Do you think police went too far when they arrested a boy trying to give Terri Shavo Water?

Who's Terri Shavo?

S H I A V O

Who's Terri Shiavo?

S C H I A V O

Who's Terri Shiavo?

S C H I A V O

Well, he broke the law. And the parents said they were proud of him. Great job! She died anyway, and it's not like he could have really saved her life.

Who or what is Terri Shavo Water??

Really, if you are going to make what is clearly a manipulatively political survey, you should at least spell Terri Schiavo's name correctly--and cite sources that do the same.

Yes, they should have just let it slide.

Slightly. On the other hand, the boy was interfering with the hospice personal. And besides, it's not like it would've done her any good anyway. She was already brain dead, her body was just being kept alive by tubes, and the whole fight over her was just proof that Republicans are full of crap when they say they don't want the government being involved in people's personal family matters.

No joke, I thought it was like a product..Terri Schiavo Water.
I don't know enough information about the boy..
I remember the end of her case though..I was in eighth grade..ah good times.

Yes, the police went too far in arresting the boy. The boy was doing what God would want him to do. Water is a basic need for the body. I think it was barbaric for the medical institution to starve, dehydrate her. I had a patient once that had cancer, was pencil thin, his stomach huge. They starved him of fluids in the hospital. He tried to drink his urine. I gave him water. The poor man died two weeks later. He was probably in his 30's. The AMA is barbaric.

And to think people want this AMA medical institution entrenched even more through Obama's Health care program.

I admire the boy, at least he was man enough to go against the barbaric system. When I worked in a newborn nursery, they were starving a Down's syndrome baby. I told the nurse, the baby needed fluids...I fed the baby. It's all barbaric.

> Yes, the police went too far in arresting the
> boy. The boy was doing what God would want him
> to do.

Poor water on a dead woman in order to provide a photo op for opportunistic Right Wingers?

> Water is a basic need for the body.

A living body, and she was already gone.

> I
> think it was barbaric for the medical institution
> to starve, dehydrate her.

Except that she didn't know it was going on because she was dead.

> I had a patient once
> that had cancer, was pencil thin, his stomach
> huge. They starved him of fluids in the hospital.
> He tried to drink his urine. I gave him water.
> The poor man died two weeks later. He was probably
> in his 30's. The AMA is barbaric.

Where did this happen, Burkina Faso? Your head maybe?

> And to think people want this AMA medical institution
> entrenched even more through Obama's Health care
> program.
>
> I admire the boy, at least he was man enough
> to go against the barbaric system.

Yes, how dare America let soemone who has been dead for some time finally go.

> When I worked
> in a newborn nursery, they were starving a Down's
> syndrome baby.

I doubt this very much.

> I told the nurse, the baby needed
> fluids...I fed the baby. It's all barbaric.

It would be, assuming it were real. As for Terri, she was DEAD! You people took a dead woman and turned her into a political tool, which blew up in your faces in the 2006 mid-terms. It was the kind of abuse of power and government intrusion that you accuse US of trying to do all the time. Yet when we had a real invasion of privacy by the government going on, who was behind it? The Christian Conservatives, that's who.

What, like a thousand years ago?

Who's Terri Shiavo?

S C H I A V O

> Who's Terri Shiavo?
>
> S C H I A V O
>
>

I keep forgetting that C in there.

Oh well, better double check everything next time I try to correct someone.

Yes they did

This happened in our local hospital. The man was dying, and the staff was told to put him on a fluid restriction. Outrageous! Why a fluid restriction, he was dying. I was so angry over the barbaric measure. I could tell you stories that would make you sick, about the suffering of people that need not have happened.

Terri suffered immensely I'm sure. Imagine yourself in her place.

If you don't believe me about the system allowing Down's Syndrome babies to starve to death....ask a nurse or doctor. I saw it being done! The nurse on duty with me, I told her, I can't believe the instructions, thought it was wrong to do, and the nurse agreed, and told me to feed the baby.

How would you like to look at a baby, look at the baby's eyes, and STARVE IT!

> Terri suffered immensely I'm sure. Imagine yourself
> in her place.

They did an autopsy. Her suffering was long over, her body was just being kept around because at first her husband, and then her parents just couldn't let go.

