Strangelove said:Odd how worlds collide.....
It occured to me as the liberal democrats are blathering on and on about 'right to die' this, and 'dignity of death' that ,and that they are the ones who demanded lethal injeciton for death row inmates, (then they hold a candle-light vigil :lamo )., they should have no problem poking 'ole Terri with a needle full of poison.
So Terri Schiavo's slow death by starvation is 'humane'.
Why aren't they truly being consistent, and advocating a LETHAL INJECTION?, which, by their definition, would in fact be humane.
Or how about the partial birth abortion procedure whereby a sharp implement is inserted into the brain and the brain removed through a suction tube.?
Where's Peter Singer?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0049.html
Apparently, a woman (and girl) has the 'right to choose', but not the right to lve.
By the way, I do not think Congress should intervene. I believe the Florida decision should stand.
shuamort said:Strangelove, the problem I find with your statement is that it’s a compression of multiple ideas being presented as one. It’s like saying “Have you stopped using illegal sales practices?” (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)
Allow me to de-construct your argument a bit and let me know if I go astray from your intents.
1)Liberals believe in the “right to die”
2)Liberals don’t believe in the death penalty
3)The right to die in this case involves starvation.
4)Starvation is not humane.
5)Lethal injection as opposed to starvation would be more humane
6)Shouldn’t liberals want to be more humane?
7)Lethal injection is a product of the death penalty.
8 )Thus liberals wouldn’t want lethal injection because it would be a product of something they’re against.
9)Liberals are for abortion
10)Liberals are for the right to choose
11)Liberals are against the right to live.
(edited to get rid of the smiley on #8
shuamort said:I guess the bigger question for the masses should be, should we allow people who have signed a waiver prior to getting into these state to have a lethal injection should they ever get to this point?
shuamort said:We've got three main issues here, abortion, death penalty, and plug-pulling (which for all intents and purposes, I'll call "assisted suicide").
]
shuamort said:I've got a feeling that this thread could get messy as there's a lot to tackle here, so let me throw that out first.
Typically, liberals are:
1)Pro-abortion.
2)Anti-death penalty.
3)Pro-Assisted Suicide.
Typically, conservatives are:
1)Anti-abortion
2)Pro-death penalty
3)Anti-assisted suicide.
Those tend to be the party positions, but people, being people, have swapped one for the other for whatever reasons.
All three of these situations deal with life and its time on this earth. If you look at the three situations without depth, you'll see that they seem hypocritical along both sides of the coin. How could one be for the death penalty but against assisted suicide? How could one be pro-abortion but think that the death penalty is wrong? One could always carry the fetus to term and give it up for adoption and a criminal can always carry on in a cell in a prison as well.
The problem with the perceived inconsistencies is that there is rationale behind them and that the issues are bit deeper than life and death.
I agree with you about the Schiavo case. It's very unsettling that she's had the feeder tube removed and will be starved for two weeks until she dies. According to her husband according to her..."that's what she wanted". As the laws are in Florida, a remedy to end her life more quickly isn't legally available. Injecting someone who isn't on death row with pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride is a no-no. (I think I've got all the facts right here, but please correct me if I missed something).
I guess the bigger question for the masses should be, should we allow people who have signed a waiver prior to getting into these state to have a lethal injection should they ever get to this point?
Fair enough. The Schiavo case is a sticky one since she didn't have anything written nor was able to consent to what has happened.Strangelove said:You can't even call it that, because 'assisted suicide' is just that-assisted. It requires the person in question to make the decision, and apply some directive,which is clearly not the case here. Terri is not requesting this action. We only have heresay from her husband, whose motives are dubious at best.
'physician assisted death' is the accurate term, and far more distasteful....but that's reality.
It's the pro-death penalty that gets a bit messy as while I agree with you that it is a principle in the bible that people are punished by death (stoning etc), there's also the "Thou shalt not kill" thing that throws it a bit of a curveball. The Pope John Paul II has spoken out against the death penalty but said "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (And oddly enough, a story about Catholics support for the death penalty dropping below 50%.With the release of the poll at the start of Holy Week, church leaders announced the Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty.)Strangelove said:examples: Billy Graham on the right (pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-assisted suicide---all biblical principles)
Freedom69 said:Hi Strangelove I must ask you for your honest opinion please be honest .
If you were in Terri's place would you want to live that way.
Because 85% of Americans say they do not.
You must be honest with yourself do not use the bibles point of view or the Republican point of view ....Please explain to me what good do you think living like this will do you.
P.S Just using the bible is copping out Terri can not feel any joy she can not feel any pain I feel what the religious right and the Republicans are doing to this woman is disgusting.
Leaving aside the moral arguments for and against allowing this person to die, not to mention the susequent court ruling which should have finalized her fate, I simply wish that the cause of death could be something less barbaric than starvation. Even condemned criminals on Death Row have access to a humane death, one which puts a person to sleep painlessly before a quick end to life. But Schiavo doesn't have this option given to her as she will have her life taken away over 14 days without food and water.
Most of us would be appalled by the idea of starving a condemned prisoner to death, for instance, or withholding water until he died of thirst. We wouldn't, and in fact don't, as a society, do that to unwanted or even dangerous animals. For those creatures, we opt for the much more humane lethal injection. No such option for this disabled woman.
"She's not dying by starvation," Michael Schiavo told Larry King of CNN during a broadcast last week. "This is a natural, painless death. What happens is when you stop eating, your electrolytes will slowly diminish. You'll slowly go into a nice, deep sleep and then pass away."
If Terri is suffering, liberal pundits say, the "right-to-lifers" are to blame because of their opposition to euthanasia. Instead of receiving a quick lethal injection, she was doomed to a long and perhaps painful death thanks to conservative intolerance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?