Add an image
Add a link
March 17, 2005 -- 5:42 PM
posted by alison
onion rings are incredibly addicting.
Should I weigh in on this topic or not? such a heavy issue... all I know is my grandma is a DNR (do not resuscitate), and i think I'd like to be too were I ever to get into a position like that... perhaps something I should tell my parents... considering I might be working in bear country this year....
I dunno, it gets to a point where it's no longer about the person's wellbeing (because quality of life to a brain-dead individual is kind-of nonessential), but the happiness of the relatives. and personally, I think there's only so far you can go on your own to say that you'd like to see someone you love exist as a vegetable for the rest of eternity. I mean, we have to let people go eventually, even if it does mean having your children die before you, or losing your spouse three years into your marriage. I'm going to piss some of you off - I know it - by sayint this but, it's pretty much (in my eyes) almost as selfish as suicide ... keeping someone in a persistent vegetative state just because you don't want them to be gone. What good are they to anyone, to any thing? and think about all the resources they use up that could be going to someone in dire need of aid, or just a roof over their head. you've got to let go. I'm sure no deity ever intended for people to exist as non-interactive comatose bodies. The whole point being that, of course, they can't take care of themselves at all, no feeding, no evacuation of waste, nothing, and there's no way they'd ever have survived before modern conveniences took hold. even babies make an effort to suckle.
okay, let the angry reactions come!
March 17, 2005 -- 5:32 PM
posted by eric
yeah i suppose, but FLAWED IS ONE THING, killing Kurt and becoming wildly famous in the process is another.
March 17, 2005 -- 5:31 PM
posted by P
Hey Par, maybe you should hit up statcounter.com and get a new counter. It may not mean much, but I kinda miss the numbers racking up. Or if you got one maybe make it visible?
March 17, 2005 -- 4:42 PM
posted by Par
Tay, you might be interested in this. You were mentioning something about an in-browser FTP client?
March 17, 2005 -- 3:32 PM
posted by Al
What do you expect from magazines and the like. Everyone can be artificailly airbrused, it is only when you accept a person for everything that they are, flaw and all that it truly means something. So by Tay saying he thinks Courtney Love is hot maybe he is accepting her for the person she is. Maybe you guys should stop bashing him, he doesn't hate himself, he is just accepting a flawed person for who they really are. No one is perfect in real life it is only by accepting a persons for who they really are can you find real love... This just sounds like high minded bull shit, no one believes in these high moral ideas anymore(or if they ever did). Well can't help you out anymore than that Tay. I think you are on your own.
March 17, 2005 -- 2:53 PM
posted by Par
"It has to do with the culture of life." -- Bill Frist, US Republican Senate Majority Leader.
The US House of Representatives and Senate have passed laws that "block the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube." If you don't know the story, it has to do with a Florida woman who suffered brain damage from a heart failure in 1990. She remains, according to doctors, in a "persistent vegetative state."
Her husband contends that she told him she would not want her life maintained artificially, whereas her parents do not believe this, and have fought him every step of the way to remove the feeding tube that maintains her life. They've filed with the Supreme Court on the grounds that Terri Schiavo's "religious freedom and due process rights" are being violated. Anyway, this has sparked a huge effort from Florida and federal lawmakers to fight the removal of her feeding tube.
Have we carried things a bit too far here? There is a difference between removing implements that artificially maintain a persistent condition like this and actively killing someone. Let's be clear here, this is not euthanasia, nor is it doctor-assisted suicide. Neither of these issues exist, because neither of those cases apply. Euthanasia is the administration of a medical procedure that would bring about death, not the withholding of medical procedures that would save lives; and doctor-assisted suicide is just that: a physician aiding a patient in the taking of her own life. (Of course, drawing this distinction is going down a questionable road of determining which procedures should be justifiably withheld under which conditions, but this is no more questionable than the difference between a physician being unable to save a patient and malpractice.)
Aren't we (and it becomes we when legislators get involved) are to a greater extent "playing God" when we keep this woman in these conditions alive for fifteen years than by removing medical interventions and allowing her to die "naturally."
Of course, it doesn't matter so much, does it? I mean, it's not so much this woman's life that's important, but the political points you get with religious groups when you stand up for "life" (by any means necessary, apparently.)
March 17, 2005 -- 2:52 PM
posted by alison
all I'm going to say is this: stylists do wondrous things to people. Courtney, Avril, Kirstin et al. can all look both amazingly gorgeous and amazingly awful, depending on the clothes, hair, makeup etc. it's possible with pretty much anyone. (I mean, yeah, body and bone structure do have a lot to do with it too, but a lot of the 'beauty' we see is applied to them, and we really need to look at the canvases all the paint's been thrown on... if you really want to get down to it. hell, even actresses and models have excess hair or back fat or whatever, they've just had a team of professionals groom them.)
March 17, 2005 -- 12:00 PM
posted by Beck
Sorry Tay,
Kirsten, Avril, very hot... Ashlee, so-so.
Courtney, not so much.
My sincerest apologies.
March 17, 2005 -- 11:14 AM
posted by duke
