Not hardly. I attack hypocrisy, stupidity, and cynical men USING someone for their own twisted purposes. I am not doing this to get elected, deflect attention away from an ethics investigation, boost my TV ratings, or line my pockets with other people’s money.
God spoke a long time ago on this.
Ever hear of “a time to live, a time to die”?
How about “Jesus at Calvary: into your hands I commend my spirit”?
Do you have anything to offer other than some fuzzy Kwai Chang Kain new age blather? We’re all still waiting for your science/facts and theological references. The above are just a taste of what’s on the table from our side. Where’s yours?
I would suggest that once any poster has demonstrated to his or her own satisfaction that another poster is impervious to facts or logic, the prudent action would be to simply not respond further to that other poster’s submissions rather than dragging the thread down to deteriorate into a(nother) name-calling contest.
Of course that settles nothing. Facts didn’t get folks into the mindset that Schiavo shouldn’t have been allowed to die, facts will not get them out of that mindset.
No, it doesn’t. Brain size alone is not an indicator of mental capacity. For example, there is The boy with half a brain. You need a lot more info than is contained in the CNN story to draw any conclusions.
Now, I’m fully on the side of TS’s husband on this and agree that the right decision was made. But you’re jumping to conclusions if your statement is based on the scant evidence (and “scant” is generous) in the linked article.
The problem with holding this case up as an example is the false assumption that half a brain is half a brain, and it doesn’t matter which half remains. (I will ignore that the boy had significantly more than “half a brain”) TS had practically no cortex, which is very different than your example. The boy had one full cortical hemisphere that was capable of assuming the functions of the damaged one. TS did not have this; her ‘half a brain’ was primarily cerebellum and brain stem, capable of only very basic autonomic functions. I don’t see any valid comparison.
Do you know more than the pathologists who performed this autopsy and wrote the conclusions?
First of all, the statement was not about mental capacity but about whether the destroyed neurons could have been regenerated. The quote you’re disagreeing with says only that Terri Schiavo’s brain could not have been repaired by any treatment or therapy. Do you disagree with that? Because if you don’t, you have no beef. If you do, then what kind of treatment do you have in mind?
Secondly, the brain is not just one indifferentiated mass of stuff. It matters which part is missing. The boy in your example had a cortex, Terri did not.
Of course that’s true, but none of that information was in the linked article. People on both sides of this are eager to jump to conclusions when a piece of evidence fits their preconceived ideas. My main point was that the CNN article was so lacking in detail, that one could not reasonable draw conclusions from it.
Let me clarify that I’m not trying to draw equivalency between the two sides of this debate. As I said in my earlier post, I’m fully in agreement with TS’s husband and the course of action taken.