The Schiavo issue

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I love it- the courts are pure and unimpeachable when they are siding with Michael Shaivo- but you guys freak out about the possibility of an innocent man being sentenced to death because the courts and trials are so fallible. Which is it? Or are they only unimpeachable when they are doing something you approve of?

First, in future please try and address my comments and questions instead of lumping me in with a group of people I don't necessarily agree with.

Further, I never called the courts pure and unimpeachable. I said this has been considered many times from many different angles and the Schindler's prevailed not a single time. I also asked you why you think this is, which you chose not to address in your rush to hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Nephythys

But beyond that- I love this quote from my favorite NON- conservative blogger

I must remember that you are not calling me bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being, by citing a quote calling someone else bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being, since you can argue that you are not in fact calling ME bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being, just simply quoting an article calling someone else bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being.

As to your quote...

if you truly think it's wrong to let her live in a PVS state because she is capable of suffering by persisting in that state, but it's okay to starve her to death, because she is incapable of suffering from the long, slow, painful death of dehydration and starvation.

The argument is flawed, specifically this part...

if you truly think it's wrong to let her live in a PVS state because she is capable of suffering by persisting in that state

Completely missing the point. She made a choice not to continue in that state. That's what it's about for me. The commentator (the one who called his opponent bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being) is setting up a false premise to bolster a flawed argument.