Terri Schiavo's death
It's a sad event, for many reasons.
I firmly support a person's right to die, if he or she so chooses.
But what is unclear is whether Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die, in such a state, if she could have told us.
And as the President says, we should err on the side of life. I'll agree to that.
But it also seems to me that the Schindler family had seven years to convince any of several different courts that Michael Schiavo's case was in error. They did not.
What's left to determine is if Terri would have chosen to die through slow starvation/dehydration. If she is as incapable of cognition as the doctors tell us, it might not be a bad way to die at all -- drifting into a heavy sleep.
If she is as conscious as the Schindler's would have us believe, it would be awful and agonizing.
So what I really object to is the possibility that Terri's death was slow and painful. Once it has been determined that Terri doesn't, or wouldn't want to live, oughtn't we ensure a quick and painless death?
my feed
6 Comments:
And where are these self-righteous protesters when it comes to all of the awful unatural deaths in Sudan, for instance?
David
First of all, I'm not a Polish guy, although I'll take that as a compliment. I'm an American, from Michigan. I've only been here in Poland for 4 years.
Who's saying Christians have a monopoly on hypocrisy?
As Red can tell you, I'm no pacifist, in the strictest sense of the word (I believe that force can and should be used sometimes -- but I usually disagree with Bush's decisions to use it).
But force is probably necessary in Sudan, and I would support it, if the political will for it would materialize.
I count myself a Christian too. These people are certainly not representative of most Christians I know -- so please don't mistake me for confusing this small group with Christians as a whole.
Thousands of Iraqis dying? Interesting point. I also didn't see these folks out protesting when Iraqis were dying because of Saddam's iron fist, nor when hundreds of thousands of civilians were dying from American bombs.
So maybe the hypocrisy is this: Is life only sacred when it's an American, or when a precedent on euthanasia seems destined to be set? Is it only Americans (not convicted of a crime punishable by death) who deserve a "culture of life"?
PS -- is it just me, or are you Johnnymozart's alter ego?
If not, what ever happened to him?
Not a drop of Polish blood. Disappointing, now that I know about the bravery of the Poles that RT mentioned in an earlier thread
I am indeed of European extraction, northwestern Europe mostly: a long lind of Vikings, krauts and leprechauns.
The same people worried about Iraqi deaths by American bombs were perfectly content to leave them at the mercies of Saddam Hussein.
I beg to differ. Those folks were also Bill Clinton supporters, and he's the one who established the policy of regime change.
The problem with conservatives is that they believe that an unwillingness to go to war = "content to leave them at the mercies of Saddam Hussein". To me, the question is much more complicated, and it's much less clear whether living through war is better than living through the same period of time being ruled by Saddam, while peaceful mechanisms for his removal still existed. There are many more like me.
And the "hundred-thousand" number comes from a study done by Johns Hopkins. Of course, look up the "Lancet" report, and you'll find many who discredit it (Because their range was between 8,000 and 140,000). I find it hard to believe that the well-respected academics at JHU were content to just average those numbers. You can believe what you want.
Iraq body count puts the number between 17,000 and 19,000. Even if you take the most conservative estimate of 8,000, that's still over 5 civillians for every American death.
The Hopkins report claims the invasion in Iraq made the risk of death 2.5 times higher (than previously, when Iraqis were left to the mercy of Saddam)-- only 1.5 times higher not counting Falluja, et. al.
And that these folks who were protesting outside Terri Schavio's hospital come out in the SAME NUMBERS to protest other worldwide injustices is indeed news to me. A great lie too, if it hasn't been reported.
As for their adoption and post-natal care participation: It is laudable, but hardly impressive -- and not much of a news story. So much for the "great lie".
And can that participation somehow make up for their silence on the chance of dying in Iraq now 250% what it was under the reign of Saddam?
I don't think so.
"Content to leave them at the mercies of Saddam" my ass.
Iraq body count puts the number between 17,000 and 19,000. Even if you take the most conservative estimate of 8,000, that's still over 5 civilians for every American death.
.
I hope you are not suggesting the American body count should have been much higher to bring freedom to the Iraqis.
Like it was in France, Germany, and Poland.
We killed 26000 people to "liberate" Saipan.
Can you think of any other example where so many where liberated from the oppression of a dictatorial government, with so few civilian casualties. What a striking success eh?
And I hope you're not suggesting that there ought to be more civilian deaths than military ones. The figure shows that this war was 5 times more dangerous for Iraqi citizens who we are there ostensibly to liberate, than for foreign troops fighting against ruthless insurgents. The American body count should not have been higher, of course. The civilian body count should have been lower. Is everything really being done to prevent "collateral damage," as civilian deaths are so humanely called?
Can you think of any other example where so many where liberated from the oppression of a dictatorial government, with so few civilian casualties?
Iraq: 25,374,691 liberated, 8,000 civillians killed.
Poland: approx 38,000,000 liberated, hundreds of civilians killed.
Ukraine: 47,732,079 liberated, 0 civilians killed.
Post a Comment
< Main