly, that should be the law in every state.  Also annoying are people who whine that parents should have the final say.  I am sure this is especially true with crack-driven addicts who accidentally had children, right?  I am sure every parent is equally capable of making all the right decisions.   Suuuure.
Unfortunately, too many parents these days are still under the influence of religion, making their decision-making processes all-the-less logical and sensible.  Very few parents are, in fact, capable of making the correct decisions, it seems.


Not to sound too harsh.


L. Spiro

Hyunckel

  • Crazy poster
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #5 on: 2007-04-26 03:52:10 »
Ignorant people piss me off.  And I hate the fact that America (my country of origin) is so completely full of them.
This type of ignorance is nearly the worst and most annoying kind as well, with Jack Thompson’s kind being first.
+1 to you.
Exactly what most of Frenchies think of America, as I do too. Fortunately I had a friend from California, and sure he was not as dumb as all those stories we hear about and see all day on TV.. We don't want to make generalties of one case, but, eh, what the country is the one we hear the most (dumber things and stories) often ?
How can some people be so "faithfull" ? I know there are some in France, but America scores (in occidental , developped countries) the most .


Quote
You can’t be responsible for its death.
Don't know all your laws, but in France you CAN . One was judged because he euthanasied (is it the good spelling?) his son... And the son was suffering like hell, paralyzed in hospital ... So he decided to let him "pass away" . Well, "justicia" didn't take it that way, though.




RPGillespie

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/rpgillespie6
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #6 on: 2007-04-26 04:39:08 »
L.Spiro:
No use arguing with me, it isn't going to change any of my opinions. You seem vehement towards religion and God in general. You claim that religion is the cause of contention and suffering in the world. You think that if everyone took an atheist and logical approach to life, the world would enter a golden age of enlightenment, am I wrong?

Seriously, do you know anything about the plan of salvation? If God is almighty, why do people even die? Why are there diseases in the world? Why doesn't everyone live in a perpetually happy state where no one dies and nothing bad ever happens? Because we live in an imperfect world, and we are being tested of our faith in Him. So stop belittling those who believe in God, because you will regret it later.

If there truly is no God, then who gives a crap what anyone does? Might as well brutally murder this child, after all, there are no consequences to such actions other than breaking the law humans created; plus, you'll achieve the same goal as you would by pulling the plug. Also, it will give the child's crack-addict parents something else to think about besides crack. The advantage that comes with being a believer in God, is that I have a win/win situation when I die. I can be happy in this life, as well as the next. If there is no God (which there is), then I cease to exist having lived a happy life. I have absolutely nothing to lose. You, however, have everything to lose.  I digress, however, and will leave my post at this.

RPGillespie

Hyunckel

  • Crazy poster
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #7 on: 2007-04-26 05:49:40 »
if everyone took an atheist and logical approach to life, the world would enter a golden age of enlightenment, am I wrong?
Well I'll answer in place of L.Spiro, I think (hope) he thinks like me.
Answer is: YES, fuc*ing YES! We have to get rid of religions, religion is the opium of people (Karl Markx) , it's like a drog or a sect, but like everyone obeys it, it's "legitimate" .

Because we live in an imperfect world, and we are being tested of our faith in Him. So stop belittling those who believe in God, because you will regret it later.
Oh, what? Let me guess. You're American, right ? You're so full of love four your God, that sickens me. Me and my GrandMother are both Catholics, when my GrandDad died few years ago, she was so "oh God, why, why him?" pfffffff God has nothing to do in this. And Yeah the world isn't perfect, because it is US who MAKE this world what it is. And aslong as there are terrorists (no , i'm not with bush 's pro anti 09/11 terrorists and all) and as*holes on earth, yeah, we will not live peacefully.
As long as there are religion extremists (muslims AND catholics off course, as well as others) YES we will always or so in wars. Open your eyes man.




there are no consequences to such actions other than breaking the law humans created

Off course, that's why we created them ... To avoid as*holes doing what they want and put a hell on earth (expression, there is no hell nor heaven) .


The advantage that comes with being a believer in God, is that I have a win/win situation when I die. I can be happy in this life, as well as the next. If there is no God (which there is), then I cease to exist having lived a happy life. I have absolutely nothing to lose. You, however, have everything to lose.  I digress, however, and will leave my post at this.
RPGillespie
HA HA. Er, I think YOU might be the one to lose . WE don't believe in your God, cause there isn't one. There isn't a damn proff of it. The "Holy" bible? Yeah. True. Adam and Eve are our parents, there wasn't any BigBang nor offspring and evolution from apes. (darwin was a liar) .... Americans are so religion confident, i believe, so that there was a time (50 years ago?) darwin's theory was forbiden in books! What a joke.

We have goals, we all know we will die, so we use our lives fully, we don't praise a false god, nor hope for miracles.

That 's my opinion.  :evil:

Jari

  • Guest
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #8 on: 2007-04-26 12:54:24 »
All I know is, I don't want to be responsible for the death of this baby. So, if he dies naturally, that's one thing. Physically pulling the plug, however, is taking it into your own hands to deem whether the baby should live or not. True, the baby may be in pain (I wouldn't know, I'm not the baby), but does that give people the right to "put him out of his misery"?

