Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: sarasmom
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Charlie Crist Winner of Florida Governor Primary, sarasmom wrote: Hey "dude", don't even try that trite crap with me. The "government" won't purposefully starve and intentionally dehydrate convicted serial killers on death row.

That's because those convicted serial killers on death row are still people with functioning brains. Sure, they are evil bastards, worthy of death, but they are still conscious human beings...at least until we stick the needle in 'em.

Why, even injecting them to death with massive doses of pain killing chemicals to kill them in mere minutes is deemed "inhumane".

I don't think executions are inhumane...if anything, they are TOO humane...the killers get off light, if you ask me.

But it's OK for the "government" to order the forced dehydration death of one lame,helpless, brain dead woman who was never charged, much less convicted of any crime against humanity?

Nice red herring there. The decicions by the courts in the Schiavo case had nothing to do with her guilt or innocence in any criminal proceeding. It was about the rights of her spouse versus the parents, and the meddling of the state in his private affairs. The courts decided correctly, IMHO.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Dude, you aint right.

Perhaps...but I make a mean jambalaya!

92 posted on 09/05/2006 8:58:49 PM PDT by TampaDude (If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the PROBLEM!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: TampaDude
It was about the rights of her spouse to kill her versus the parents, to take care of her and the meddling of the state in his private affairs.

You're right. It was never about Terri Schiavo. It was never about her rights. It was never about the government's proper role of upholding our laws. It was all about her estranged husband's desire to kill her, her parents' desire to take care of her, and the government's interference in her right to live.

104 posted on 09/05/2006 9:07:17 PM PDT by BykrBayb ("We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest." Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

To: TampaDude

"It was about the rights of her spouse versus the parents,"

Yes, you are correct. It is about her husband's rights. It never really was about her rights.

So now we have you on record indicating that a spouse's rights are more important than the individual's rights, even when the individual is dehydrated to death, the spouse is whose right ought to be preserved.

WRONG.


460 posted on 09/06/2006 7:26:42 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson