Terri Schiavo Update

That's PC double-talk. If you are for abortion you are pro-abortion. Your refusal to use the proper term is simply proof that you know you don't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on.

That just about says it all! How sick can you possibly get? You think killing babies is a "great thing"? I surely hope you don't have children. You might just decide you don't want them anymore and decide to "pro-choice" them to death.

BLD

 

Deb,
The fact is, you don't have any reasonable arguments, so you simply use me as a reason to back out. If you can't state logical reasons for your positions, which you can't, I can see why you run away from the discussion.

Again, if you are for abortion you are pro-abortion. There is no way around that. It is like saying I'm for capitalism, but I'm not pro-capitalism. It's a ridiculous position.

BLD

 

I've stayed out of this discussion because I have enjoyed the comments thus far. With minor exceptions the posts have been thought provoking and eloquent.

The "pro-life"/"pro-choice" debate always seemed a bit hypocritical to me. Very few people are really either. Many who claim to be "pro-life" support capital punishment and many who claim to be "pro-choice" refuse to give that right to those who have signed living wills.

Very few have a 100% "pro-life" position such as I. I oppose capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia. However, can I really claim to be 100% "pro-life" since I make exceptions when the life of the mother is at stake (abortion) or when one is in a complete vegatative state ("pull the plug").

By the way, Ms. Schiavo is not in a vegatative state. To end her life would be, in my opinion, state-sanctioned murder. She is responsive, she is not comatose and even if she were, there have been many cases of comatose patients coming out of comas as many as 30 year's later.

I suspect Ms. Schiavo's husband fears she will regain normal or semi-normal functioning. What might she reveal about how she really ended up in her present state?

The subject of ethics, especially medical ethics, is extremely complicated and we should never be so harsh towards those who take opposing views. Sometimes we should just leave things in the hands of God trusting His wisdom and judgment.

On a final note, I always find it odd that many in our society care more about the health, safety, and welfare of animals than human beings and I wholeheartedly support the humane and ethical treatment of animals.

 

BLD,

You and I are on the exact same side of this argument, but I can't understand why you feel the need to be so confrontational.

I am as pro-life as they come, I think abortion is a horrid thing, but how you can make statemetns to Deb like, "How sick can you possibly get? You think killing babies is a "great thing"?"

As a pastor I can tell you I have known people who support abortion as a last resort that I would not call pro-abortion. I have counseled women who agonized over the decision (made the wrong decision in my opinion), but were not pro-abortion.

I know there are people who are passive about the issue, but almost everyone I know )on both sides of the abortion issue) do not take the issue lightly or half-heartedly.

There are militant abortion-supporters, but I don't think they are the majority of the people on that side.

If folks like you and me are going to change minds we must enter the debate with compassion and understanding. Your comments (and I can tell you have passion for what you believe) make it sound like everyone who disagrees with you is a raving sicko with no moral structure. I don't think that's true.

I would much prefer to understand why believe abortion is an option and attempt to persuade by debating the belief system, not attacking the individual.

Give it a try,

 

Jimmy Clifton:

Historical note...the first prosecutions for child abuse and neglect in the United States were brought under the statutes forbidding cruelty to animals. There were no laws forbidding cruelty to children.

 

Michael,
I'm a pastor too. I've yet to meet anyone who is for abortion that is not pro-abortion. I've just gotten sick and tired of beating around the bush. These people are for the legalized slaughter of infants. If you can't get riled up about that, there's something wrong.

BLD

 

I remember reading this many year's ago but had forgotten it. I think the basic (or should I say "base") philosophy was that children were seen as chattel, not human beings!

Think some school teachers have reverted to this way of thinking as I see yet another one had sex with a teen in her car while her baby was in the back seat! Vile, just vile!

 

Nos, I have to say that I enjoy testifying about as much as I'd enjoy eating dirt and living in a cave. I mean I start to sweat driving to the court house! In any event, I disagree that these are decisions that should be made by clinicians. The role of the clinician is to provide information to be employed by the decision-maker be it be it someone identified in an advanced directive or a judge. I'm afraid that having clinicians make decisions about who lives or dies is a slippery slope. I'm in favor of judicial oversight and the rule of law in these matters. I can well see your position that no one wants to touch them. I don't relish the judge's position. As I said before, these cases are rarely adjudicated thus its usually a clinician whom makes the decision by default. I wish that all questions of capacity to make medical decisions were automatically reviewed by the court.

