Terry Schiavo? If her husband doesn't want to care for, that's fine.
Get a divorce.
If there is any other willingly caregiver - guardian - to pull the tube is murder, plain and simple.
To force one human to support another is Marxism, with its' evil result. To deny the willing support
of a "guardian" for a human unable to support itself is equally evil.
As with much of the abortion debate, it's Marxist "pro-lifers" against murderering "pro-choicers".
I wish a pox on both of those blind houses.
larry
Larry:
-----
As with much of the abortion debate, it's Marxist "pro-lifers" against murderering "pro-choicers".
-----
If you're referring to the Schiavo case, then you're wrong. Nobody, at any time, has been "forced" to support Terri Schiavo.
Michael Schiavo went to court and secured an insurance settlement for the specific stated purpose of supporting her. The insurance company wasn't forced to issue the policy (although it was "forced" to pay the claim against that policy which was found legitimate). Schiavo, however, offered to support her and then was paid to support her -- and has blown most of the money trying to kill her instead.
Terri's parents aren't trying to "force" Michael Schiavo to keep her alive, even though he's bound to by his own statements and his own seeking of the settlement. They've offered to take over guardianship. They're just trying to "force" him not to kill her.
Tom Knapp
I know from my own observation (experience with my deceased mother) that Terri Schiavo must be considered alive, as she is not brain dead, only brain damaged, which is a partial condition. I am even considering myself, running around perfectly alive up to the point of being a public nuisance 
, to have that partial condition, albeit less bad than Terri's. And I must not be the only one around who is brain damaged...
If Terry's brain were dead, feeding her, insuring waste elimination and maybe helping with blood circulation and breathing (I am not aware of the medical-technical details in her case), would not prevent her body from starting to decay within hours. Doctors may not agree, but this is my opinion.
I also know that my mother, not able to speak anymore for several years before her death, due to a brain condition, was quite capable of communicating by other, sometimes very subtle means, intelligently, and to express her will to someone willing to "listen" and kn
[message has been truncated; continued here:]
owing her well, feeling close, "being of the same flesh". And above all, she had, though reduced, valuable and intense ways to enjoy life and her surrounding (persons, nature, objects touched) and what she had as memories and creativity in the precious remains of her brain. In that condition, one day, she was "mercy killed", illegally, against my will, against her own no doubt, against her strongest religious-philosophical convictions, through an overdose of a morphine derivate, by an emergency doctor who had never seen her before. She thought she had a right to decide that herself.
This tragedy has preoccupied me for years. This, Tom, is the first time and place that I publicly reveal it.
Chris
PS: Truth must be said. And only truth helps. So pardon this: Even at the age of 95 my mother still masturbated.
Chris,
Thank you for sharing your experience.
The whole "right to die" thing gets complicated, even for libertarians, as soon as it hits the point of others having to evaluate one's wishes and help one enact them.
Straight suicide, of course, is obviously one's own prerogative. So are explicit directions in a written directive. But if one has no directive and can't kill one's self, how do others reach a conclusive finding when there's any doubt at all?
Tom Knapp
In my case there had not even been an attempt by that doctor, that "other", to talk about the question. No doubt whatsoever on her part. Though I had warned her and told her that according to the instructions of my mother's family doctor only a very small dose was needed, agreed with her and was to be given. But, Tom, I want to stop this personal matter right here. It was only meant as an encouragement to the position of Terri's parents.
The problem with this whole story is that any hope of truth has been destroyed by the controversy. Each side has their medical experts lined up to prove they are right, and most of us beleive the expert we agree with. The other possibility becones the lie.
I have not personally examined this woman, and even if I did, do not have the medical training to form an opinion. I will not pick sides on this.
This is the first time I have heard the spousal abuse theory though. I do have to disagree that not keeping her alive (brain dead or not) hides evidence. The longer her body is maintained, the more healing will occur on any injuries, hiding any evidence of them. If she is allowed to die, an autopsy will give more evidence of what actually "killed" her.
From what little I see on tapes, she is brain dead. The responses you see are either spinal cord activities (the spinal cord can have a sort of "memory" when it comes to motor functions), or minimal crebellar activity. She has no activity in the higher centers.
Remember Nancy Cruzan? The crazy fundies made such asses of themselves calling her father a murderer and all that poor old Joe finally committed suicide.
Let her go, it's the right thing to do medically and morally.
Tom,
I guess I'm gonna have to learn how to write in English, although I don't understand how you missed my point the first time around.
