+++++a harmony of prayer & play composed for a rapt audience of [chirp]+++++
Pete Singer's position was misstated on the website.Do you remember the sad case of Terry Schiavo? (How could you forget, right?) Under current law, it was acceptable to leave her to slowly dehydrate and die. Pete Singer's position is that it would be more humane to have given her a lethal injection.He is not advocating the willy-nilly murder of infants. He has said that in extreme circumstances, where the person is in constant pain and death will surely result, a quick painless death is the better alternative. That may be a position you disagree with, but he is not the Nazi monster some are trying to paint him as.You can read about him on his own web page, and Wikipedia.
Terry was denied a basic... water.There are oaths taken in regard to patient care-& marriage.Promises to God, who has provided pain medications for those who suffer & need them.& for which we should be thankful for, & use as needed, until a person dies a natural death.Amen.
For what it's worth, I don't agree with him. I think pain can be managed and medicated, and life should continue to its natural conclusion.I'm just saying that his critics have twisted his words into an unfair caricature. He never suggested murdering handicapped children because they are inconvenient to have around, he is suggesting euthenizing those who are non-sentient, cannot survive, are in extreme pain. The basis of his opinion is the easing of suffering. I believe he is mistaken, but I do not believe he's a monster.
I thought you would want to try to understand his position, even if you didn't agree with it. Clearly you do not. I apologize for wasting your time.
I am sorry too, Thomas- I removed my sarcastic remark-However, I believe that I do understand his position- & you are correct- I don't agree with it.
Post a Comment