First of all, his life and death has been in someone's hands all this time; remember, he can't survive without the ventilator. If it was purely in God's - real or imaginary - hands, he'd be pushing up daisies already.

Human decency gives that right. He is in pain, and he can not do anything to stop it. Instead, plenty of people seem hell bent on inflicting more pain on him. They seem to pretend that the baby would want it this way. If you have any compassion in you, you'll end his suffering.

Not to mention, explain to me; what is natural about dying in a ventilator? And what is non-natural about dying without it?

And finally, your question can be turned around; what gives anyone the right to keep him suffering?


The parents have the final say. You would want the same freedom if you were married. So, the parents made the choice. Why argue?

No, I would not. If my judgment was truly this impaired, I'd certainly hope that someone would with a half a brain would think for me.

And, more importantly, about parents having the final say; there are kids taken into foster care all the time, because their parents are deemed to be unfit for parenting. And some of them don't even physically inflict pain on their children. So, what makes you think that parents who have near to none medical knowledge compared to the doctors and indeed are physically hurting their child, are in any kind of position to make choices for him?


The reason I put it in quotes is because miracles are not unheard of. Nothing is incurable.

I'll entertain your fantasy for sake of an argument: come up with a list of all known - and proven - miracle recoveries from incurable and lethal diseases, and I'll look up how many people perished because of those diseases during that same time. After we have the numbers, I'm going to ask you how many people you are willing to let suffer so that one of your miracle recoveries could take place. Is one miracle recovery worth the pain and suffering of 100 people? 1 000 people? 1 000 000 people?


No use arguing with me, it isn't going to change any of my opinions. You seem vehement towards religion and God in general. You claim that religion is the cause of contention and suffering in the world. You think that if everyone took an atheist and logical approach to life, the world would enter a golden age of enlightenment, am I wrong?

Just a note, atheists are not the only non-believers; for example agnostics are a rather large group.

There would certainly be lot less wars if there were no religions. It would be somewhat harder to think up an acceptable excuse, when you couldn't blame it on the other guys hating your god.


So stop belittling those who believe in God, because you will regret it later.

Can I make the 'Internet tough guy'-crack here? Please? Pretty please? :-D


If there truly is no God, then who gives a crap what anyone does? Might as well brutally murder this child, after all, there are no consequences to such actions other than breaking the law humans created; plus, you'll achieve the same goal as you would by pulling the plug. Also, it will give the child's crack-addict parents something else to think about besides crack. The advantage that comes with being a believer in God, is that I have a win/win situation when I die. I can be happy in this life, as well as the next. If there is no God (which there is), then I cease to exist having lived a happy life. I have absolutely nothing to lose. You, however, have everything to lose.  I digress, however, and will leave my post at this.

This is curious. The Jesus-freak - you know, the Australian one who literally preached - said the same thing about morals.

Tell me, has it really never occurred to you people that morals are not dependent on your religion, your God or your bible? This might come as a surprise to you, but I've met non-theists with very strict moral code, and believers who have acted very selfishly but certainly have retained one essential feature; the holier-than-thou-attitude. That seems to be built into every believer. They literally believe that they are the strawberries, no matter how they act.

L. Spiro

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 798
  • Karma: 13
    • View Profile
    • http://www.memoryhacking.com/index.php
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #9 on: 2007-04-26 13:49:52 »
Quote
You claim that religion is the cause of contention and suffering in the world.
No, just a lot of it.  People’s differences make more problems than anything, with second place being people’s overactive passion.
Unfortunately, religions are both ways of making people different and making them passionate.



Quote
You think that if everyone took an atheist and logical approach to life, the world would enter a golden age of enlightenment, am I wrong?
You are wrong.
The major problems we have today would vanish, indeed, while a new set of problems would arise (nothing specifically, but logic contends that no existence on a wide scale can be without problems).
However, the major change would be that we would actually be able to progress as a unit, able to overcome every single problem we would ever be presented, rather than being stuck dead in the mud thanks to the pure inability to adapt, and let go of the high-and-mighty “I know the truth God damn it and no amount of raw evidence you present could ever be more valid than my raw ‘de-facto knowledge’ of ‘what is’” attitude.

This quote is exactly the cause of most problems we have:
Quote from: RPGillespie
No use arguing with me, it isn't going to change any of my opinions
For the record, religious people are the exact reason we do not yet have a cure for AIDS, and also why research in stem-cell research, capable of radically changing lives in positive ways, has barely even been scratched.




Quote
If there truly is no God, then who gives a crap what anyone does? Might as well brutally murder this child, after all, there are no consequences to such actions other than breaking the law humans created
It’s like you subconsciously know why we created God, yet you are so clouded by fear of a man-made hell and the idea that you would have been tragically wrong all your life to actually let that realization surface.


Quote
The advantage that comes with being a believer in God, is that I have a win/win situation when I die
Sorry to burst your bubble but there is no situation either way when you die.
When you die, your atoms dissolve into the ground.  Years later some of them, carried away by insects and left in the soil, get used to make bricks for houses, concrete for roads, etc.  Of course, imagining yourself as a road should come easy, since every single atom in your body has at one time or another been part of an actual star, burning for millions of years, until finally shot into the blank sub-zero cold of outer space, where they spent more millions of years until they finally ended up inside an apple your mother ate, which was digested, broken into its core components, and distributed around her body, allowing them to be used by her ovaries to make the components of the egg that eventually made your body.

