Terry Schiavo

Current issues and things in the news

Moderator: Moderators

Should Terry Schiavo be allowed to die?

Poll ended at Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:31 am

Yes, pull the plug and let her die in peace.
9
90%
No, on religious grounds.
0
No votes
No, on humanitarian grounds.
1
10%
 
Total votes: 10

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Terry Schiavo

Post #1

Post by The Happy Humanist »

Pascal's Wager is often brought up here and in other theology forums. It basically asks the question, "If I believe in God and turn out to be wrong, what have I lost? But if I don't believe, and turn out to be wrong, I will have lost my eternal soul."

I'd like to deal with the first part of the wager here, using a very current case as an example.

If you decide to believe in the Christian God, chances are you will attempt to follow his teachings, as presented in the Bible. Apparently, among those teachings is a proscription against euthanasia, or at least that's the way God's word is currently being interpreted. (I don't think the actual issue of mercy killing is dealt with in the Bible, but there is that pesky 6th Commandment...)

Because of this, conservative Christians have glommed onto the sad case of this poor woman in Florida who, according to everything I've read, is dead in every way except officially. She is in a persistent vegetative state, which, correct me if I'm wrong, no one has ever recovered from. She is all but dead. Yet, Christians seem intent on prolonging her agony and the agony of her husband, who has suffered along with her for 15 years - all because of the commandment of this God they worship.

Now, then. What if God doesn't exist, the Bible is fiction, and there is no such commandment? What if you were wrong? Do you see what you will have lost?

If Christians get their way, which they often do, this woman's agony will be prolonged indefinitely, as will her husband's - and if Christians are wrong about the existence of God, they will have done untold damage to an entire family - for nothing.

I'll tell you what you will have lost. You will have lost your humanity.

Bent
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:51 am
Location: Australia

Post #2

Post by Bent »

The Happy Humanist wrote:(I don't think the actual issue of mercy killing is dealt with in the Bible, but there is that pesky 6th Commandment...)
Forgive me, I'm quite out of practice with the whole ten commandments thing. But looking at the context, I'd say you're referring to the "Thou shalt not kill" one, correct? Well, as I see it, removing the life support is hardly killing her, the cardiac arrest and resulting brain damage is what will kill her. The poor woman is on artificial life support (which I don't think the writers of the bible were aware of), her body does not have the ability to go on living and she cannot recover (from what I know of her condition). It would be different if she was suffering from a temporary condition which she may have a small chance of recovery. In her case, taking away that life support is letting nature take it's proper course.
The Happy Humanist wrote:She is in a persistent vegetative state, which, correct me if I'm wrong, no one has ever recovered from. She is all but dead.
I know that I would not want to be made to live like that, and I could not imagine that there would be many people who would, regardless of their faith. So, to the Christians who think her suffering should continue, I implore you to let her go in peace and be with her God.
The Happy Humanist wrote:If Christians get their way, which they often do, this woman's agony will be prolonged indefinitely, as will her husband's - and if Christians are wrong about the existence of God, they will have done untold damage to an entire family - for nothing.
That's the sad truth. And think of the legal precedent that would be set.

User avatar
RevJP
Scholar
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Post #3

Post by RevJP »

Apparently, among those teachings is a proscription against euthanasia, or at least that's the way God's word is currently being interpreted. (I don't think the actual issue of mercy killing is dealt with in the Bible, but there is that pesky 6th Commandment...)
I disagree. Once again a very vocal minority is being interpreted as speaking the majority. As quite often is the case when one wants to bash christianity, it is easier to take the extremes and present a chariacture of what you oppose rather than address the reality of it (anyone ever see those drawings of jews that the nazis distributed characterizing them in grotesque ways.... same concept here...)

Personally I, and many whom I have spoken to feel the family and congress should step out of the whole deal and let the husband make the decision. They are married, they are 'one', the choice is thiers, or in this case his.
Now, then. What if God doesn't exist, the Bible is fiction, and there is no such commandment? What if you were wrong? Do you see what you will have lost?
Euthenasia in many cases is not rightfully considered murder (spiritually speaking) in my mind, or the mind of a great many Christians. Allowing a person to die, if that is what would happen without medical intervention, or if they are being kept alive by modern medicine, can in know way be considered murder accoding to scripture. It is more of a question of ethics, greek ethics to be precise (hypocratic oath), not morality.

This case is not about the bible being wrong, or God existing. It is about a extreme religious group intervening in affairs that do not concern them.

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post #4

Post by The Happy Humanist »

====
I disagree. Once again a very vocal minority is being interpreted as speaking the majority. As quite often is the case when one wants to bash christianity, it is easier to take the extremes and present a chariacture of what you oppose rather than address the reality of it (anyone ever see those drawings of jews that the nazis distributed characterizing them in grotesque ways.... same concept here...)
Now ho'd, I say, HO'D on a second, there, son....your attempt at marginalizing the admittedly extremist view completely ignores several things, not the least of which is the fact that the duly elected President of the United States and leader of the free world stands poised with pen in hand to sign legislation designed specifically to intervene in this very case. You and I seem to agree that this is distasteful at minimum, and I'll even concede that it is extremist...but the extremists have obtained a certain level of power in this country, which makes it a bit hard to distinguish them from "mainstream America," and thus hard to distinguish them from "mainstream Christianity."

The second thing you are ignoring is that, like it or not, that's what it says in your Bible. I can almost guarantee that my post is going to be followed by a whole stream of True Christians tm taking you to task for holding a "non-scriptural" position. And in a way, they will be correct. You do seem to be engaging in "Cafeteria Christianity." You may not like the 6th Commandment, you may try to reinterpret it in a more liberal fashion to suit your own precepts of what a loving God would have in mind, but I believe you'll search in vain for any asterisks next to Exodus 2:13. You can say it's not murder, and I agree (but then I'm not Christian)...but the term "murder," at base a purely legal term with a definite human-defined meaning, has been bastardized for many other causes, from abortion to capital punishment to war. Many Christians, extremist and otherwise, have taken Exodus 2:13 and other passages to be a general admonition from God that "human life is sacrosanct, and must be preserved whenever possible," that "only God can take away what he has given," etc.
Euthenasia in many cases is not rightfully considered murder (spiritually speaking) in my mind, or the mind of a great many Christians.
Then I must ask, how do you explain the present national hue and cry over this poor Schiavo woman? To us non-Christians, it certainly has the "look and feel" of an objection from mainstream Christianity, since Congress and the news media normally don't give much serious consideration to really radical, extremist views.
This case is not about the bible being wrong, or God existing. It is about a extreme religious group intervening in affairs that do not concern them
But my point is that they may actually succeed in their intervention, which could have far-reaching repercussions, ruining many lives along the way...all because of their acceptance of a literal interpretation of the Bible and acceptance of God's absolute moral authority. And if they are wrong about that - and for the purposes of this particular topic, I am not stating that they are, I am simply examining the consequences of choosing the wrong side of Pascal's wager - then they will have wreaked all this human agony for nothing. My point is that this is the downside of choosing to believe, for those whose belief encompasses Biblical literalism.
Jim, the Happy Humanist!
===
Any sufficiently advanced worldview will be indistinguishable from sheer arrogance --The Happy Humanist (with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Post #5

Post by Overcomer »

Well, as I see it, removing the life support is hardly killing her, the cardiac arrest and resulting brain damage is what will kill her. The poor woman is on artificial life support
No, she isn't. She is breathing on her own and has always been breathing on her own. The only thing she can't physically do for herself is feed herself. She responds with eye contact and smiles when family members speak to her. She just can't speak back.

It's my understanding that a full spectrum of tests including MRIs and catscans have not been done. I heard a doctor speaking recently about how no one can write this woman off until they see exactly what is going on with her. And her husband has NEVER agreed to allow that. One has to wonder why. This doctor says there are rehab treatments that might help her if doctors were allowed to, but they can't be done without the husband's permission.
Personally I, and many whom I have spoken to feel the family and congress should step out of the whole deal and let the husband make the decision. They are married, they are 'one', the choice is thiers, or in this case his.
How "one" can they be when he lives with a woman who has borne him two children? He just wants her gone so that he doesn't have to think of her any more. The parents have begged him to divorce her and give them custody of her but he won't. All we have is his statement that she wouldn't want to live that way. And we have no idea whether she said that or not. Maybe this guy is nothing more than a Scott Peterson who doesn't want his wife interfering with his life.

Allowing a person to die, if that is what would happen without medical intervention, or if they are being kept alive by modern medicine, can in know way be considered murder accoding to scripture
Again, that isn't true. Therefore, what they are doing is killing her by not feeding her. That's not the same as removing life support. Even serial killers who get a death sentence are killed quickly and not starved to death slowly over time. Would you want to watch even a dog starve to death? It's an ugly business and I can't believe that anyone would insist that this be done to a human being.

Also, let's not forget that, whether this woman's body or brain works right, she still has a spirit. For all you and I know, she is communing with the Holy Spirit right now. To think that a human being is nothing but body and brain is to miss who and what a person is. Such is the lie of evolution that says we descended from animals. It makes us sadly disposable. But having been made in the image of God, we are loved and important. And no one can say exactly what's going on in the spiritual realm with Terri Schiavo. Certainly the husband doesn't have a clue.

concerro
Apprentice
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:58 am

Post #6

Post by concerro »

First I am going to say this is not my research or my post so if I dont get credit for it then that is fine, but I beleive the truth is important for any debate so here is what I found.

I've read through this thread several times, trying to determine how best to describe my feelings on the subject. What I've noticed, in the reading and re-reading, are all of the misconceptions, half truths, speculations, and outright deceptions perpetrated in the name of presenting a case for saving Terri Shiavo.

Perhaps some actual facts will change some minds, or at least allow for some open-mindedness on this subject. Most of this information was obtained from this source, and from this source.

It's undisputed that Terri Shiavo had a heart attack, due to a chemical imbalance from her bulimia, and that the length of time that her brain was deprived of oxygen, most, if not all of her cerebral cortex was totally destroyed, leaving behind only spinal fluid, and leaving her in what is medically called a persistent vegetative state.

For eight years, Michael Shiavo cared for his wife, and afforded every opportunity to see that she got better, including a trip to California to try new, brain stimulation therapies, and after bringing her back to their local facility, aggressive speech, and physical therapy continued.

In 1993 Michael and the Schindlers have a disagreement over her treatment, and the Schindlers sue to have Michael removed as Terri's guardian.

A trial ensued, in which Michael Shiavo basically allowed the courts to become the legal guardian of Terri Shiavo, in terms of determining what Terri would have wanted with regard to her situation. Doctors for each side, and a doctor appointed by the court all examined Terri, and agreed that she was in a persistent vegetative state. Only the Schindlers doctors held out any hope, but no evidence that Terri could be helped. Terri's parents asserted that Michael was failing to give proper care to their daughter, that could reverse her condition. That was disputed by the court, however in their original ruling:

Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
In addition, evidence was submitted that five different people, at different times in Terri's life, including Terri's mother had heard her say, when the conversation ever came to this, that she would not want to be kept alive in this kind of circumstance. The court therefore ruled that Terri would have wanted to have been removed from any life prolonging treatment. The Florida Legislature has defined what is a "life-prolonging procedure" under §765.101(10), Florida Statutes:

"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain."
The Shindlers have filed multiple appeals, and new lawsuits against Michael in an attempt to overturn this original ruling.

The Schindler's produced a 30 second clip of Terri supposedly responding to her mother and father. However, this clip was part of a four and one-half hour tape made by them, and this 30 seconds is all they could come up with to show that Terri was conscious and responsive. In addition, one of the "Guardian ad-Litem's appointed by the court to evaluate Terri, could never get Terri to reproduce any of claimed "attempts to communicate" that the Schindler's asserted, even in their presence.

They attempted to label him as an abusive husband based on a bone scan done in 1991, but not produced until they lost yet another appeal. This is what the report said:

9/5/91
Bone Scan
Indication: Evaluation for trauma

Procedure and findings: Multiple gamma camera images of tha axial and proximal appendicular skeleton in the anterior ands posterior projections were obtained, following 21.1 millicuries of technetium 99m HDP. There are an extensive number of focal abnormal areas of nuclide accumulation of intense type. These include multiple bilateral ribs, the costovertibral aspects of several of the thoracic vertebral bodies, the L1 vertebral body, both sacrolliac joints, the distal right femoral diaphysis, both knees and both ankles, right greater than left. Correlative radiographs are obtained of the lumbar spine and of the right femur which reveal compression fracture, minor, superior end plate of L1, and a shaggy irregular periosteal ossification along the distal femoral diasysis and metaphysis, primarily ventrally. The patient has a history of trauma, most likely the femoral periosteal reaction reflects a response to a subperiosteal hemmorage and the activity in L1 correlates perfectly with the compression fracture which is presumably traumatic. The presumption is that the other multiple areas of abnormal activity also relate to previous trauma. Additional possibilities would be neoplastic bone disease, widespread disseminated infectious bone infarcts or multiple bone infarcts from abnormal hemoglobin.
I re-wrote this evaluation, verbatim, because the only copy I could find on the net has been presented by a Pro-Terri website, and has been highlighted in a very biased manner. Please note that trauma, in the medical sense, has a much different meaning than it does in the legal sense. Medically, trauma is any damage caused by any outside influence, and is in no way indicative of damage done by one person to another, as a police report would use the term. For instance, if you step off of a curb, and stumble, you may sprain your ankle, and even cause a compression fracture. You may not know you've fractured the ankle, because compression fractures are not like breaking a leg at an oblique angle. You have some pain for a couple of weeks, and then it goes away, but it will show up on an x-ray, or bone scan. That's considered trauma to that area, medically.

Also note, the doctors performing this scan, in their conclusion paragraph, specifically do noteven hint that any of the damage was done by physical abuse by Michael Schiavo. The damage they list in terms of the fractures of the sternum and rib cage are consisant with the prolonged, aggressive performance of CPR on a person who's heart has stopped. Compression fractures of the type listed are common among people who exercise heavily, and Terri was known to be obsessive about her weight, thus her bulimia. They also list several other possibilities for her condition, including two types of bone disease, and/or from an abnormal hemoglobin, which would also be consistent with bulimia. There is nothing at all to suggest in these tests that Michael abused his wife.

Another thing to consider in evaluating the charge that he beat and choked her, is this. Paramedics were called the night she had the heart attack. When they got to the hospital, doctors took over, and continued treating her, and evaluating her. Florida has a law that requires medical personnel who suspect any possible abuse of a spouse or child to be reported to authorities immediately for investigation. No such report was ever filed. They apparently found no bruises around her throat, no bruising of the chest, back, or anywhere else that would have required a police investigation.

As to the issue of Michael only being interested in money? There were reports just a few weeks ago, that he had been offered $1 million to allow Terri's parents to care for her. There was also a rumored $10 million offered. He has refused both offers. Not that it would make any difference. Since the court is still essentially the guardian for Terri, since the start of the first trial eight years ago, the court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. Michael did not make the decision and cannot unmake it.

Should the Government be able to require you to keep brain dead persons alive?
Absolutely not. The only ones that should determine the proper course of action in a case such as this, is the husband. Even the parents, in my opinion should never have been given any legal standing to start this whole mess, as Terri was an adult, married, and living outside her parents home as an independent person. The only person who should have been making any decisions for her, in her inability to make them, was Michael.

Certainly, the United States Congress should not be stepping in, and making a mockery of the situation.

Should other "Interested Parties"--religious groups, be allowed to intervene by court challenge?
Again, absolutely not. They have no standing with regard to the relationship between a husband and wife, and any attempts to undermine that relationship should be dismissed with predjudice.

This case has been heard, adjudicated, reviewed ad-nauseum, appealed, and reviewed some more. 19 judges in 11 different court actions have sided with Terri and Michael's wishes each and every time. Isn't it time to let Terri's wishes be abided?

User avatar
RevJP
Scholar
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Post #7

Post by RevJP »

Now ho'd, I say, HO'D on a second, there, son....your attempt at marginalizing the admittedly extremist view completely ignores several things, not the least of which is the fact that the duly elected President of the United States and leader of the free world stands poised with pen in hand to sign legislation designed specifically to intervene in this very case.

I did not ignore it, nor is it relevant to the rebutt of what you posted. You were generalizing conservative christians and lumping them all in with an extremist minority. I simply pointed that fact out to you. Power does not equate to majority, as our governmental system demonstrates quite well. A few hundred people make decisions for millions, based on the influences of a few.
The second thing you are ignoring is that, like it or not, that's what it says in your Bible.
I beg to differ. YOUR quote was incorrect, your justification for your position was incorrect. The commandment clearly says not to commit murder, you claim it truly says don't kill. You sir are woefully uninformed and incorrect.

Theologically the closest you can come to saying that euthenasia is spoken against in scripture is in the parable of the good samaritan. Even in that we do not see a message that indicates we are to prolong the life of those who are no longer viably alive. The man helped was injured and could be nursed back to health. An individual who's only viable function is her breathing does not quite meet that ideal...

I'm fully aware that many religious people would disagree with me, but then again, I don't take what they feed me from the pulpit or the meditation tree without questioning and study.
My point is that this is the downside of choosing to believe, for those whose belief encompasses Biblical literalism.
The whole point I am making is that you rail against 'christians' when in fact you marginalize them, generalize them, speak truly of religion and philosophy's of man, and try to make a case against Christians with it. Quite unsporting and logically fallacious.

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #8

Post by MagusYanam »

RevJP wrote:The commandment clearly says not to commit murder, you claim it truly says don't kill.
Well, it's gone both ways. The KJV I like to use says 'Thou shalt not kill', though my NRSV changed that to 'You shall not murder'. The Hebrews had many terms for the idea of 'to kill', and the one that was used in the commandment was one that meant killing with intent, usually restricted to another person. So in the strict legal sense of the word, 'to murder' is too narrow and 'to kill' is too broad. War or bloodfeud, for example, would not have constituted legal murder in Hebrew society, but would still have fallen under the censure of the sixth commandment. In my opinion, the death penalty is under the same censure, but that's a different issue.

The question here is whether a person in vegetable state in no command of her own sapient capacities should be kept alive. Our culture values human life and dignity, but here we have an example of a case where the two are in conflict.
The Happy Humanist wrote:To us non-Christians, it certainly has the "look and feel" of an objection from mainstream Christianity, since Congress and the news media normally don't give much serious consideration to really radical, extremist views.
Here I disagree. The amount of press the religious right receives is enormous. Even on public television, 'Now with Bill Moyers' features Cal Thomas rather than a more moderate Christian voice. As a Christian and a theological liberal, I am appalled at how the mainline voice is so often underrepresented in the press - oftentimes the debate is between a member of the religious right and a liberal secular-humanist. Proportionally, we mainliners, who probably make up about seventy or seventy-five percent of the Christian population of the United States, get precious little screen time. Why? Because we're seen to be boring or stodgy? Because we don't see things in black-and-white? But these questions seem to be getting off-topic.

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #9

Post by ST88 »

Overcomer wrote:She is breathing on her own and has always been breathing on her own. The only thing she can't physically do for herself is feed herself. She responds with eye contact and smiles when family members speak to her. She just can't speak back.
There is no evidence that she recognizes any external stimuli. She does not respond appropriately to anything. Her movements are random.
Overcomer wrote:It's my understanding that a full spectrum of tests including MRIs and catscans have not been done. I heard a doctor speaking recently about how no one can write this woman off until they see exactly what is going on with her. And her husband has NEVER agreed to allow that. One has to wonder why. This doctor says there are rehab treatments that might help her if doctors were allowed to, but they can't be done without the husband's permission.
First of all, a CT was done. Here is a link to the image, if anyone can read a CT scan. (slow link)
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png
Based on the CT, doctors have said that an MRI is unnecessary because there isn't enough of her cerebral cortex left to measure.

The only doctors who say that therapy is possible are the parents' doctors. Draw your own conclusions.
Overcomer wrote:
Personally I, and many whom I have spoken to feel the family and congress should step out of the whole deal and let the husband make the decision. They are married, they are 'one', the choice is thiers, or in this case his.
How "one" can they be when he lives with a woman who has borne him two children? He just wants her gone so that he doesn't have to think of her any more. The parents have begged him to divorce her and give them custody of her but he won't. All we have is his statement that she wouldn't want to live that way. And we have no idea whether she said that or not. Maybe this guy is nothing more than a Scott Peterson who doesn't want his wife interfering with his life.
Maybe he was involved with murdering Robert Blake's wife. Impugning the reputation of the husband is a good propaganda ploy because it equates the death of the wife with the husband wanting the wife to die. I have no reason to believe that he did not divorce her because he wants her wishes to be carried out. And the courts are very clear on the subject of DNRs and end-of-life decisions. The spouse is always the deciding party because the spouse is chosen, whereas the family is merely circumstance. My heart goes out to Terri's parents; no one wants to see their children die. They've done everything they can to try and separate the husband from his humanity to claim that he has an ulterior motive for wishing her to die. Nearly all of the settlement money from the initial malpractice case has been spent on her care. He has further stated that any remaining balance will be donated to charity. If he wanted her gone "so that he doesn't have to think about her anymore," he could have divorced her and left her to her parents' care. But he hasn't. In my opinion, this shows that he really thinks he has her best interests in mind.
Overcomer wrote:Therefore, what they are doing is killing her by not feeding her. That's not the same as removing life support. Even serial killers who get a death sentence are killed quickly and not starved to death slowly over time. Would you want to watch even a dog starve to death? It's an ugly business and I can't believe that anyone would insist that this be done to a human being.
This is the part of the case that makes me queasy. Allowing her to starve to death is, in my opinion, inhumane and ghastly. If we, as a society, have the fortitude to remove her feeding tube, we should also be able to have the foritude to inject her with something that will allow her to die painlessly. She is not able to feed herself, so her body will go though the horror of dehydration and malnutition.
Overcomer wrote:Also, let's not forget that, whether this woman's body or brain works right, she still has a spirit. For all you and I know, she is communing with the Holy Spirit right now... Certainly the husband doesn't have a clue.
That's lovely. Saying we can never know what's going on with her and then bashing someone for not knowing.

The larger issue here is what does it mean to be alive? Terri's movements on camera appear to show life, but have a random quality that many doctors have said are not conscious behaviors. It's likely that someone with cortex damage would not have what we might call "conscious control" of their motor functions, though the functions themselves are intact. They are the same as reflex actions we all have.

Let me just say that I do not like doctors. I have found the ones I have interacted with to be arrogant bastards. Most of the time they are guessing based on previous experience. I think there has been enough time and trouble taken on this case to have made a correct diagnosis, and also enough individual doctors. If one arrogant bastard says A, I raise an eyebrow at him. But if ten of them do, I guess I have to listen.

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post #10

Post by The Happy Humanist »

concerro wrote:First I am going to say this is not my research or my post so if I dont get credit for it then that is fine, but I beleive the truth is important for any debate so here is what I found.
I don't know what tokens are, but you are getting 200 of mine. Thank you for following one of the most appalling posts in this forum with one that is just the opposite - reasoned, researched, responsible...and right on!

One small request...the links to your sources did not "take." Could you provide them again?
Jim, the Happy Humanist!
===
Any sufficiently advanced worldview will be indistinguishable from sheer arrogance --The Happy Humanist (with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

Post Reply