Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wine

Journal bmetzler's Journal: Starving Children? Most Peaceful Thing They Experience 38

Journal by bmetzler
This blogger is spot on.

From now on when the left bitches about the starving children because of Bush's tax cuts, or the starving people in the sub-Saharan African areas, or the children who are starving because of poverty I will remind them of this fact. Starving to death is peaceful.

[S]tudies show that even patients who can speak and who have chosen to stop eating and drinking generally don't complain of thirst or hunger

Those kids won't suffer. You see, dehydration (the cause of people's hangovers after a couple of hours of dehydration--and those are so wonderful) is not that bad.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Starving Children? Most Peaceful Thing They Experience More

Starving Children? Most Peaceful Thing They Experience

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Comparing the sensation of a dying persons lack of appetite to that of a (relatively) healthy starving child to make a point is childish at best, but I'm leaning more towards moronic.

    • Comparing the sensation of a dying persons lack of appetite to that of a (relatively) healthy starving child to make a point is childish at best, but I'm leaning more towards moronic.

      Michael Schiavo described a cancer patients final stages when he claimed that starvation was a peaceful mode of death. In the final stages of cancer, a patients digestive system will shut down preventing them from received nourishment. They will then slip peacefully into death.

      Michael was correct in describing the process

      • Other people who have been is a state like Terri's

        We can recover from liquified brain now?

      • Do what now? WTF are you on about the "courts don't agree with me"? I never said jack shit about Terry Schiavo. The article referenced speaks of terminally ill patients in the finals stage of life not suffering from lack of nursihment and hydration. The blogger belives that this also applies to starving children. BMetzler agrees apparently. That's what my comment was about.

  • Children have BRAINS.

    Terri Schavio does not. // Libertarian - don't blame me - I voted for Badnarik
    • Terri Schavio does not.

      Actually, Terri does. She just can't use it because she was denied therapy and rehabilition, just like someone who has had a cast on for a while would need therapy and rehabilitation to use their affected limb afterwards.

      • The amount of brainstem that is still entact is not designed for cognition. Using 'therapy' to get that part of her brain to start to process cognitive thought will be about as effective as giving you or anyone therapy to get hair to grow out of their eyeballs. The cells are not hardcoded to do these things. Without some sort of supplimental gene therapy to modify the cells (which we are probably 100+ years away from being mainstream) the parts of her brain that are left are not enough to make a differen

      • Right right, if it were not for her hateful husband she'd be skipping down the street reciting the alphabet backwards.

        I'm sure if she had received threpay her brain would look like this. [unityhc.com]

        Instead, it looks like this. [miami.edu]

        Now I dunno about you, but I find it hard to belive that someone would recover from having half their brain gone.

        But since that seems to be your claim, that "she just can't use it because she was denied therapy and rehabilition", please show me some evidence where a large amount of brain cel

        • I'm sure if she had received threpay her brain would look like this.[normal grayscale CT] Instead, it looks like this.[modified contrast false-color CT]

          Oh dear. It would make a nice change if somebody would try an honest, apples-to-apples comparison there. For that matter, a functional MRI would be a rather better diagnostic measure than any CT...

          Now I dunno about you, but I find it hard to belive that someone would recover from having half their brain gone.

          Half? Your previous post said the whole thin

          • Holy crap, am I the only one in this thread who reads what people post?! Seriously. I had no idea reading comprehension in the U.S was so poor.

            That's three replies so far and not one actually read what I posted but instead attributed something to me that I never said.

            But please, show me which post I made saying her whole brain was gone?

            Are you perhaps referring to This post [slashdot.org] by SiliconJesus. Please note that SiliconJesus and Iamthefallen are two seperate users.

            Wow. Just...wow.

            • Holy crap, am I the only one in this thread who reads what people post?! Seriously. I had no idea reading comprehension in the U.S was so poor.

              No, and I'd be more worried about the manners in the US - although that's probably a lost cause, if Slashdot's anything to go by. As I've mentioned in other posts, though, I'd also worry about the absence of consistency and/or integrity in the pro-death camp, when they wheel out "experts" who exaggerate her brain damage to the point which would constitute actual me

      • They say we use only around 10% of our brain, meaning in theory we could lose about 90% of it and not be impaired at all (as long as it wasn't the main communications line to the rest of the body I guess). So we're talking a minute range in which partial/significant impairment results. Has Terri lost 92%? 95%? Technically we can say that most of her brain is gone, but so what, she doesn't need nor use most of it anyways. Even if she's 98% gone, she could still have 20% of what she actually uses. Maybe that
        • They say we use only around 10% of our brain

          Nobody who would be in the position to know ever said that. It's an age old misquote. We use approximately 10% of our brains at any given time meaning that we use ALL (or almost all - IIRC, it's actually something in the area of 12-20% depending on what you're doing) of our brains, just not all at once. Different regions of the brain control different functions, so unless you're doing everything at once, you're not going to be seeing complete brain activity acro
          • Just a few brief thoughts, for maybe some insight into why I don't see anything here I can work with:

            1) Re: 10% - It is not persuasive to tell someone that what they've heard is wrong and what you're telling them now is right. How do they know? It's important to throw it out there if you're certain you're right about a given issue, but to the listener all they can do is add it as a data point -- it's unrealistic and unwarranted for them to just take someone's word for it.

            2) Re: Doctors - It is not persu

      • Proof please. The only people who say that:

        1) Aren't doctors
        and/or
        2) Didn't examine her
        and/or
        3) Were handpicked by the parents.

        In fact, the only doctor I know of that has even been in her general presence and come to this conclusion (barring the doctors picked by the Schindler's, of course) has been brought under significant scrutiny as an individual who is letting his religious beliefs influence his medical findings AND he didn't actually examine her anyway.

        Sorry. You'll need to provide some sort of pro
  • From what I've learned from the Left during this Schiavo debacle, you could also tell them:
    1. Those starving kids have no real quality of life anyways.
    2. For most there's little hope of things ever getting better.
    3. All the ones receiving aid are artificially having their lives supported, which we've learned is evil.
    4. They're not actually real people, just empty shells of destitution, so...
    5. They're better off dead anyways, and ensuring that they continue to peacefully starve until death is the moral thing to do.
    • That post was disingenious and pointless. I challenge you to defend its merit by citing exact sources, quotes, dates, and times.
      • Of course it was disingenuous, as was Brent's JE it was a comment on. It's called sarcasm -- of course we aren't really for starving kids dying, we were just showing an example of how the Left's "reasoning" can be, as is often case, used against them. Sometimes you are able to show someone who holds a ridiculous position/view how ridiculous it is by applying it to something else. Then again, sometimes this does not even work.

        As to the pointless label, this is an example of only one of the reasons why I re

  • The article says death follows in about three weeks. When there is an earthquake, people buried in air pockets rarely survive longer than a few days, even if they are totally uninjured. It made the news a few years ago when a few people survived longer than a week.

    I thought what killed the buried victims was thirst, not starvation? So where is the three weeks coming in?

  • DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads [latimes.com]

    More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and oxygen equipment, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.

    Then, freshly reelected to a third term in the House, the 41-year-old DeLay waited, all but helpless, for the verdict of doctors. ...

    And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who do

Slashdot Top Deals

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close