I know a woman who worked in a clinic where they allowed newborns/failed abortion attempts to starve to death in a cold room, and they got on her case for putting blankets on them. She quit that job.

Personally, her husband is a filthy scoundrel. The reason she ended up in her condition is VERY QUESTIONABLE. The woman was aware, and they murdered her.

> This happened in our local hospital. The man was dying, and the staff
> was told to put him on a fluid restriction. Outrageous! Why a fluid
> restriction, he was dying. I was so angry over the barbaric measure.
> I could tell you stories that would make you sick, about the suffering
> of people that need not have happened.
>
> Terri suffered immensely I'm sure. Imagine yourself in her place.

I have told pts before that they can refuse a blood draw, these poor people have only days to live, from cancer, they have no veins left. You get some doctors who refuse to give up and order every blood test they can pull out of their asses, you have to practically torture the poor patient to get the blood. Thats when I tell them that they have a right to refuse. I could get in trouble for that ,but so what. I'm the one who has to see the suffering up close and personal.

> Personally, her husband is a filthy scoundrel. The reason she ended
> up in her condition is VERY QUESTIONABLE. The woman was aware, and
> they murdered her.

I AGREE!!!

Thank you for your input. It sickens me that they couldn't even afford the baby a little warmth at the end of its life.
I worked in a newborn nursery for six years. I thought working in a nursery would be all happy, not true. Of course, most of the time, it was but there were times, I was sickened. I had to watch over a baby that had been aborted, watch consistently, so we could note the time of death. A beautifully formed baby, still with what appeared to be partial plugs in it's nose. I can't remember how old the baby was for certain, but I think I remember 21 or 22 weeks, appeared to be 14 inches, possibly longer. They didn't feed it. The baby was BREATHING well..

I understand how you feel. I, like you, can't stand to see people suffering. I once told a patient some information about a lung herbal formula, and a nurse walked in on me, and I told her, "I guess I'm in trouble". She told me, not to worry, that if what I was saying could help her, for me to continue.. She said, she was changing professions, getting out of nursing, going to be a stewardess. The way she sounded, she wasn't happy with the system...said no more. I think many people in the medical field don't like what happens. Once while working in a hospital, a nurse and doctor got into a tiff over the care of a patient, and needless to say, the nurse was called on the carpet. I think the nurse was right.

> Personally, her husband is a filthy scoundrel.
> The reason she ended up in her condition is
> VERY QUESTIONABLE. The woman was aware, and they
> murdered her.

Once again, you try to win an argument by lying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

After her death, Schiavo's body was taken to the Office of the District 6 Medical Examiner for Pinellas and Pasco counties, based in Largo, Fla. The autopsy occurred on April 1, 2005. It revealed extensive brain damage. The manner of death was certified as "undetermined". The autopsy was led by Chief Medical Examiner Jon R. Thogmartin, M.D. In addition to consultation with a neuropathologist (Stephen J. Nelson, M.D.), Dr. Thogmartin also arranged for specialized cardiac and genetic examinations to be made. The official autopsy report[29] was released on June 15, 2005. In addition to studying Mrs. Schiavo's remains, Thogmartin scoured court, medical and other records and interviewed her family members, doctors and other relevant parties. Examination of Schiavo’s nervous system by neuropathologist Stephen J. Nelson, M.D., revealed extensive injury. The brain itself weighed only 615 g, only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive amount of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."[68]

She was brain dead. Just like all the people who kept saying "She can see!" or "She's still alive." She wasn't. You believe in a soul. Assuming that's true, hers was already wherever with whomever (possibly Jesus) well before her body was allowed to give out.

You are simply wrong. The Right Wrong was wrong during the whole affair. Both Terri's husband and her family held on way longer than they should've, and scumsucking parasites (also known as Republicans) interfered in a private family matter to score political points. Former Rep. House member Tom DeLay described a poor dead woman's body as a gift from god, and Sean Hannity's film crew raised a ruckus around the hospice that caused a young girl to not be able to make it to her grandfather's side before he died.

