Originally posted by Davo:
Kremit and all people who do not believe this is a public/political issue need to read it (here).


I understand his point. I happen to consider it excessively paranoid, alarmist, and oppressive.

IMO relating artificial life support to the civil rights movement is ridiculously over-simplistic, and, frankly, if I was Rosa Parks or anyone else who was involved with the movement I'd resent the comparison. Terri couldn't enjoy any of her "civil rights" if she wanted to (except of course for the abstract "right to life," if "life" even applies in this situation).

If Thomas' concept of "keeping everyone alive" was in effect, the civil rights of anyone who doesn't want excessive artificial life support used on them would be violated. Right now, we have the choice to be kept alive or not. Thomas advocates eliminating that choice, even for people who have a different set of beliefs in that area. What makes his beliefs so much better than mine that he should be able to eliminate my choices?

In the end, each life support decision is a personal matter. Applying a blanket requirement to it completely oversteps the boundaries of equal protection/due process/whatever other amendment or line in the Constitution one wants to invoke. The civil rights movement was a different animal because it applied to an entire group of US citizens who were living, breathing, functional members of society with an entire life ahead of them, who were able to make their own choices.

Plus, and most importantly, Thomas has the stereotypical middle-aged closet queen moustache

E0 #36 '95 Ranger '82 Honda CX500