The Right To Kill
Is there a right to kill now in America? The courts seem to think so, and so do most liberals and of course leftists (where would they be without the right to kill?).
Step back from all the legal wrangling and what you have is this: A young woman's parents and millions of Americans want to keep Terri Schiavo alive (and would obviously foot the costs of keeping her alive). Her husband wants her dead. Supporting her husband are people who are against the death penalty for murderers and against torture for terrorists.
This woman committed no crime and yet the "compassionate" crowd wants her to be starved to death. This is one I can explain but I really don't get.
127 Comments:
I think the wrong questions are being asked.
Is the FLA law a product of another
era ? In an era where 50% of all marriages end in divorce is this law relevant. Can we assume a husband will look out for his wife's best intrests Should children and kin have a say in the
process. I would be asking this if the roles were reversed.
Who determines what is quality of life ? Are Alzhiemers patients next
and then what ? Isn't a society judged on how it treats its disabled.
I would want that plug pulled if it were me. However if someone tried to usurp a family choice you
might be sorry.
What is going on here?
The issue decided by the court was not “Does a husband have the right to kill his wife?” The issue was “What did Terri Schiavo want to do if she were brain dead and kept alive by doctors?”
Now you can argue about what she wanted, you can argue about whether the testimony of relatives regarding Terri's wishes should be admitted, you can argue about whether she is actually brain dead, you can argue about whether she made the right choice, you can even argue about whether the law should be repealed. But no one except a demagoguing ideologue can argue that this is about state sanctioned executions of the “unfit” or the “unloved”.
There are no statements in any court documents regarding things like “compelling state interest” in her death or “spousal rights” to kill, there are only arguments about what Terri wanted and what her actual condition was.
Claiming that it must be wrong to remove the feeding tube because the despicable George Soros favors it is as stupid as arguing that the tube should be removed because the equally despicable Ralph Nader wants it kept in. It is not their choice, it is Terri's.
It is not a question of who is morally superior, it is not a question of how many people want the feeding tube reinserted, it is not a question of executing the innocent, it is a legal question of fact and law. Every single court, without exception, has ruled that the facts and the law are clear: 1) Terri did not want to live if she were brain dead and (2) Terri is brain dead.
If there is someone who doesn't get it, it is me. I don't get how Horowitz, whose “Unholy Alliance”is such an extraordinarily insightful book on the Left/Islamofascist marriage, can fail to see that this is not about the judicial murder of the innocent.
This is a test of the integrity of MOONBAT Central -
In answer to my post on the thread "Soros and Schiavo" Richard Poe, the author of the thread responded:
Mr. Meyer, if you want to argue for the moral equivalence of those who seek to murder Mrs. Schiavo and those who are trying to save her, feel free, but you must do it elsewhere.
I will permit no further posting from you on this thread. Please go.
Everyone is invited to read the posts on the site and then express their appreciation for Poe's gallant and courageous act in the defense of his beliefs.
Don't misunderstand, this is Poe's thread and he can allow or disallow anyone he chooses. However, those choices reflect aspects of the religious right that need to be better known.
Horowitz - Is this how the Academic Freedom is supposed to be implemented on MOONBAT Central?
(Yes, David, I know that Poe is your friend and I don't expect you to condemn him, but that doesn't mean the question is illegitimate.)
Bob Meyer:
I'm under the impression that Moonbat Central is a "bring your own integrity" kind of place. No free handouts.
Beamish:
I honestly don't understand your comment. Either there are arguments that are not to be allowed in public (heresy) or there aren't. The question of integrity is basically this:
Can an organization fight for academic freedom by demanding that no one be fired for their political views and simultaneously censor a whole class of arguments?
As you are well aware I never used the moral equivalence argument which is essentially "both sides are equally evil therefore ignore their views" (bilateral ad hominem).
I said that both sides want to deprive individuals of the same choice but in different directions.
By the way, I would remove you from the "No" column and add a third column for "Abstention" but, for obvious reasons, I can't now.
This post has been removed by the author.
Why is it wrong for heresay evidence not to be used in some cases except this one?
Why is it wrong to review new evidence if it means new technology can be used to rehabilitate her?
Why is it wrong for the parents to take care of her since they have expressed this instead of the husband (is he really her husband since he has consummated a relationship with another woman? a bigomist?)?
Why is it wrong to err on the side of life?
Death is forever. Life is just a short time . . . even for the disabled.
According to the consitution; judges are supposed to be checked and balanced by the Congress, our elected representatives.
In this case, a judge was used to issue this verdict because people are being inconvenienced.
Bob Meyer said:
"As you are well aware I never used the moral equivalence argument which is essentially "both sides are equally evil therefore ignore their views" (bilateral ad hominem)."
No, I am not "well aware" of this.
"I said that both sides want to deprive individuals of the same choice but in different directions."
Which is a moral equivalence argument.
According to at least one poll, most Americans agree with the courts.
And George W Bush signed a bill, as governor, that allows hospitals to pull the plug on patients.
This issue isn't nearly as cut and dry as we'd all care to make it. Terri isn't being executed - she's already dead. Her brain is soup. Let it end.
Oh, and I'm favor of the death penalty and all for capping terrorists, as long we're 100% sure the prisoners are guilty as charged.
"Horowitz - Is this how the Academic Freedom is supposed to be implemented on MOONBAT Central?"
Well, this is a private site. If they're footing the bill, then they can boot, ban and delete anything they want to.
So it's not an issue of 'freedom,' as we really don't have any, here.
And expecting the walking of the talk is, it would seem, equally futile.
J
I'd say Horowitz has his work cut out for him if trolls are confusing comment boards for the classroom.
What part of
Don't misunderstand, this is Poe's thread and he can allow or disallow anyone he chooses.
can be interpreted to mean the Poe was not acting within his rights? Or that MOONBAT Central cannot operate under any rules that it chooses?
The issue is one of moral cowardice, the unwillingness to allow one with whom you disagree to speak.
If you defend academic freedom on the grounds that the marketplace of ideas can sort out the wheat from the chaff then silencing your opposition questions your committment to those principles.