And that is what you are LJD. When people show you what they are believe them. And your side has shown itself to have no morals, no honesty, and no shame. Oh, and also rank hypocrits. If a Democratic administration had pulled this same garbage, we all know what you would be saying then. You'd be using the same "unGodly, the enemy within" rhetoric. Of course in this instance it was done by people who look like you and share your religious ideology, so it's okay for THEM to trample on people's rights.

The medical field used to be all about helping people, Now hospitals are so top heavy in administration that its all about money now so they can pay for their million dollar homes.Now the big wigs make more money than the doctors. Very sad.

> The Right Wrong was wrong
> during the whole affair.

Did you type it like that on purpose? If not, it's a hilarious mistake.

At the risk of sounding rude Frostbrand, it appears that you speak out of your ass. Until you have worked alongside dying patients, STFU!!

No it wasn't on purpose. Talk about a Freudian slip eh?

> At the risk of sounding rude Frostbrand, it appears
> that you speak out of your ass. Until you have
> worked alongside dying patients, STFU!!

You are confused. Terri Schaivo was DEAD, and the GOP tried to build their 2006 campaign on her corpse. That was disgusting and cynical, and they lied about her physical state, and used her family as political tools. How dare you defend that. How dare you defend a group of people who would violate a family's constitutional rights for the purpose of pumping fluids into a corpse! Fudge you and the retarded horse you rode in on!

> At the risk of sounding rude Frostbrand, it appears
> that you speak out of your ass. Until you have
> worked alongside dying patients, STFU!!

Also, I was quoting the doctors who examined her body you dumb chicken. Not that facts matter to you or LJD in this debate do they?

How do you explain that she reconized her family and smiled at them, or tears came out of her eyes when they left?

Perhaps you should go masturbate kid, let some of that steam out.Let some blood get to your brain then maybe you could think of something more intelligent than "chicken"

> She was brain dead. Just like all the people who kept saying "She
> can see!" or "She's still alive." She wasn't.

Unless I am much mistaken, she wasn't brain dead, she was in a permanent vegetative state. Someone who was brain dead would have been on a ventilator as they would not have been breathing on their own. Someone in a permanent vegetative state is still "alive" because they still have brain stem activity and therefore a heartbeat and independent breathing. They have no (conscious) awareness of their surroundings, but can respond to stimuli (including visual stimuli) and legally and clinically, are "alive", in body if not in mind.

I agree with the decision to remove her feeding tube based on the evidence that I have read. However, have you ever seen someone in a PVS in person? I have, and I can understand why people, especially family members, could be convinced that the patient was aware of their surroundings. It's very easy to persuade yourself that a random movement or a reflex was a real response because we have evolved to look for patterns, especially in human interaction and even more so in the face of someone you love and desperately want to recover.

I believe LJD is mistaken in her beliefs about the case, but so are you. Perhaps you might want to reconsider branding her as a "liar"?

> How do you explain that she reconized her family
> and smiled at them, or tears came out of her eyes
> when they left?

They didn't. That diagnosis was made based on an edited video on the floor of the Senate by a man whose political career was ruined by the diagnosis which was not born out by the autopsy.

> Perhaps you should go masturbate kid, let some
> of that steam out.Let some blood get to your brain
> then maybe you could think of something more intelligent
> than "chicken"

Having my intelligence questioned by someone who is repeating 3 year old debunked myths as fact is like, well, ato heck with an analogy, I don't need one. It's just plain stupid.

> |> She was brain dead. Just like all the people
> who kept saying "She
> |> can see!" or "She's still alive." She wasn't.
>
> Unless I am much mistaken, she wasn't brain dead,
> she was in a permanent vegetative state. Someone
> who was brain dead would have been on a ventilator
> as they would not have been breathing on their
> own. Someone in a permanent vegetative state is
> still "alive" because they still have brain stem
> activity and therefore a heartbeat and independent
> breathing. They have no (conscious) awareness
> of their surroundings, but can respond to stimuli
> (including visual stimuli) and legally and clinically,
> are "alive", in body if not in mind.
>
> I agree with the decision to remove her feeding
> tube based on the evidence that I have read. However,
> have you ever seen someone in a PVS in person?
> I have, and I can understand why people, especially
> family members, could be convinced that the patient
> was aware of their surroundings. It's very easy
> to persuade yourself that a random movement or
> a reflex was a real response because we have evolved
> to look for patterns, especially in human interaction
> and even more so in the face of someone you love
> and desperately want to recover.
>
> I believe LJD is mistaken in her beliefs about
> the case, but so are you. Perhaps you might want
> to reconsider branding her as a "liar"?

