Posted on 03/26/2010 6:04:47 PM PDT by mlizzy
There are some things that it is just not appropriate to mock or make satire of. Human life has value and to mock the sanctity of it demonstrates the total deprivation of of the mocker's character. Those who approve of such mockery or dismiss it are no better.
Well said.
Absolutely.
The bit was not about her death or her life, it was about the public hysteria surrounding a tragic, private decision. Some, like myself, don’t believe the public has any business inserting itself into the middle of such things and found the circus surrounding this case to be disgusting-— as the skit demonstrated. A children’s musical fit the reality, from my perspective. It wasn’t to make fun of her, her life, or her death and the prolonging of that process. It was directed at those who made it into a circus and did it with alarming vicious self righteousness that apparently continues today, for some. I don’t think it was very well done or even funny, but the overblown reaction to it is silly.
There are some who believe that society has the obligation to come the the aid of the helpless. There are some who would defend the rights of a third rate TV show over the rights of a human being.
And you disagree?
You are among those who think you know what she would have wanted, even to the point of assuming she was asking for your help when the evidence indicated she was incapable of any thoughts on any subject. The fact is you don’t know and it was up to her family, doctors, and ultimately a judge, to determine her wishes and status. Again, the skit was about a preschool play directed at the circus surrounding the public involvement, not HER, not HER life-— it was about YOU, apparently, and people like YOU. And yes, I would think that way if it involved me. If we can agree on anything, maybe it’s the importance of living wills so individuals can have their wishes known rather than having strangers insert themselves into the most private of decisions?
Dumbest post I’ve seen in weeks.
Then by your reasoning, the *husband* should have just offed her instead of demanding a judge get involved. Besides, it wasn't just the pro-lifers who *inserted* themselves in a private matter. Her own flesh and blood family was fighting to save her life. I didn't hear them complain about the support they got in their efforts. They could have told everyone to back off, that their help wasn't welcome, and they didn't.
Your *Everyone should mind their own business* mentality is typical libertarian pro-death argument. You are not fooling anyone with that weak excuse. We know too well what kind of arguments the deathbots use to defend their position to make it look like they're for *freedom* and liberty when their real agenda is to push the pro-death position without looking like you're really taking it.
You never answered my earlier question so I'll pose it again to give you the opportunity....."If you were tied down and starved and dehydrated to death, I presume then that you wouldn’t object if someone made fun of you and what you went through. Right? I mean, it would be just too funny to watch it, wouldn’t it? And you’d just be having a laugh a minute the whole time you were dying. Right?"
Huh?
Great post.
Her own family was trying to save her life and telling others her wishes.
You’re doing the very thing that you’re condemning in others, that is determining what she wanted only your position would result in her death.
Sorry. Do you believe society has an obligation to assist the helpless?
Yes.
Well, I guess I am defending the right of the show to be stupid and tasteless, because that is their right. Nothing I’ve said indicates I wouldn’t defend the rights of any human being. I’m saying you and I don’t have the right to insert ourselves in matters we know absolutely nothing about. It was a dispute between family and the status of the lady who may or may not have made her wishes known. I don’t know and neither do you, do you? You watch a few news segments and read some advocacy papers and fund raising screeds like this one and decide you know better than those directly involved and tasked with deciding. I don’t share your view. But I won’t accuse you of wanting to torture the poor lady by condemning her to a life of artificially prolonged death as I see it, and because of your view you have no respect for life. I’m sure you do, I just find it misguided in this case as you would mine, apparently.
Of course they have the right to be stupid and tasteless. I don’t think anyone here said they didn’t. We also have the right to condemn them for their callousness. Don’t we?
Perhaps you don’t know much about this case, but there are those of us who do. We believe in the sanctity of life, and are willing to subject ourselves to criticism by those who do not..
What you said.
Where did I say I determined what she wanted? I have no idea and it isn’t for me to say, or yours. The doctors said she was effectively dead. Her husband said he wanted her removed from life support as the LAW provides and as he says would have been her wish which is very believable because I think the vast majority of people would not wish to have our deaths prolonged. Who on Earth do you think should be the ultimate decider in such matters? You are the one claiming omniscience, not me.
If you want to keep ascribing beliefs, motives and thoughts to me that bear no resemblance to reality, I will just stop responding because it’s impossible and pointless to continue.
According to her parents.
The doctors didn’t say she was effectively dead.
I’m not claiming omniscience. You sure are projecting a lot about a lot on this case.
Since you by your own admission don’t know what she wanted, it isn’t for you to say either.
And it’s none of your business either, if people want to stick up for those who can’t speak up for themselves.
********************
You're claiming to know what the "vast majority of people" wish?
You don't know that she was dying. And if you believe the word of the man who put her in the condition she was in, you are more deluded than you even have a clue about.
There's a difference between having a actual death prolonged and the condition she was in.
She was not on *life support* but merely had a feeding tube, something not that uncommon. Withdrawing a feeding tube is not shutting off the life support.
She was also reputed to be able to swallow on her own and no serious attempts at physical therapy or rehabilitation were made.
Her husband wanted her dead and he was able to legally kill her and she and her family had no say in it.
Any society that gets to that point is morally bankrupt and people have an obligation to speak out against that kind of treatment of human beings in order to prevent further moral decay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.