I did not challenge Horowitz because I think he is a hypocrite, I know that he isn't. After he excoriated Ward Churchill for his views Horowitz then stated that the University of Colorado has no right to fire Churchill for those views. That is the meaning of academic freedom.
Is there a difference between a blog and a college? Of course, but at a time when those of us who believe in the Academic Bill of Rights are being attacked for wanting to censor certain viewpoints does it make sense to lock someone out of a debate?
Bob Meyer:
Your moral equivalencing "Nazi" vs. "Nazi" in respect to right-to-lifers and left-to-killers was a faulty premise, which you followed with a poll question presumably to locate what kind of "Nazi" posters here are.
I have hearsay evidence that says that you would have liked to have be banned when you're making a fool of yourself on an internet forum.
And you object. How odd.
Beamish:
Moral Equivalence: In the sense that you mean it you are correct, I do equate the two groups on the grounds that they both subscribe to the principle that the individual should not make life and death decisions regarding himself.
It means that they are intellectually in agreement, not that they are equally evil as individuals which is what I thought Poe meant.
I had not evaluated the relative moral status of the two groups only that they agreed on a particular idea without knowing it.
Note how loudly "Bob Meyer" is squealing that his petty "right" to speak on comment board has been violated. Note that his being banned from Mr. Poe's thread has not deprived him of life.
Squealing like a stuck pig over his petty right to speak on a comment board while not having a shred of indignation about a helpless woman being starved to death -- ugh! who needs to hear from the gross, selfish, lunatic vacuous likes of that?
"Squealing like a stuck pig over his petty right to speak on a comment board while not having a shred of indignation about a helpless woman being starved to death -- ugh! who needs to hear from the gross, selfish, lunatic vacuous likes of that?"
It's in accordance with her wishes, according to the courts.
And since her cerebral cortex is soup, she's not really conscious of any pain, either.
J
Beamish:
Anyone who read the question knows that it wasn't a poll to determine what kind of Nazi is reading the blog.
I said that both sides subscribed to the same principle - that the individual does not own his life. The question was asked to separate the "Nazis" from those who believe in individual rights.
The question that I asked was:
Do you support the idea that an individual owns his own life and that only he or she should decide when that life should be terminated? Yes or No?
You, afraid that "No" would firmly plant you in the Nazi column and that "Yes" would go against your religious beliefs, refused to answer. That is actually to your credit Beamish, it means that you understand that ideas have consequences.
So far, as near as I can gather, absolutely no one on either blog has been willing to answer that question.
Mr. Horowitz
One trend that bears watching from this tragedy is that it is softening up the public into the acceptance of legalizing mercy killing. The public is rightfully agonized over Terri's death by starvation, but that compassion is misleading many to advocate that it would have been better to give her a lethal injection -- that she should have been put down like a criminal or a dog.
I am personally opposed to mercy killing. What is the difference between "mercy killing" by lethal injection and "capital punishment" by lethal injection"? None. In other words, "mercy killing" represents a starkly immoral moral equivalence between good (killing the actively evil) and evil (killing the helpless and innocent).
Michael Schiavo's lawyer, Greer, members of the hospice board, and Dr. Cranford are all actively biased death rights people. Terri is their poster girl, being used by them to manipulate the public into accepting the legalization of mercy killing because death starvation is just too cruel.
Some interesting reading here:
http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2005_03_20.html#004121
"Squealing like a stuck pig?"
Do not confuse what you would like to see done to me with what happened.
Terri Schiavo is dead, and has been for nearly fifteen years. On behalf of a brain dead individual Ann Coulter would have Jeb Bush call out the National Guard and seize Terri's body. Presumably, if the police resisted they should be killed.
Is destroying the living on behalf of the dead your idea of morality too?
I'll bite:
Do you support the idea that an individual owns his own life and that only he or she should decide when that life should be terminated? Yes or No?
Yes, the individual owns his/her own life. But in a case like this, where the individual is incapable of answering the question, and left no specific instructions, we have to go with what the next of kin says.
I don't know whether that's 'no,' 'yes,' 'maybe' or 'baboon,' though.
J
>It's in accordance with her wishes, according to the courts.
And the courts were too scared, dishonest, partial or cowardly to look at the situation with fresh eyes. After all, it would be hurtful to the justice system to have to acknowledge that Terri's so-called wishes were based on hearsay evidence from an individual who has, to say the least, a conflict of interest. Plus the evidence that Terri is brain-dead -- to insist that she is a species of brain death in itself.
The law may have succeeded but justice has failed.
"On behalf of a brain dead individual Ann Coulter would have Jeb Bush call out the National Guard and seize Terri's body. Presumably, if the police resisted they should be killed."
That'll teach 'em not to read her column! >: D
J
"After all, it would be hurtful to the justice system to have to acknowledge that Terri's so-called wishes were based on hearsay evidence from an individual who has, to say the least, a conflict of interest."
What conflict would that be?
"Plus the evidence that Terri is brain-dead -- to insist that she is a species of brain death in itself."
Anywhere from 100% to 90% of her cerebral cortex has atrophied, and been replaced with spinal fluid. There is no real hope of her recovering, and the twitching and noisemarking is the result of her hindbrain and midbrain firing off on their own.
She is no longer there, Snowy.
J
Bob Meyer:
Anyone who read the question knows that it wasn't a poll to determine what kind of Nazi is reading the blog.
I said that both sides subscribed to the same principle - that the individual does not own his life. The question was asked to separate the "Nazis" from those who believe in individual rights.
The source of you "argument's" failure to be taken seriously can be found in your flagrant disregard for the three laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) which allowed you to construct it from an arsenal of fallacies in the first place.
The only way to extricate yourself from all this poo-pooing of your "question" would be for you to somehow cite an example of how the historical Nazis went about championing right-to-life stances against those who "wished to die" or "wished to kill" to back your premise.
No wait, that'll take too long for you to invent (perusing bookmarked internet Holocaust-denying cookie-cutter resources notwithstanding.) In other words, you're void of options up that sewer, even with a paddle.
That's just one self-defeating flaw your "argument" has. There are others.
