BlackShanglan
Silver-Tongued Papist
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 16,888
Colleen Thomas said:My point shang, is not that life is or isn't sacred. My point is, when it comes to my mother and father, I want the decision on what's best for them to be made by myself and my brothers, not by religious fanatics. If my loved one has zero brain function and is being kept alive by a respiratior, I want to decision on whether or not to end that to be made by myself, and my brothers, those who knew her and knew what she wanted.
I don't want a bunch of zealots able to file suit again and again, pushing it along until it reaches the federal level where a Bush appointee will decide. And that's what this law will be opening the way for.
My objection has nothing to do with Teri Schiavo. It has everything to do with the GOP using this tragedy to extend the scope of their power and to use that increased scope to push a religious/moral doctrine up on us all. At present, the state's have final say over medical decisions, the fed has never been the final arbiter. This law, if adopted, will set the precedent that the Fed does exercise final say in medical matters.
If the government were not in bed with people who wish to dictate to me how I live my life, it might not provoke such a strong reaction. But they are, and it does. People will be so happy teri's feeding tube is back, not realizing they just lost their ability to determine the outcome in thier own cases and those of their loved ones. Death with dignity laws will be gone. Because the final arbiter is now the federal government and not the states. The only thing that kept Ashcroft from circumventing Oregon's law was a federal court decision that the fed could not press the states on medical matters. This law sets the precedent that the fed can in fact, dictate medical law to the states.
Should it pass, your reasoned position on the sanctity oflife, where it ends, and when it has become more of a burden than a blessing won't matter. You will get your decision on the sanctity of life from the king james version. Thou shalt not kill. The hideous, unremitting pain of terminal cancer? Thou shalt not kill. Brain dead, but kept alive by a respirator? Thou shalt not kill. Abotrion? Thou shalt not kill. Morning after pill? Thou shalt not kill. Condoms, the pill? Thou shalt not kill, even if it isn't concieved yet, thou shalt not kill the possibility of life.
Absitnace baby, for everybody. And if you can't keep your pecker in your pants? And she gets pregnant? Well, it's what the trollop deserves.
I don't want my morality decided by someone else. I don't want my religion to come to me by government fiat. I don't want the legislative branch to feel free to pass laws to "correct" judicial decisions they don't like.
I want some sanity and respect for the rights of individuals to make decisions that effect their own lives. While I'm at it, I want a pony. What's killing me is I have a better chance at geting the later than the former.
Hmmm. I think that you have some fair points there. On the other hand, in some cases I think you're making unsupported claims. I don't actually recall anything in the King James Bible that defines what life is, so there we are back to the two questions - "Is life sacred?" vs. "What is life?" You assume that no one on the other side of this debate sees any gray areas in the definition of life, and I think that unreasonable. You've painted a very narrow-minded and extremist view of those who disagree with you. Some people, no doubt, feel that way - just as there are, indeed, those who already argue for the euthanasia of the incurably ill and the permanently physically or mentally disabled. I don't believe that either set of extremists fairly reflects the opinions of the majority of reasonable people somewhere in the middle, and would say that it's less argument than villification to ascribe to them comments like "And if you can't keep your pecker in your pants? And she gets pregnant? Well, it's what the trollop deserves." I don't believe that that sort of comment contributes to a reasoned examination of the questions involved.
I don't have the text of the law that our representatives are passing, and I think that that bears heavily on the case. What precisely is the law forbidding - general removal of feeding tubes from anyone in that position? Or is it some sort of emergency injunction just for this case? My gut instinct is that this whole case would be a non-issue if the parents were not involved. That is, rightly or wrongly, I think that some people have developed the belief that Ms. Schiavo might not be being fairly represented by her husband, and that her parents might have her interests more at heart.
I don't make any judgement on that; I don't know any of them and have no way of guessing at their motivations. I will say this, however: what if it was true? Wouldn't it be right to do something about it? How else would one act on that, given the hypothetical case in which it was true, or that at some point it is almost certain to be true of someone? I think that from the perspective of those support Ms. Schiavo's continued feeding, the law might appear to be almost precisely the monster it appears to you from the opposite point of view. That is, they may view it as supporting a man acting on his own, against the wishes of Ms. Schiavo's parents and without any clear indication that this was ever what Ms. Schiavo wanted. In that case, wouldn't they be just as likely as you to perceive the law as a cruel and inappropriate intrusion into Ms. Schiavo's life and an abrogation of her individual rights?
Shanglan