And you think this just stops because you die?  Guess what.  You’re going to die, and your atoms are going to spend millions more years traveling around before they finally land in some other life form(s).

Soul?  If the “soul” was anything more than chemical reactions taking place in the brain, we wouldn’t be physically bound to the space within our craniums.  If it was not based entirely on the physical world, this kid would not die just because of a disease that ravages its physical body.  But here we are, physically bound to see through our eyes and our own eyes only.  I can’t push you out of your body and take it over.  My thoughts, ideas, etc., are all created by physical properties possessed and limited by the brain.
Different physical properties inside the brain make people smarter, dumber, capable, incapable, etc.

Go on all you want about some form of conscience you plan to have after your physical body is destroyed.  Nothing changes the cold hard facts.  Without a physical body, there is no thought process.  There is no conscience.  No pain, no happiness, no memories, no regrets, no anything.
Remember the time before you were born?  You don’t remember that!?  Geeze man, you missed out on billions of years dude.
Oh wait.  You didn’t have the physical construct capable of giving you the conscience you have now.
Clueless as to how it feels to be dead?  You’ve already “experienced” it once before.



Quote
I have absolutely nothing to lose. You, however, have everything to lose.
Let me put it this way.
Put away all your stubborn “I know He exists beyond all doubt, period” ideas for a moment and really acknowledge the one thing you really do absolutely know as an undeniable fact: You are alive now.
I didn’t say you would be alive tomorrow.  I didn’t say you will get another life after this one.  None of that is known to be undisputable fact.  You know that you are alive here and now, and nothing more.
That means this life is the only one you know you have.  This life is the only chance you know you have for doing everything you want to do.
If that didn’t really hit you, read it again until it does.
You sit here and change your entire life, the only life you know you have, based on things you just assumed to be true because it was spoon fed into you as a child.
You changed how you think, how you act, etc., without even considering that the way you do things now is a waste of the one life you have.  Or if not a total waste, at least not the best way to live it.  You avoid true happiness by simply believing you are already there, or that you will get there during the most uncertain time in people’s lives: death.
You change your life to pursue a goal you never even dare to consider might not even be there to pursue.

And why?  Fear of what others told you as a child?
Fear that you couldn’t maintain a moral standing alone?  You need “guidance” to be a moral person?  Can’t just be a good person, but without believing?
Quote from: RPGillespie
No use arguing with me, it isn't going to change any of my opinions
So it seems, in fact, you have already lost everything, while I have everything.


L. Spiro

RPGillespie

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/rpgillespie6
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #10 on: 2007-04-26 19:51:44 »
Quote
You claim that religion is the cause of contention and suffering in the world.
No, just a lot of it.  People’s differences make more problems than anything, with second place being people’s overactive passion.
Unfortunately, religions are both ways of making people different and making them passionate.
I mostly agree with that statement. While true that most religions cause contention among each other because of differing beliefs, this is because they are corrupt with the ways of man. There is only one true church, and the rest are pretty much abominations to the world.

This quote is exactly the cause of most problems we have:
Quote from: RPGillespie
No use arguing with me, it isn't going to change any of my opinions
For the record, religious people are the exact reason we do not yet have a cure for AIDS, and also why research in stem-cell research, capable of radically changing lives in positive ways, has barely even been scratched.
First of all, we don't need a cure for AIDS. People call it a pandemic, yet it is so easy to consciously abstain from spreading it. I understand that a small fraction of people obtain AIDS through blood transfusions, but the majority is through sexual irresponsibility. We could extinct AIDS as a human population if we would simply make the right choices. As for stem cell research, the only thing religion hinders is embryonic stem-cell research. This is because the research requires a dead, or terminated embryo, in order to produce data. The majority of these embryos come from abortions, which is a direct result of irresponsibility. We wouldn't want to promote that, now would we? Also, you say the stem-cell research is "capable of radically changing lives." While this may be true, this is not a fact, rather a theory. What is wrong with using umbilical stem-cells?

Quote
The advantage that comes with being a believer in God, is that I have a win/win situation when I die
Sorry to burst your bubble but there is no situation either way when you die.
When you die, your atoms dissolve into the ground.  Years later some of them, carried away by insects and left in the soil, get used to make bricks for houses, concrete for roads, etc.  Of course, imagining yourself as a road should come easy, since every single atom in your body has at one time or another been part of an actual star, burning for millions of years, until finally shot into the blank sub-zero cold of outer space, where they spent more millions of years until they finally ended up inside an apple your mother ate, which was digested, broken into its core components, and distributed around her body, allowing them to be used by her ovaries to make the components of the egg that eventually made your body.