The question that I asked was:
"Do you support the idea that an individual owns his own life and that only he or she should decide when that life should be terminated? Yes or No?"
You, afraid that "No" would firmly plant you in the Nazi column and that "Yes" would go against your religious beliefs, refused to answer. That is actually to your credit Beamish, it means that you understand that ideas have consequences.
I don't recall stating any religious belief that would conform to the false dichotomy you constructed, or raising any religious beliefs to counter it.
I don't have to. Unless, of course, you're arguing from solipsism. God help "you."
Tremlett:
It's a qualified "Yes" but at least it is an answer.
I am hesitant to accept testimony of next of kin with regard to a person's belief. Memory is notoriously unreliable, the patient can't challenge the testimony and there is the possibility that inheritances might influence the views of relatives.
I prefer a clear statement from the patient about his/her desires. Then the issue becomes something that can be addressed in a court - "Are these the circumstances under which the patient has chosen to be allowed to die?"
Living wills are a good start in the right direction. Hopefully, the outcome of the tragic Schiavo affair will be an increase in the number of living wills and legislative review of the standards used to determine a person's desires in the event of being incapacitated.
We are fortunate that the awareness of this issue came due to a brain dead individual for whom the outcome of the case is actually irrelevent. Things could have been much worse had this been a comatose patient that actually had a chance to recover and a poor standard of proof was used.
We need to establish clear, rational standards that minimize the chances of such a thing occurring.
Bob Meyer:
Do you believe suicide prevention measures violate your civil rights?
{let's get to the diagnosis of your insanity, already)
I’m with Bob Meyer on this one.
It is the respectfully presented dissenting opinion which keeps us honest.
I prefer a clear statement from the patient about his/her desires. Then the issue becomes something that can be addressed in a court - "Are these the circumstances under which the patient has chosen to be allowed to die?"
"Doctor, we had to straight-jacket Mr. Meyer to keep him from slashing his wrists."
"What?! Are you crazy? He'll sue!"
Beamish, you are drifting off to lala land.
I stated a clear principle of Nazidom - That which is not forbidden is compulsory - to illustrate the Nazi disregard for individual choice.
I then demonstrated that both the "right to lifers" and the "kill the infirmers" agreed that the choice of whether to live or die under certain circumstances was not the right of an individual.
Law of the Excluded Middle - means that either a person has the right to choose under what circumstances he should be allowed to die or he doesn't. There is no third alternative, the middle is excluded.
It was you who believes that there is a third position, that of abstention, but in logic that is impermissible.
Identity - Things are what they are - people who deny the sovereignty of the individual are on the same side as the Nazis.
Non-Contradiction - One cannot champion the life of the individual and deny the essence of individualism, meaning control of one's own life.
In logic, it is you who don't understand.
Beamish, if I have misattributed your basis for opposing an individual's right to choose the condition of his death to religious views then I apologize. It is just that I know of no person that wants to maintain the illusion of life in Terri Schiavo for any other reason.
Do you believe suicide prevention measures violate your civil rights?
Absolutely not. Most suicides occur in periods of deep psychological pain and preventing a suicide for the purpose of evaluating the mental state of a person is the right thing to do.
However, there are people who are rational and who have no hope of any kind of life.
To tell a dying man that he must exhaust his life savings rather than give it to his relatives simply so that he can live out a few more weeks in intolerable pain is cruel. He might have died in the knowledge that his loved ones would not be impoverished and that the years that he worked to provide for them would not be stolen from him at the last moments of his life.
There are few worse ways to die than to die in the belief that one's life was lived in vain.
"Beamish, if I have misattributed your basis for opposing an individual's right to choose the condition of his death to religious views then I apologize. It is just that I know of no person that wants to maintain the illusion of life in Terri Schiavo for any other reason."
There's where you're wrong. If Terri Schiavo's life in her disabled condition was an "illusion" she's - "alive" and "not alive" simultaneously?
You may want to review that logic textbook a little more closely.
With the cover open.
"Living wills are a good start in the right direction. Hopefully, the outcome of the tragic Schiavo affair will be an increase in the number of living wills and legislative review of the standards used to determine a person's desires in the event of being incapacitated."
Agreed. Anything to keep Randal Terry out of the spotlight, at any rate.
That's my next rANT, in fact.
J
Icarus:
Thanks for the support.
It is important that things be discussed in the open. Presumably, blog comment forums are not intended to be areas of continual agreement where the only form of discussion is preaching to the choir and the choir responding with obsequious praise.
Silencing of heretics, like the PC speech codes on college campuses, should be avoided. Silencing an opponent is usually a confession that the opponent's argument cannot be answered.
At least on this thread there are no shortage of answers. No one is harmed by a fierce exchange of arguments although some beliefs may fall by the wayside as a result.
Beamish:
It is your illusion that I was referring to, not Terri's. Dead people don't have illusions.
You should be happy. Your illusion proves you are alive, even though you're not conscious.
Tremlett:
Randal Terry is getting involved? The Schiavos must be crazy to let him speak for them.
The man advocates killing doctors who performs abortions and establishing a Christian theocracy!
I wouldn't wish Randal Terry on my worst enemy... well, maybe my worst enemy but not the Schiavos. They don't deserve him.
Maybe I should be happy. Randal Terry could singlehandedly discredit the entire group of people who would keep corpses breathing.
Bob Meyer:
It is your illusion that I was referring to, not Terri's. Dead people don't have illusions.
How do you keep all your false dichotomies straight with all that bifurcation? First it was the imaginary "Nazism" of right-to-lifers, now you're arguing that Terry Schiavo was dead before she was put to death topped off with an ad hominem agaisnt me.
You've been whimpering about not being given an opportunity to present a rational dissenting argument for 2 days now.
Are you going to present one?
Ever?
Beamish:
You refuse to answer my question, attack my character, call me a fool and then you complain about ad-hominem arguments?
Beamish I don't need ad hominem arguments to deal with someone who will not answer a question.
Anyway on the "Truth is Its Own Defense" program we have a comment from the thread that expelled me:
... "Thank you for banning the person who wanted to reduce what is happening to Terri Schiavo to trivial and disgusting debate fodder."
