Posted on 04/09/2005 3:48:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Top conservative leaders gathered here a week after Terri Schiavo's death to plot a course of action against the nation's courts, but much of their anger was directed at leading Republicans, exposing an emerging crack between the party's leadership and core supporters on the right.
And yesterday they issued an ''action plan" to take their crusade for control of the nation's courts well beyond Senate debates over judicial nominees, pressing Congress to impeach judges and defund courts they consider ''activist" and to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts over some sensitive social matters -- a strategy opposed by many leading Senate Republicans.
''This is not a Democrat- Republican issue; it is a liberal-conservative issue," Rick Scarborough, a Baptist minister and chair of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, sponsor of the gathering, said in an interview. ''It's about a temporal versus eternal value system. We are not going away."
In the charged battle over the future of the nation's courts, conservatives so far are outgunned financially. Last week, liberal groups mounted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign designed to build support for the filibuster and thwart Senate confirmation of nominees they consider extremists who will pursue a ''radical agenda and favor corporate interests over our interests," as one MoveOn.org radio advertisement intoned.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I have to agree. I found myself deeply angered to see my party, which I have supported both electorally and financially for so long, turn against me for a moment of perceived political advantage and demonstrate that they would negate my living will in a heartbeat and send me to the nursing home for endless years of imprisonment.
I admit I still haven't recovered. I haven't worn my "W" baseball cap since he signed the midnight bill to try (ultimately unsuccessfully) to manipulate the case. The MSM may be right; I think Rove may have 'misunderestimated' the depth of the division in the base over this. They need to read FR.
MJA: So, you do not believe in the rule of law, only in some faith that shows absolute disrespect for God .... ....
Your reply goes on for five wordy, frothy paragraphs -- but you failed and neglected to cite that pesky Biblical passage that would support your 'physical life at any cost' position. I'm sure that was just an oversight. It's probably right on the tip of your tongue. Right? Well, right?
Hmmmm. Alright, I'm being mean. I know and you know there's no Biblical support for your position. And since the only basis for moral authority is the Bible, that means -- oops -- no moral support for your position. And no legal support either -- after all, every court that looked at Terri's case, voted in favor of her wishes to be allowed to die.
So, let's see: no support for your moral position and no support for your legal position. I guess it's time for some more name-calling and emotional rhetoric. Isn't there a clue there somewhere that you might -- just might -- be wrong?
Nothing in the Bible? Nothing in the law? That's a problem, friend.
No, that is a misrepresentation. I know that others (perhaps you) claim that if they were in Terri's brainless condition, they would dearly want to be pumped with slurry and diapered for indeterminate years.
All I want is that people like Terri and me, who don't want that, can have our wishes enforced and be allowed to die, no matter what you think, with your non-biblical attachment to physical life. Your bodily shell can be pumped and evacuated in some nursing home for 20 years after your mind is gone, but let us (who want to) die. That's all I ask. And keep the darn politicians out of it.
You're all hung up about hanging on to physical life. I'm not. My wife is already in Heaven and when my mind goes, I want to go too. You can be pumped and diapered until that other place freezes over; stall for time.
___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..
***
National transportation...you mean like...uh...Amtrak? A really successful government operation that is. Bleah! :)
Defense -- yes, I'll agree....and I don't believe there is a desire to abolish ALL government. Government should provide defense. But what I'm talking about is going over that line wherein we abdicate our rights and responsibilities to the government to take care of ourselves and our loved ones.
And by the way, how do you know this philosophy of less government is a "loser with the voters?" The two major parties have never shown a desire to put it to the voters, and parties like the Libertarians either don't get on the ballot or are not permitted to participate in debates. I'm willing to bet that a lot of voters don't even know there are other options out there.
Super did not assemble a 'cost/benefit' analysis.
Strictly speaking, c/b analysis has to do with measurable economic benefits.
There's no 'economic' consideration applicable when measuring the value of life. Similarly, there's no 'economic' consideration of the beauty of a sunset. More accurately, such 'benefit' cannot be measured in monetary terms, despite the wishes of the Singer/Pragmatist crowd.
While I have reservations about the death penalty, your analysis is cockeyed.
Again, we return to the nature and function of the State. In the case of the death penalty, the State has a legitimate purpose in removing those individuals who are a clear and present danger to the citizens of that State. This follows logically from the State's duty to defend its citizens from 'foreign' enemies--i.e., its war-making rights and duties.
Perhaps you notice that these rights and duties are connected by the "defense of LIFE" phrasing--it's not an accident.
In any case, making the assumption that the State has conducted a rigorously fair trial and the penalty is appropriate to the crime (that is, it's not for stealing a loaf of bread,) the State has the right to execute.