And you think this just stops because you die?  Guess what.  You’re going to die, and your atoms are going to spend millions more years traveling around before they finally land in some other life form(s).
Stop changing the subject (or rather, avoiding directly answering my question). Assume for the purposes of this argument (which you love to do), that your body is inhabited by a spirit which the bible discerns as matter.  Perhaps we haven't been able to "see" this type of matter yet, just as we we thought that the only type of light was visible light long ago. Also assume that you passed through a "veil" which caused you to forget everything before you came to earth, since it is, after all, a test. If we remembered God from before we were born, then we would all have a perfect faith, and it wouldn't be a test, would it? If this were all true, then would you, or would you not be screwed when you die?

Go on all you want about some form of conscience you plan to have after your physical body is destroyed.  Nothing changes the cold hard facts.  Without a physical body, there is no thought process.  There is no conscience.  No pain, no happiness, no memories, no regrets, no anything.
Remember the time before you were born?  You don’t remember that!?  Geezer man, you missed out on billions of years dude.
Oh wait.  You did’t have the physical construct capable of giving you the conscience you have now.
Clueless as to how it feels to be dead?  You’ve already “experienced” it once before.
Yes, but we don't have all of the cold hard facts. You don't know if your spirit can have thought process after you die... well, because you're not dead. If all you can see is visible light, does that mean that infrared and ultraviolet don't exist? Speaking of atoms and matter, tell me where this dense star of matter that caused the big bang came from. Wait... you can't? Did it just appear out of nowhere? Explain that to me in cold hard facts.


Quote
I have absolutely nothing to lose. You, however, have everything to lose.
Let me put it this way.
Put away all your stubborn “I know He exists beyond all doubt, period” ideas for a moment and really acknowledge the one thing you really do absolutely know as an undeniable fact: You are alive now.
I did’t say you would be alive tomorrow.  I did’t say you will get another life after this one.  None of that is known to be indisputable fact.  You know that you are alive here and now, and nothing more.
That means this life is the only one you know you have.  This life is the only chance you know you have for doing everything you want to do.
If that did’t really hit you, read it again until it does.
You sit here and change your entire life, the only life you know you have, based on things you just assumed to be true because it was spoon fed into you as a child.
You changed how you think, how you act, etc., without even considering that the way you do things now is a waste of the one life you have.  Or if not a total waste, at least not the best way to live it.  You avoid true happiness by simply believing you are already there, or that you will get there during the most uncertain time in people’s lives: death.
You change your life to pursue a goal you never even dare to consider might not even be there to pursue.
OK, I acknowledge that. Do you acknowledge that there are concepts and objects that exist that we do not comprehend, or even begin to understand? Just because we cannot "prove" it does not mean it does not exist.

Djé - If you are trying to come off as the biggest idiot yet to walk the forums, you have succeeded. After spending several minutes deciphering your badly written post, I can conclude that it was just a rant about how your grandfather died and how you couldn't believe in a God that would let him die. Oh yeah, and something about bush and terrorists. Nothing noteworthy, so I won't waste my time arguing with you.

Ok fine. There is one thing you said:
Quote
Answer is: YES, fuc*ing YES! We have to get rid of religions...
My reply is this: Not with people like you roaming the streets.


Jari - I'll get to you post in a second. I'm having a hard time putting actual thought into this argument without my teacher catching me when she walks by.
« Last Edit: 2007-04-27 00:56:47 by RPGillespie »

squeeble

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 423
  • Karma: 0
  • GOOGLE GODDAMIT!!
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #11 on: 2007-04-27 01:29:47 »
Ok fine. There is one thing you said:
Quote
Answer is: YES, fuc*ing YES! We have to get rid of religions...
Quote
My reply is this: Not with people like you roaming the streets.

So if there where not people "like him" you would be completely happy getting rid of religion?
And why am i quoting myself?
« Last Edit: 2007-04-27 01:49:41 by squeeble »

Hyunckel

  • Crazy poster
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #12 on: 2007-04-27 01:37:08 »
Djé - If you are trying to come off as the biggest idiot yet to walk the forums, you have succeeded. After spending several minutes deciphering your badly written post, I can conclude that it was just a rant about how your grandfather died and how you couldn't believe in a God that would let him die. Oh yeah, and something about bush and terrorists. Nothing noteworthy, so I won't waste my time arguing with you.

Ok fine. There is one thing you said:
Quote
Answer is: YES, fuc*ing YES! We have to get rid of religions...
My reply is this: Not with people like you roaming the streets.

I never insulted you, so calm down. Excuse me for my badly written speech, I'm not a native English speaker. Do you want to write in French ? Oh, too bad, you never learned that language huh.
I won't waste my time arguing with you too, you're too much selfish and narrowminded. It's a fact God doesn't exist, so I know you won't make an extraordinary discovery that will change the scientist face of the world. Sorry but I'm a bit Carthesien (From Descartes? You know, that means, rationalist, I think with my reason not my love) .

I don't roam the streets shouting "there is no God" . I just don't care with the lots like you.
Good bye and I wish you a great life with God  :evil:
Tschüss.

RPGillespie

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/rpgillespie6
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #13 on: 2007-04-27 02:36:40 »
I never insulted you, so calm down. Excuse me for my badly written speech, I'm not a native English speaker. Do you want to write in French ? Oh, too bad, you never learned that language huh.
In fact you did insult me when you said (with profanity) that the world would enter a "golden age of enlightenment" if all religion was eliminated. I happen to be a religious man myself, and the truth is something I keep close to my heart.

