Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal dcmeserve's Journal: Terry Schaivo and Democrats vs. Repuclicans. 11

Journal by dcmeserve
I posted this on the blog of the Al Franken show. Re-posting here to make sure I can keep track of this text (and hopefully someone will comment on it??):

DAMNIT AL!

You really blew it in your conversation with the Dittohead?you let him and Rush guide the conversation into the narrow scope they want to keep everyone?s noses pressed against. I know you?re only human; I won?t hold this against you certainly smile, but I need to address the issue:

Basically, the question they posed was: if you are against the death penalty because there's a chance that you could be wrong, why are you (and the Democrats) for taking out Terry Schaivo's feeding tube?

The answer is: because we care about the constitution.

The reason we have to worry about whether we're right about a death penalty case is because it is the State -- i.e. us -- making this decision, and taking action based on it. Because these people -- yes, convicted criminals -- are wards of the state, that makes them our responsibility. Because we can never be absolutely certain of their guilt, we can't take their lives, because we might be wrong.

Terry Schaivo, on the other hand, is precisely not our responsibility. She has people responsible for her -- her family. You, I, Rush, Mr. dittohead -- none of us really knows what's going on in Terry's head. None of us can be certain. Therefore it's up to the people in charge of her to make the decision about whether continued artificial means for supporting her life are appropriate. That's her husband, her blood relatives, and the courts charged with settling the dispute between them. We can't go picking a side and imposing our decisions on them -- that is the essence of the State reaching into people's personal lives.

(Yes, the courts are part of the State, but essentially they were asked to mediate the dispute; that's what courts are FOR. They are experts assigned to make the most informed, objective decision possible. By that very definition that means they cannot be subject to the whims of popular opinion.)

The same applies to abortion: we -- NONE of us -- really knows the answer to "when does life begin". We may believe in a particular answer, but since there is no way to prove it one way or another, it is really a question of religion. And therfore none of us has the right to impose their opinion on others. The government MUST STAY OUT of such decisions.

The Democratic party is "the party of civil rights" etc. precisely because we understand this. We understand that people must be protected from ABUSE by centers of power -- whether it's the government, other countries, major corporations, or common criminals.

Congress (state or federal) acting in the Terry Schaivo case is an act of abuse. Congress enacting laws banning abortion is another. The State putting people to death is a third.

The Democratic party, at its best, is the party of long-term thinking; of seeing the big picture. Of not letting momentary emotional concerns cause us to destroy our own future with poor choices. The Republican Party, as CLEARLY evidenced by recent events, is the party of greed, of short-term thinking. Of BIG GOVERNMENT and SMALL CULTURE. The T.S. case proves that the decades-long "States Rights" focus was a lie all along, because it served their interest at the time. Their actions are based on what looks good at the moment, just for the poeple in power and their select supporters. The future of the country, the world -- none of that is a concern to them.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Terry Schaivo and Democrats vs. Repuclicans. More

Terry Schaivo and Democrats vs. Repuclicans.

Comments Filter:

  • The same applies to abortion: we -- NONE of us -- really knows the answer to "when does life begin". We may believe in a particular answer, but since there is no way to prove it one way or another, it is really a question of religion. And therfore none of us has the right to impose their opinion on others. The government MUST STAY OUT of such decisions.

    Suppose I believe that life begins at 9 months (as various cultures have in the past). If I want to strangle my newborn, and the government stops me, is

    • My wife's first pregnancy ended in miscarriage, probably about 10 days into it. It's likely that the miscarriage was caused by the large amount of stress my wife was having at work, and a high caffene consuption to go with it.

      In your view, should she have been brought up on manslaughter charges? Or perhaps her employer?

      Perhaps we could have made some money by filing a wrongful-death suit against her company, if the law were structured as you apparently wish to see.

      ...mindless rhetoric designed to squ

      • I see no evidence of "science" in your statements. If you really want to talk scientifically, then you need to think of it in terms of probabilities. A zygote has a certain probability that it will be able to grow properly and survive -- that it has the right genetic makeup, that its environment turns out to be sufficiently accomodating, etc. The probability increses as it gets further along in its development. But also note that before this "initial" point, the individual sperm and egg also each had a cer

        • Your high-school biology teacher will tell you that human life begins at conception. This is science. It is called "sexual reproduction" and how our species perpetuates itself. Now, you propose to value this human life based upon apparently one thing - the probability it will become an adult.

          What is science is the definition that fertilization happens at this point. One's biology teacher would have nothing to say about when "life begins" -- at least, not and still be within the realm of science. Tha

          • What is science is the definition that fertilization happens at this point. One's biology teacher would have nothing to say about when "life begins" -- at least, not and still be within the realm of science. That's because the term "when life begins" contains just that notion of "value" that you're talking about. At least as it's commonly used.

            As you observe, the phrase "when life begins" is often used to mean "when a human creature begins to have value", or the onset of so-called "personhood". The wor

            • You have a strange view on religion are calling atheists "religious".

              You don't understand.

              Until you really comprehend what religion is, you're not going to be able to have a truly intelligent converstion on this or a lot of other topics.

              Just think about it for a while.

              • You don't understand.

                Until you really comprehend what religion is, you're not going to be able to have a truly intelligent converstion on this or a lot of other topics.

                Just think about it for a while.

                Religion is belief on faith on some precept. I am operating under the assumption that the statement "all men are created equal" is indeed "self-evident" as Thomas Jefferson said. Do you reject this on "religous" grounds as well?

                Furthermore, you do you not address the plain fact that is possible to va

                • [it]is possible to value anything on non-religious grounds.

                  Find an example where the value of something is not based on arbitrary human preference -- which is really what religion is. Again, think about it.

                  Nevertheless, I think I finally see your fundamental point:

                  given that we assign fundamental rights to humans by age X, why not age Y, where Y < X?

                  That makes logical sense, on the surface. It seems to factor out the religious aspect by moving the original assignment of the "value" out of the

                  • Find an example where the value of something is not based on arbitrary human preference -- which is really what religion is. Again, think about it.

                    I never said it wasn't - in fact, "value" and "human preference" are basically synonyms. But, ultimately, some value systems are logical and others are not. My point is the value sytem currently in place in this country, instituted by Roe vs Wade, is not logical due to fact that it can draw legal distinctions that define "valuable human life" where there ar

    • From your Nat Hentoff link:

      To be liberal and pro-life

      NAT HENTOFF, CHAMPION OF 'INCONVENIENT LIFE'
      by Cathryn Donohoe; THE WASHINGTON TIMES

      That says it all.

      In case you're confused, the Washington Times is not to be confused with the Washington Post, which is one of the top paers in the country. The W. Times is little more than a propaganda rag. Remember it's run by the guy who has declared himself the new christian Savior and also as "King of America".

    • As for your other link:

      To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

      1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
      ...

      All the points following that are derived from this. This is an assumption without basis in science or anything else other than religion and/or one's own personal sense of asthetics. You can believe in and adhere to this and no one can question you for doing so. But in turn you cannot attempt to force this belief on others.

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close