Libertarians..."Hey, as long as it's legal..go for it."
Posted on 04/09/2005 3:48:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
I agree wholeheartedly. The courts have to be involved because in our litigious society one set of kooky parents could have frustrated Terri's wishes and her husband's willingness to implement them -- and darn near did.
People who wonder about the 'passion' of those trying to help Terri get her wish, misunderstand our worry the panderers in Congress, once having tasted 'success', might try to upset our wishes as well. Until the Governor of Florida, the President and the Congress got involved, I really didn't care about the case. I figured the dispute between the husband and the parents would get resolved fairly. But when the parents, having lost in every court they tried, then played the political card, that was too much. So, I agree with you -- although I'm a Republican, not a Libertarian.
"I need not await some affirmative grant of a right from a king or government to have such a right."
Yes you do. You must wait until GOD says it is your time to die.
"I have the right to end my physical life when I see fit. Seems kinda elemental, doesn't it?"
Suicidal is the correct term for this.
The purpose of food and water is to maintain an adequate nutritional and hydrational state. They are contraindicated when, and only when, they are not useful for this purpose.
For example, if a person is suffering from renal failure, their body will not be able to get rid of excess water. Giving too much water to such a person will cause overhydration which can be just as fatal as dehydration (or, for that matter, anything else that's fatal). In such a patient, hydration may be contraindicated because it would kill them faster and more painfully than non-hydration.
Dehydration causes severe discomfort and, if nothing is done to control it, death. Giving someone water to someone who would otherwise dehydrate is both life-prolonging and pallative. As such, it is clearly indicated. Giving water to a renal-failure patient who is already on the verge of overhydration is neither life-prolonging nor pallative. As such, it is contraindicated.
How is it inconsistent to say that people have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unless they forfeit them by their own criminal actions? Why should we allow for people's criminal actions to justify forfeiture of their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not their right to life?
It seems to me far more inconsistent to say that murderers need to have their right to life protected but innocent people do not.
And, apart from RCC dogmas, your problem would be?
Just cite me to the applicable Biblical passage that supports your view.
Care to try to parse your way around the problems with your "terminal" exception as discussed in my #275?
Sure. I would describe a terminal condition as one in which (1) the only measures that would increase the patient's lifespan would impair the patient's quality of life for whatever lifespan remains, and (2) the projected increase in lifespan would not be very great in any event.
For example, a cancer patient may decide that continued chemotherapy would be unlikely to cure his cancer, and that he would rather live a somewhat pleasant existence for the remainder of his days than be completely bedridden by chemo, even if the latter course of action might allow him to live a few weeks longer.
Are you seriously going to suggest that the days from March 18 to March 30 were more pleasant for Terri than they would have been if she'd been allowed into the care of parents who would feed her and take care of her? If not, it seems Michael et al. haven't traded quality of life for duration, but have deliberately reduced both.
No, but certainly no less pleasant. AND, the days from March 30 forward have been much, MUCH better than they would have been had the goofy parents been allowed to imprison her longer. She wasn't allowed to die because there was no one who would 'care' for her during further imprisonment against her wishes, but because it would have been just that -- against her wishes.
The test wasn't -- and shouldn't be -- what the parents wanted (or what Michael wanted for that matter) -- but what Terri wanted. And the evidence was overwhelming that she wanted to die -- difficult as that might be for you to accept. Perhaps, because I would definitely, positively, absolutely share the same view for myself, her wishes seem quite rational and appropriate to me.
Why don't you drive yourself into a bridge embankment at 100mph with no seatbelt and then your "life" forevermore will be much better too?
If you oppose the death penalty, that is your prerogative. Some religious foundational documents (e.g. the Old Testament and the Quran) explicitly require the death penalty for certain crimes, but some religious foundational documents forbid it. Certainly sound arguments can be made either way.
I fail to see, however, how that makes conservatives hypocritical when they say that innocent life is what deserves protection. Even if you feel that murderers deserve to live too, that doesn't mean the pro-innocent-life viewpoint is hypocritical.
What puzzles me more is how someone who is worried about government power is willing to give a probate judge unchecked authority to order someone put to death without any accusation of a crime and any representation in most of the court proceedings pertaining to her. Perhaps you can explain how unchecked judicial power is a good thing.
Your alleged wishes have nothing to do with Terri's wishes. The evidence was overwhelming that Terri wanted to live. Your desire for her to die, and your claim that you would want to die, have no bearing on the facts.
every time the goverment becomes involved in these or any other matters, it makes people more and more dependent on the government to solve everything. We are supposed to be adults...we are supposed to be responsible...we should not need the goverment telling us what we should and shouldn't do in every situation.
___This is knee-jerk anti-government rhetoric and a loser with the voters. Some things---like national defense or
the national transportation---are netter handled on a large scale..some are better handled locally...what matters is EFFECTIVENESS, not ideological purity..
There are a lot, I repeat A LOT of conservative, Christian, Republicans who do NOT like the idea of Congress meddling and creating laws to avert pain and suffering which is a natural part of life.
I also do not want Congress to pass laws telling me that I (or my loved ones) HAVE to accept a feeding tube, or any other life extending or life sustaining process IF I do not want it, or if my family member wouldn't have wanted it, with or without prior written declaration.
You are so wrong: "wanted Terri dead."
That is NOT what the discussion was.
That you thought it was, is very illuminating.
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.