Now, to your next witty rebuttal. If I wanted to write in French, I would join a French forum. Unfortunately, French is about last on my list of languages that I want to learn. If you want, I can converse with you somewhat (and by somewhat, I mean very limited) in Italian or Spanish.

It's a fact God doesn't exist, so I know you won't make an extraordinary discovery that will change the scientist face of the world. Sorry but I'm a bit Carthesien (From Descartes? You know, that means, rationalist, I think with my reason not my love) .
I'm a man of reason as well (probably more so than you). If it is a fact that God doesn't exist, then present some evidence please. If you're a man of reason, give me one piece of proof that can deliver the decisive blow to my argument, the coup de grâce, if you will.

Good bye and I wish you a great life with God :evil:
Tschüss.
Ditto to you my friend (oh, the irony)  :evil:

« Last Edit: 2007-04-27 02:43:21 by RPGillespie »

L. Spiro

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 798
  • Karma: 13
    • View Profile
    • http://www.memoryhacking.com/index.php
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #14 on: 2007-04-27 04:13:03 »
Quote
There is only one true church, and the rest are pretty much abominations to the world.
A perfect example of how religions cause wars.  It’s scary that you actually seem proud of that.


Quote
First of all, we don't need a cure for AIDS.
Try coming to Thailand and saying that.  I had a female friend who had a mother.  It’s past-tense because, just within my short time here, her mother managed to die of AIDS she had gotten when she was raped by a foreigner who came to this country to do just that.  But I suppose if it was you here instead of me, you would have told her, “We don’t need a cure for AIDS.  Just die please.  And since you are Buddhist and don’t believe in the one true church, go to hell while you’re at it.”


Quote
People call it a pandemic, yet it is so easy to consciously abstain from spreading it.
Although a very huge percentage of people spread it before they even know they have it.  It takes no fewer than 6 months to be detected, and without reason for suspicion, it will take longer than that to detect until the guy or girl actually thinks something is wrong and goes in and gets checked.  Most people usually only do this after a solid year of having HIV, during which time they easily manage to infect 20 others, each of whom won’t know they have it until they’ve spent a year infecting 20 others.
It’s the perfect killing machine.


Quote
since it is, after all, a test. If we remembered God from before we were born, then we would all have a perfect faith, and it wouldn't be a test, would it?
So, while I presented a series of logically connected events that easily explain why we have no soul or conscience before life, your whole side can be summarized as “it’s a test,” which is, in any case, something you choose to believe out of fear rather than by some logical foundation.
Quote
If this were all true, then would you, or would you not be screwed when you die?
And this just goes to show I am right.  You never once in your life tried to think on your own.  You live in the fear others gave you.  You constantly spend your energy checking and rechecking yourself to make sure everything you do falls within the boundaries of what others told you would land you in Heaven.  You spend so much energy checking yourself it takes time from your life, and concern that you might fall outside those boundaries just once causes you so much stress that the quality of your life, the one life you know you have, is going down the drain (note that I don’t mean to imply you have this stress all the time, but just at some times when you do something or think a certain idea).
You live in a cage created by your parents when you were a child.  かわいそですね。 You never even had a chance.


Quote
You don't know if your spirit can have thought process after you die
And neither do you, so stop betting all your money on it.


Quote
If all you can see is visible light, does that mean that infrared and ultraviolet don't exist?
Who said anything about just being able to see thing?  And by the way, yes, we have ways of detecting ultraviolet light and infrared, so we can certainly prove they do indeed exist, without being able to see them directly.  No one said seeing directly with our own eyes is the only form of proof.  But no method exists to detect or prove your God.


Quote
Did it just appear out of nowhere? Explain that to me in cold hard facts.
No, see, unlike Christians, I don’t pretend to have an undisputable answer for every single thing anyone could ever ask.  I actually take the time to acknowledge what things humans simply can never know.  And I understand that any idea I suggested as an answer would be simply my own idea.  Christians, on the other hand, simply know absolutely everything, no matter how impossible it really is to know.  I have no doubts that you can tell me how the universe began, and I have no doubts that while you are explaining it all, it will never occur to you how ridiculous your explanation is, or that you are trying to present as fact something that has no real-world basis and can never be proved right, but it will occur to you that your explanation can never be proved wrong.


Quote
Do you acknowledge that there are concepts and objects that exist that we do not comprehend, or even begin to understand? Just because we cannot "prove" it does not mean it does not exist.
I think I explained quite well that I am familiar with the idea of being unable to explain things, and that things can not be understood/comprehended.  But you added that second sentence and threw away your whole point.  Your second sentence is intended to be justification for why you yourself are taking some incomprehendable idea and “comprehending” it.  It’s your justification for being able to explain unexplainable things.