You are most welcome.
I have only just begun to flex my banning muscles here at Moonbat. There is much work to be done.
(bold emphasis mine)
You gotta just love Richard Poe. No one but him could ever ban ideas with such enthusiasm and pride.
I am curious, however. Is Poe's view of debate the dominant one on MOONBAT Central? Are there ideas too odious to discuss openly? Is intellectual incest the best way to promote an idea?
Bob Meyer:
I've answered your questions as the merits of them wanted.
Richard Poe correctly identified your use of a moral equivalence argument. I objected to your argument on the same grounds there and here.
I'm sorry that the laws of logic weren't written with your personal feelings in mind.
In your world of Nazis! Everywhere! one would hope that you'd at least gleen a clue as to what a Nazi actually was.
But I'm afraid you're still mistaking a disabled woman in a hospice for a corpse.
Perhaps the mirror will help you define Nazi more accurately.
Oops! An ad hominem!
icarus writes: "I’m with Bob Meyer on this one.
It is the respectfully presented dissenting opinion which keeps us honest."
Dear icarus: Evidently you and I have radically different ideas about what constitutes "respect" and "honesty." Mr. Meyer has displayed neither on this thread, as far as I can see.
Tell me the truth: Did Mr. Meyer win you over to his position (that Mrs. Schiavo must die) through the "respectful" and "honest" presentation of his dissenting opinion? Or are you simply bestowing upon him unearned and undeserved praise because he tells you what you already wanted to hear, and had already decided about Mrs. Schiavo's fate?
Mr. Poe,
My support for Bob Meyer has only to do with the fact that I agree he be allowed to present a dissenting opinion. I did not say his opinoion was right (I don't know), nor did I say it was honest (again, I don't know, though I tend to take people on their word unless I have reason to do otherwise). My belief is simply this:
If we don't entertain dissenting opinions, our own will never be honest. Would Mr. Horowitz would have become famous for having second thoughts had he not had second thoughts? As for myself I'd still be happily voting Democratic and thinking Republicans evil had I not finally opened my mind to the right. Believe me, it was much easier to be a leftist in academia (and my family). Once I started challeging the status quo things got very uncomfortable for me. I deal with the discomfort because it is the honest thing to do. But I would have never happened had I not actually started listening to the other side.
And for the record, Bob Meyer nor anyone else has won me over on the issue of Terry Shaivo.
Two years ago I watched as cancer invaded my sister's left frontal lobe, taking away her speech and motor control. I held her hand for weeks as she slipped in and out of coma. I looked into her eyes as she took her last breaths. It was the end a fourteen year fight with brain cancer.
I relate this to explain that I honestly don't know what's right in the case of Terry Shaivo. I don't have the engery - I am too intimate with issue to even pretend to be objective.
I can say that I am thankful that when my sister became incapacitated, her ENTIRE family (husband, children, sisters, brother and father), were 100% devoted to her comfort, and 100% supportive of one another. It is tragic for Terry Shaivo to have not had the same, because when the dust settles I believe it to be a family matter, and no place for outsiders.
Icarus:
What Poe is asking you is do you demand reasoning or threats as arguments? Will you stand with your own views or will you capitulate in the face of disapproval?
No one can point to a single lie that I have ever told on this blog.
Demonstrate my disrespect to people. I have not called anyone a murderer (as many on this site has called me), I have not even returned insults in many cases where they were richly warranted, though a few times the urge to retaliate was too strong.
I have not even attacked Poe for his actions, merely called attention to them.
Stating an uncontested fact - that both the Soros people and the Schiavo supporters would deny that the individual owns his own life - is regarded as disrespectful because the pre-eminent advocates of that position were Nazis.
"The individual is nothing, the Race is all"
Could the Nazis have murdered millions of innocent people without that foul, lunatic idea?
When I used the terms "Social Nazis" and "Christo-Nazis" I did it to shock people into understanding what denying an individual his right to his own life means. Was it an insult? Only to those who want to control the lives of others.
If you aren't the one who owns your life, who does? The State? The Race? God? Richard Poe?
The righteous have consistently run from this question as vampires from sunlight. The question is "Will you join them in the darkness?"
Mr. Poe,
On the respect thing. I honestly didn't think Mr. Meyer was any less respectful than Mr. Beamish, but I must adit I'm rather naive in my belief in other's good intentions. A blessing and a curse, I suppose.
Icarus:
I put up my post before I saw yours. I am sorry for your loss and apologize if my harsh language added to your grief.
Mr. Meyer,
If what you say is true, then I will soon be unwelcome here. Time will tell. That would be a shame, but that's the internet. Bits and bites.
Bob Meyer,
No problem -I'm tough, I can take it.
A little simultaneous posting never hurt anybody.
Mr Poe
I do agree with your point of view
and am a big fan of yours,DH,Plaut and Yeagley. My blog contains several posts in defense of DH.
I dissent from kicking obnoxious
leftists. The views of our opponents should be on display here. This is what diferentiates us from Raimondo .We should celebrate the first amendment.
There was an extended debate on what constitutes a " Palestinian".
Our side was not allowed to post articles and arguments from Plaut,Farah, Yeagley and the PLO charter.
The consensus of all the bloggers was that open forum was the only standard. I have even allowed entirely personal attacks without deletion. I have the facts and am dedicated to the first amendment.
I will still be a fan no matter what you decide. Your posts are excellent and must read material.
Yeagley had this problem on his forum with white supremascists. He
banned them as contary to the theeme of his forum. There is no easy answer to this question.
I still am commited to open forum . Yet this is a respectful
dissent from a fan. I will be a dedicated fan no matter how you decide to resolve this matter.
beakerkin:
I am proud of you for taking the high road on debate.
However, as to your characterization of me as an "obnoxious leftist" I must dissent. I am not a leftist.
I am an obnoxious free market, live your life as you choose, radical individualist.
Bob Meyer:
What Poe is asking you is do you demand reasoning or threats as arguments?
Nice John Edwards impression. "Let me tell you what he just said..." Unfortunately, much like the Edwards-Cheney debates, we heard what Cheney had said, and Edwards, as you no doubt now realize, couldn't mutate Cheney's words enough to be persuasive. So it is with your trolling caricature of Richard Poe's remarks.
Your premise of right-to-lifers as Nazis, from which your moral equivalence psychodrama is built, has been rejected as having no ground in reality.
Give it up or flesh it out.
Don't try to force-feed us bullshit.
Bob Meyer:
Your premise of "disabled people are really dead people" is rejected also, by the way.
In case you forgot. Again.
Beamish:
Give it up or flesh it out.
As a lawyer I once knew was fond of saying:
"Asked and answered, counselor"
Are you aware that most of the people following this thread can actually read what I wrote. I never mentioned disabled people.
What follows is a letter to the editor that I wrote a few days ago. It will in all likelihood not be published but after this I am done arguing.
Theocracy and Schiavo
To understand the Terri Schiavo case the first thing that must be recognized is that it had nothing to do with the life of the woman whose tragic death was at the center of the controversy. It has to do with two worldviews, one rational and the other mystical.
Death? But Terri wasn’t dead. And in that belief lies the nature of the real controversy.
Is a person whose brain has permanently stopped functioning alive or dead?
The mystical view is that every person has an immaterial soul that contains the true personality and that as long as the soul inhabits the body, there is life. The rational view is that the personality has its basis in the natural biological functioning of the brain.
To the mystical, Terri was alive because the soul cannot leave the body until breathing stops and the body begins to putrefy. Terri was a spirit trapped inside a broken machine that left her unable to communicate with the outside world.
To the rational, Terri’s personality, and hence Terri herself, died when her cerebral cortex ceased functioning ten years ago.
This is why the religious right fought this case with such tenacity. It wasn’t whether a woman would live or die, it was whether their entire worldview would live or die. To protect their worldview the Religious Right would now bare its teeth and call in markers from the legislators it had bought and paid for. Legislatures in Florida and Washington responded with insanely unconstitutional edicts. Legislators were so terrified of the wrath of the "righteous" they even defied opinion polls that showed little support for keeping a dead woman's body breathing.
The Founders understood that a stable society requires an institution that is not subject to the whims and passions of the day which is why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Freed from the need to please the mob, the courts could act as a damper, preventing the government from swinging wildly to and fro at each election. For the Religious Right, when courts insist on recognizing laws that interfere with their religious worldview, then the courts become the instruments of "the secular, liberal establishment" and must be neutralized by any means necessary.
Ann Coulter has advocated that Terri’s body be kidnapped and kept breathing by the National Guard. Coulter is unconcerned with the chaos that would ensue as states, counties and cities begin to ignore any judicial decision of which they disapprove. How can something as trivial as a civl war be allowed to interfere with the Will of the Almighty?
It becomes apparent that when the Religious Right says that they want to put God back in America they mean what they say. God, as manifested in the Schiavo case by the belief in an immaterial soul, must inform all legislative, executive and judicial decisions.
That is the definition of "Theocracy".
Meyer
I have a post on this topic on todays blog. The topic is how a blog should be run. I disagree with Poe but he has points.
I am a member of a people whose lives were deemed unworthy. The Holocaust began with euthanasia. A
society that places black robes in charge of this matter is not my ideal.
You are imposing your secularism on
the nonsecular. The Judeo- Christian ethic is to cherish life.
That being said I would still favor the role of kin, doctors and clergy even with the roles reversed.
Last time I checked the religious right has never been seditious. If
you believe in your heart that Falwell is the counties bigest threat I will sell you the Brooklyn
Bridge. FYI I have seen more bigotry in one hour from the Chomsky crowd than in the rest of my life as a Jew. I have never been insulted as a Jew in a Church.
>>Ann Coulter has advocated that Terri’s body be kidnapped and kept breathing by the National Guard. Coulter is unconcerned with the chaos that would ensue as states, counties and cities begin to ignore any judicial decision of which they disapprove. How can something as trivial as a civl war be allowed to interfere with the Will of the Almighty?<<
Um, I dunno. Rosa Parks seemed to make it out of the front of the bus okay.
Twit.
Beakerkin:
Last time I checked the religious right has never been seditious
Well, kinda.
The last few times the inhabitants of "Jesusland" got downright
belligerent towards the rule of law:
- slaves were smuggled on an "underground railroad" to freedom
- a war was fought to free them from bondage
- civil rights protections for minorities passed the Congress
One wonders where the Democrats stood on these issues...
Stalin, during the last days of his life summoned to his bed, the two most likely candidates to succeed him. He also summoned to have brought to him, two birds. He gave each candidate a bird to hold.
The first candidate, so terrified that the bird would fly free, squeezed the poor creature so tightly, that he killed it.
The second candidate, seen the displeasure cloud over Stalin's face, was so frightened that he hardly held the bird at all, and of course it escaped.
"Bring me a bird," Stalin thundered!
He held this bird by the legs, and slowly, one by one, plucked each feather of this poor creature, from his tiny little body.
Stalin then opened his palm, and there laid this bird, helpless, naked, shivering, and Stalin looked up, and smiled, and said gently, "YOU SEE, THIS LITTLE BIRD IS THANKFUL FOR THE HUMAN WARMTH OF MY PALM."
The ideology of Stalin, with the complicity of you useful idiots, are murdering Terri Schiavo, and you are therefore bringing us closer to being thankful, and beholding to them for the very warmth of life.-- Well, or perhaps closer to a revolt!
YOU MURDER PEOPLES HELPLESS DAUGHTERS, EITHER BY DEHYDRATION, OR BY ALLOWING CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS (CRAZED BY PORNOGRAPHY), TO PREY ON THEM WITH WHAT AMOUNTS TO SACROCACTITY.
P.S. I wish those who want to be wished, A HAPPY EASTER!
He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, by HIS wounds we are healed!--Isaiah 53-700 BC
"SEE MOTHER, I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW!"
P.P.S. The above Stalin story was provided by Nero Wolfe.
Score another one for the eugenics, perfect controlled-society true believers.
The libertarians have been duped. The media has played them like a fiddle.
Bob Meyer writes: "Demonstrate my disrespect to people. I have not called anyone a murderer (as many on this site has called me), I have not even returned insults in many cases where they were richly warranted, though a few times the urge to retaliate was too strong.
"I have not even attacked Poe for his actions, merely called attention to them."
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Christopher Hitchens once said, "A gentleman is never rude – except on purpose."
Mr. Meyer, if indeed you are as blissfully unaware of your own rudeness as you claim, this does not, in and of itself, mark you as a troll, but it certainly does prove you are no gentleman.
I am often rude, Mr. Meyer, when circumstances call for it. But, unlike you, I am never rude by accident or by unthinking habit. When I choose to be rude, I do it on purpose.
beakerkin wrote on his blog: "Richard Poe is also a writer who I also respect. Yet he is dealing with the same problem on Moonbat Central. There is a disruptive element on that forum. He is deciding how to deal with it. His choice was to ban the disruptive posters. I strongly dissent from that choice but it is his forum. However Raimondo and Lerner do not provide any forum at all. My dissent is a respectful disagreement with a writer I admire."
Actually, beakerkin, I have not yet banned anyone from this Web site, though I have issued several warnings and one poster calling himself ohengineer removed himself voluntarily.
I did ban Bob Meyer from one thread, because his words violated common decency. Banning him from that single thread was a strong hint to Mr. Meyer to mend his ways, but, as you see, he has not taken the hint.
In general, I intend to follow a "three strikes" policy here. Posters who ignore the first two warnings will be banned on their third offense.
Here at Moonbat, I have not yet begun a real crackdown, partly because I have not yet posted a set of community rules, and it seems only fair to post the rules before I start enforcing them.
In some cases, however, it is already plain who the disruptors are. Bob Meyer's grandstanding about freedom of speech; his arrogant declaration that tolerance of his presence here constitutes a "test" of Moonbat Central's integrity; the degree to which he habitually seeks to dominate every discussion and appoint himself its arbiter; and, perhaps most damning, his reliance upon the crudest sophistry to make his points – all mark Mr. Meyer as a disruptor and provocateur in the first degree.
I have seen Mr. Meyer's like on every message board I ever moderated. There is only one cure for the malady from which he suffers. When I finally get down to the business of actually banning people, Mr. Meyer will be the first to go.
Mr. Tremlett – with his parrot-like cry that Mrs. Schiavo's brain is "soup" and that the "polls" say she should die – will, of course, be the second to go.
Anyone who cites "polls" in an argument concerning life-and-death issues lacks the intelligence, maturity, knowledge of history and – most importantly – the depth of character to bring any value to a discussion among adults.
Dear icarus: On another thread, you wrote the following: "Are you seriously suggesting to me that I withdraw my support of Mr. Horowitz for questioning what comes from his web sites? Are you suggesting that perhaps this is more appropriate behavior for a Horowitz follower?
Dear god, I hope not."
Icarus, you linked to the forum at FrontPage in order to illustrate your point about how atrocious behavior on the part of certain people on David Horowitz's Web sites could provide ammunition for his critics. And you were right to do so. The FrontPage forum, in its present condition, is useless for serious discussion.
But how did it get this way? Let me tell you.
When I was editor of FrontPage (June 1, 2000 - February 15, 2002), I led the team that developed and launched the FrontPage forum. From September 8, 2000 to February 15, 2002, I served as its moderator.
During my tenure as FrontPage editor, I banned many people from the forum. We did not run an "open" forum, to use beakerkin's expression. But we ran a forum that we could be proud of.
After I left, the folks at FrontPage decided not to expend manpower moderating the forum. It became what beakerkin calls an "open" forum, with the horrifying results that you now see.
If you want to see another "open" forum, go to LibertyForum.org. It is run by self-styled "libertarians" who have declared that they will not "censor" any discussion, on principle. As a result, the forum has become a playground for Nazi trolls, and still was the last time I looked.
Sadly, I cannot show you what the old FrontPage forum looked like, because those pages have been deleted. However, I can show you the forum that I ran for three years at RichardPoe.com, and you may decide how it compares with "open" forums such as those cited above. Go here.
I wrote about this issue of "open" vs controlled forums in a blog entry titled, "Attack of the Nazi Trolls: A Lesson for Message Board Moderators." It was subsequently posted to FreeRepublic.com and received many comments pro and con (go here).
I must respectfully disagree with beakerkin. His love for "open" forums likely results from inexperience. His own blog probably does not get sufficiently heavy traffic yet to make it a target for high-volume swarm attacks by Nazis, paleocons and neo-Bolshevists.
When the day comes that beakerkin finds his blog targeted in such a manner, he will have some hard decisions to make. In the process, he will acquire a more sophisticated and professional understanding of what it takes to run a good message board.
The conflict we see on this message board seems to reflect the larger conflict currently ripping our society asunder; the battle between neo-paganism and the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Most primitive or pagan societies observe a frankly Darwinian ethic, in which sickly or deformed babies are killed. The infirm and elderly are often left to die. Even many of the great civilizations of the ancient world, such as Rome and Sparta, retained many features of this primitive Darwinian creed.
Early promoters of the Judeo-Christian ethic directly challenged the Darwinian order and the natural urges which drove it. Among other "unnatural" or counterintuitive teachings, they preached sexual restraint; forgiveness of enemies; honoring the sanctity of human life, including the lives of the sick, the weak and the dying.
Many have criticized the Judeo-Christian ethic on the very grounds that its effects are dysgenic – that is, that the compassion it preaches for the sick and infirm saves many people who should not be saved, thus weakening the gene pool.
The great British historian of the Enlightenment, Edward Gibbon, blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome, on the grounds that the new religion made the Romans feeble and effeminate.
We see on this message board the same ancient argument played out between paganism and the Judeo-Christian ethic.
As many times as this argument has raged through the centuries, it was never resolved through reason, nor can it be. It is a matter of the heart.
No doubt, there are some among us who have allowed the Goddess of Reason to fill the vacuum in our souls once reserved for the Almighty. Reason has become their god.
I would no more try to convince such people of the limitations of Reason, than I would try to persuade a Wahhabi mullah that wisdom can be found in other books besides the Quran.
