Posted on 05/02/2005 5:06:09 AM PDT by Quaker
Ping to #665/660.
Correction - Post #655/#660
Oh, and "against their will".........
We don't have proof of Terri's will. As someone mentioned when Terri was 26 and supposedly made that statement, food and water were not considered "medical treatment" so she never - ever - made a decision about food and water.
And, this whole discussion has not been about those who have stated in writing of their wishes - this is about the state using the "claimed" non-written statement of her wishes and with a 50/50% chance of error, erring on the side of death rather than the side of life.
We are not forcing any of the victims to do anything. We are preventing the willful decision by others that they must die (so as not to waste resources, etc, etc., etc.).
It's true that we don't have absolute proof of Terri's wishes, but we do have compelling evidence that she probably would have preferred to live. We have Michael's own testimony in court stating that he wanted to become a nurse to fulfull his oath to Terri that he would take care of her for the rest of his life. Funny how the WPPFF takes Michae's other statements as gospel, but they don't believe any of his testimony in favor of Terri.
Unless the Lord saves him, he'll be in *hell* for murder. Incidentally...much as it goes against the grain, we DO need to pray for him and Mikey and Felos...if anybody needed the truth of God, that unholy trio does.
I'll never understand the hatred that was directed toward Terri.
I do: the American people are so liberal and uncaring for anyone other than themselves that they cannot distinguish decency from murder any more. There are no leaders!
Well, I still don't understand it. Never will.
EternalVigilance::I've said it many times, but I'll say it again: 'Quality of life' is nothing but another name for the slippery slope into barbarism."
Ohioan:
"You have that backwards. In barbaric times, no one cared about the quality of anyone else's life. It was all self-centered. It is only with the increase in enlightenment and the growth of philosophy that we begin to look more closely, and develop more complexity in our values."
Ohioan, ET said that this would cause us to go down the slippery slope into barbarism, you accused him of having it backwards, then you go on to justify and prove what he said. That "In barbaric times, no one cared about the quality of anyone else's life. It was all self-centered."
That's what he is warning about! We don't want to go into barbarism where no one cared about the quality of anyone else's life. That's why we are against what happened to Terri. That path is the path back into barbarism. We don't want it!
You are a very very confused person.
Ooops forgot to ping you to #669.
You find where anyone in the Schiavo case based a decision on that premise. The issue was the other way around. The question was would Mrs. Schiavo want to be kept alive in the condition in which she found herself.
My comment that you take completely out of context, was to question why others--here the protesters--would embrace the culture of living death, when it would have such an effect--that is, to shift priorities so as to interfere with the natural processes of life and death in such a way as to undermine the future. A culture of life, tries to provide for ongoing life, not keep the nearly dead alive against their will.
Let me put the second of those points, the incidental effect of the protesers' demands into a slightly different focus by suggesting this dilemma. What if a flash flood were carrying off both Terry Schiavo and a bright and healthy niece of Terry Schiavo's, and you could only reach one. Which would you save? My point went to priorities, which you seem to totally ignore.
But again, no part of the Schiavo decision was based upon such prioritizing. The object was to determine what Terry would have wanted, and who (between husband and parents) was entitled to speak for her.
You create a false dilemma.
No one else's life was endangered by Terri's feeding tube.
But creating such a false dilemma serves your rhetorical purposes, so you use it.
We don't get to justify killing by a theoretical flood and who do you choose scenario.
Killing Terri was wrong because although we don't like the condition of others, we do not kill them. Also, she was not given comfort treatment, the loving care of her parents and the respect for her rights.
We just do not know that Michael was telling the truth about the "hearsay evidence" and based on that and his actions - they should have erred on the side of life. Because - we now have authorized state murder as a precedent in Florida. To be followed, of course, by more liberal interpretation of the law by those who prefer to rid society of the bedridden.
Terri's obvious will to live throughout several attempts to kill her speaks louder than your words or Michael Schiavo's words can ever do.
Terri was one of those weak ones the scripture talks about...the "weak things that put to shame the 'wisdom' of the 'wise'".
She accomplished more lying in that bed than all of the rest of us healthy folks put together will probably accomplish in a lifetime.
"Will?" Just how do you define Will? No one has suggested that Terri even knew where she was--not even those who contended that some rehabilitation was possible.