Quote
If it is a fact that God doesn't exist, then present some evidence please.
Sure, but first I want to tell you the real truth that is really true.
In fact, above God, there is a Giraffe (The Great, if you will) who rides a Pumpkin of Fury.  He commands God in all his actions, you know, like a puppet.
He isn’t in the Bible because he is supposed to be a hidden shadow, you know, controlling God from the darkness.  So all of God’s actions seemed to be his own, but really they were controlled by Giraffe the Great.
Because of his obscurity, only a few people know about him, and those who know are truly enlightened.  And everywhere you look you can see signs of him.  He even made Giraffes in his own image!  And his Pumpkin of Fury is the reason we carve pumpkins at Halloween, a symbol of the Devil’s contention for the guiding force that holds him back.  But of course, popular belief contends we have a different reason for pumpkins at Halloween, but of course that is just because if everyone knew the real reason, they would know about Giraffe the Great, which is what he wants to avoid.

Now that you know the real truth, I will prove you wrong when you prove me wrong.


L. Spiro

RPGillespie

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/rpgillespie6
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #15 on: 2007-04-27 05:00:29 »
Quote
Quote
First of all, we don't need a cure for AIDS.
Try coming to Thailand and saying that.  I had a female friend who had a mother.  It’s past-tense because, just within my short time here, her mother managed to die of AIDS she had gotten when she was raped by a foreigner who came to this country to do just that.  But I suppose if it was you here instead of me, you would have told her, “We don’t need a cure for AIDS.  Just die please.  And since you are Buddhist and don’t believe in the one true church, go to hell while you’re at it.”
I'm sorry about your friend's mother. Your female friend still has a mother, however -- waiting for your female friend when she dies.

I've never taken the time to fully explain my beliefs (nor do I intend to, lest you belittle and pick apart each one), but I never said that the other religions would "go to hell" (nor would athiests). You love to take every statement I make and turn it into a hyperbole of offensive degree.  I believe that there are different kingdoms of glory that each person falls into. In your (and your friend's mother's) case, you would *probably* fall into the second highest degree in heaven when you die. Good, even great people, that were "blinded by the craftiness of man" fall into this category. It is not terrible, but it will be disappointing when you will see what you could have had.


Quote
Quote
People call it a pandemic, yet it is so easy to consciously abstain from spreading it.
Although a very huge percentage of people spread it before they even know they have it.  It takes no fewer than 6 months to be detected, and without reason for suspicion, it will take longer than that to detect until the guy or girl actually thinks something is wrong and goes in and gets checked.  Most people usually only do this after a solid year of having HIV, during which time they easily manage to infect 20 others, each of whom won’t know they have it until they’ve spent a year infecting 20 others.
It’s the perfect killing machine.
Infect 20 others?? Who are these people, sex machines? That's why (at least my) religion preaches chastity and abstinence. It is a good moral standard that prevents people from being ravaged by HIV+ sexual maniacs. Yet again you dodge my question. So let me rephrase and ask it again. Would not the HIV virus become extinct if the entire human population upheld moral standards, and actually thought of the consequences before jumping in bed with every person to come along?

Quote
Quote
since it is, after all, a test. If we remembered God from before we were born, then we would all have a perfect faith, and it wouldn't be a test, would it?
So, while I presented a series of logically connected events that easily explain why we have no soul or conscience before life, your whole side can be summarized as “it’s a test,” which is, in any case, something you choose to believe out of fear rather than by some logical foundation.
Quote
If this were all true, then would you, or would you not be screwed when you die?
And this just goes to show I am right.  You never once in your life tried to think on your own.  You live in the fear others gave you.  You constantly spend your energy checking and rechecking yourself to make sure everything you do falls within the boundaries of what others told you would land you in Heaven.  You spend so much energy checking yourself it takes time from your life, and concern that you might fall outside those boundaries just once causes you so much stress that the quality of your life, the one life you know you have, is going down the drain (note that I don’t mean to imply you have this stress all the time, but just at some times when you do something or think a certain idea).
You live in a cage created by your parents when you were a child.  かわいそですね。 You never even had a chance.
Thank you for summarizing my beliefs and thoughts. Of all the people in the world, you know me the best. Once again, you dodge answering my question by glorifying your own argument. You also stab in the dark at what my beliefs are. You should probably stop before you hurt yourself.

On a tangent, what the heck does "かわいそですね。" mean? Online Thai translators are quite rare I'll have you know.

Quote
Quote
You don't know if your spirit can have thought process after you die
And neither do you, so stop betting all your money on it.
We'll settle the bets after we both die.

Quote
Quote
If all you can see is visible light, does that mean that infrared and ultraviolet don't exist?
Who said anything about just being able to see thing?  And by the way, yes, we have ways of detecting ultraviolet light and infrared, so we can certainly prove they do indeed exist, without being able to see them directly.  No one said seeing directly with our own eyes is the only form of proof.  But no method exists to detect or prove your God.
...
Somehow, you've managed to miss the entire beauty of my analogy. Of course there are ways of detecting ultraviolet and infrared light. But ages ago, there was no such thing. Just as we didn't have a method of detecting light that was not in the color spectrum back then (or rather, we didn't even know it existed), we don't have a way of physically detecting spiritual matter now.

