Jim wrote:
> Regardless of what did happen, it is a gross distortion of
> Stephen to suggest
> that the religious authorities (who are you talking about here?) were
> unanimous in CONCLUDING THAT BOTH SHOULD DIE. Where the heck do
> you get off making such a statement?
The decision that it would violate their religious principles to
deliberately end the life of one of the children to prevent BOTH from
certain death *IS* a decision that both children should die--there's
simply no other way you can interpret it.
> Unless you can provide a statement that clearly indicates
> these religious
> authorities all took a vote that very clearly stated "both
> kids should die," I
> would suggest you revise your statement.
The people involved made a _choice_ to allow two children to die
because their religion forbade them from deliberately taking ONE of the
lives--essentially, the same decision that would require the RC Church
to oppose the abortion of a woman who is only three months pregnant and
will die without it or to oppose the removal of life support from a
person who had no chance of ever regaining consciousness (and don't use
the cop-out "a miracle could happen" unless you can provide documented
scientific evidence of miracles that HAVE happened) and who may be in
intolerable pain!
If those are examples of "good," I think I'll opt-out for
"evil." It's more moral.
Rick
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the
love you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
