Journal dcmeserve's Journal: Terry Schaivo and Democrats vs. Repuclicans. 11
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.
Morality and governement (Score:2)
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
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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.
Re:Morality and governement (Score:1)
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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.
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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:
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
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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".
Re:Morality and governement (Score:2)
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.