Quote
Quote
Did it just appear out of nowhere? Explain that to me in cold hard facts.
No, see, unlike Christians, I don’t pretend to have an undisputable answer for every single thing anyone could ever ask.  I actually take the time to acknowledge what things humans simply can never know.  And I understand that any idea I suggested as an answer would be simply my own idea.  Christians, on the other hand, simply know absolutely everything, no matter how impossible it really is to know.  I have no doubts that you can tell me how the universe began, and I have no doubts that while you are explaining it all, it will never occur to you how ridiculous your explanation is, or that you are trying to present as fact something that has no real-world basis and can never be proved right, but it will occur to you that your explanation can never be proved wrong.
Don't be ridiculous, I don't know, or even claim to know everything. I have no clue how God created the universe, only that he did.

Quote
Quote
Do you acknowledge that there are concepts and objects that exist that we do not comprehend, or even begin to understand? Just because we cannot "prove" it does not mean it does not exist.
I think I explained quite well that I am familiar with the idea of being unable to explain things, and that things can not be understood/comprehended.
You do realize that I wrote my entire post in one sitting, and that I hadn't received your "explanation" before reiterating what I already stated.

Quote
Quote
If it is a fact that God doesn't exist, then present some evidence please.
Sure, but first ... a bunch of garbage trying to prove a point that no matter how ridiculous the belief, it is impossible to confirm with empirical evidence either way...
Alright... so...? You clearly said "Sure [I will provide you with some evidence], but first...". I read your "but first", and now I'm waiting for the part that you promised next. Somehow, your post seems to have ended before you got to that part. Perhaps you could incorporate it into your next post?

Wait, that statement wasn't even intended for you... Djé you sneaky dog, getting L. Spiro on your side was what you (hoped) wanted.

Also, L. Spiro, have you ever considered law school? You deliver your arguments with such confidence and such conviction, that it's difficult to retaliate with sufficient argue with you.

RPGillespie
« Last Edit: 2007-04-27 05:10:00 by RPGillespie »

Hyunckel

  • Crazy poster
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #16 on: 2007-04-27 05:37:48 »
Wait, that statement wasn't even intended for you... Djé you sneaky dog, getting L. Spiro on your side was what you (hoped) wanted

I got enough of you. If YOU what you say are is true, then stop bothering me. It's not you're trying to convince me, but to persuade me, I will never reasonably believe in God that 's all folks. (EDITed , I saw the faults afterward)  :-D

I never hoped for Spiro to be "on my side" , and if you read carefully, he hasn't the same exact thought, we have some different beliefs.
And for your info, it's 07:00 am here, I think it's normal for me to sleep sometimes OK.

And I speak Spanish in 3rd language man. I barely learned German and Italian in these  countries too. And I go on some spanish forums, as well as I go regulary on French forums. But unfortunately Frenchs are not up to date in terms of videogames. That's why I go on gamefaqs (for their boards) , FESS3 (Fire Emblem Sanctuary of Strategy) , and etc. I believe I speak English alot better  than the average Frenchs. So don't come at me to say my spelling is wrong or that I need some grammar lessons. You hardly speak Spanish , Italian is absolutely useless. At least French is talked in Canada, France, Belgium, Swiss... So you're proud to be great at your native language wooo congratulations. I got my A degree at seventeen and had and average of 17/20 (like B+ in your mark system) during the last year in French spelling.
But I think , being a religious, you're inclined to help me at improving my English, thank you in advance.

AS for the "religion says to be chaste and not to have sex" , well if you want to live like a monk it's your problem. But when I see Pro Catholics like Muslims saying No to abortion , the Pope "no to condoms" (well, the former one) .... That just disgusts me. Yeah, you have nothing to reproach, you're perfect. I bet you're 15 and still  virgin. When you'll have sex you 'll now it's not that easy to protect from aids. If you have a condom that cracks , and you learn your girlfriend had sex with others (excepting if your gay??) and didn't protect herself, by stupidity; you may have aids.

I hope you don't have it, cause if you do, one time you may change your mind. That's too easy to say "oh you have aids, why just didn't you avoid having sex?"

Well I'll have nothing to add, so don't even dare to answer this. If you have something to tell me, objectively, then send me a PM. If not, Sh*t up.



EDIT:
In fact, above God, there is a Giraffe (The Great, if you will) who rides a Pumpkin of Fury.  He commands God in all his actions, you know, like a puppet.
He isn’t in the Bible because he is supposed to be a hidden shadow, you know, controlling God from the darkness.  So all of God’s actions seemed to be his own, but really they were controlled by Giraffe the Great.
Because of his obscurity, only a few people know about him, and those who know are truly enlightened.  And everywhere you look you can see signs of him.  He even made Giraffes in his own image!  And his Pumpkin of Fury is the reason we carve pumpkins at Halloween, a symbol of the Devil’s contention for the guiding force that holds him back.  But of course, popular belief contends we have a different reason for pumpkins at Halloween, but of course that is just because if everyone knew the real reason, they would know about Giraffe the Great, which is what he wants to avoid.

Exactly. I forgot to add this is absolutely true. I learned that when I 've made 5 years of catechism .

Well let's return on my Pokemon hacks and GT4's DeLorean (love this car  :-D )
« Last Edit: 2007-04-27 08:42:11 by Djé »

ChaosControl

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 745
  • Karma: 2
  • ¤
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #17 on: 2007-04-27 07:23:42 »
After reading that sh*tload of long posts I don't really have much to add..
She is a crazy bi-atch though.

