Political Forum

Dear guest,

Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.

This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.

All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)

  #21 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 01:41 PM
Oregon Elephant Oregon Elephant is offline
Earl
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,755
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viv View Post
You have said some strange things to me in our time here OE, but that one is right up there. How can you take death too seriously?
I am not looking at it from my point of view, I am looking at it from the children's point of view. Whatever she believes, that she may or may not find a better place, she has DEFINITELY left two children behind her.
IMO she has done this, taken this selfish decision, for something which is not even real. We would all like to believe this or that and we would all like to behave entirely as we wish, but when you have a child you can't. When you are a parent, you are all that child has. You have the power of a God in the child's life. You are all that stands between the child and the danger surrounding it. And it is YOUR responsibility to step up to the mark.
You can't really say that (with any merit). Forceing her to live isn't going to make her step up to the mark. What happens when you save the life of someone who is suicidal? They try again (usually until they get mental help or succede). I don't believe that she should have done that, but I am against forcing it upon her to live. She is not their only protection (and based on the decision that she made, she might not be the best protection either), they still have family, they still have their father.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 01:53 PM
Viv Viv is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,288
Country:
Quote:
Oregon Elephant;103404]You can't really say that (with any merit). Forceing her to live isn't going to make her step up to the mark. What happens when you save the life of someone who is suicidal? They try again (usually until they get mental help or succede).
She was not suicidal. She was irresponsible and selfish.

Quote:
I don't believe that she should have done that, but I am against forcing it upon her to live. She is not their only protection (and based on the decision that she made, she might not be the best protection either), they still have family, they still have their father.
How long do you think the father is going to last now? Do you think he will live with that decision when he begins to think and realise what he has done to his family?
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 02:11 PM
Oregon Elephant Oregon Elephant is offline
Earl
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,755
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viv View Post
She was not suicidal. She was irresponsible and selfish.
Choosing under what circumstances one wishes to be alive or not is not selfish. Everyone has a different level of where they wish for DNR, many it is if the become a vegatible, but some are much lower (such as her, with a blood transfusion). You can't call some selfish just because they put DNR at a different level than you.

Quote:
How long do you think the father is going to last now? Do you think he will live with that decision when he begins to think and realise what he has done to his family?
I think he will last a long time. He is prepared for it. There are many single fathers that do just fine. As he holds in his religion, he believes that he did the right thing, and so he won't brake down and become an alcoholic or some other highly depressed state.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 02:48 PM
Viv Viv is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,288
Country:
Quote:
Oregon Elephant;103423]Choosing under what circumstances one wishes to be alive or not is not selfish. Everyone has a different level of where they wish for DNR, many it is if the become a vegatible, but some are much lower (such as her, with a blood transfusion). You can't call some selfish just because they put DNR at a different level than you.
Yes, I am calling it selfish. It is different if you are ill, or depressed, she was neither and the belief she held is misguided at best.

Quote:
I think he will last a long time. He is prepared for it. There are many single fathers that do just fine.
It's not about single parenthood, although that is difficult enough in itself. How much more difficult with the knowledge that he killed the mother? That is effectively what he did by not allowing the doctors to treat his wife.

Quote:
As he holds in his religion, he believes that he did the right thing, and so he won't brake down and become an alcoholic or some other highly depressed state.
I hope you are right.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 02:48 PM
BellaDonna's Avatar
BellaDonna BellaDonna is offline
Mercenary
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viv View Post
For me, this is a nonsense and a prime example that religion requires regulation by law, to ensure the rights of the individual are protected in the face of unreasonable outdated fanatacism.
I cannot agree. The first amendment ensures freedom of religion. Whether the outcome makes sense to us or not; regardless whether we would have made the same choice, the woman had the right to practice her religion.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 02:49 PM
Viv Viv is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,288
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaDonna View Post
I cannot agree. The first amendment ensures freedom of religion. Whether the outcome makes sense to us or not; regardless whether we would have made the same choice, the woman had the right to practice her religion.
She should still have the right to practice it, but it has killed her.

How can that make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 02:58 PM
Oregon Elephant Oregon Elephant is offline
Earl
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,755
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viv View Post
Yes, I am calling it selfish. It is different if you are ill, or depressed, she was neither and the belief she held is misguided at best.
It is your belief that it is misgided. You don't know, you haven't been there.

I feel like Wilson talking to House in, I think, episode 3 or 4 of this season.

Quote:
It's not about single parenthood, although that is difficult enough in itself. How much more difficult with the knowledge that he killed the mother? That is effectively what he did by not allowing the doctors to treat his wife.
But he didn't kill her. He will probably never think that he killed her, and the kids will probably never think that he killed her.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 03:51 PM
Viv Viv is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,288
Country:
Quote:
Oregon Elephant;103444]It is your belief that it is misgided. You don't know, you haven't been there.
Although I am not religious, I have had an almost fatal illness and have been told by doctors...if you don't accept the treatment you will die and if you do you may die anyway. I have had serious choices to make and I have a great respect for health and holding onto it.

So seriously, you are saying you think that woman was right to kill herself for a pie-in-the-sky idea? What is unacceptable is how her rights superceed the rights of the children. It's just...she has the right to do what she likes, the children can run to hell for all I care

Quote:
I feel like Wilson talking to House in, I think, episode 3 or 4 of this season.
I don't watch cheesy US tv shows starring British excomedians, can't comment.

Quote:
But he didn't kill her. He will probably never think that he killed her, and the kids will probably never think that he killed her.
The medical staff begged him to authorise the transfusion when she was unable to do so. His refusal killed her.
The children will question it someday.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 04:32 PM
Minx's Avatar
Minx Minx is offline
Conscript
*Evil Grin*
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal View Post
To me that is suicide and should be against her religion. And now her children have to be raised motherless. It's a good thing very few Christians are this type.

Ever hear the song 'The God that Failed' by Metallica? It's about the lead singer's (James Hetfield) mother who died because she refused treatment over faith, he was 12 or so at the time. Same type of situation.

I agree. That is suicide and child abandonment. How anyone who claims to be religious go for that, I'll never know.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2007, 05:05 PM
Oregon Elephant Oregon Elephant is offline
Earl
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,755
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viv View Post
Although I am not religious, I have had an almost fatal illness and have been told by doctors...if you don't accept the treatment you will die and if you do you may die anyway. I have had serious choices to make and I have a great respect for health and holding onto it.

So seriously, you are saying you think that woman was right to kill herself for a pie-in-the-sky idea? What is unacceptable is how her rights superceed the rights of the children. It's just...she has the right to do what she likes, the children can run to hell for all I care
I don't think she was right, but I think that you don't have the right to tell her what to do in that situation.

Quote:
I don't watch cheesy US tv shows starring British excomedians, can't comment.
House was bashing some guy's religion while the guy was on his death bed with only hours to live. He was talking solice in his beliefs and accepting his fate believing that he would go to a better place, and House began ripping on it to his face. House eventually killed himself (for like 90 seconds) to see for himself if there was something on the other side. He never said whether he saw something or not, but the way the episode ended made it seem like he saw something.

Quote:
The medical staff begged him to authorise the transfusion when she was unable to do so. His refusal killed her.
The children will question it someday.
And he will probably tell them that their mother passed away from a hemorage (or whatever it was) and that she is with God right now watching over them, (or something to that nature). There is no single place where all blame can be placed. If she allowed the BT, she'd have lived (part her fault), if he allowed it, she'd have lived (part his fault), if she never got pregnant, she'd have lived. If, if, if... there are hundreds of factors that lead up to the situation, maybe if she was in better health she would be fine. Maybe anything...
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
A vBSkinworks Design
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=

right