To: george wythe
Right, so we can't try to feed her instead of deliberately killing her because we might accidentally kill her.
Tell me how that one makes sense.
231 posted on
10/15/2003 1:35:15 PM PDT by
agrace
To: agrace
'Right, so we can't try to feed her instead of deliberately killing her because we might accidentally kill her.
Tell me how that one makes sense.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
It only makes sense if the main goal is for her to die...which is obviously the case.
235 posted on
10/15/2003 1:37:22 PM PDT by
Route66
(America's Mainstreet)
To: agrace
Right, so we can't try to feed her instead of deliberately killing her because we might accidentally kill her. Tell me how that one makes sense.
I'm not here to defend any side of this debate.
Could it be that, some time in the past, the medical staff tried to feed Terry and she choked, or she got a respiratory infection?
I have not read all the information on this case, but the judges have.
That's why I'm willing to give the judges the benefit of the doubt, and I will concede that people of good will disagree on this issue.
To: agrace
Yes, this has been one of my favorite examples of Felo's twisted logic.
379 posted on
10/15/2003 2:44:36 PM PDT by
iowamomforfreedom
(Why is it illegal to starve an animal but not a human being?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson