Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/22/05 12:35 AM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: I'd probably be pretty crazy if the goverment killed my kid. Besides, since when do we make decisions about who has the right to live based on who their parents are? What's next? Sending murderers sons and daughters to the electric chair?

The fact is the goverment killed a child because the mother was poor and couldn't pay the medical bills. I'm not no religious republican, but I'm disgusted by this, I'd like to know why there's no disgust from the pro-lifers? Why does a woman that's been brain-dead for 15 years deserve more rights then a 6 month old?

I know this is from the first page, but I haven't delved into this topic with vast misconceptions by the majority of the people yet. This child that was 6 months old had a severe case of dwarfism. This basically meant that all of his appendages, as well as lungs, were very very small. This child could not live, and it was merely mercy for allowing this kid to pass away to a better place. The mother simply could not comprehend this. In order for the state(Texas) to decide what to do medically to a child without the parent's permission it has to go through an entire slew of paperwork, involving numerous doctors AND an ethics commisioner at the hospital. So whether or not the child could survive has been contemplated by numerous amounts of professionals.

For Schiavo's case, it's been in the American back burner of news for the past 15 years, that's why it's a big deal now. As well as that, there are several professionals that wanted further testing on Schiavo to try and rehabilitate her.

Also 40 other hospitals denied her request to take the child, so obviously they felt it would be a lost cause. Are they racist as well?

I agree with BeFell on one point, this is an unpopular case, especially for the main group that would back the woman. The pro-life religious base. and when I say religious, I mean Christian.
The Christian groups aren't going to get on this case because It's just some deranged, son-worshipping heathen. Race, would have little influence. If it had been the child of a church-goin' tambourine-shakin' bible-thumpin' baptist, you best believe that there would be riots in the streets. thats just the way of things; only popular cases have crusades in their name. for example, of all school shootings, which one is almost always brought up and hurled in the faces of the movie and gaming industries?

oh yeah, no offense to pagans or baptists

At 3/22/05 04:20 PM, BeFell wrote: BushWhacker, you seem to have abondoned logic completely in this debate. You claim the child was taken off of life support because the mother was poor even though as many of as have pointed out there is large group of people who felt it was the compassionate thing to do. I personally disagree with them but that doesn't change the fact that they have a halfway valid argument. Compassion was the motivation for the removal from life support, not finances.

BeFell, I think that in cases such as this where the two of us can actually agree on the subject, it should be immediately considered resolved due to overwhelming logic.