The Schiavo issue

[Name]

:sigh: I hope she dies soon, not to be cruel, but so that this issue will end and we can move on to the next fvcked up issue. Basically, I am tired of seeing it all over the news, and there are far more (in my opinion, important) issues that the government needs to be dealing with(all three branches).

[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?

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

And it's also the reason why I think that you are completely bat**** insane - not to mention a rotten human being - 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.

It makes no sense.

Exactly.

[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.

[Nephythys]

How is it you need to instruct me to not lump you in with people you may not agree with, but you can figure out that I am not calling you specifically bat**** insane?

Come on......why are peole so eager to assume they are being personally attacked.

As to the question about the courts I don't know why that is- since I don't know all the facts.

I hope this ends soon-

(my comment was also not hyperbole- I was not exaggerating. Check the attitudes about the death penalty- where the process is so deeply flawed as to not be trusted- yet this is? That is not hyperbole- it's a contradiction)

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

(my comment was also not hyperbole- I was not exaggerating. Check the attitudes about the death penalty- where the process is so deeply flawed as to not be trusted- yet this is? That is not hyperbole- it's a contradiction)

The position, at least my position, is that even if the justice system was 99.9% accurate with regards to convictions, the margin of error is still too high and the execution of one innocent person is one too many.

You have spoken out in this thread against the court ordered execution of innocents. Yet, in the Scott Peterson thread, you took the position that if Peterson is actually innocent, then oh well, God will sort it out.

I do not look at your seemingly conflicting stances as being hypocritical. I see them for what they are: Two different opinions on two different subjects.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

The position, at least my position, is that even if the justice system was 99.9% accurate with regards to convictions, the margin of error is still too high and the execution of one innocent person is one too many.

You have spoken out in this thread against the court ordered execution of innocents. Yet, in the Scott Peterson thread, you took the position that if Peterson is actually innocent, then oh well, God will sort it out.

I do not look at your seemingly conflicting stances as being hypocritical. I see them for what they are: Two different opinions on two different subjects.

-so you are saying Terri's death is a court ordered execution? I said it was IF the story of her speaking against the ruling was true- the post needs to be taken in context.

If Peterson is guilty, as he was found to be, then I do not object to the death penalty. If he were to get a reversal, but he was in fact guilty, then God can certainly sort it out. If he is innocent, same thing. But I trust the trial process- many others do not.

I just think the contrast is amazing- on on hand you have people against the death penalty on the chance that the jury/court find wrongly- yet there seems to be no quibble when the court decides on this case. In this case they are the grand arbiters saving Terri by allowing Michael to let her live or die and they seem to be viewed in this case as infallible. In death penalty cases they are flawed and too quick to deal death to a possibly innocent person. I don't see how you can trust them in one and not the other- but that's me.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

-so you are saying Terri's death is a court ordered execution?

Not at all.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Not at all.

I didn't think so- but you took my post out of context by removing the linked info I posted with it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I just think the contrast is amazing- on on hand you have people against the death penalty on the chance that the jury/court find wrongly- yet there seems to be no quibble when the court decides on this case.

On the one hand you have the courts upholding the rights of an individual to make a personal decission he has the legal right to make as next-of-kin, on the other you have the state ordering and carrying out an execution. The Schiavo case is a case of deciding that the government should stay the hell out of it, death penalty is a case of government taking final action that I feel they have no right to take.

[Betty]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

But I trust the trial process

How can you say this and yet not trust the 19 (or 23?) courts that have ruled on this already?