Those who worship Reason are every bit as intolerant and fanatical in defense of their faith as those who worship other gods. Indeed, the history of the twentieth century (and particularly of Russia and China) suggests that the Goddess of Reason has a far more insatiable thirst for human blood than any deity so far known to man.
The Goddess of Reason offers no motivation for her followers to devote their lives to the care of the sick, as did the likes of Mother Teresa and Dr. Albert Schweitzer – people whose work was profoundly dysgenic and counter-Darwinian.
Any fundamental argument between acolytes of the pagan and Judeo-Christian points of view will inevitably devolve into an ad hominem melée, because these beliefs cannot coexist in the same polity, and no outpouring of words can alter that fact.
On this board, we see Mr. Meyer and Mr. Tremlett making glib and lighthearted references to Mrs. Schiavo as a lifeless slab of flesh. They cannot even imagine why some might consider such talk to lie beyond the bounds of civilized discourse. Arguing the matter is a waste of time. These men have drunk from the Goddess' cup, and she has made them mad.
We are a soft and pampered generation, unprepared for what is coming. When I read such words as Mr. Meyer and Mr. Tremlett have written here, I fear it will be our lot to see horrors more awesome in scope than any our parents and grandparents witnessed in the last century.
In the struggle to come, all men and women will choose sides. They will embrace either darkness or light.
May God have mercy on us all.
Richard Poe (and all who speak for life):
I've not one given to spouting Bible scripture, but this seems relevant:
1 Timothy 4 (King James Version)
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
These things command and teach.
Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
-----
No one can silence you while you can still speak.
As this will be, in all likelihood the last message that will be permitted I will reply to Richard Poe's characterization of my views.
Poe has ably presented his view of the relation of reason to faith. The question that occupied much of Thomas Aquinas' life - "What is the domain of reason and what is the domain of faith?" has been resolved simply and cleanly by Mr. Poe: There is no domain of reason, there is only faith.
The characterization of those who rely on reason as worshippers of the "Goddess of Reason" shows in no uncertain terms the extent of Poe's consistency in this regard. His reliance on "the heart" as his guide shows that his view of the world is conditioned by his feelings, feelings that he would put above any facts and any reasoning.
Reality, it would seem, is accessible solely through the heart of Richard Poe.
To this worldview facts are irrelevant, and those who present facts are just as irrelevant. When facts agitate the heart then the facts must be ignored and the presenters silenced. Such was the view of much of mankind during the period of history known as the Dark Ages.
No pope was imprisoned by Galileo, no clergyman burned at the stake by Giordano Bruno. Nor would such a thought have even occurred to these men since their arguments were based on facts that are accessible to all. The heart, however, is accessible to only one.
Poe has accused me of "grandstanding" for freedom of speech which is how his heart responded to the unpleasant fact that those who would preserve freedom in the university must demonstrate their committment to that principle in other places as well.
Poe's heart said that I violated the rules of common decency by pointing out the unpleasant fact that both Soros's people and the religious right are rabid anti-individualists who claim that even your life is not yours to end under the conditions that you choose.
But the most unpleasant fact was that the premier exponents of anti-individualism in the twentieth century were the Nazis.
Why choose the Nazis when the Communists would have been just a good a choice? Because all those who believed in following the law were castigated as Nazi eugenicists by Poe's allies despite the fact that no mention of "fitness" to live, or any other such eugenics filth was used in any court decision.
If people are called Nazis they should at least share some of the Nazis principles.
Of course, Poe's heart could see no problem with his allies calling his opponents Nazis without evidence. Evidence is something required by the proponents of reason. Feeling that they were Nazis was more than sufficient.
Poe is right that there can be no reconciliation between reason and faith. Obviously, banning me will not be sufficient. What is necessary is a declaration by all who wish to post to this blog.
I would suggest:
As a poster to this blog I swear that I do detest and abjure all dictates of reason and renounce, without reservation, all thoughts which conflict with The Faith.
Then the blog can cite honesty as its only virtue.
"Mr. Tremlett – with his parrot-like cry that Mrs. Schiavo's brain is "soup" and that the "polls" say she should die – will, of course, be the second to go."
Yeah, because Goddess forbid anyone tell the truth, much less present a POV that stands in contrast.
There was a time when I could at least respect you, even if I disagreed with most of what you said. C'est la internet.
J
Mr Meyer writes: "Poe is right that there can be no reconciliation between reason and faith. Obviously, banning me will not be sufficient. What is necessary is a declaration by all who wish to post to this blog.
I would suggest:
As a poster to this blog I swear that I do detest and abjure all dictates of reason and renounce, without reservation, all thoughts which conflict with The Faith.
Then the blog can cite honesty as its only virtue."
Mr. Meyer, I somehow managed to run my forum at RichardPoe.com for three years without compelling anyone to swear such an oath as you suggest. All the same, I demanded from my posters strict adherence to the norms of common human decency.
You see, Mr. Meyer, common decency is not a controversial issue for most people. It is not a subject for grandiloquent speeches and pretensions to martyrdom, such as you have exhibited on this blog.
It is precisely your inability to comprehend and accept such simple instructions as, "Please comport yourself like a gentleman" that makes you a troll.
Mr. Meyer writes: "Poe has ably presented his view of the relation of reason to faith. … His reliance on "the heart" as his guide shows that his view of the world is conditioned by his feelings, feelings that he would put above any facts and any reasoning."
I suppose I should take it as a compliment that you misunderstand and misrepresent my faith in exactly the same way – and in almost the very same words - by which Ron Susskind misrepresents the faith of President George W. Bush in a New York Times Magazine article of October 17, 2004 titled, "Without a Doubt."
Did you vote for President Bush, Mr. Meyer?
Bob Meyer whined "If people are called Nazis they should at least share some of the Nazis principles."
Says the man who has argued quite vapidly for "If it's not forbidden to kill disabled people, it is compulsory."
Says the man who claims living people are "dead" or otherwise unfit to live if their disabled condition makes their life "an illusion."
Says the man who unashamedly advocates the very thing he calls "eugenics filth."
Says the man who miscalls those who oppose his solipsistic masturbations "Nazis."
You can't fix stupid.
Oh, and one other point of clarification: I wouldn't have mentioned the poll at all (as I don't tend to trust them) except that Horowitz brought up the fact that "millions of Americans" want to keep Schiavo alive.
J
Tremblett ejaculated Yeah, because Goddess forbid anyone tell the truth, much less present a POV that stands in contrast.
That's the problem. You present a POV that stands in contrast to the truth.
Says you and the psychic neurologist who "examined" Schiavo's videotape, maybe. : )
Fact: Anywhere from "most of" to 100% of her cerebral cortex has atrophied, and the void has been filled in with spinal fluid. (hence 'soup')
Fact: a majority of Americans in at least one poll said they'd remove the feeding tube.
Fact: George W. Bush, while Governor of Texas, signed into law a bill that allows hospitals to pull the plug on dying patients, regardless of their wishes, or those of their families. (They get 10 days grace to find another facility that will take them, but if they don't it's lights-out)
What do these prove?
1) Schiavo isn't alive in any way that counts, anymore
2) Millions of Americans may want her alive, as Horowitz said, but polls (*ack! Spit*) may indicate that millions more approve.
3) W is being more than a little hypocritical about this "culture of life" thing.
That's all I've been saying, here. You may not like my interpretation of the facts, but they are the truth.
J
Mr. Poe,
I suggest that you sit down while you read this:
Yes, I voted for George Bush
No, I did not say that to cause you a heart attack.
Seriously, I actually did vote for Bush. Kerry was an abomination. While I regard George Bush as the worst president in my lifetime (Ronald Reagan was by far the best) it was clear that Kerry's views on Iraq and Islamofascism would result in the continued expansion of one of the most pernicious movements in history - fundamentalist Islam.
You stated:
As many times as this argument has raged through the centuries, it was never resolved through reason, nor can it be. It is a matter of the heart.
I suspect that what you actually meant was "...a matter of the heart as informed by Biblical revelation..." since I believe that you are a devout Christian. However, I could only criticize your actual words not my beliefs about their basis.
Finally, there is a relatively simple way to rid MOONBAT of those you regard as "Nazi Trolls": Don't reply to them.
This thread has 66 comments (19 of which are mine) on it as of now. That means that 47 posts were generated by the controversy. Had no one replied I would have concluded that this was a site devoid of thinkers and would have left after at most two posts.
"Finally, there is a relatively simple way to rid MOONBAT of those you regard as "Nazi Trolls": Don't reply to them"
Well, not to give too much ammo to the person who's aiming for both our fingers right now, but I don't know that such an approach would work.
Trolls have a way of getting high off of one another's fumes and sticking around even without direct attacks and challenges from "Da MAN."
Truth remains.
J
Tremlett - That's all I've been saying, here. You may not like my interpretation of the facts, but they are the truth.
There is only one truth being disputed here - that Terri Schiavo, despite her diminished mental capacities, was an alive and healthy human being until the state of Florida authorized her execution via denial of sustenance.
Yours and Mr. Meyer's propaganda would justify killing everyone from the autistic to those on kidney dialysis to Jews. Who sets the standards on who's "ripe for killing," once we step upon the dark path that is the decision to kill the defenseless in the first place?
That isn't reason, it's madness.
Diminished? Try entirely absent.
That's the issue, here. Would she have wanted to "live" like that?
She can't say for herself. Her husband says no. The courts agree.
Trying to go from that sad tune to a Saturday Night Holocaust is a very surreal and panicky argument at best: propaganda of its own, I'd say.
And with that, I bid you goodnight. See you in my morning, perhaps.
J
Diminished? Try entirely absent.
I believe the word you're looking for, Herr Tremlett, is "feeble-minded."
You'd justify killing Terri Schiavo with or without such "scientific" criteria as "her brain is soup." It does not matter to you. It never did.
The law has been ignored.
And the executive and legislature are confirmed subordinate to the high-priests of the judiciary.
Assisted suicide is(supposed to be) illegal. Period.
She is not terminally ill. Period.
Supplying food and water is NOT extraordinary measures to prolong life. PERIOD.
BS if eugenics is not at the root of this(and abortion). And BS if we are self-governed anymore.
ECONOMICS-RESPONSIBILITY-COMMITMENT.
These people are a drag on society, they don't buy things, they don't work, and taking care of them is such a distraction from all the fun trivialities of being rats in a cage while our benevolent societal managers makes our life so easy.
Wow.
This thread sends chills down my spine. I am sufficiently frightened.
I am referring to the Communist mentality that stigmatizes anyone who deviates from the party line as indecent, and unfit for the company of civilized human beings. ~ David Horowitz
As many on this site have argued, anyone who wants Terri Schiavo to die a horribly painful death from starvation is a Nazi eugenicist. What of someone who believes that the termination of Terri’s life is an attempt to thwart God’s will that she suffer?
No such Christian could ever exist, and if he did then he certainly is no real Christian. Right?
Meet Larry.
Larry believes: "…the darkness of Good Friday preceded the light of Easter Sunday. Jesus had to go through extraordinary suffering and pain before he could fulfill God’s plan for him. Jesus’ suffering was as crucial to the salvation and redemption of Christians as was His final death and resurrection. It is not only His joyous resurrection that allows us to be cleansed from sin, it was His suffering that enables us to be born again."
Nothing strange about that, it is pretty much standard Christian dogma but Larry continues:
"Terri Schiavo is part of the unfortunate army of the sick, disabled, and dying. She is suffering in obedience to God’s will. It is an Easter story, although a very painful one. But the legal establishment and mainstream media elite do not understand suffering in this religious context. So it appears they would rather do away with her."
(Emphasis mine)
Does this mean that Terri was born to suffer and that ending her agony is an affront to God?
Is Larry some twisted fraud posing as a Christian? Perhaps he really the noted fiend Bob Meyer who writes this post?
If you would like to meet Larry for yourselves:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200503281129.asp
Larry is Larry Kudlow, economics editor of National Review Online.
This is the first case of court ordered euthanasia backed up by police enforcement. It won't be the last. It's the first step down the slippery slope.