 

I am ideologically hard on the pro choice side of the abortion fight.

But abortion makes me feel physically ill.

It also strikes me as being contrary to nature and in the long run foolish and dangerous for the survival of the race. Philosophically, it is a lot easier to justify a complete pro life stance (no abortion, no passive euthenasia, no death penalty and maybe even no contraception) than to justify my own position.

But I believe that the greater, more immediate threat to civil society is the growth of government coercion in the lives of Americans.

I agree with the Supreme Court; the interest of the state must be balanced against the privacy interest of the citizenry. Although flawed and dated in its details, Roe v. Wade is likely the correct approach.

So too with the Schiavo case. I agree with those who say these issues are connected. Both have to do with how we define human life for LEGAL purposes, not for religious purposes, not for philosophical purposes, but to determine when and to what extent the brute physical force of the state will be applied against the very bodies of those of its citizens who do not agree with the pro life position.

So preach against it! Use all of your ability to move and pursuade! But don't co opt the power of the state to force one half of the population to accept the genuinely debatable opinions of the other half.

 

David Williams:

Like you, I see no reasonable alternative to Judicial decisionmaking where there's a dispute. I just wish that the Courts were intellectully better equipped to handle these cases.

Some hospital staffs now employ ethicists trained in the tradition of Western morals and philosophy to offer advice. But again, if the parties choose to fight, they have no choice but to fight in front of a Judge.

If I or someone could formulate a really solid rule and get it recognized, that might help. Until then, we will continue to apply "nonsense on stilts" made even more unsatisfactory when there is no explicit declaration of the patient's wishes.

 

A Jewish view of the life question

You will find several articles representing a traditional, dispassionate, and carefully thought out view of abortion and passive euthenasia at www.aish.com

(aish is the hebrew word for "fire". Its use in this case refers, I imagine, to the burning bush)

 

Re: A Jewish view of the life question

Active or passive euthanasia...there are always qualifiers to most issues and choices, aren't there?

 

DEB: If your support of the death penalty is based on the fact that the people are guilty, what about the ones who have since been found innocent?

Bush04: I think this helps to demonstrate that, in the end, the system works. I do think, however, use of the death penalty should be limited in order to reduce the possibility of mistake. I personally believe that only the more extreme cases supported by compelling evidence should qualify.

Deb: My point was that a court heard the evidence and reached a discission. Just as in the death penalty cases, they have reached the best decision they can based on the evidence presented. Obviously, some on this board feel that the correct decision was reached and some feel the courts are wrong.

Bush04: Not even close to death penalty cases. Here is why: the burden of proof is lower; the presumptions are different; the fact finder is a judge, not a jury; and appellate avenues are probably limited in comparison. Do you think you could convince a jury to unanimously rule against Terry despite the fact that there is no proof she wishes to die? I seriously doubt it.

Deb: See all the statements from all the conflicting doctors. There has been no proof offered that she was, early on, denied rehabilitation. I can't speak for recently since her husband's team of doctors does not think it will help.

Bush04: Last night on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, Terry’s parents explained how, because of the husband, she was denied rehabilitation all along. This is proof. Her doctors also argue that rehabilitation could be successful. This is proof. In light of the conflict, all doubts should be resolved in favor of keeping terry alive. Right?

Deb: The law that you are speaking of was declared unconsititional because it went far beyond the powers granted the governor. It basically said that if there was a dispute between family members over the handling of a person not having a living will that the governor was finally abatrator rather than the courts or doctors. It was a bad law.

Bush04: I disagree. States have a legitimate interest in protecting human life from being savagely destroyed. I believe that the law was a reasonable way to further that objective. In my opinion, this was an example of the courts (not the executive) overreaching. When elected representatives of the people pass a law, absent extreme circumstances, it should stand. Citizens can express their unhappiness with certain laws on Election Day.

Either way, what I was really trying to do was point out how civil liberties groups often fight against what they purport to protect. The ACLU should be protecting Terry, not her greedy husband.

Deb: I can understand letting Terri die - if that what she wanted. I can understand euthanasia - if that is what the conscious, lucid person requests. The death penalty is usually not requested.

Bush04: I only wish we really knew what Terry wanted. As stated above by someone else above, this situation is a good argument for why we should create living wills. But absent such a document, we should err on the side of caution.

Deb: But many people, as with BLD, support the death penalty while opposing abortion and euthanasia. …….. Abortion is a little trickier because you have a third party involved. ….. I am pro-choice because there is a third party involved here - the mother. She is the one whose life is in danger during a pregancy. She is the one who has to carry to term. We are also once again back to the definition of life.

Bush04: I agree with BLD on this simply because the death penalty punishes guilt, after appropriate due process. In contrast, abortion punishes innocence, where no amount of due process could possibly suffice.

I agree that women should have the right to choose. And they do have a choice. They can either (1) engage in procreative activity (protected or otherwise) with the knowledge pregnancy could result or (2) abstain. That is the choice. Once that decision is made, the woman has exercised her right to choose, and should be held responsible for any resulting life.

Once pregnancy results, it is no longer the mother’s choice to make. This is because another innocent human life is involved. I believe that once the egg is fertilized, a human life is created. This life has its own unique DNA, blood type, and heartbeat, and deserves protection from mothers who make poor life choices.

Deb: If we are arguing over when it ends, then we probably won't agree on when it begins. I think a mother should make the decision during the first trimester since the fetus could not live without the mother. Now, the second trimester presents more questions, with smaller and smaller badies living, which is why I think abortion in the second and third trimester should only be done if the mother's life is in danger. I believe the morning after pill is a great thing that should be used more often.

Bush04: I know we disagree about when life begins and ends, but I would argue that regardless of our own theories, we should err on side of caution. Innocent life is far too precious. I would also argue that an 18 month old baby can’t survive outside the womb without its mother. From the day of fertilization to several years into the child’s life, it is the job of the mother (and father) to provide love and protection.

Also, while I understand the point of your trimester system argument, the system is an outdated one. The U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey replaced the rigid Roe trimester framework with a viability standard. See members.aol.com/abtrbng/505us833.htm

I point this out simply because the reworking of Roe indicates to me that abortion is on shaky ground. Technological advances could lead to another reworking. Or, a possible change in make up in the court, could lead to Roe being entirely overruled. Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas believe Roe was wrongly decided. Two more votes and Roe is gone.

Deb: Then we have to address the questions of rape or incest. Still no go on the abortion or do you allow for things like that?

Bush04: This is a most unfortunate (and hopefully rare) situation, and difficult for me to reconcile. This is because much of my pro-life argument is based on the mother’s choice whether or not to engage in sexual behavior in the first place. However, innocent life is innocent life. Accordingly, I believe it should be protected and cherished at all costs. Therefore, I am against abortion in every case.

However, I do understand that women who did not choose to engage in procreative activity may not want to carry the child of a demon seed rapist. I also understand that when abortion is outlawed, there will probably be a rape exception. In that case, I would argue that a strict and extremely narrow exception should be drawn.

Under my theoretical (and reluctant) rape exception, a woman would be entitled to procure an abortion, with a judge’s permission, if (1) she was forcibly raped (2) reported the rape immediately and (3) agreed to cooperate with any resulting prosecutions. Also, the death of the unborn child would be imputed to the rapist, thereby making him subject to murder liability. And finally, if it was found that the woman falsified statements in order to obtain an abortion, she would be subject to prosecution for capital murder.

I am assuming that many incest cases would also fall under the rape category. In the event the incest is voluntary, the mother should be forced to take responsibility for the life she created. People should not qualify for abortions simply because they are sexual deviants. I could never be convinced that voluntary incest is a basis or excuse for murder.

The same applies to “life of the mother” scenarios. Women must consider, and carefully weigh, the benefits and dangers of procreative activity before engaging in it. Even if it results in their death, mothers should protect the children of her wombs.

 

Hey, why don't we throw gay marriage into the pot? That would give us a four-up on all the major moral issues of today!

 

Gay marriage isn't really an issue. My best friend was happy before getting married, and now he is miserable. His marriage is anything but gay.