Two or Three (.net)

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - Jesus

6 Comments:

• Oh the situation is very complex (to me) as much of my writing here and at Wardrobe Door has shown.
  
  When everything is boiled down, I see no other option. As I said, I have a lot of questions on a lot of different issues with the Schiavo case, but I can't help but to see this as a court sanctioned starvation.
  
  I appreciate your respect, Louis. I hope this does not diminish that, but I can't see any other way to describe it.

  By  Unknown, at 3/31/2005 11:30 AM  

• You know what makes no sense to me? Why did the "compassionate liberals" not call for death by lethal injection?
  
  And if she couldn't comprehend or feel that she was suffering from starvation/dehydration, WHY NOT LET HER LIVE under her parent's care, since she wouldn't suffer that way either?
  
  My bottom line - conservatives need to adopt a PRO right-to-die and assisted-suicide position for those who suffer needlessly. Liberals need to acknowledge the slippery slope of euthenasia and propose a pro-eutthenasia stance that prevents us from going down that slope. And, they need to demonstrate that they value life more than the convenience of choice.

  By  danielg, at 3/31/2005 11:36 AM  

• Torture, Louis? You consider the act of providing basic sustenance through a feeding tube "torture"? Please explain that.
  
  Do you believe that it's "torture" to allow a human being, created in the image & likeness of God, to starve to death? Especially in light of the fact that Terri was not suffering from any terminal disease from which death was certain and imminent. She was only brain-damaged. Is that the "torture" to which you refer? Professor Peter Singer says such folks have ceased to be *productive* members of society & advocates their deaths, calling it "ethical." Do you agree with that? (He also advocates the use of such people as fodder for experimentation, rather than animals & calls that "ethical," too. I call it inhuman & inhumane.)
  
  Please tell me, Louis, does a person's *personhood* depend on their abilities? Is a quadraplegic any less of a person than an athelete who can run the mile in less than 4 minutes? Is a person who has Down's Syndrome any less of a person than a member of Mensa? Is it all about "I think, therefore I am" (as Aaron pointed out in a recent post) & "I can do, therefore I am? Or do you believe that all human life has inherent dignity? As a Christian, I see an individual like Terri as an opportunity to serve another human being! And definitely not as an opportunity for experimentation & starvation. "Whatsoever you do to the least of My brothers, that you do unto Me," Christ said.
  
  Now, had Terri been in the end-stage of a terminal disease & there was no hope for recovery & death was certain & imminent, then I could agree with allowing her to die, with all appropiate palliative care administered. But this was simply flat out murder.

  By  Anonymous, at 3/31/2005 11:53 AM  

• A great piece from NRO:
  
  http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200503311017.asp

  By  Anonymous, at 3/31/2005 12:41 PM  

• Louis said forcing someone whose cerebal cortex has long ago liquified to exist in this limbo state for 15 years is torture.
  
  If her brain is liquified and she can't feel the pain of dehydration, what makes you think her life is torture? I think you are mistaking her for someone who can experience suffering. Or maybe you are projecting your feelings onto her. Or maybe she's really an inconvenience to her loved ones.
  
  And if she can feel pain and pleasure (i.e. torture), then perhaps she can feel love from her parents, and should be kept alive.
  
  This is what is so crazy about the liberal position on this - it makes no sense to say she is suffering from existing but ISN'T SUFFERING when being dehyrated and malnourished to death over a two week period.
  
  Now, I do agree that if she had a living will or a husband whose word could be trusted (and I'm on the fence with this husband), then we could let her go whether she was semi-conscious or in a PVS. But not by starvation.
  
  In fact, I would even go as far as to say we should give her a lethal injection. But I'm sure my Christian friends would disagree with that last statement.

  By  danielg, at 3/31/2005 10:53 PM  

• BTW, I do agree with Louis in that conservative christians value life to a fault - that fault being they don't let someone go, and won't help them die with ease and "dignity" because they are extreme (unbalanced) in their "committment to life."
  
  Just as the liberals are valuing choice to a fault - to the point where weak and incapacitated people (and fetuses) can be killed unrighteously / unjustly in the name of personal rights and "compassion" - certainly misnamed. They value personal choice to a fault, justifying evil with a type of moral selfishness, a la Ayn Rand.

  By  danielg, at 3/31/2005 10:59 PM  

Post a Comment