I did not claim that M. Schiavo has been forced to support T. Schiavo.
All I meant was to claim one thing,
that he has a right to stay or to go.
He has no legal obligation to support her. To hell with the insurance thing. If it *was* to support Terri it should have been put in a trust fund by the insurance company. Maybe Terri's parents have a right to sue them?
It is M. Schavio who is using force here, trying to get the government to enforce it for him in relation to other willing caregivers. He is the one claiming a *coercive* monopoly on her life to which he is not entitled, so long as there is another single human to step forward and assume the costs, as,
apparently her parents want to.
She left no instructions. Nobody,
nobody, nobody knows what she wants, or would have wanted.
So, who gets to decide wether or
Part II, from larry:
So, who gets to decide wether she lives or dies?
Only one group of folks, as I see it, those who want to step forward and incur the costs, or not.
MS has only one right - to walk away. And the State of Florida ain't got any rights, either. No one has a right to yank her tube, so long as there is someone willing to pay for keeping it in place, other than the taxpayer.
I figure I can guess why you so easily misunderstood me. Because this is a polarized fight between "pro-choicers" & "pro-lifers". The "pro-lifers" want her alive, at any cost (so long as they don't have to pay it), and the "pro-choicers" would have yanked the tube long ago, even with willing
payers.
Well, Thomas, I'm not in either sick camp!!
A pox on both of their houses. It's none of their Gawd damned business!!!
Terri seems not to be in pain, so putting her out of it is not an issue.
"Pro-choicers" who want her dead now make me puke, even more than the
"pro-lifers" who want to keep her alive at *any* cost, (so long as they
don't have to individually pay it).
It's a sick, polarized game as I see it, with most playing it for the worst of all reasons - the political one.
I despise that game. If natural law
can't answer the question, nothing can. I belive I've given the natural law summation above.
If you "pro-choicers" don't want T. Schavio alive, don't pay for it. If you
"pro-lifers" do, send some money to her parents. Otherwise both camps are assholes, as I see it.
larry
Quoth John:
-----
From what little I see on tapes, she is brain dead. The responses you see are either spinal cord activities (the spinal cord can have a sort of "memory" when it comes to motor functions), or minimal crebellar activity. She has no activity in the higher centers.
-----
You apparently haven't seen the same accounts I have, unless you regard trying to shove food down one's mouth when told that one will die if one doesn't learn to swallow as a "spinal chord activity."
But, that aside, let's take it a step further.
If she is, indeed, brain dead, so what? If she's brain dead, she knows nothing, feels nothing, etc. -- and therefore it does her no harm whatsoever to keep her body alive.
On the other hand, if she is not brain dead, it does her considerable harm to kill her.
If anyone was demanding that her body be kept alive at the expense of others, there might be a place for argument on what's going on inside that body. Nobody is, so there isn'
cont'd:
If anyone was demanding that her body be kept alive at the expense of others, there might be a place for argument on what's going on inside that body. Nobody is, so there isn't.
One set of would-be guardians, her parents, have indicated their willingness to undertake the obligation.
Her putative guardian sued for the money specifically to cover the expense -- then blew it trying to have her killed instead . That's called "fraud."
Larry's aspersions aside, I am most definitely a "right-to-die" supporter. I support the right to commit suicide. I support the right to set up a directive as to one's desires in the event of brain death, etc. I do not, however, support any "right" to kill someone or to force others to let someone die just because his or her continued survival is inconvenient.
Tom Knapp
Tom Writ:You apparently haven't seen the same accounts I have, unless you regard trying to shove food down one's mouth when told that one will die if one doesn't learn to swallow as a "spinal chord activity."
....
Actually, swallowing is a spinal cord function, not a brain function...
.....
But, that aside, let's take it a step further.
If she is, indeed, brain dead, so what? If she's brain dead, she knows nothing, feels nothing, etc. -- and therefore it does her no harm whatsoever to keep her body alive.
....
If there is question of the cause of injury ... death ... then you must have a corpus delecti ... she is not one at the moment .. autopsy's are the best evidence ... I think that the claim of homicide is getting pretty far out. But an autopsy would find any evidence that might be there.
Quoth John,
-----
If there is question of the cause of injury ... death ... then you must have a corpus delecti ... she is not one at the moment .. autopsy's are the best evidence ... I think that the claim of homicide is getting pretty far out. But an autopsy would find any evidence that might be there.
-----
As a side note to other readers, John is a long-time friend who is more qualified than most to discuss medical issues (I'll leave it to him whether he wishes to further identify himself and/or discuss his c.v.).
