Freeper Logic -- Illustrated

[attaturk]

From my blog:
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/


Has to live. (U.S. of Fuckin' A)





Had to die. (Iraq)

[liberal N proud]

1. I cry for both!

:cry:

[noonwitch]

2. I agree with the freepers about Terry Schiavo

No one wants to be in the condition she is in, we all know that. But she breathes on her own, she responds to her mother's presence and starving someone to death is not letting someone go by turning off a respirator. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and she didn't leave a living will.

[leftynyc]

3. I agree with you

In the absence of a legal document and given the fact that her parents want guardianship, letting someone starve is just cruel. Why doesn't the husband just divorce her?

[BBradley]

5. Maybe he doesn't divorce her because he still loves her?

I agree that she should not have the plug pulled on her simply because there is no legal document stipulating it, but would you divorce your brain damaged SO because their parents don't want to kill them?

[BBradley]

4. I agree.

I just disagree with the reasoning of the freepers. With no living will she should not be killed, and especially not in way that would cause so much pain.

[booley]

6. at least it's consistent

It's overt callousnbess in both cases...

Force a brain dead peice of meat into a semblence of life against the wishes of the victim and her husband becuase her parents want to maintain the lie that she could get better..

Meanwhile, it's legitimate to stop the opression and whole sale murder of innocents by Saddam..by oppressing and killing them en masse ourselves. Sorta like stopping a guy beating his family by spraying the house full of bullets, killiing all inside.
(except we KNOW that "Liberating" the iraqis was just a shell game..but who needs facts when you're a freeper?")

It's like these guys actively try to be cruel. even when they say they are preserving life, they are destroying it.