| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2005 05:12:29 PM · #426 |
Talking just now with somebody at work who had a short but interesting perspective on this case, thought I would share:
What's the difference between a homeless woman, and Terri Schiavo?
ANSWER: The homeless woman is aware she's starving to death.
Message edited by author 2005-03-28 17:12:50. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 05:44:12 PM · #427 |
I just heard on CNN that Terri's father expressed concerns today that health care providers at the hospice may be giving Terri too much morphine. His fear was that she may OD on the morphine and die. As opposed to starving to death. Who has her best intrest at heart?
Message edited by author 2005-03-28 17:44:44.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 05:56:56 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
[
Your strongarm tactics are not appreciated, nor are your repeated demands for answers to a loaded question.
If you wish to debate this issue in a fair "give and take" manner, you may do so, otherwise please exit the thread.
-Terry |
Tactics, demands, loaded question??? wow, someone must have had their feelings hurt. Knowone HAD to answer the question in the first place. It is a simple Yes or No scenario. How hard is it to stand black or white? How about you Terry? Could you do it? There are no tactics, no demands and no pressure. Just a question from one photographer to another. If you can not answer it then dont. If people can not handle a simple question then delete my posts. I never thought you could take it this far... |
Yes, tactics, demands, loaded question. It is not a simple yes or no scenario, as your question was not placed in context.
By phrasing the question the way you did, and demanding an answer phrased the way you choose, you are strongarming the discussion. You did not ask, "If you were in Michael Schiavo's shoes, would you let your wife starve to death?" You asked, "Would you allow your wife to starve to death?" The two are very different questions. Additionally, if you expect to be free to phrase your questions the way you choose, the respondent should be free to phrase his or her answer.
To answer your direct question to me: Yes, I could, and indirectly, I nearly have.
A couple years ago, in the early morning my grandfather had a stroke and was hospitalized. My mother and her two sisters immediately headed to visit him in the hospital.
While my grandfather's condition was not yet known, later that morning I received a call from my mother asking me to meet my uncle at his bank. My job was to bring my grandfather's durable power of attorney and living will to the hospital (which was a 2-hour drive away) in case they were needed. I immediately left work and took the documents to the hospital.
In my mind there was (and still is) no question this was the right thing to do. His wishes for this type of situation were clear, and I knew what they were. Doing what I had to do to make sure that those wishes were met superseded any selfish desire to keep my grandfather alive and permanently hooked to a machine.
Thankfully, the damage from the stroke was very minor, and he has recovered fully -- but I did learn from that experience that if the need ever did arise, I could accept the wishes of a member of my family to die a peaceful and natural death rather than extend a lifeless life connected to a bunch of machines.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 06:05:28 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
To blame him for her condition is absurd in my opinion. Her condition was self inflicted. She was in effect already starving herself to death before her initial hospitalization. That is how she got there. |
I never read a single post blaming the husband for her condition. SirBiggs's certainly didn't. You can question the information without questioning the motives. And like I posted before, Michael Schiavo received a settlement of $1.5million for malpractice on the part of the hospital a long time before he ever mentioned her request to not be kept alive. Interesting, no? |
That would be interesting if it were accurate.
In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.
Michael's decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life â something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending. (Wolfon, Jay, DrPH, JD, Guardian Ad Litem for Theresa Marie Schiavo. A Report to Governor Jeb Bush and the 6th Judicial Circuit in the Matter of Theresa Marie Schiavo. //news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/1203galrpt.pdf, pp. 10-11. 1 December 2003). (Emphasis Added)
-Terry
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 06:08:49 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I just read a report on CNN's website that the arguments between the husband and her parents are continuing over what happens to Terri's body after she dies. A judge has sided with the husband who wants her cremated and returned to Pennsylvania, against her parent's wish to have her body buried intact in Florida. The husband has also refused the parent's requests to take a photo of Terri before she dies.
Whatever side folks are on, whomever you choose to agree with, it is certain that this is a a sad, horrible way to round out this whole sad, horrible ordeal. I don't think there will be any resting in peace for a long time. |
All the more reason we should all fill out a living will today if we don't already have one. To possibly put this kind of guilt and burden on our families knowing what we now know could happen would be unexcusable. |
This is an excellent point. If there's one positive out of this whole mess it's that more people are putting their end of life wishes on paper as a result of it.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 06:18:55 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by RonB:
... then it logically follows that 'YES' is the only logically correct answer. |
If there is only one logically correct answer, then I'd say the question offers no "leeway" whatsoever, for circumstance or otherwise. Thanks for elucidating the steps necessary to prove the point : ) |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 08:48:59 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Talking just now with somebody at work who had a short but interesting perspective on this case, thought I would share:
What's the difference between a homeless woman, and Terri Schiavo?
ANSWER: The homeless woman is aware she's starving to death. |
or...
Nobody would let a homeless woman starve to death, unless, they just plain mean.
Message edited by author 2005-03-28 20:50:39. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 08:49:53 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Talking just now with somebody at work who had a short but interesting perspective on this case, thought I would share:
What's the difference between a homeless woman, and Terri Schiavo?
ANSWER: The homeless woman is aware she's starving to death. |
Nobody would let a homeless woman starve to death, unless, they just plain mean. |
So tell me it doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 08:53:20 PM · #434 |
you just proved my point.
Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge is painful. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 09:50:50 PM · #435 |
What gets me is that many of the same people who are fighting right now to prolong Terri's life have no problem with the US bombing foreign cities, or allowing or judiciary to execute retarded or child felons.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:13:32 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
What gets me is that many of the same people who are fighting right now to prolong Terri's life have no problem with the US bombing foreign cities, or allowing or judiciary to execute retarded or child felons. |
That statement could just as easily be turned around to "What gets me is that many of the same people who have a problem with the US bombing foreign cities, or allowing our judiciary to execute retarded or child felons are fighting right now to take Terri's life by forced dehydration and starvation."
Perspective is everything. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:15:54 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
What gets me is that many of the same people who are fighting right now to prolong Terri's life have no problem with the US bombing foreign cities, or allowing or judiciary to execute retarded or child felons. |
That statement could just as easily be turned around to "What gets me is that many of the same people who have a problem with the US bombing foreign cities, or allowing our judiciary to execute retarded or child felons are fighting right now to take Terri's life by forced dehydration and starvation."
Perspective is everything. |
I thought it was forced feeding and hydration she was undergoing up until last week.
Besides, I don't exactly see any large groups of people standing outside her window fighting for her to die. I don't see any orgaizations asking for money on behalf of the termination of Terri's life. So, no, it is more then prespective. There are hundreds of people standing in the streets protesting the inevitable. There are organizations who are soliciting money on behalf of prolonging Terri's suffering.
For all the talk I hear from these fundamentalists about Christianity and the hereafter Jesus has assured us, why so much fear of Death?
Message edited by author 2005-03-28 22:26:25.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:23:46 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
What gets me is that many of the same people who are fighting right now to prolong Terri's life have no problem with the US bombing foreign cities, or allowing or judiciary to execute retarded or child felons. |
That statement could just as easily be turned around to "What gets me is that many of the same people who have a problem with the US bombing foreign cities, or allowing our judiciary to execute retarded or child felons are fighting right now to take Terri's life by forced dehydration and starvation."
Perspective is everything. |
I thought it was forced feeding and hydration she was undergoing up until last week. |
It was. The difference is that forced feeding and hydration kept her alive, while forced dehydration and starvation leads to death - just as surely as any other method of killing - except that the "perception" is less brutal if you call it "letting her die a natural death" instead of calling it "killing her via forced dehydration and starvation". |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:30:57 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by RonB:
except that the "perception" is less brutal if you call it "letting her die a natural death" instead of calling it "killing her via forced dehydration and starvation". |
So why do you suppose her family seems so concerned about the hospice possibly giving Terri morphine that might hasten her death. Do you really think they care more about her pain and suffering or about how bad they will feel when she is gone? There is a point when it becomes better to just let go.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:36:43 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by RonB:
... forced dehydration and starvation leads to death - just as surely as any other method of killing - except that the "perception" is less brutal if you call it "letting her die a natural death" instead of calling it "killing her via forced dehydration and starvation". |
Much as "minimizing collateral damage" sounds less brutal than saying "we'll try not to kill more than 10,000 innocent civilians" eh? |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:37:59 PM · #441 |
Look: the truth of the matter is that this case is steam rolling without the certainty of the victims' wishes. Therefore arguments that this is what she wanted are fruitless. Nobody knows. How a legal system can have the laws as they are being applied by the judges is beyond my comprehension.
It is all fodder for both sides. If you believe in the right to die, then you dismiss the lack of evidence and join in the condemnation under the excuse that this is what she wanted.
If you are in the opposite camp you seek a stay while the entire picture is put together. Some say this has been done but this is not so. If the issue was so resolved then there is no argument. Again, I repeat that the original testimony simply rolls over and was nover reopenned.
The question then remains which is the nobler position to take? Like most reasonable people suggest it is better to err on the side of life.
Now, if you are a fervent extremist on either side you will hurl insults at the other. This will not solve anything.
For all account and purpose it can be stated that the laws are more at fault but then can not a correction be made to save a life? Or does the victim simply die with the scales of justice dangling in the air.
This is exactly what congress tried to do. It said, "Look we have a problem here, we ask that you stay the current action and review it."
How can anybody say that this is outlandish? It all depends on which side you are on and that is a shame. The final question of her wishes has not been satisfied to a certain degree. Yes, it has been satisfied according to law, but I have already said that the current Florida law is flawed. What to do?
Then the attacks on those that initiated the action. If you are a subscriber to the left media then CNN is top on your list and they say Tom Delay under a similar family matter acted in the opposite way. This is simply not true. The case is very different because there there was life support. The current case is only a feeding tube.
It all depends where you get your news from to form the conclussions you want to reach. This is a very big ado because the effects will be far reaching and it is better to argue the facts and leave the hear say as hear say, otherwise the object of this thread is merely for two sides to cry for life or to cry for death. This attitude has no virtue in advancing neither camp.
My position is to err on the side of life because the evidence is not overwhelming or justifiable to kill the victim. And mind you, I have said that the judges have followed the law but that the law is obviously flawed and this incident is testing and exposing the weakness.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:38:58 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by RonB:
except that the "perception" is less brutal if you call it "letting her die a natural death" instead of calling it "killing her via forced dehydration and starvation". |
So why do you suppose her family seems so concerned about the hospice possibly giving Terri morphine that might hasten her death. Do you really think they care more about her pain and suffering or about how bad they will feel when she is gone? There is a point when it becomes better to just let go. |
As to the first question, my opinion is that they are still "hoping" for a miracle that will result in re-insertion of the feeding tube. That hope would disappear if Terri's death were hastened by morphine.
As for the second question, you offer only two possibilities with no "leeway for circumstances". So I feel empowered to not respond to it.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:48:04 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
... forced dehydration and starvation leads to death - just as surely as any other method of killing - except that the "perception" is less brutal if you call it "letting her die a natural death" instead of calling it "killing her via forced dehydration and starvation". |
Much as "minimizing collateral damage" sounds less brutal than saying "we'll try not to kill more than 10,000 innocent civilians" eh? |
Acutally, no. "minimizing collateral damage" means "trying to preserve as many innocent lives as possible". If stated in the negative, as you have, it would be "we'll try not to kill ANY innocent civilians" which is exactly what happened ( apart from some rogue soldiers, who are being tried ).
On the other hand "letting her die a natural death" means "we don't want to risk the political backlash of coming right out and saying that we're going to legally kill her ( even though we are )". |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:52:03 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Then the attacks on those that initiated the action. If you are a subscriber to the left media then CNN is top on your list and they say Tom Delay under a similar family matter acted in the opposite way. This is simply not true. The case is very different because there there was life support. The current case is only a feeding tube. |
Yes this is a classic.
So, "The current case is only a feeding tube". So then if this feeding tube was removed she would not die?
Thatâs strange, is she not in the process of dying now that the tube has been removed?
Terri is unable to swallow so any food or water given to her through her mouth she would choke on and probably asphyxiate.
So, how is this different?
Message edited by author 2005-03-28 22:55:40. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:54:16 PM · #445 |
Dave Ross has been making small commentaries about this case for the last few days on CBS radio ... I've copied them below since the link will become outdated (connect to different essays) soon.
=========================
Dave Ross Commentaries
Mar 28, 2005
SCHIAVO (MON)
Last wishes. This is Dave Ross.
The emotions only seem to intensify:
PAUL OâDONNELL: âEveryone is willing⦠sheâs alert, sheâs awake, and sheâs fighting for her life.â
Watching all this, if youâre a Christian â do you ever find yourself asking whatever became of the essential Christian idea â the one celebrated during Easter -- that Christ defeated death once and for all; so that no one need fear death anymore â the message of hope that something better is waiting on the other side?
Because â the religious theme throughout this case has been the finality of death. And some of the most fervent supplications have been directed not towards the almighty, but toward Governor Jeb Bush:
OâDONNELL: âWeâre urgently asking for your assistance, and free her â free her from her captivity.â
Freedom in this case being not eternal life, but a feeding tube.
All very puzzling. And captivating at the same time â because itâs one of those issues every one of us is likely to face in one form or another. Weâve become a nation of amateur theologians in the past two weeks â because the professional ones donât seem to have clear answers either.
And yet â thereâs at least ONE thing that ought to be clear.
Whether we can ever truly know a dying personâs wishes, I have to believe that the LAST thing any dying person wants is for their death to break apart the family theyâve left behind.
Perhaps over the next few weeks, those who worked so hard to turn this into a public debate ⦠will at least figure out that part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 25, 2005
SCHIAVO (FRI)
Some people are just more innocent than others. This is Dave Ross.
Even if you disagree with Terry Schiavoâs parents, I think most of us have sympathy for them. But what do you think about the side show thatâs sprouted up -- like people getting arrested for trespassing with a glass of water. Whatâs that about?
I donât doubt that there are sincere people who genuinely want to bring Terry Schiavo a drink.
But is this really about protecting all innocent life?
ROBERTSON 3/23/05:⦠People of faith all over the world are just deeply concerned that a country like the United States would deliberately murder somebody.â
Thatâs Televangelist Pat Robertson on the 700 Club this week, reminding us that the world is watching what we do:
ROBERTSON 3/23/05:⦠âIt is a decree of death by a judge on an innocent person, like the Nazis.â
And yet, this same Pat Robertson had a very different view of the sanctity of life last May when he came up with this idea for taking control of the rebellious Iraqi city of Najaf:
ROBERTSON 5/10/04: âI would say take Najaf, put a cordon around it, cut off the electricity, cut off the water, the sweltering summer is coming and you send leaflets to those people saying give us give, give us the mullah and his followers, and you will have all your services restored. And unless you do, itâs gonna be a long hot summer.â
Now some religious figures are consistent â the Pope is against pulling the feeding tube AND against pre-emptive war. But Pat ⦠was demanding a siege â where you starve not just one person, but a whole city.
ROBERTSON 5/10/04 [excerpt from previous] ââ¦cut off the electricity, cut off the water ⦠â
I thought that line was especially ironic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 24, 2005
SCHIAVO (THURS)
Miracle time. This is Dave Ross.
The US Supreme court said no to Terry Schiavoâs parents today.
Nine Republicans joined a majority in the Florida Senate in saying no yesterday. A couple of them indicated they were tired of the internet rants against them, and tired of being prayed for.
The latest polls show that even a majority of Evangelicals believe Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die.
But thatâs only energized her self-appointed protectors, who have now turned on their erstwhile political allies:
MAHONEY: âFor the Republican majority in the Florida Senate: the death that Terri is suffering here must be laid at your doorstep.â
Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition â who even took aim at Jeb Bush:
MAHONEY: âWe say to Governor Bush â a citizen of your state is being brutally murdered. You need to intervene on her behalf.â
He wants him to order the cops to physically take Terri Schaivo from her room.
I look at all this and I think -- Isnât it strange! Here are people of deep faith who have been putting that faith where? In earthly authority. They pray for Senators, they scold the Governor ⦠but isnât this in Godâs hands now?
Isnât this the time to have faith that a Merciful God will do what is best for Terri Schiavo?
Because if it is indeed Godâs will that Terri Schiavo live, He could perform that miracle.
If the Lord thinks thinks Rev. Mahoney and the others are right â can you imagine the impact? The world is watching. Itâs almost Easter. THAT would settle the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 23, 2005
SCHIAVO (WED)
Culture of life. This is Dave Ross.
For the Right to life movement, there is a silver lining in the Terry Schiavo case.
Louis Sheldon, who chairs the traditional values coalition â who says ânever has the right-to-life issue dominated the news headlines day after day as it is doing now.â
Heâs certainly right about that.
Weâve been immersed in Terri Schaivoâs tragic circumstances. But I think itâs fair to say the single reaction Iâve heard most frequently isnât exactly life-affirming; the reaction Iâve heard most frequently is, âMan if that happens to me, pull the plug!â
Itâs got a lot of us grossed out at what the medical industry may have in store for us. Itâs got a lot of people telling lawyers, if THATâs what Iâve got to look forward to, please make sure they donât keep me alive!
So I donât know how this promotes the culture of life. And thatâs too bad because we DO need to promote it.
That kid who shot up his school in Minnesota reminded us we have some dormant volcanoes out there, living in a culture where they canât get help, they can only get even.
And what are we doing about it? I heard a safety expert on CNN giving kids tips on how to protect themselves during a shooting. One tip was, when you hide behind a car, donât hide behind trunk, hide behind the engine block.
BOB STUBERS: âIf you were behind the trunk section of a car, you could still be shot; itâs hollow, the bullet could still pass through the car.â
See kids, you didnât know that. Youâve been wasting your time on geometry, havenât you! Yikes!
Yes, creating a Culture of Life. Itâs a good thing. And you have a choice: you can focus on the dying -- or you can focus on creating the kind of world that people want to live in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 22, 2005
SCHIAVO (TUES)
New judge â same result. This is Dave Ross.
Federal judge James Wittemore of Tampa has decided NOT to order that Terry Schiavoâs feeding tube be inserted right away.
Despite the emotional debate in Congress that sent the case to his courtroom, he said the issues had been âexhaustively litigatedâ and that Terri Schiavoâs life and liberty had been protected by the state courts, and that his job was to apply the law.
So the feeding tube stays out â let the appeals begin.
But hereâs what I found remarkable: one of the arguments presented by David Biggs, the lawyer representing Terry Schiavoâs parents, opened up a whole new dimension. During the federal hearing, he argued that removing the feeding tube would jeopardize Terry Schiavoâs chances ⦠of getting to heaven.
He argued that she is a Roman Catholic, and that the Pope has said that Catholics in such circumstances must not refuse food and water. Therefore, said the attorney, "We are now in a position where a court has ordered her to disobey her church and even jeopardize her eternal soul."
Wow. Let me get this straight. Because last week a medical assistant shut off Terry Schiavoâs feeding tube, as she lay there incapacitated, God would send HER to hell?
If those are truly the rules â then imagine whatâs going to happen to all those people who sign living will and put it in WRITING that they donât want to be force fed.
It also makes me wonder what happens to lawyers who use religion to scare people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 21, 2005
SCHIAVO (MON)
Did we just get National Health Care? This is Dave Ross.
Congress is now intimately involved in the case of Terri Schiavo.
The vote for that special bill to send her case to federal court was remarkably bi-partisan.
Thereâs plenty of debate over whether this is interference in a family matter.
But there can be no debate over the underlying reasons that Republicans wanted this â because they made it clear:
Itâs about compassion. Thatâs why they pushed for an emergency vote on a Sunday night. Republicans like Representative Christopher Smith argued that in life and death cases, compassion trumps everything:
SMITH: âThatâs what weâre all about: trying to make sure that the weak and the disabled and the disenfranchised are looked after in our society. The strong are able to [fend] for themselves, but the weak and in this case the disabled person cannot. So thereâs an overriding federal interest to care for a disabled person for whom the best interest may not be being followed here.â
And if Congress would intervene in something as personal as a family dispute â how could they NOT intervene in life and death medical decisions based on far more superficial matters â like insurance coverage. Listen to what Representative Don Manzullo said:
TAPE: âIf there is any chance that Terry Schiavo can be rehabilitated, why not exercise our prerogative as people who are elected to represent the people in this country to give her that opportunity?â
We may get national health care after all. Maybe THATâS why so many Democrats decided to jump on. |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:55:01 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by RonB:
except that the "perception" is less brutal if you call it "letting her die a natural death" instead of calling it "killing her via forced dehydration and starvation". |
So why do you suppose her family seems so concerned about the hospice possibly giving Terri morphine that might hasten her death. Do you really think they care more about her pain and suffering or about how bad they will feel when she is gone? There is a point when it becomes better to just let go. |
As to the first question, my opinion is that they are still "hoping" for a miracle that will result in re-insertion of the feeding tube. That hope would disappear if Terri's death were hastened by morphine.
As for the second question, you offer only two possibilities with no "leeway for circumstances". So I feel empowered to not respond to it. |
It was a rhetorical question. Even so, if you chose to answer it I would not have held you to one alterative or the other.
I just feel they are not being honest about her pain. First they say she was not in pain before the feeding tubes were removed, but the whole time she was on pain medication. They testified that she was happy and wanted to recover and that she was in no great amount of pain, then they get a nurse to testify that she is reactive to stimulation and she actually even "talks" because she has heard her on numerous occasions say "pay' which she was sure meant âpainâ. They then tell us that Terri is starving to death and in great pain, yet they would deny her morphine in her greatest hour of need.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 10:58:48 PM · #447 |
No, actually "minimizing collateral damage" means that you are accepting the fact that innocent people will be killed -- only the number is indeterminate.
In an offensive war, I don't feel that's justified ... under those conditions it certainly seems inconsistent with a philosophy of "erring on the side of life." |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 11:26:31 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
No, actually "minimizing collateral damage" means that you are accepting the fact that innocent people will be killed -- only the number is indeterminate.
In an offensive war, I don't feel that's justified ... under those conditions it certainly seems inconsistent with a philosophy of "erring on the side of life." |
Your re-phrased statement is the more accurate. There IS an implication that innocent people will be killed, and that it is an acceptable consequence, as well. The overriding rationale, however, is that the consequence of NOT taking action that MAY result in innocent deaths far outweighs the consequence of the unfortunate loss of those innocent lives. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a World War I, II, etc.
The philosophy is erring on the side of the MOST lives. If you don't believe it, look at view of most liberals about Iraq. They wail long and loud about the loss of American lives in Iraq ( just check bdobe's signature block ), but seemingly care nothing about the thousands of Iraqis who would die in the days following a sudden, unilateral withdrawel of U.S. and coalition soldiers. The liberals would err on the side of a saving a few hundred American lives at the expense of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Iraqi's losing their lives. The "offensive war" as you call it, attempts to reverse those statistics.
T |
|
|
|
03/28/2005 11:36:46 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by RonB:
of Iraqi's losing their lives. The "offensive war" as you call it, attempts to reverse those statistics.
T |
Let's not hijack this screwed-up thread with a war. I only made a parrallel. I think there are quite a few threads elsewhere about how messed up the war in Iraq is and all the caring people who support it.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 12:27:33 AM · #450 |
Here are a couple points I'd like to make on this whole thing (which have probably already been mentioned - I haven't read any replies to the original post):
Terri is getting ready to continue her evolution in a few more days, finally after 15 years, thanks to her husband. The radical conservatives will need suck it up and take a "loss". The radical libs will claim a "victory". But what really matters is, Terri will finally be free to continue her journey.
She has basically won and that is all that matters.
2) When you see G.W. Bush fly all the way back to DC just to sign a new law (bill or whatever it is) just for Terri, and then proclaim that the reason he and congress is doing this "...is because I am on the side of Life...", then you should ask yourself why he would also sign into law in 1999 as Governor of Texas, a law to allow hospitals to pull that very same feeding tube from patients (no matter what their mental state or ability to recover) if they can't make the payments, and allow them to die. I guess only certain life is important? I'm confused here.
3) This whole thing is basically a dispute between Michael Shiavo and the Schindler family. We know the basic motivations for the position of each side, but nobody really knows secondary motivations/grudges that exist and have been brewing for years.
4) The politicians, activists, media, talk show hosts, etc., all having their own agendas are quick to point out the secondary motivations that they proclaim as the real truth, and at the same time disregard the secondary motivations of the opposing side. It's called selective truth. If you are told only 1/2 of the truth, you are still being lied to. :)
That's all.
|
|