She is using talking points that were proven false 3 years ago. Where I grew up people who stubbornly held on to untruths just because the facts didn't conform to their narrow (false) worldview liars when we were being nice, and people who should be shot for the good of the gene pool when we weren't. I'm a bit nicer than most of the people from where I grew up.

Frostie, you are so naive, so young. I suppose you think OJSimpson was innocent of the murder of his wife, and friend. Terri was murdered, just as Nicole.

Yes. Just recently in our paper, it stated that a bigwig at the local hospital was getting a $59,000 raise this year. The administrator already makes almost $900,000 a year. This hospital is supported by our taxes. This has got to stop.

> Frostie, you are so naive, so young. I suppose
> you think OJSimpson was innocent of the murder
> of his wife, and friend.

Ex-wife, and no, he's not innocent. Nice try with the logical fallacy though. As for naieve, which one of us is choosing opinion over fact, feeling over evidence? That would be not me.

> Terri was murdered,
> just as Nicole.

On what do you base this exactly? On what evidence? Oh wait, you're a conservative Christian; you don't need evidence. The Earth is flat, Obama's a Muslim and Teri Schaivo was aware, regardless of what the people who actually know something other than crap they read in a KKK sponsored pamphlet say, right?

Look at the history on Terri, how she got to be the way she was, was QUESTIONABLE. The husband was anxious for her to die, so he selfishly could go on with his life. I ask you why, if he wanted to go on with his life with a new family, WHY didn't he turn Terri over to her family? He wouldn't have had to bother with her anymore. What was he trying to hide? He had already made money on his wife's suffering.....my guess it was over money.

As I pointed out, you were also stating mistruths. Does that make you a liar or simply mistaken?

> Look at the history on Terri, how she got to be
> the way she was, was QUESTIONABLE.

This part is true, but here is still no evidence to support your theory. She was examined when she was first brought in and there were none of the physical indicators of abuse. You are engaging in an act of slander. Tell me, what does the Bible have to say about slander? I bet God does not look kindly on it.

> The husband
> was anxious for her to die, so he selfishly could
> go on with his life.

This is just a flat out lie. He could've let her go YEARS before, but even after re-marrying never quite seemed ready to entirely give up for quite some time. He took care of her after her parents had given up. of course then the Republicans came along and manipulated her parents so suddenly after surrendering care of Terri they wanted it back (all part of your side's evil manipulation of that family).

> I ask you why, if he wanted
> to go on with his life with a new family, WHY
> didn't he turn Terri over to her family?

I already explained this. Her parents had turned care over to him years before.

> He wouldn't
> have had to bother with her anymore. What was
> he trying to hide? He had already made money
> on his wife's suffering.....my guess it was over
> money.

Made money? Oh fudge you! Your side was the one that turned this matter into a circus! Are you really that pathetic that you will openly project your own moral failing and lack of integrity onto a man who was only trying to respect his dead wife's wishes? During a trial in 2000, testimony was heard from witnesses on both sides to establish Schiavo's wishes regarding life support. The court determined that she had made "credible and reliable" statements that she would not want to be "kept alive on a machine," based on expert testimony, finding that Americans do not want to live "with no hope of improvement," and that her condition in a persistent vegetative state had "long since satisfied" the requirement that there be no hope of improvement.

It is to Michael Schaivo's credit that he never sued the Right Wing, especially Fox News, over all the slander. He could fudging OWN Bill O'Reilly by now if he had.

> As I pointed out, you were also stating mistruths.
> Does that make you a liar or simply mistaken?

What mistruths? I cited doctors, she cited her ass. There's no equal ground here.

The mistruths that I explained to you in my previous comment. You incorrectly stated that Terri Schiavo was dead/brain dead before her feeding tube was removed. She was not.