Anyhoo ... obviously claims of homicide are overblown if Terri Schiavo isn't dead. But even assuming that she is, would not some causes of death be just as apparent from non-intrusive, non-autopsy means than as from autopsy?
Here's where I'll refer you to the deposition of William Campbell Walker, M.D. in the matter of The Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, at:
cont'd:
Here's where I'll refer you to the deposition of William Campbell Walker, M.D. in the matter of The Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, at:
http://www.hospicepatients.org/d...-
deposition.txt
... and to an alleged image to the chart of the bone scan of Terri Schiavo to which that deposition refers, at:
http://www.zimp.org/stuff/bone.jpg
... and, as a matter of fact, to the whole index of documents from which the above comes, at:
http://www.zimp.org/stuff/nav.htm
... and ask for your off-the-legal-record opinion as to whether or not the material in question raises some question as to the cause of Terri's condition.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
What this case (and others like it) really get to is what we, as society, are willing to protect. We don't protect life (or you wouldn't have that Big Mac for lunch), nor do we protect human life, (ask the warden at Huntsville prison in Texas).
What we do protect is a "person". A person is an integrated biological and personality entity. This is the argument that was used by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, and quite a few other decisions since.
She doesn't qualify as a "person", because half the equation is missing.
Let me take this one step further:
Suppose you have a twin brother. You and your brother switch personalities (don't ask -- this is a hypothetical) and when he has your personality he murders someone.
And then your personalities switch back again.
Who do I charge with murder, you (your personality) or your brother (your bother's body) -- or both?
John,
I reject the validity of the question, because it does not obtain in this case. There is reasonable cause to believe that although Terri Schiavo has sustained brain damage, that she has not ceased to be a person, i.e. that she still retains higher brain functions sufficient to qualify her as a person.
As a matter of fact, one of the key arguments in the case is whether or not she can be tested to find out, using techniques not available at the time of her injury. Guess which side filed a motion for that testing, and guess which side opposes that motion?
Well, the anti-abortion people will tell you that the mind/body intregration occurs at conception to make a "person", so it is a term of the compromise arts to some extent.
I was amazed to find that there is no info on her brain scans, EEG, PET scans, functional MRI's -- that sort of thing out there. If you find them let me know.
Different tissues undergo irreversible death at different rates -- ranging from minutes to hours. All info I have read indicates more than enough time to cause irreversible brain death in her case (even the brain cells die at different rates though).
I would not justify her having a functional, or semi-funtional limbic system and having a non functional cortex as being a definition of either alive or of a "person", any more than I would classify a cell culture as alive.
Quoth John:
-----
I was amazed to find that there is no info on her brain scans, EEG, PET scans, functional MRI's -- that sort of thing out there. If you find them let me know.
-----
I doubt there's much. It took 14 years to get hold of the bone scan, and I'm not sure how they did it. Michael Schiavo, as her guardian, has custody/control of her medical records and for the most part has refused to release them. The Florida judge in the case has repeatedly refused motions to compel him to do so.
Tom Knapp
Tom, John,
First, Tom, I did not mean to cast any aspersions at you. If you're wearing that shoe you put it on your self.
My broad point was and, remains, that the TS fight is a symbolic fight between "pro-lifers" who are opposed to pulling the plug for *any* reason (including assisted suicide / suicide) and those "pro-choicers" who don't mind partial-birth abortion for a late term fetus or pulling the plug on a "brain-dead" adult.
Both camps have their heads up their self-righteous butts, as I see it.
Now, I don't mean to include the two of you in either camp more than you want to be. I would like to point out that much of your discussion has been very much like the abortion debate, just at the end of life rather than the beginning.
The two of you have touched on when a human becomes a "person" and when a human looses "personhood" - and that, as
with abortion, is an endless, unresolvable fight which truely misses the important question.
What's th
(con't)
So what's the important question?
It's *not* about zgotes or Terri Chiavo. They are just at opposite ends of the spectrum.
The general, broad question is what is to be done (legally, morally)
in relation to humans who cannot care for themselves - including but not limited to, zygotes, babies, childeren, the mentally / physically handicapped, old folks, even those with AZ?
(con't)
All of those humans are in the same boat!! They can't care for themselves.
Until we humans address the question on that level, addressing
*all* cases of those who can't care for themselves with principle, we're missing the boat, sans a life-jacket for our beside the point arguements.
I must make one point before procedding: withdrawing life-support for any human in need of support *is not* the same thing as *initiateing agression* against it.
