Oh my God...it's Kreskin! Hey, everybody! The Amazing Kreskin's a Freeper!
As you can see, I have a tendency to be sarcastic, but I was not in my reply to your post. "The tone of my post" was asking an honest question; I don't know what "freedoms" were threatened by a Federal review of an unusual (if not a unique) situation when the only lasting effect could have been saving the life of someone whose supposed death wish is based solely on hearsay. In this case, the hearsay of someone who wanted his incapacitated (and replaced) wife to die from a urinary tract infection he suggested she wouldn't want treated.
Saying that such a review -- one that the Fed Courts denied anyway -- was an infringement on "freedom" is like saying that clemency granted convicted killers fully exonerated by DNA evidence somehow violates someone's "freedom."
I note that you modified your initial statement from "people seem willing to give up freedoms in other areas purely to extend one person's life" to "[the] potential for any loss of individual freedoms" (italics mine). This suggests that the argument you wish to put forward -- should you have the courage -- will be a "slippery slope" one rather than an examination of what has been lost as a result of what actually occurred. You might surprise me with an apple-apple comparison, but I'm expecting to be served an apple-orange fruit cocktail. Keep this in mind: Dianne Feinstein had the courage to admit that she couldn't find any evidence of "freedoms" lost due to the Patriot Act.
As for my tagline: I don't care which side you are on, if your skin didn't crawl when watching George Felos, you're a skeleton! The same guy who endlessly suggested his opponents were seeing only what they wanted to see in Terri's eye movements and moans was telling the world how "beautiful" and "peaceful" Terri looked as she was starving to death. Then, at the post-mortem press conference, like a forensics professor who was a little too enthusiastic about his work, Felos described in vivid detail "Terri's death process," and the way he could tell parts of Terri's body were shutting down, all the while saying how nice she looked with her stuffed cat by her side.
It's interesting to me the way that some who decry the Schindlers' enlisting of Randall Terry and say the Schiavo legislation was a power play by the religious right seem to be able to swallow all of Felos' new age weirdness without a second thought. What Felos has written about his ability to read souls of comatose and unborn persons tops the nuttiest things said by John Edwards as a trial lawyer.
If you just want to play one-upsmanship, let's quit now.
I don't know what that means, either. "One-upsmanship?" And you want to quit before you have answered a simple, honest question?
This is a perfect example of the weird type of "reasoning" that has taken hold here on FR and why this site is in fact losing credibility. Point one does not mean point two must be so. One can disdain both Randall Terry and Felos.
Seems simple, but there has indeed been a sick game going on here and it is not a good thing.
And the fact the I am observing an abandoning of logical and deductive thought here does not therefore mean I advocated removal of the feeding tube (a very common leap of "logic" that we see repeated constantly).
Thanks, Mr Smithee, I think you've effectively answered my concerns.
Are you the famous movie director? I've seen several of your films, and as a rule, they're generally pretty bad. What's Up with that??
A little off topic, but at this point, I don't know that it matters.
You set a very high standard for all of us with the intellectual honesty and quality of your posts. Thanks.