> The mistruths that I explained to you in my previous
> comment. You incorrectly stated that Terri Schiavo
> was dead/brain dead before her feeding tube was
> removed. She was not.

Her body was still going, but she was gone well before the body was finally allowed to go. That's what I said, and the statements from the doctors I posted pretty much backs that up. There was no higher brain function. All these people who were saying "she smiled at her family! she can see!" were proven wrong 3 years ago, but are still at it.

Brian, you're doing that thing again, where you're wrong and you just keep on digging yourself deeper into the hole rather than holding your hands up.

You said: "She was already brain dead...", "...she didn't know it was going on because she was dead...", "As for Terri, she was DEAD!", "She was brain dead.", "Terri Schaivo was DEAD".

The doctor that you quoted (via Wikipedia) said: "...it revealed extensive brain damage...The brain itself weighed only 615 g, only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive amount of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells critical to the functioning of the cortex were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

The autopsy statement that you provided does not state (or even suggest the possibility) that she was dead or brain dead before the feeding tube was removed. Loss of higher functioning is not the same as brain death, and therefore your repeated statements that Terri Schiavo was either dead or brain dead before the feeding tube was removed are mistaken.

> Brian, you're doing that thing again, where you're
> wrong and you just keep on digging yourself deeper
> into the hole rather than holding your hands up.
>

Except I'm not wrong.

>
> You said: "She was already brain dead...", "...she
> didn't know it was going on because she was dead...",
> "As for Terri, she was DEAD!", "She was brain
> dead.", "Terri Schaivo was DEAD".
>
> The doctor that you quoted (via Wikipedia) said:
> "...it revealed extensive brain damage...The brain
> itself weighed only 615 g, only half the weight
> expected for a female of her age, height, and
> weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive
> amount of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed
> extensive damage to nearly all brain regions,
> including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the
> basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum,
> and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes
> in her brain were precisely of the type seen in
> patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest.
> Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal
> neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells
> critical to the functioning of the cortex were
> completely lost. The pattern of damage to the
> cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the
> front of the cortex to the back, is also typical.
> There was marked damage to important relay circuits
> deep in the brain (the thalami) another common
> pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage
> was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible,
> and no amount of therapy or treatment would have
> regenerated the massive loss of neurons."
>
> The autopsy statement that you provided does not
> state (or even suggest the possibility) that
> she was dead or brain dead before the feeding
> tube was removed. Loss of higher functioning is
> not the same as brain death, and therefore your
> repeated statements that Terri Schiavo was either
> dead or brain dead before the feeding tube was
> removed are mistaken.

Really? Hmm, reading it again I do not get the same impression you got. In fact, it would seem to sup[port my assertion that LJD and labjog are talking out their buttsd when they say that she was "aware" and smiled at her family, which is patently false.

> Except I'm not wrong.

> |> You said: "She was already brain dead...", "...she
> |> didn't know it was going on because she was dead...",
> |> "As for Terri, she was DEAD!", "She was brain
> |> dead.", "Terri Schaivo was DEAD".

All of the above quotes were written by you. All of the above quotes are wrong.

> Really? Hmm, reading it again I do not get the same impression you
> got.

It doesn't really come down to what your "impression" is. The article that you chose to quote did not state that Schiavo was brain dead. In fact, it said that the findings were consistent with her being in a permanent vegetative state. If you are brain dead then you are not in a permanent vegetative state. If you are in a permanent vegetative state then you are not brain dead. You made a fundamental mistake by confusing the two, and your stubborness to acknowledge your error makes it appear that you are doing exactly the thing that you accused LJD of doing - holding onto a mistruth because it better serves your worldview.

>In fact, it would seem to sup[port my assertion that LJD and
> labjog are talking out their buttsd when they say that she was "aware"
> and smiled at her family, which is patently false.

That was a separate assertion and not the one that I am calling into question.

Maybe Bill O'Reilly and others knows something you don't know. You are naive Frostie, I'm sorry for you.

> Maybe Bill O'Reilly and others knows something
> you don't know. You are naive Frostie, I'm sorry
> for you.

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

O'Reilly is a liar, and a thug, and it figures you would defend his pathetic, insulting family of 9/11 victims, sexual harrasing ass.