YOU claim: "1. Her wishes were that she would have wanted to be ALLOWED to DIE"
There was NO CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, or EVEN ANY EVIDENCE that can be called that, that Terri "didn't want to live like that" and wanted to be killed.
Also, according to your logic, we should just kill everyone right now, to send them to heaven, a better place, and not let them suffer here on earth.
In 1990 Terri needed extensive rehabilitation therapy, which she was able to better receive in the right place -- this was shortly after her collapse.
Since 1998 the parents have been actively trying and begging to be allowed to take Terri home and care for her.
Yes, but economics does not necessarily mean financial or monetary, as you assume. Economics, as a method of analysis, has been applied, quite successfully and importantly, in many non-financial and non-monetary areas, including Judge Posner's remarkable contribution in the 'economics of law' movement. Posner argues that not only human behavior, but law can be understood by the theory of wealth-maximization. This is the philosophy that individuals act in a way that will maximize their benefit (the results of their action) while minimizing cost (energy, time etc. expended in action.)
What Supercat was doing regarding the evaluation of potential treatments is an almost classic example of comparing the measurable benefits of a possible course of action (i.e. giving the medication or treatment) with the measurable costs of such a course of action (i.e. the detrimental effects of such a course of action). It is a useful way to make decisions and we all do it everyday.
As Supercat points out that is how we make decisions on continued treatment in cases of what we generally term "terminal illness." What I was refining with Supercat was the fact that he had not defined "terminal condition" as he contended, but had provided a sound recitation of the evaluative process of a proposed course of treatment.
Really? No doubt about it?
Tell us about the last judicial decision that had a direct impact on your life.
Given that, there is still a very significant difference between the Terri Schiavo situation and the hypothetical which Super suggested--that is, a patient in extremis.
Schiavo's very life was NOT in danger, nor were her body-support systems failing (almost one and the same...)
Instead, Schiavo's higher-level functions were impaired.
While c/b analysis (your definition) may well be applied to Super's example, it is illicit to propose such for Schiavo and those in similar circumstances.
Accepting the liceity of your method is simply not justifiable under Judaeo-Christian moral theology; read the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah or if you prefer, refer to the Passion of Christ.
You may choose not to accept Catholic teaching on the issue (although it seems that a VAST majority of Americans do, based on the poll taken with non-leading/non-inferential questions...) but you still emulate Christ, no?
The cost/benefit analysis (which Supercat accurately summarized in deciding whether to administer a medical treatment) is merely a useful analytical tool which can be applied to reach most any decision.
Now, you contend here that the use of such a decision-making tool is "illicit" for "Schiavo and those in similar circumstances" apparently for a priori reasons. [Based on your attempt later in your post to defend RCC dogmas, I suspect the identity of the a priori culprit.] Be that as it may, you should agree that the "illicitness" of the use of the decision-making tool (or simply making the decision by any means) is only as good as the a priori justification for ruling it out.
If so, we have an important point of agreement. Basically, you (and many others here) would argue that "we cannot employ cost-benefit decision-making tools -- or even make the decision at all -- in life-ending decisions because such is proscribed a priori by [inserting the a priori basis for the disqualification here]." The strength of that statement is entirely dependent on the strength of the a priori basis asserted.
Now I understand Supercat to have argued that such is permissible if the subject is in a (as yet undefined) "terminal condition," but not otherwise. I understand those adhering to RCC dogmas to argue that it is not only the condition of the subject which restricts the decision but also the means employed to effectuate the decision (i.e. withholding medicine is OK, but withholding food is not). I would argue that neither restriction is morally tenable under a Biblical standard. [Possibly, our difference is traceable to the fact that I do not accept man-made authority, either the medical establishment's formulations (in Supercat's case) or the the RCC's formulations (in your case) as a basis for moral decisions. I would, of course, accept the authority of Scripture, but as we shall see, that does not help your arguments.
But, regardless of the position taken, if we are to judge the strength of the moral position asserted, we must test the strength of the moral basis of the restriction asserted. Here is where the thinking of those who would restrict the decision becomes fuzzy. For example.
Accepting the liceity [did you mean "licitness"?] of your method is simply not justifiable under Judaeo-Christian moral theology; read the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah or if you prefer, refer to the Passion of Christ.
A truly innovative Scriptural citation to attempt to support your argument. The Isaiah 53 passage foretells of the volitional death of Christ for our sins and, of course, the Scriptural accounts of the volitional death of Christ and His resurrection (Mt 27:32 ff.; Mk 15:21 ff.; Lk 23:26 ff.; Jn 19:17 ff.) are the historical accounts of the same event.
