for god sake, stop twisting my point so you have something to rebutt to. My point is that its a chrstian issue, you lose on this one so zip it.
How is it a Christian issue if there are pro life ATHEIST organisations? Answer this question and I'll give you the point.
From the article:
"Physicians diagnosing PVS have the duty to show the complete absence of any evidence of awareness. Testing should include observing the patient, interacting with the patient during a neurological examination, talking to nursing cragivers and family members, and
examining laboratory tests such as EEGs and CT scans or MRIs"
Care to take that foot out of your mouth anytime soon?
She being PVS is the central issue. Its simple, if she is PVS, pull the plugh, if she is not dont pull the plug. What other issues are there?
From a murdering scum like you, maybe. It is irrelevant if she is PVS if she wouldn't have wanted to be killed, something that has not been proven as far as I'm concerned. And what "plug"? She isn't dying. She can swallow liquids and could be fed without any tubes if those refelxes were improved. Tell me one thing master skeptic, since her body was just a sack of meat, why not let the parents keep her as a pet?
interesting, provide a link? Anyway you're using empty rhetorics again, please show that in this case the judiciary system has not abided by its protocol. In other words zip it as they did. you lose on this one.
Wow, claiming victory before I even cough up the link, eh? And the burden of proof is on you to show that they DID abide by the protocol. If not, I see no reason why I should be bothered to do any research. The simple fact that you are using this as an argument instead of going into specifics(which I mentined btw) is enough for me to know you don't really know much about the case. At any rate, here is your link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... ages_x.htm
I find it amusing that you haven't heard of judges giving gay marriage licenses when they're not allowed to, there have been plenty of cases. In the above case, they got canned.
I fail to see how this is even relevant, as her custodian, he has the right to fight for her rights as perceived by him. In this case he was using the funds to fight for her right to die.
He said he would TAKE CARE OF HER with it, not "fight for her rights" with it.
And the largest empire ever was the mongolian one, who raped and sacked every village. You're an ***** to use geographical size as a comparison of affluence, wealth, social justice etc.
Social justice is relative. And as a side note, prove to me that sacking and raping villages is immoral or even a bad thing.
democracy brought hitler into power, and if the principle democracy was upheld when he was in power, none of what happened would have happened. *****, another empty rethoric
Wrong. Under a monarchy, people would usually be in a bad enough mood that if the king turned dictator, they would rebel. In hitler's case, people were used to sissy democracy crap and did nothing. And what "principles of democracy" weren't upheld? Hitler wanted to come to power to remove democracy. By the principles of democracy, majority decides, even if the decision is to get rid of the democracy. Speaking of democracy, how come you were comlaining earlied about Christian politicians legislating christianity? I thought you liked democracy, and guess what? The majority of the US is Christian, yet for some stupid reason, you still complain. You should be sucking it up to avoid looking like a hypocrite.
the theorcratic government etc is better eh... lets look at talibans, iran etc...
Let's look at the Roman, byzantine, saracen government. Were you saying something about empty rhetoric a few paragraphs ago?
you *****, make a wild guess why i even stated that. Hint: middle east has only sand to sell. And make a wild guess what form of governance resulted in the above quote. hint: theocracy
I said no such thing. And Saudi Arabia is a theocracy? Last time I checked it was a kingdom run by a PRINCE, not a religious leader.