Frosty is kind of funny really, or more like amusing. He backs himself into a corner with his bullcrap and then fights like crazy to get out of it.

This is kinda funny. Frosty is, according to his terms, LYING. Because, nobody can be incorrect - oh no - you must be lying. I wish the filter thing worked on people quoting responses.

Hym, you're arguing with Biggles, who'se working on (if doesn't have it already) her degree in medicine. Something tells me she knows more than you on this. I don't think you're going to win this argument.

I would take your word over LJD who (even admittingly) doesn't know squat about anything, any day. But when Biggles tells you that you're wrong on something relating to medicine, I would take notice.

Oh come on SY. He can cut and paste crap better than anyone here. I don't care what your degree is in, FB can cut and paste until you look stupid. Now... if he actually had to voice his OWN opinion... well... that'd be another matter all together.

I have three years to go before I'm a doctor and am painfully aware of how much I still have to learn. I'm on placement at the moment and spent most of Wednesday trying to not look too stupid whilst being grilled by various doctors. So, I'm used to getting corrected on medical stuff all the time. Still, I don't think you need a medical degree to spot that someone who has a pulse and is breathing independently is alive!

Fudge you and the retarded horse you
> rode in on!

Again you are lying and getting the facts totally screwed up. My horse is very smart.

> Still, I don't think you need a medical
> degree to spot that someone who has a pulse and
> is breathing independently is alive!

I just can't find anything wrong with this argument.

>
> Fudge you and the retarded horse you
> |> rode in on!
>
> Again you are lying and getting the facts totally
> screwed up. My horse is very smart.

Okay, that was funny. "My horse is very smart." Good comeback.

> |> Maybe Bill O'Reilly and others knows something
> |> you don't know. You are naive Frostie, I'm sorry
> |> for you.
>
> You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think
> it means.
>
> O'Reilly is a liar, and a thug, and it figures you would defend his
> pathetic, insulting family of 9/11 victims, sexual harrasing ass.
>

I hate Bill O'Reilly too. He interviewed Richard Dawkins and made a total cock out of himself. Richard was far too intelligent to waste his time with that religous nut.

They should have shot the little twerp.

"Still, I don't think you need a medical degree to spot that someone who has a pulse and is breathing independently is alive!"


Well, yeah, but then again, I once split an ant in two, and both pieces were still moving (and arguably breathing). Would you argue that the ant was still alive?

Now... if he actually had to voice his OWN opinion... well... that'd be another matter all together.


Well, to be fair, he already has made up his mind about it before he went out looking for stuff to confirm what he already knows is true. So its not so much that he doesn't have his own opinion and then copies and pastes others'. Its more like he has an opinion, but not a good way to word it, so he copies and pastes people who already agree with him but worded it better.

Which is ironic since he's an otherwise a pretty good writer.

And that's what makes me suspicious.

> "Still, I don't think you need a medical degree
> to spot that someone who has a pulse and is breathing
> independently is alive!"
>
>
> Well, yeah, but then again, I once split an ant
> in two, and both pieces were still moving (and
> arguably breathing). Would you argue that the
> ant was still alive?

The positive score wasn't for the ant, but for the argument.

> Well, yeah, but then again, I once split an ant in two, and both pieces were still moving (and arguably breathing). Would you argue that the ant was still alive?

Given that ants are insects, there are a number of reasons why cutting them in half wouldn't stop them from moving..

Firstly, ants don't have lungs or breathe through their mouth. Ants have spiracles along the length of their exoskeleton. These supply oxygen directly into their bodies - so it wouldn't suffocate.

Secondly, because of its size and the fact that its circulatory system is not required to carry oxygen around its body, an ant has very low blood pressure. Cut it in half and it wouldn't bleed to death.

Thirdly, ants have a decentralised nervous system. This means that some functions are delegated to nerve clusters outside the brain. Cut an ant in half and the bottom will not only keep moving, but respond to external stimulus (e.g. change direction if it bumps into something).

Human beings have none of these features. The only parallel between Terri Schiavo and your ant, is that they both died of dehydration/starvation.

Wow, you sure do know a lot about ants!