I have tried to rely on simply posting a link to my long analysis, but you drive me to post a short section, that deals with where you seem to be coming from:
At the core of the hysteria over a Florida Court's decision that Mrs. Schiavo be allowed to die, is a narrow focus on the abstract concept of human life--accompanied by an almost angry reaction to anyone who would qualify that concept by analysis of the quality of life, or by quantitative calculation of any life's dynamic potential. Any attempt at either, has generally been met with what we cannot but describe as sloganized cant. We are sorry to be so blunt. But consider the actual context, as opposed to the mere words being used. First, a preliminary note; one dose of philosophic reality:
Life and death, in the biological sense, are neither absolutes nor necessarily true opposites. In all of the more advanced forms, any life is a balance and progression of both life and death. Every day, old cells die and new cells are generated. What gives a body personality--what turns it into something more than simply a host mechanism for millions of living cells, of varied types--is the cognitive function.
At the time of what we ordinarily recognize as biological "death," a variety of dynamics take place; a recycling of minerals, which may offend our more refined sensibilities, yet are clearly part of Nature's way. Far more palatable, is the true, ongoing facet of many lives, in their continuing lines of descent. There remain, also, the living memories of those whose lives the decedent has touched, as well as the material and spiritual achievements he may have been able to pass on to his heirs. In neither moral nor rational judgments of life or death, can one ignore the progressive degrees and stages of life itself.
We have quoted the Declaration of Independence as to what appears to be relevant to the legal issues in the Schiavo case. Yet others, asserting it to be authority for their claimed embrasure of a "Culture of Life," have quoted it to justify a fanatic attack on all who have declined to bend the medical and legal analysis in the direction of keeping Terry Schiavo artificially alive. Is such citation of the Declaration rationally related to their argument here, in any meaningful way?
The precise language cited is from Jefferson's observations on the function of Government, preliminary to the list of specific grievances, which justified our separation from Great Britain--i.e., that persuaded us to make the actual legal Declaration of Independence. It is important to note the point, because it is only the concluding legal Declaration that has arguable legal significance in the document; obviously not what Jefferson, Adams and Franklin concurring, set forth as "self-evident." The words applied to Terry Schiavo were those from that frequently quoted clause, referring to the "unalienable rights" of men, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It was argued that as the right to Life was "unalienable," for a Court to cut off her supply of food was tantamount to "murder."
Some of the protesters implied not only a "right to life," but a duty on the part of others to keep Mrs. Schiavo artificially alive--regardless of the wishes of her husband, regardless of any financial burden, regardless even of a Court's determination of her own wishes. Others, at least recognizing that a right to live, did not mandate a duty to live, still avowed that unless the Florida Court was "1,000% certain" that Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted her life support feeding tube removed, they would never have allowed that removal. Few of the protesters ever discussed the, perhaps awkward, question as to who was to pay for the procedures that they advocated.
Now it must be noted that the Jeffersonian "right to life," is no 'stand alone' concept. It was coupled with two other basic rights, the rights to "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness." It was also introduced by the preposition "among," followed by the pronoun "these," referring to other, unspecified, unalienable rights. Most of us can easily recognize that there are other basic attributes to the natural state of man--to which all such Natural Right concepts ultimately refer. Surely, the right of members of any species, to try to provide a safe nurturing to establish their progeny, is a God given right. And from that basic concept, clearly flow rights of inheritance, and the rights to serve one's loved ones. Are all merged in the three named by Jefferson? For many, serving the interests of loved ones is the ultimate pursuit of happiness. But not so for all. For some duty is not merely a joy. Yet the right to pursue a sense of duty--to fulfill responsibilities that spring from one's function and status--remains basic to the human condition.
One can argue, of course, that all other rights are subsumed in "Life," or in "Liberty," or in the "Pursuit of Happiness." Certainly, the Founding Fathers believed that the right to acquire property was subsumed in the latter. Yet Jefferson saw fit to denominate the trio, and it is certainly a good place to start in defining the Natural Rights of Man. And here, it is obvious, that Terry Schiavo had long since ceased to possess more than the shell of "life." Make no mistake, had it been determined to be her wish, and were the funds available, she should certainly have been entitled to expend her funds to hold on to that shell of "life." But she was hardly the best poster girl for any group claiming to champion Natural Rights. Even the most puffed prognosis, from the protesters' favorite activist physician, claiming a possibility for some rehabilitation, never indicated anything beyond the faintest hope that she might be able, someday, to dress herself--a notion absolutely scoffed at by every other medical opinion. No one suggested that she would ever again be able to enjoy liberty; to pursue happiness; much less assume any meaningful degree of responsibility for herself, or for anyone who would have a natural claim on her.
For the full context: Terry Schiavo: An End To Rational Analysis?
He's an actor alright. A bad actor.
You really are ill-informed, aren't you.
Get your news solely from seeBS, William?
He still refuses to spell Terri's name right... which again proves my point that he/she doesn't care. Even if they changed it now it wouldn't make a difference. What an insult.
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.