HUMMM,
I just did hear that the judge has said that Terri shalt die in 3-weeks.
With other willing care-givers, M.
Schiavo and the judge are flat out
murders.
I was on a train of thought, but I'm stuck at the station, now.
The sick fucks are going to starve & thirst Terri to death.
Phque!! At least they could give her some Medical MJ, as few hits of Extascy, or better yet, a triple shot of morphine.
Stave and thirst her to death? Somebody oughta be shot!!!
l.
T. Schiavo is a human being. That's the bottomline as I see it.
She sure as hell ain't a dog or a cat.
This fight about "personhood" is pure diversionary crap as I see it!
If you want to support her with your own effort, Tom, offer it up to her parents.
If you don't want to support her, John, don't.
That's how truely simple the question is, or ought to be.
No one should be *forced* to support her, and no one should be forced *not* to support her.
With initiated agression out of the picture, it all shakes out in the end.
No human or governement has a right to make slaves out of others to support a human which cannot care for itself.
On the otherhand, no human or government has a right to *prevent*
other humans from helping those who cannot care for themselves.
That's how truely simple the question is.
If you want to contribute, do it. If you don't, don't. Except for the current context, it ain't got shit to do with murder. Although, i
Larry,
Nice summation. You're right in that the "usual suspects" on the pro-life/pro-choice bandwagons are playing this for all it's worth. Can't argue that one.
However, I want to make sure that you understand that I'm not treating this as an "I oppose abortion, and any capitulation at any point on human life is a slippery slope" affair. My contention is that there's a very reasonable case for believing that Terri Schiavo has not ceased being a person even by _pro-choice_ standards. Perhaps a severely retarded person, but not brain dead by any stretch of the imagination.
cont'd
cont'd
Brain dead people don't laugh at jokes (which there's recent video of Terri Schiavo doing), they don't try to stuff food in their mouths when they're told they're going to be starved to death if they don't learn to swallow (which there are credible verbal accounts of her having done), etc.
So it's not a matter of "as long as there's a heartbeat or a single firing synapse, it's a person" to me.
I do want to address one small point of yours:
-----
withdrawing life-support for any human in need of support *is not* the same thing as *initiateing agression* against it.
-----
That depends on the circumstances. If one has voluntarily committed to an obligation to maintain that support, then willful or negligent failure to perform the terms of the contract would indeed be an initiation of force via fraud.
cont'd
-----
withdrawing life-support for any human in need of support *is not* the same thing as *initiateing agression* against it.
-----
That depends on the circumstances. If one has voluntarily committed to an obligation to maintain that support, then willful or negligent failure to perform the terms of the contract would indeed be an initiation of force via fraud.
Michael Schiavo sued for an insurance settlement. He told the court and the jury that that settlement would be used to provide for Terri Schiavo's care in perpetuity. It was on those grounds that he was awarded the settlement. In willfully failing to fulfill the terms of that commitment, which constitutes a contract of sorts, he has initiated force against someone. You might hold that it's against the insurance company rather than against Terri, but there's definitely a tort there.
Further, in attempting to prevent others from preserving Terri's life, he is initiating force if she is not brain de
cont'd
Further, in attempting to prevent others from preserving Terri's life, he is initiating force if she is not brain dead. The only real right he has, in the absence of a directive or power of attorney from Terri Schiavo, is the right to walk away.
Tom Knapp
Tom writ:
if she is not brain dead. The only real right he has, in the absence of a directive or power of attorney from Terri Schiavo, is the right to walk away.
Well, we don't know that do we? Physicians who are in the best place to know have said that she is in a persistent vegetave state.
Walk away? Not a chance. What court would grant a divorce at this point, wich would insure that all other questions would become moot. She is in essence, a ward of the state now. Make the best decision you can.
Incidentally, reread the 4th(?) admendement about what is protected. It's not life ... and it's not human life ... it's a "person".
Quoth John:
-----
Physicians who are in the best place to know have said that she is in a persistent vegetave state.
-----
Really? Which physicians -- other than the ones hired as expert witnesses by Michael Schiavo, who are the only ones allowed to examine or run tests on her? No court has allowed that claim to be tested.
-----
Walk away? Not a chance. What court would grant a divorce at this point, wich would insure that all other questions would become moot.
-----
There are others willing, and asking, to assume guardianship. Florida, unless I recall incorrectly, is a no-fault state. He'd be divorced 30 days after the papers were served on her or her guardians.
-----
Incidentally, reread the 4th(?) admendement about what is protected.
-----
I didn't mention the Constitution at all. However, you're thinking of the 5th Amendment, not the 4th. The 4th pertains to search and seizure.
Tom Knapp
Tom,
Thanks for the "nice summation" comment. That's the furtherest I've ever gotten with *the* most important mission in my life, short time that I have left.
Still,I don't think I've banged my message into your head (grin).
You wrote:
"However, I want to make sure that you understand that I'm not treating this as an "I oppose abortion, and any capitulation at any point on human life is a slippery slope" affair".
I understand that, Tom. I do! You
definetly are *not* a typical "pro-lifer".
" My contention is that there's a very reasonable case for believing that Terri Schiavo has not ceased being a person even by _pro-choice_ standards"
Tom, I don't give a phque who is a person & who is not. That's a diversionary argeument on both sides. All I care about is who is a human and who is not. Person is a legal fiction. Corporations are "persons", so "they" say.
Who is a person & who is not, even who is a human and who is not, is ir
(con't)
Who is a person & who is not, even who is a human and who is not, is irrelevant in relation to this question, as I see it.
We humans, with the ability, have a *right* to care for anything we want which can't care for itself. And we have a right *not* to care, if we so choose.
That's the bottomline, Tom, and it ain't got shit to do with who is a "person", or who isn't.
I know, I gotta get back to you on"contractual obligations". I'll do that now. Before I go, though, I must note that John's claim that physicians get to decided is as sick as the claim government gets to.
larry
Tom, (on legal and moral commitments),
You wrote, Tom:
-----
withdrawing life-support for any human in need of support *is not* the same thing as *initiateing agression* against it.
-----
"That depends on the circumstances. If one has voluntarily committed to an obligation to maintain that support, then willful or negligent failure to perform the terms of the contract would indeed be an initiation of force via fraud".
Yeah, Tom, that's the arguement nearly all "pro-lifers" use in relation to a voluntary contract with a zygote. It's a bullshit arguement, but I'm not going to go into why, now.
All human contracts are cancellable - no human has a right to sell itself into slavery for all time.
That's why we've come up with such concepts as adoption and divorce.
If someone wants to get out of a contract to support someone who can't suport themselves, it easy.
All ya gotta do is "divocre" that human. Then it's the responsibily
of someone else to
(cont)
All ya gotta do is "divocre" that human. Then it's the responsibily
of someone else to pick up the ball, voluntarily, if they choose to.
Divorce ain't murder, Tom, and I hope you understand that I'm useing the term "divorce" in the broadist possible way - to indicate that slavery is not an option in this question, wether it's Marx or you makeing the claim.
Yeah, I figure Terre's parents have a tort claim in reltaion to Michael, and the insurance company. Didn't I write with that?!
And if he is guilty of beating her, he oughta be charged. But, as you know, "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" don't give a shit about fine points. They've a war to win, on both sides.
You, Tom, John, are much like the polarized nuts, argueing about "personhood" as if that has shit to do with squat.
It's doesn't, and I figure you both know that.
If you want to support TS, Tom do it.
If you don't John, don't.
It ain't got shit to do with physicians op
(con't)
It ain't got shit to do with physicians opinions, or governement. *You* get to decide, or you should be able to.
If you can't, well that's because of initated agression standing in your way.
Get that bullshit out of the way, things will shake out the best way than can, in this life.
larry
Tom,
As I've written, the "pro-choice" / "pro-life" fight is as sick as it can get.
I wish you would deign to ask me a question once in awhile, Tom, rather than just write with what a sick phuquer i am.
But all libertarians do that, it seems. I can't fault you, too much.
I'll bet there's not a chance in hell that you can repeat my arguement
in relation to abortion, or even Terri Schiavo back to me.
Oh well.
larry
Larry:
-----
I wish you would deign to ask me a question once in awhile, Tom, rather than just write with what a sick phuquer i am.
-----
I don't recall ever referring to you as, or indicating that you are, a "sick fucker" (you don't have to phoneticize your goddamn vulgarity in THIS forum).
You want a question? Okay:
The insurance company paid, in a lawsuit settlement, money to care for Terri Schiavo in perpetuity, to someone who not only expressed a willingness, but WENT TO COURT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, to supervise that care.
Here's the question:
How, by any stretch of the imagination, can a) deciding to no longer provide that care, b) going to court for the purpose of preventing anyone else from doing so, and c) spending the money on things other than the provision of said care, be considered anything other than fraud, i.e. aggression, i.e. an initiation of force?
cont'd
cont'd:
-----
I'll bet there's not a chance in hell that you can repeat my arguement
in relation to abortion, or even Terri Schiavo back to me.
-----
Which argument? The one I find most persuasive (although faulty on the basis of the actions of the party concerned in this PARTICULAR case) is that nobody is obligated to provide for anyone else. Cyrstal clear. The only problem I have with that is that you deny the right and ability to contract, or at least the notion that contracting imposes an enforceable obligation.
Tom Knapp
Tom,
I know you never called me a sick
phquer. It's just felt like that sometimes so I was putting it into my own words.
You wrote:
"Which argument?"
Tom, I've only had one arguement from the beginning - no human with abilty should be forced, via the
guns of government, to serve the needs of those who can't provide for themselves. And that includes white plantation owners who couldn't run their plantations without thier nigger slaves.
When it comes to slavery, and there were lots of contracts signed back then, contracts don't count for squat in such a context!
" The one I find most persuasive (although faulty on the basis of the actions of the party concerned in this PARTICULAR case)..."
Horray, Tom!! Does that mean that you grant my general case?!
"is that nobody is obligated to provide for anyone else. Cyrstal clear".
Thanks, Tom. I've thought it was crystal clear, too. Until you, just today, wrote "crystal clear" nobody has ever re
(con't)
Until you, just today, wrote "crystal clear" nobody has ever responded with anything that I did not percieve as intellectual gymnasitcs, with an agenda.
"The only problem I have with that is that you deny the right and ability to contract",
Nah! I don't deny that. Contracts are very inportant in a free society.
What I deny is that any human has a "right" to contract him / herself into slavery, or that any other human, or group of humans, has a right to enforce such a "contract".
In this PARTICULAR case, it's looking more to me as is MS participated in a FRAUD, and was likely a wifebeater.
That, though, is irrelevant to my general point. Hell, I've already agreed with you that if the insurance settlement was to care for Terri it should have been put into a trust fund for that purpose.
MS spending the $700K trying to kill her was a violation of contract, and a FRAUD!! You're gawd-damed right, as I have come to see it a little more clearl
(con't)
MS spending the $700K trying to kill her was a violation of contract, and a FRAUD!! You're gawd-damed right, as I have come to see it a little more clearly, thanks to you. There's a tort claim here, and maybe even an atttemped murder claim.
There are three issues here:
Attempted murder. Fraud and breach of contract. And what do we humans do in relation to those who can't care for themselves.
In relation to getting to the bottom of things, stirring those three issues, with no separation, into the same pot gets us nowhere.
Fraud (breach of contract), attempted murder, and who cares for those who can't care for themselves are, crystal clear for me, very different issues.
I've focused on the latter! That's the issue in most human minds.
I hope, given that, that you understand that I'm very much opposed to Fraud and Attempted murder!!
I've gone on too long! Sorry! Sue me, eh (grin).
larry
Tom,
I realized I hadn't addressed you question specifically;
Here's the question:
"How, by any stretch of the imagination, can a) deciding to no longer provide that care, b) going to court for the purpose of preventing anyone else from doing so, and c) spending the money on things other than the provision of said care, be considered anything other than C?" Here's the question:
How, by any stretch of the imagination, can a) deciding to no longer provide that care, b) going to court for the purpose of preventing anyone else from doing so, and c) spending the money on things other than the provision of said care, be considered anything other than fraud, i.e. aggression, i.e. an initiation of force?
As I figure you know, I have no legal problem with a).
B) & c) on the otherhand I consider to be pure evil - " fraud, i.e. aggression, i.e. an initiation of force".
I can understand how c) could have happened innocently (and I'm not claiming he's innocent), but b)
(con't)
I can understand how c) could have happened innocently (and I'm not claiming he's innocent), but b) is pure frigging initiation of agression,
as I see it!!
If a human wants to resign from the role of guradian / care-giver, that is their right. But they have **no** right to prevent others from assumeing that role. In fact, I argue, they are morally / legally obligated to conduct a good faith search for a replacement.
MS oughta be hung from his big toes for violateing your b)!!!
larry
Tom,
Where the hell have you been, not even keeping up on your own damned blog?!
There's a tar baby here waiting for another punch in the nose from you.
larry
free ringtones for your mobile phone! you can evn put the foto on your phone. visit this great website on
http://www.ringtones.nu/ .
For the best free ringtones on the web.
Commenting by HaloScan