In one sense, there is little similarity to us and our issues of suffering: Christ was not suffering because of the affliction of evil for no purpose at all, rather He was choosing to suffer to take on and discharge thereby the sins of the world. Our suffering is much different. Although we occasionally suffer the repercussions of our own sins, we never suffer to discharge the sins of others.
On the other hand, though, Christ does teach us a useful lesson as He engages in His own "cost/benefit" analysis in the Garden of Gethsemane. His prayer, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will" reflects that "cost/benefit" analysis. Basically, His conclusion was: If this forthcoming death is attributable to anything short of Your specific will to discharge the sins of the world, then I want to avoid it. So, basically, His prayer is: Let me avoid it, unless it is necessary to your will in accomplishing the salvation of the world.
While this has nothing to with "Schiavo and those in similar circumstances" because they are (clearly) not suffering to save the world, it does show that Christ did not shrink from volitional decision-making regarding the end of His physical life on earth; indeed, He calculated quite carefully what "benefits" (achieving the salvation of the world) would justify the "cost" (the end of His life in a most painful way) and determined that any benefit short of achieving the salvation of the world was insufficient to the cost.
So, while the substance of Christ's decision was world's apart from "Schiavo and those in similar circumstances" and teaches us nothing in that regard, His very act of decision-making in communication with His Father may show us the permissibility, indeed the necessity, of making those life-ending analyses and decisions. [I say "may", because I suspect that having now seen the import of these passages, you will shift gears and argue that they are of no guidance to us on this issue, because Christ was divine and we are not. Indeed, the best that can be said (from your standpoint) is that these passages have nothing to say to us on this issue.] But they may say much more.
Christ's decision was to obey the Will of His Father; it was in no way, shape or form a "c/b analysis."
You err in stating that '[one] does not suffer for the sins of others.' In fact, suffering 'for the sins of others' occurs regularly--witness the parental anguish over a wayward child. You would defend your statement by arguing that 'such suffering does not effect remission of the child's sin,'--true. However, it MAY relieve the purgatorial suffering of that child. Of course, I don't know how Purgatory figures into your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
The "a priori" injunction against simple--it's contained in the 5th Commandment. Under the commonly-accepted interpretation of the 5th, neither you nor I have the authority to actively end a life (whether it is your own, or mine, or Schiavo's.) Clearly, this is reflected in the onerous jurisprudential requirements for capital punishment to be applied.
Note that "actively ending" is FAR different from "passively allowing" a death to occur--the circumstances which Supercat outlined in his "in extremis" scenario.
You may, somehow, find a Biblical passage which gives you the authority to end your own, or another's, life. You will be the first, aside from Peter Singer and some of his predecessors (Nietzsche among those.) Few traditional Jews or Christians have followed the path of N. or S.
I've been involved in a case for the last six years that has had an enormous impact on my life. And it still isn't over. How about you?
But the question I asked was about a judicial decision.
Has the judge in your case done anything that would put him/her into the ranks of "number one enemy?"
I wold say so. So have lots of other judges.
That's "would."
Could you describe it?
You misquote me. What I said was, "Although we occasionally suffer the repercussions of our own sins, we never suffer to discharge the sins of others." We do sometimes suffer from the sins of others (i.e. people injured by drunk drivers) but we never suffer for the sins of others. Christ did.
[Suffering] MAY relieve the purgatorial suffering of that child. Of course, I don't know how Purgatory figures into your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Obviously, it doesn't, since 'purgatory' doesn't exist in Scripture. The RCC is an accretionist church (as are the Mormons) where additional doctrines can be (and have been) added to Scripture. 'Purgatory' is one which the RCC has added to its array. It is not found in Scripture.
The "a priori" injunction against simple--it's contained in the 5th Commandment. Under the commonly-accepted interpretation of the 5th, neither you nor I have the authority to actively end a life...
The 5th commandment reads, "You shall not murder." (Ex 20:13). It doesn't say "you shall not actively end a life." For that matter, it doesn't say "you shall not passively end a life" or "you shall not negligently end a life." (Although other passages do deal with negligent homicide.) It says simply, "You shall not murder." Now the "commonly-accepted interpretation" which you reference may be some RCC dogma, but it is not "commonly accepted" by anyone else.
Note that "actively ending" is FAR different from "passively allowing" a death to occur--the circumstances which Supercat outlined in his "in extremis" scenario.
No, once Supercat engages in his cost/benefit analysis and determines to withhold the treatment, medicine, etc, then death 'passively' ensues. But the withholding is an active decision, only the result is passive. As with Terri, the withholding of hydration was active, and the resulting death was passive.
Now RCC adherents attempt to distinguish treatment or medication from hydration, but the result is equally passive. You can imagine the mental pretzels involved in trying to find a Biblical distinction between treatment or medication on the one hand and hydration on the other. There is none.
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.