Jari

  • Guest
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #18 on: 2007-04-27 14:41:02 »
Just a small interjection...

In fact you did insult me when you said (with profanity) that the world would enter a "golden age of enlightenment" if all religion was eliminated. I happen to be a religious man myself, and the truth is something I keep close to my heart.

You know, perhaps you shouldn't set up your questions like you did, if you are insulted by the answers? :)


Infect 20 others?? Who are these people, sex machines? That's why (at least my) religion preaches chastity and abstinence. It is a good moral standard that prevents people from being ravaged by HIV+ sexual maniacs. Yet again you dodge my question. So let me rephrase and ask it again. Would not the HIV virus become extinct if the entire human population upheld moral standards, and actually thought of the consequences before jumping in bed with every person to come along?

Preaching does not necessarily equate to doing. In fact, in this particular case it seems to equate especially badly.

A study about sex-abstinence classes - I would imagine that majority of participants would indeed be believers, seeing that most other groups don't seem to think of abstinence as a good idea.

Not to mention that these people truly are a danger to themselves and to others, seeing that they have opted out of sex education. Also, they have some freaking "bright" ideas, such as "anal sex is not sex, thus it's okay". Gee, I wonder why they call it anal sex, then? Of course my real point is that risk of transmitting STD in unprotected anal sex is higher than it is in vaginal sex. Yet, it's okay because you are "saving yourself for your spouse".

L. Spiro

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 798
  • Karma: 13
    • View Profile
    • http://www.memoryhacking.com/index.php
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #19 on: 2007-04-27 15:30:58 »
かわいいそ is Japanese for “poor thing” (kawaiiso [yes I left off an い on accident]).
です = desu, ね = ne.
Which roughly translates to “poor thing indeed”.


น่าสงสาร is Thai for the same thing (naa sohng saan).


One thing I have to request is that you do not make fun of others’ English if they are not native speakers, no matter how much you think they deserve it.
Unless you can speak their native language better than they can speak your native language, and even then there is no reason.

Remember, everyone on this board who is not a native English speaker is at least bilingual, and some manage to speak English better than many native speakers.
Try learning any other language of your choice at the same level Jari speaks English.


L. Spiro

RPGillespie

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 427
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/rpgillespie6
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #20 on: 2007-04-28 05:58:02 »
You know, perhaps you shouldn't set up your questions like you did, if you are insulted by the answers? :)
Touché  :-P

Quote
One thing I have to request is that you do not make fun of others’ English if they are not native speakers, no matter how much you think they deserve it.
Well, if he uses profanity, it's fair game.  I lose respect for people that just start spouting cuss words, because it shows a lack of intelligence. His post (starting with the words "YES F***ing YES" just irritated me a little because I hate it when non-native speakers learn the swearwords before they can make sense of their sentences and just potty mouth off everywhere.  I only made one comment, however, and I never said another word about his English. But it's not like I've repeatedly offended anyone like some grammar-nazis around here  :roll:...

Oh, and you know what else annoys me? ChaosControl's notoriously pointless and lackluster comments that seem to be sprinkled in every topic.
« Last Edit: 2007-04-28 06:02:46 by RPGillespie »

Hyunckel

  • Crazy poster
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #21 on: 2007-04-28 06:34:31 »
You know, perhaps you shouldn't set up your questions like you did, if you are insulted by the answers? :)
Touché  :-P

Well then don't ask questions if you only accept ONE kind of answer  :-)

Well, if he uses profanity, it's fair game.  I lose respect for people that just start spouting cuss words, because it shows a lack of intelligence.
PARDON ????
Oh, I'm profane? Isn't it a democracy we live in ? Can't I say anything I want to , believe or not? If I believe there isn't a God, or there is a Giraffe that's my business, it won't stop your life to go on.

Quote
His post (starting with the words "YES F***ing YES" just irritated me a little because I hate it when non-native speakers learn the swearwords before they can make sense of their sentences and just potty mouth off everywhere.  I only made one comment, however, and I never said another word about his English. But it's not like I've repeatedly offended anyone like some grammar-nazis around here  :roll:...

I never learned swer words . Sorry , I went to UK when I was 10 , and people used it... Sorry for being curious and for wanting to know more.
Yeas, I was insulted by you, when you despised me.

Tschüss

James Pond

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 882
  • Karma: 0
  • Forums Grumpy Bastard....At The Best Of Times.
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #22 on: 2007-04-28 10:39:56 »
Honest to god, I am amazed there is even a debate about this situation.

Decayrate

  • Cool newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • Karma: 1
  • I will be in my LABORATORY
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #23 on: 2007-04-28 14:53:24 »
We could start a new thread, like "Religion what gives" (So to speak) and debate on the lack of, or TeH facts about religion.

One thing for sure is, the _KID_ suffers if your O-holy conscience, says he shalt live with pain, becouse youre not willing to pull the plug others will.

Hyunckel

  • Crazy poster
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists
« Reply #24 on: 2007-04-28 19:21:14 »
One thing for sure is, the _KID_ suffers if your O-holy conscience, says he shalt live with pain, becouse youre not willing to pull the plug others will.

 :-D
If God want him to die then he would pull out the plug of the child.  :evil: