Euthanasia - should it be legal or illegal? (v2.0)

Let's say someone steals $5,000 from another. I think that we should fine the criminal the same amount so the victim can be repayed. The criminal took an amount of money from the victim against his will; the government would take the same amount back from the criminal against his will.

Sounds like the government is performing the same deed as the criminal.

No it doesn't. In that case the government is compensating the victim and settng financial penalties, both of which are perfectly acceptable in a civilised society. If the government burned down the house of an arsonist, had a rapist raped, cut the hand off a thief, mutilated someone who caused grevous bodily harm or killed a killer, I'd say it were true.


I highly doubt you're advocating the abolition of the entire penal system. If you are, we should ignore your naive, anarchistic philosophy out of hand.

Please. If you are going to have cheap shot at me, at least make it against something I actually said.

 

Very briefly, Enforcer, let me answer your question with another question: what makes people consider a work of art like Van Gogh's "Starry Night" to be priceless? After all, the canvas and the paint as materials aren't that uncommon.

I believe the answer is this: it is irreplaceable. There are countless prints on dormroom walls, and there are probably forgeries floating around, but there is only one painting that bears the brushstrokes of the artist himself. If it were destroyed, it could not be recovered.

One argument that human life has value -- incalculable value, maybe infinite value -- is that a human life can be replaced. Even if you could clone a person's DNA, which no longer seems a flight of fancy, you cannot replace his experiences or his mind.


Another argument is a religious argument. Human life has unique value because God gave it unique value. We are made in God's image. The physical body is a unique, irreplaceable vessel for the soul to traverse this physical universe. There are a dozen ways to say it.

Of course, some would argue, you can't bring your religious beliefs to the political table. I believe they're wrong, and I also believe that the secularists' attempt to remove all religious thought from the sphere of politics risks weakening our belief in the intrinsic value of human life. I'm sure that, for some secularists who also advocate abortion on demand and an expanding role for euthanasia, this result is not entirely a negative.


One may reasonably ask, why do I support capital punishment if human life is priceless? I respond by asking, how else do we recognize the value of the life that was taken?

In his work "The Gospel of Life," Pope John Paul II wrote that every person who is sincerely open to truth and goodness "can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree."

The problem is, not everyone affirms that right to the highest degree; what do we as a society do with those who deliberately take the lives of others? How do we affirm "to the highest degree" that the victim's most important right was trampled?

On this point, the Pope and I disagreed, but I don't think there are easy answers either way. The more quickly you reject the notion of capital punishment -- regardless of how certain we are of guilt, of the number of victims, and of whether the crimes were particularly brutal -- the greater risk of devaluing the lives of the victims.

Let me make my position clear: I believe capital punishment is, at best, a necessary evil, like nuclear arms, armed policemen, and even government itself.

But if the fact that we execute one half of one percent of all murderers is a sign of our society's incivility, the fact that we have about 15,000 murders a year is a much bigger sign.

I would love for their to be no murders and no executions, but I'm not sure we should abolish the death penalty until people actually stop murdering each other. It makes sense to abolish the death penalty when we have become perfectly civilized, but doing so beforehand isn't going to make us perfectly civilized.

I respect many who disagree with me on this issue, just as I respect those who, like the Amish, take a hard line on pacifism because of their conscience. But in a world where nations attack other nations and where people brutal murder each other, it is not obvious to me that their position is the right one.


Believe me when I say I continue to give the issue a lot of thought, and I do support capital punishment in all circumstances. If we did not have an appeal process that was so thorough and so lengthy, I would be less inclined to execute convicted murderers. If hard time was actually hard (or at least harder than it is now) I would be less inclined to execute convicted murderers.

I would appreciate at least the benefit of the doubt on this issue. It should be clear from other threads that I spend a lot of time dwelling and examining my religious beliefs, so I ask you all

 

Bubba first off, in spite of your asinine and totally unfounded remarks about my valuation of human life, I will have you know I value the sanctity of human life. The greatest difference between you and I is simply, I respect the freedom of choice, another difference is I tend to consider all the facts in their totality before I come to my conclusions.

You stand steadfast in your hypocracy, shouting that American courts have the merit to sentence a man to death for a crime he is convicted for, not necessarily guilty of, and yet you ignore the Constitution that sets those laws and guarantees us all a freedom of choice. Terry had a freedom of choice, and she chose when she was capable, not to live in a vegetative state. Five different courts upheld her choice, the same courts you believe have a right to rob a man of his life for being convicted of the most heinous crimes.(Florida courts inparticularly)

Terri did not commit suicide, and it's news to me that Terri even attempted such a thing. Suffering from an eating disorder or making a poor choice in a husband does not qualify as a suicide attempt.

NEWS BREAK! It was suicide. It was caused by a mental disorder whether it be clinical depression or an eating disorder the FACT is she starved herself to death. If a man suffering from clinical depression slits his wrist open and bleeds to death are we not to consider this suicide? You're living in a delusional world that is very dangerous when it crosses over with the REAL world.

If you think Terri's actions count as suicide in some vague and indirect way, why can't you bring yourself to look at Michael's actions to have her feeding tube removed so that her heart would stop beating within two weeks of starvation and dehydration, and count them as killing her?

Again it comes back to freedom of choice which you have demonstrated that you are against. Terri didnt want to live like that, but by your logic who cares about what she wanted.

You're damn right it does, and that should pretty much settle the issue. We should preserve such life unless given legitimate, overwhelming reasons not to; we should not presume that life is worthless unless shown otherwise.

Now you're playing God. With our modern science we can keep a human body alive indefinately. So again by your logic we should not let people pass on to the next life. In fact using your logic we should force people to stay alive, unless YOU choose them not worthy as to life. You are way too anxious to pull the switch on a humanbeing who are convicted of crimes, meanwhile you eagerly refuse people their freedom of choice.

What if Terri wasn't bound for an eternity in Paradise, and the rest of her physical existence was actually better than what lay ahead? What if she wasn't "in limbo" but experiencing some unique phase of existence that won't be repeated in Heaven no matter how wonderful Heaven is?

Alot of "what ifs" for a man who THINKS he has all the facts. What if bullfrogs could fly? They wouldnt bump their butts when they jump.

What if it was God's will that Terri learn patience through decades of waiting? If the book of Job -- and, more poignantly, the life of Christ -- prove anything, it is that God does not equate suffering with a worthless life.

If it were God's will that Terri learn patience and live, then she would still be with us. Now who are you to speak on behalf of God's will? Are you commentating or are you a prophet now?

I don't believe the Bible says anything concrete about whether the soul can be dissociated from a living body, but it does say that we should take care of each other. The parable of the Good Samaritan suggests that we should extend even extraordinary care even when it's unclear that recovery is possible. And the parable of the sheep and the goats says outright that we will be judged by whether we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick -- by how we treat "the least" of our brothers.

This brings me back to the convicted. Where's your

 

Bubba: Cheveyo, I understand the differences between criminal and civil cases. You failed to mention a key difference that I think would encourage Michael to file suit: the standard for proof in a civil suit is lower than in a criminal suit.

Lower, but still existent. What evidence do you suppose Michael Schiavo might have that would prove without a doubt that the Schindler's knew they were lying when they defamed his character? Of course, there's no other reason M. Schiavo might want to just let it go. In America, we sue... it's our innate predisposition; therefore, when someone doesn't file a lawsuit that someone else <ahem, Bubba> might think they would otherwise file, suddenly that person is suspect. Intriguing.

Bottom line:
You suggest that he might not have filed a civil lawsuit because he is guilty.
If he's guilty of the accusations laid upon him, why has the DA not pressed criminal charges?

It's hard to prove slander? It's also hard to prove spousal abuse, but that didn't stop you from ignoring that fact to suggest that the lack of a lawsuit proves that the Schindlers are lying.

Careful, Bubba. I never said the Schindlers were lying. My only reference to "lies" and "lying" was in the discussion of proving or disproving slander. It's entirely possible that the Schindlers, in their grief, are lashing out at Schiavo. They may be willing to superficially believe that he has done what they now charge, even though it defies medical chronology and medical evaluation. We will know more when the autopsy is released; although attorneys who have already reviewed the report say that it clears Schiavo of any abuse charges.

The question of statute of limitations or financial costs is beside the point: the situation is complicated enough that a lack of action on the part of the DA does not prove the Schindlers are lying.

Um... but... uh, Bubba. You brought those points up. Are you saying that your points are beside the point?? Here's what you said:

There are a countless number of other mitigating factors; it's possible that such a charge wouldn't matter without Terri's own testimony, there may have been statute of limitation issues, the Schindler family may not have had the financial resources to open another front in the legal battle. But you want to use their inaction as proof they're lying?

A lack of action, even an investigation into the allegations, is very much an issue. Also, I must note that not even the Schindlers filed charges against Schiavo. This, from the people who now accuse him, and who fought so hard to usurp custody of their daughter from him. Why do you suppose they would not have used this argument in the countless cases they filed in the last 7 years?

Likewise, the lack of filing a slander lawsuit does not prove that the accusations leveled at Michael are true. You seem to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not his in-laws, and that seems grossly unfair.

Grossly unfair. hmmm. Again, I ask, if criminal activity [spousal abuse] has taken place by a man in whose custody your daughter resides, and you know about it, why would you not file charges on her behalf? Mind you, we're not talking about an allegation of slapping her across the face. They cited 89 acts of abuse--if the rumor mill is accurate. How is this overlooked by the parents when it comes to filing charges against Schiavo? Likewise, the DA can file charges on behalf of the state and Terri Schiavo.

In contrast, what does Schiavo have to gain legally or personally from a lawsuit against his already estranged in-laws, and would he have evidence that proves they knew they were lying when they laid out these accusations?

The ["grossly unfair"]difference between the two cases is that in one case--the criminal charges of abuse--w

 

Paul, let me preface my response by saying that I believe that people should be (and in fact are) free to commit suicide. I believe it is immoral, and I believe there may be symbolic value in society making suicide illegal, but once someone commits the crime of suicide, what can the government do?

All that said, I'm very reluctant to embrace the idea of "selective euthanasia" on any level. If you ask a friend to kill you, you're probably causing him long-lasting psychological and spiritual damage to your friend regardless of whether he decides to honor the request.

And if you write a contract that would require a doctor to kill you? I don't think judges should be required to give death sentences, and I certainly don't think doctors who take an oath to uphold life should be required to honor that request.

Most importantly, making "selective euthanasia" legal and normalized opens the door to killing those who have expressed no desire to be killed. If you think I'm being a reactionary, look to the Netherlands. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, 31 percent of euthanasia cases in the Netherlands in 1990 (and 22 percent in 1995) did not involve explicit consent.

And it opens the door to euthanasia in non-terminal, non-painful situations, as the Netherlands are now arguing whether TWELVE YEAR OLDS should be free to choose doctor-assisted suicide.

It's one thing to realize that doctors sometimes end a life early and law officials look the other; it's another thing entirely for those officials to sanction the action. It's an old conservative principle that hidden, unspoken laws are sometimes a good thing, and I recommend this as a quick primer.


I'll go beyond euthanasia, a word that usually implies sickness or disability: I think any individual should be able to choose to end his life in a safe, comfortable, supportive, clinical environment. For a variety of reasons, for one to make it an advantage, I'd probably seek to include things like counseling and a waiting period in the process.

Counseling to what end? To attempt to get them to change their minds? Is that not an admission that the choice between life and death are not between two equal and indistinguishable paths?

To encourage them that they're doing the right thing?

Or should we counsel them to make sure they're in their right minds? In my opinion, anybody who isn't in the dire circumstances of some painful and/or terminal illness is obviously not mentally stable if he's contemplating suicide.

You walked in wanting us to kill you? Let's get you some counselling, 'cause you're clearly not in your right mind.

I appreciate your candor, but I think you validate my fears about a culture of death. The idea of having death clinics alongside restaurants and houses of worship is monstrous. It's a move from liberty to libertinism. It's nihilism.

It's a sign of a deeply rooted moral poverty and spiritual sickness within our society if some of us can seriously support death clinics.


Vaderize:

The government doesn't have the right to my life, as far as I am concerned.

If I am suffering from a debilitating and painful disease with no hope, then I should have the option of physician-assisted suicide.

So the government has no claim on your life, but you should be free to force the government to condone your taking of your own life, and to force the government to require a doctor to kill you?


Is it better to force someone to suffer a slow and humiliating decline?

I don't think suffering and humiliation are always so terrible that they justify ending one's own life, but your question ignores the rest of society. Is it good for society to condone your killing? Does that not cheapen life in other situations?


Now, Loopster. About a fine being a case of the government doing the same thing the criminal did, you write:

No it do

 

Xen:

The greatest difference between you and I is simply, I respect the freedom of choice, another difference is I tend to consider all the facts in their totality before I come to my conclusions.

You're absolutely right, I'm a anti-freedom, narrow-minded fascist. The fact is, I too respect freedom: liberty, but not libertinism; freedom, but not license. And the fact is, I do try to consider all the facts, and I think it's arrogant of you to say that you do and I don't.


You stand steadfast in your hypocracy, shouting that American courts have the merit to sentence a man to death for a crime he is convicted for, not necessarily guilty of, and yet you ignore the Constitution that sets those laws and guarantees us all a freedom of choice.

I hate to tell you this, but the Fifth Amendment mentions "capital" crimes, and the Fourteenth Amendment implies that a person can be deprived of life if given due process. The Constitution allows for capital punishment.

But, please, continue to berate me for being a hypocrite. And continue to assert that you consider all the facts before you open your mouth.

Have you ever even read the Constitution?


You're quick to assert that Terri wanted to die, but you write that I believe courts "have the merit to sentence a man to death for a crime he is convicted for, not necessarily guilty of."

YOU DO NOT KNOW that Terri wanted to die. All that you know is that Michael Schiavo asserted that she wanted to die and that the courts accepted his assertion.

If a court decision to convict a man of murder is "not necessarily" proof that he is guilty, the court decision to accept Michael Schiavo's testimony that Terri wanted to die is not proof that he was telling the truth.

But, please continue telling me that I'm the one standing "steadfast" in hypocrisy.


Now you're playing God. With our modern science we can keep a human body alive indefinately. So again by your logic we should not let people pass on to the next life. In fact using your logic we should force people to stay alive, unless YOU choose them not worthy as to life. You are way too anxious to pull the switch on a humanbeing who are convicted of crimes, meanwhile you eagerly refuse people their freedom of choice.

Where the hell do you get that I'm "anxious" to execute people convicted of crimes? I think capital punishment should be reserved for serious crimes like murder, and -- even then -- after a jury conviction, numerous appeals, and all the other aspects of due process.

Where do you get that I "eagerly" refuse people their freedom of choice?

You're making stuff up.


Alot of "what ifs" for a man who THINKS he has all the facts. What if bullfrogs could fly? They wouldnt bump their butts when they jump.

I'll remind you what I was responding to:

Of all people Bubba, I would have expected you to wonder to yourself about Terri's soul. We're both Christians here, we have a different way of seeing things and the roll of our shared religion, but have you ever stopped and wondered, where is she? Do you think she lingered in limbo for these past 15 years, God knowing there was no hope of recovery unless he intervened personally? Or do you believe as I do that she went to be with God (assuming she accepted him) and was at his side for these many years? Would God really refuse a soul because the body lingers.

These seem just as speculative as my "what if" statements, but you had no problem making them.

And you have dared to accuse me of hypocrisy?


"What if it was God's will that Terri learn patience through decades of waiting? If the book of Job -- and, more poignantly, the life of Christ -- prove anything, it is that God does not equate suffering with a worthless life."

If it were God's will that Terri learn patience and live, then she would still be with us. Now who are you to speak on behalf of God's will? Are you commentating or are you a prophet

 

Cheveyo, briefly:

Bottom line:
You suggest that he might not have filed a civil lawsuit because he is guilty.
If he's guilty of the accusations laid upon him, why has the DA not pressed criminal charges?

That misrepresents what's going on.

- You first asserted/insinuated that the absence of criminal charges against Michael Schiavo is proof that the allegations were lies.

- I brought up the idea that Michael didn't file a slander suit is proof that the allegations were true, NOT BECAUSE I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT, because I think it illustrates the absurdity of the argument you made.

You emphasize the difference between a civil suit and a criminal suit, but, I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me that the difference is significant enough that we can divine the truth about the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo by whether DA filed criminal charges of abuse.


I brought up the statute of limitations and financial concerns NOT TO ARGUE WHETHER THEY ARE THE ACTUAL REASONS THEY DIDN'T FILE CHARGES, but just as examples of possible reasons. There are other reasons: the evidence might not have been enough to justify the DA spending resources to pursue the charges, or he may have personally not wanted the Schindlers to win.

I'm not interested in arguing any of these possibilities. I'm just pointing out that they exist, so it is therefore ridiculous for you to suggest that the lack of charges filed is proof of anything.


"People. Who. Are. On. Death. Row. Were. Convicted. For. Commiting. A. Serious. Crime. Like. Murder."

Except when they are not guilty. Not if. When.

Technically, you're wrong. Even when a death-row inmate is genuinely innocent of wrongdoing, it's STILL TRUE that he was convicted for a serious crime. He was wrongly convicted, but he was convicted nevertheless.


How many people on detah row throughout the nation are later found to be not guilty, Bubba? If these people had died as the prosecutors and the juries insisted, or if they died in prison awaiting their death sentence (as has occurred in the past), how does this not contradict this overwhelming crusade of the right to life? These people wre and are wrongly accussed, their lives effectively taken away and in many cases physically eradicated, yet they were innocent.

Your solution is what? Life sentence without the possibility of parole? Is it not possible that a truly innocent man could serve the sentence and pass away without being exonerated?

Would this too not "contradict this overwhelming crusade of the right to life"?

It seems to me that the argument of "an innocent man could die" indicts capital punishment AND MERE IMPRISONMENT, too. It's not an argument that indicts capital punishment and leaves intact the rest of the penal system.

 

Cheveyo, let me (hopefully) end the discussion about the lack of criminal charges of abuse with this:

I will certainly agree that the lack of criminal charges against Michael Schiavo does not make the Schindlers look good; it indicates that their allegations were either false or at least unsubstantiated.

It indicates false allegations, but it does not prove false allegations.

Likewise, the fact that Michael Schiavo hasn't filed a slander suit -- especially after his vindictive behavior surrounding Terri's remains and assuming that others here are right that "character assassination" is a terrible thing -- indicates that the allegations are true.

It indicates that the allegations are true, but it does not prove it.

I'd be willing to agree that the lack of a criminal charge of abuse is a stronger indication of false allegations than the lack of a slander suit is an indication that they were true.

But it's still not proof.

If Michael Schiavo did file a slander suit and his only evidence was the lack of criminal charges, his suit would be (or at least should be) laughed out of the court.

Or, if abuse charges were filed against Michael and the only evidence was the lack of slander suit, that case would likewise be (or at least should be) thrown out.

 

Bubba

Except for when you said life may have incalculable value or infinite value, you didn't really go into too much as to what the value of human life is? It is that you gave several different ideas but only mentioned that for one of them.

The problem with the idea that it is irreplaceable is that it is only irreplaceable in a certain way. Like Van Gogh's Starry Knight, as a piece of beauty, it is irreplaceable (well, copies can be made, but ignoring that for this example), but if you look at it as material to burn for warmth, it can easily be replaced. I could even say that the specific patterns in the splatter in a dropped ice cream cone are unique yet we have no trouble cleaning that up. It comes down to a subjective 'how we view things' and what our desires are. I do not see anything really absolute in those examples above, so I have a hard time applying it to people.

I am not really interested in capitol punishment (in this case. It is an important topic, but for this debate, I do not really see it as a problem). I feel I understand your views enough on that topic to not really argue it (and I mostly agree). However if the value can be taken away or ignored in favor of other values in capitol punishment, are you sure there are not other cases where it can the value of human life is not as strong as something else?

Also, as to the question if her soul left her body... the alternative is not that appealing either, that it was still stuck in there. I see it like this. Imagine a piano player who plays the most beautiful music, and he enjoys it a lot too. Now if you take away his ability to play the piano (losses his hands in an accident), you just took away that which made him happy, that defined him. Now people do have much more talent than just one thing, but I think the example works in this extreme case. What is the value of life if there is nothing in life?

I just consider life to more than just being physically alive. Interacting with people, doing things, having fun, exploring new things, etc, those to me are the things that make life worth living. That?s just my opinion though.

EDIT: Found one spelling mistake, probably others that i missed...

 

After playing Splinter Cell for ohh?.5 hours or so, I?m back.

Fire, I for one have enough respect for atheists as human beings not to make a habit of impugning them or anyone else. I suppose expecting you to do the same is expecting too much, but I would appreciate it if you kept your petty hatred off the forum.

Hatred? Nah. Poking fun is not hatred, it?s being a wiseass, but not hatred. I?ve never once mocked religion in hatred. Except for once, back in ?99. Those were the days.

Sure I can, and I do so again. All life is precious: yes, that includes the murderer's life, but that also includes the life of the victim. Can you offer a serious alternative for punishment that would recognize the victim's value?

Life in prison without parole. Let them wallow out their days in solitude remembering their crimes. Not the most effective punishment at first, but eventually it gnaws at them.

First, there is a distinction between killing and murder. If you deny the distinction, I'll stop suggesting that Terri Schiavo was merely killed.

So you?re saying that when a death row inmate is executed he?s killed, not murdered? Wow?that?s loopy logic right there. The Terri Schiavo case is that she was allowed to die, a mercy killing, as it were. When someone is executed they actively kill the person, which is murder. In the Schiavo case it was nature taking its course. With executions it?s an unnatural death. Mostly out of revenge. Btw, I have no real opinion on the matter of the death penalty. Kill all of the prisoners for all I care. The point I?m making is that it?s a state sponsored murder. And you can argue that the judge ordered Terri Schiavo?s ?murder? but you?d also be neglecting that Michael Schiavo had to go to court in order to get permission to have the feeding tube removed. Otherwise the state would never get involved.

Second, I wonder about situations like a belltower sniper killing people indiscriminately. If lethal force is the only way to stop him from killing somebody else, should the police apply such force, or would you cling to your belief that doing so is state-sponsored murder that asserts that his life is less valuable than his potential victims'?

See, now you?re using different situations to find a ?hole? in my belief that execution is state-sponsored murder. I?ve never argued against lethal force once in this thread. My arguments center around your silly notion that execution isn?t devaluing human life, but in fact placing value upon it.

Third, do you not think that, by merely condemning a convicted murderer to a potential half-century of a life of relative comfort, that you are "trying to place value on life over someone else's," namely the life of the victim?

Nope. Let them rot in prison. It?s not a value judgment; it only becomes one when you have to decide on how best to punish them. The neutral action would be to just them in prison for the rest of their lives. You wouldn?t be placing value to either party then. Also, the death penalty, is just an excuse to exact revenge.

The fact is, I don't believing executing a murderer is suggesting that his life has less intrinsic value than any others. It's just recognizing the value of the lives he's already deliberately taken. In my opinion, executing him for murder does recognize the value of his life; we recognize that it has great value, and that's why we're taking it from him as a just punishment for the heinous crime of murder.

Again you?re rationalizing. It?s better to say, ?We recognize the value of his victim?s life,? rather than saying, ?We kill them for revenge.? Somehow if the latter argument were used I?d imagine the death penalty wouldn?t be that popular.

But all this is a moot point since you don't actually believe that human life has any intrinsic value.

Did I say that or are you reading what you want? I believe life has value, but it?s only as valuable as we make it to be. I value my friends and family?s lives. But that doesn?t mean I add this extra weig

 

Bubba,

I do support capital punishment in all circumstances. If we did not have an appeal process that was so thorough and so lengthy, I would be less inclined to execute convicted murderers. If hard time was actually hard (or at least harder than it is now) I would be less inclined to execute convicted murderers.

I find this statement of yours to be most contradictory. I saw another "American Justice" program regarding the rape and murder of a young woman in the midwest. Three young men who had minor criminal convictions for burglary, but nothing involving use of force, were arrested and convicted of the crime.

All went thru a lengthy appeal process. Each appeal was unsuccessful.

The case against one young man was based on the testimony of a police officer, who FABRICATED his story of what the young man told him during questioning.

Meanwhile, in another state, another man was convicted of a rape and murder of a young woman. He came to the attention of some defense attorneys (I forget how, if he was bragging about the other case, or what) and they dug further.

They were eventually able to convince the court that this other guy was the actual rapist/murderer who had killed the girl the 3 guys were convicted of, by using DNA evidence from all 4 suspects. None of the DNA of three young men previously convicted was present at the crime scene or found on the young woman's body.

Those three young men lost at least a decade of their lives due to a police officer's lie. Granted, the police were under extreme pressure to resolve the murder case, to the point where one officer felt enough pressure to committ perjury! But, it does not change the fact that these 3 young men were wrongfully convicted, and those convictions were upheld on appeal at least three times!

As Guin pointed out in her post, Ethel Rosenberg WAS NOT guilty, yet she was executed. I have to do more checking on the Lindbergh case before commenting further. However, it was decided that Bruno Haptmann (sp?) was not guilty, yet he was executed as well.

Hard time IS hard time. Apparently, you haven't studied the prison system enough. Solitary confinement is still used routinely. It's not a 'country club,' unless you're in a minimum security federal prison like Martha Stewart was.

Back to the Schiavo case.

In one of my posts, I mentioned the fact that the court-appointed neurologist said that the damage to Terri's brain was so extensive and so severe that an MRI or a PET scan would not show anything that would change the diagnosis of PVS.

Let me ask you this, if you suffered a severe brain injury, in which you lost 40% of your cerebral functioning, which would mean you wouldn't be able to write out such lengthy posts here, would you still want to live?

I am very glad the US has separation of church and state. I can show you what happens when church and state are combined with just a few words: Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran/Iraq today.

On President Bush and Florida Gov. Bush dropping the Schiavo case like a hot branding iron, I say this: While Ms. Schiavo was still alive, neither man did anything to further help her parents, saying they had done "all they legally could." President Bush did not order the USSC to hear the case, Gov. Bush did not attempt to use force to remove Ms. Schaivo from her hospice bed, nor did he order the Florida Supreme Court or the Legislature to do anything more.

As for the pope refusing medical care, even if it was his choice, isn't that tantamount to suicide?

 

I hate to tell you this, but the Fifth Amendment mentions "capital" crimes, and the Fourteenth Amendment implies that a person can be deprived of life if given due process. The Constitution allows for capital punishment.

First off what in the world is your point? I was arguing from the point you support the courts in its ability to decide if a convicted man should be put to death, but then believe the very same court that said Michael was right in saying Terri wanted to die is somehow wrong.

Have you ever even read the Constitution?

Unlike some Ive read the entire thing and not just a few words, and understand it in its totality. The Fifth Amendment mentions Capital "Crimes" but how does this reference to what you are trying to say? What the Amendment says is you have a right to due process if you are charged with a capital crime.

YOU DO NOT KNOW that Terri wanted to die. All that you know is that Michael Schiavo asserted that she wanted to die and that the courts accepted his assertion.

Thats the law of the land, and nobody has proven otherwise.

If a court decision to convict a man of murder is "not necessarily" proof that he is guilty, the court decision to accept Michael Schiavo's testimony that Terri wanted to die is not proof that he was telling the truth.

DUH! That is exactly my point. I guess you do understand after all, thank you for pointing out MY point. I was arguing that you accept the courts decision to sentence a man to death for being convicted of a crime, but are opposed to the courts decision to believe Mr Schiavo. You claim the tube should not be removed because he MIGHT be lying, but then support someone being executed even though they MIGHT be innocent.

But, please continue telling me that I'm the one standing "steadfast" in hypocrisy.

You've said it quite nicely yourself, thanks, again.

Where the hell do you get that I'm "anxious" to execute people convicted of crimes? I think capital punishment should be reserved for serious crimes like murder, and -- even then -- after a jury conviction, numerous appeals, and all the other aspects of due process.

Duh Again! Just as Terri's case was given due process, so whats the difference?

Where do you get that I "eagerly" refuse people their freedom of choice?

Your own words. Even your opening post here said you oppose libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others.

You're making stuff up.

No I am not, I am working with your arguments. You might not want to be the one throwing the switch, but it doesn?t bother you that the switch is thrown.

These seem just as speculative as my "what if" statements, but you had no problem making them.

I wasn?t being speculative, I was asking you a question. I was asking you, Bubba! I wasn?t trying to be philosophical, this just another time where you dodge the questions being asked to you. I asked you questions, I am trying to see things from your point of view, trying to get into your mind and see how you see things and what do I get in return? A bunch of what ifs. If I wanted what if questions Id go to my alternate history site.

And you have dared to accuse me of hypocrisy?

You have been very hypocritical. Your left hand is doing one thing, your right is doing the opposite, and your mouth is saying something completely different. Pot meet kettle.

I did not "speak on behalf of God's will." I merely asked the question.

That wasn?t much of a question; it was more of a statement. And the what if was just speculative.

You assert that you're a Christian; what about the doctrine of sin?

What about it? How does it apply to this conversation? Are you asserting that Terri could have lived, and if not forgiven at the time of her death, could have found forgiveness if allowed a chance to live? This is a question, not something speculative.

 

- You first asserted/insinuated that the absence of criminal charges against Michael Schiavo is proof that the allegations were lies.

Not just criminal charges, but even an investigation. How can there be even a minutely justifiable accusation if the even DA's office does not investigate the accusation? What does that suggest about the accusation?

It's easy for someone to accuse someone else of ill conduct when they have no intention of pressing the issue with law enforcement.

- I brought up the idea that Michael didn't file a slander suit is proof that the allegations were true, NOT BECAUSE I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT, because I think it illustrates the absurdity of the argument you made.

And I have shown you how the two opposing charges are completely different filings--one civil, one criminal. To say that the civil charge was not filed for whatever reason is nothing. To say that criminal charges were not at least investigated by the authorities tells us that either the charge was outright unwarranted, or the authorities are guilty of gross negligence. Which would you say is the case?

You emphasize the difference between a civil suit and a criminal suit, but, I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me that the difference is significant enough that we can divine the truth about the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo by whether DA filed criminal charges of abuse.

So, you don't believe an accusation of criminal acts warrants an investigation by the district attorney's office? If this is incorrect, and you feel an investogation would be warranted, why has there been none?

I brought up the statute of limitations and financial concerns NOT TO ARGUE WHETHER THEY ARE THE ACTUAL REASONS THEY DIDN'T FILE CHARGES, but just as examples of possible reasons. There are other reasons: the evidence might not have been enough to justify the DA spending resources to pursue the charges, or he may have personally not wanted the Schindlers to win.

The DA might nothave personally wanted the Schindler's to win? That's a very indictful supposition. How many other factless, even baseless accusations are you willing to espouse in order to justify your initial accusations? A simple suggest that Schiavo abused his wife has now grown to include not only the corruption of 21 judges, but the corruption of the DA's office and the oversight of the governor and his administration, who allegedly have been looking for anything to use so as to usurp custody from M. Schiavo. Will you accuse the president next? How far are you will to stretch this conspiracy theory?

I'm not interested in arguing any of these possibilities. I'm just pointing out that they exist, so it is therefore ridiculous for you to suggest that the lack of charges filed is proof of anything.

If you're unwilling to argue the possibilities, you should not offer them. By offering them as "possible", they are open to rebuttal. In rebuttal, we see that they have no ground whatsoever to stand on.

Technically, you're wrong. Even when a death-row inmate is genuinely innocent of wrongdoing, it's STILL TRUE that he was convicted for a serious crime. He was wrongly convicted, but he was convicted nevertheless.

Oh, I see. Your justification is that criminal justice system can kill convicted people, regardless of their guilt. And that makes it okay. Good to know.

Your solution is what? Life sentence without the possibility of parole? Is it not possible that a truly innocent man could serve the sentence and pass away without being exonerated?

My solution does not belong in this thread, but I'll happily give it where appropriate. I was wrong to elaborate on the issue here.

Would this too not "contradict this overwhelming crusade of the right to life"?

You didn't answer my

 

So. Do you think arson ought to be punished by a fine? What about rape, assault, and murder?

Your comments about "financial penalties" do not address the issue of imprisonment. If you imprison a criminal, you're not setting a financial penalty, nor are you directly compensating the victim.

So do you oppose prison sentences? Are prison sentences as innocuous as fines? Or are they as inhuman as cutting off a thief's hand?

Bubba, I was responding to your specific example. You didn't mention imprisonment, so neither did I. Sorry for my oversight. I do not oppose prison sentences. Happy?


It wasn't a cheap shot.

Yes it was.

In that previous post and your most recent post, you haven't said a damn thing to justify imprisonment. The things you say about capital punishment can likewise be applied to imprisonment.

No they can't. Imprisonment is a fair and reasonable expectation in a civilised society.

Maybe you don't oppose imprisonment; maybe it's just the case that you haven't thought through the reasons you oppose capital punishment and seen that they apply to imprisonment.

In your mind they may apply, but then I'm not the one being hypocritical.

 

Re: HIPAA.

I'm not sure that there was actually a violation. In Pennsylvania at least, once a suit has been filed, medical records submitted as evidence become part of the public record, and hence there would be no violation were someone to review them or discuss their details. I'm not sure if Florida has the same policy or not.

 

All apologies for the delay in my reply, and let me apologize in advance that this reply will not cover literally every point in each post addressed to me. I simply don't have the time right now to visit this thread more regularly and write more lengthy posts.


First, as a general comment, I would prefer that all those who are going to accuse me of hypocrisy and contradiction and inconsistency do more than simply make the accusation. If you think I'm being contradictory, cite the seemingly contradictory comments and explain why a person can't assert both simultaneously.

Metaphors about pots and kettles are a poor substitute for an actual argument with specific evidence.

And, if you're going to say that I misunderstand some written work -- such as the Constitution or the Bible -- and that I take passages out of context, I urge you to cite the passages that show that your interpretation has more support. If you're not willing to show me that the Bible endorses euthanasia (or whatever it is you think the Bible says), I'm hardly inclined to accept the position.

All that said, let me turn to individual posts.


Enforcer, I'm not quite sure what you want from me; if you want a dollar-amount value for a human life, I don't have one, I don't think one exists, and I'm not going to fabricate one.

I think that people's lives have intrinsic value beyond what they do, contribute, or enjoy. You disagree, clearly, but the risk in society believing that a life must meet some quality-of-life standard to be valuable is that we could more easily begin killing all those who do not meet that standard.

You brought up an interesting image, of a man treating a painting by Van Gogh as kindling that can be easily replaced. A man can see his fellow humans the same way, and once he does, the consequences can be monstrous.


Fire, I apologize if I misinterpreted your mockery as hatred. Regardless, I appreciate your not using such superflous mockery again in this forum.

It seems to me you're using a definition of "murder" that is different from its common definition. (See here, here, link, and here.) You seem to think that murder hinges on whether the death was the result of active intervention. The common definition doesn't distinguish between active and passive killing but rather defines murder as being illegal and intentional.

For instance, deliberately starving an infant to death is murder even though it is passive, but accidentally killing a man by hitting him with your car (while driving sober, with due diligence, etc.) is merely manslaughter even though the death was caused by active interference.

I personally extend the definition to include acts that are technically legal but still immoral, and I'm not the only one to do so. The fact remains, I don't see where you're getting your definition of the word when you write, "When someone is executed they actively kill the person, which is murder."

I will reiterate that I have NOT said that Terri Schiavo was murdered. I've taken great pains merely to say that she was killed, and I've even gone out of my way to point out that I was making the distinction.

You seem convinced that revenge and not justice is the only reason to execute a convicted murderer. I disagree, but I see no way of convincing you otherwise. Some people see that lust and romantic love are often consummated by the same act, so they assume that the two are identical; same here with revenge and justice. I believe there is a difference but that difference cannot be grasped by those who are adamant in their disbelief of anything but the barest facts of the material universe.

You say

 

Sheesh. Don't you ever get tired of this game?

 

Bubba Take your time. We all have lives to live.

I feel you are saying that we have no clue if life has value or not, but you believe it does, and we better believe it does or else bad stuff will happen. My only problem with that is it doesn't do anything to state even if life has value let alone what it is. It's too indirect. With that logic, you could be completely wrong and that wouldn't matter. Truth could be compromised for feelings and the status quo. Is it more important to be right, or to prevent possible bad events?

I'm not quite sure what you want from me; if you want a dollar-amount value for a human life, I don't have one, I don't think one exists, and I'm not going to fabricate one.

Well, a dollar amount may be more human in a war, when it seems like life has no value. You later mention that there is something beyond the interactions and feelings of a person that makes life valuable, and I just want to know what it is. What is it about life that makes it valuable? The fact that it is unique is something I questioned, and if there is something else that makes it valuable, I want to know. I am just curious and thinking about what you and other say.

I think that people's lives have intrinsic value beyond what they do, contribute, or enjoy. You disagree, clearly, but the risk in society believing that a life must meet some quality-of-life standard to be valuable is that we could more easily begin killing all those who do not meet that standard.

My thing is that I don't see anything beyond what people do/contribute/enjoy or even are. I realize that from your point of view, there is the soul and that if that is the major thing that is beyond what you listed, we may just have to agree to disagree.

You brought up an interesting image, of a man treating a painting by Van Gogh as kindling that can be easily replaced. A man can see his fellow humans the same way, and once he does, the consequences can be monstrous.

If a man would do that, to be honest he would also have to be just as replicable. To be consistent, he would have to treat himself as kindling and that would end that pretty fast.

 

Terri couldn't have had an MRI. She had had some kind of implant in her brain right after she was injured, trying to fix it (which obviously didn't work), and an MRI would cause some kind of electrical reaction with it, possibly causing her further injury.

BTW, I had a dream last night that her parents and all their followers were still screaming over her corpse (which was beginning to rot), still insisting she was alive and well.

 

Guin,

The implant is tiny metal wires, made of surgical stainless steel or titanium, but still magnetic. This would cause the MRI to malfunction, to what degree I don't know, but it is bad.

I work at a hospital and one of our MRI techs lost her pierced earrings when the other tech turned on the MRI without making sure she was out of the room. It ripped the earrings right out of her ears and the earrings went into the MRI machine.

Bubba,

You very adroitly avoided answering the question. I used the example of making nifty posts here because that is the only part of your life I know about. It goes without saying that if you lost 40% of your intellect, you would lose a great deal more mental functioning than just being able to write witty posts.

I have already made myself very clear on this and yes, I would rather die than be kept alive in a PVS or any scenario whereby I would not be able to enjoy/live life other than staring at the ceiling, esp. with no hope of recovery. If I have a stroke and am still able to function and there is hope of recovery, then I would fight like heck to recover.

So, what makes life valuable to you?

I understand your concerns about valuing life too lightly and your deep concerns about euthanasia, but I do believe that strict criteria could be set up (and apparently have been, in Texas), to ensure that only terminally ill patients or patients with no hope of recovery, would be able to ask for it.

In Texas, the law takes that decision OUT of the hands of the patient and family, and lets a panel of doctors make the decision.

On the question of the Pope, I think he chose to end his life in a way where he died with dignity. Refusing life-saving medical treatment is still choosing to die.

The teachings of Christianity, and especially the Catholic Church, are such that suicide is considered a denial of God's ability to work change in our lives.

Do I fault the Pope for refusing medical treatment? No, I think he made a very courageous decision.

To compare DNA testing with an MRI, especially when many neurologists, not just the court-appointed one, have said that the damage to Ms. Schiavo's brain was so severe, the extra detail shown by the MRI would not change the diagnosis, is disingenious.

DNA testing is not invasive, does not require that the person be put in a huge machine and, since DNA testing would be the BEST way to prove guilt or innocence, i.e., your DNA is at the crime scene without reasonable explanation, you are most likely guilty and, conversely, your DNA is NOT present at the crime scene, you are most likely innocent, that comparing the two procedures is like comparing apples and oranges.

Hard luck cases! What a way you have with dismissing such cases! The entire state of Michigan declared a moritorium on executions because so many death row inmates were possibly innocent and you dismiss that by calling them hard luck cases.

You dismiss perjury by a police officer so cavalierly, it's unbelievable.

I thought the main premise behind our legal system was that it was better for 100 guilty men to go free than for ONE innocent person to be punished.

 

I have a couple minutes this evening, so let me get to the replies that have already been made.


First, Fire, so far as I know, nobody made you write your last somewhat lengthy reply. You made assertions about my position that I thought were inaccurate, so I corrected them. You asked me a question or two, and I tried to answer them.

If you're tired of this "game," you can leave it with no further ado.


Enforcer:

I'm not sure what I said to make you think I believe "we have no clue if life has value or not." I believe we can know -- and that most of us do know -- that human life actually has intrinsic value.

If there were a dilemma like the one you mention -- advocating a useful lie or defending the truth even if it would have unpleasant consequences -- I believe I would defend the truth. But until I'm convinced that the intrinsic value of human life is a lie, I won't consider the dilemma here.


You later mention that there is something beyond the interactions and feelings of a person that makes life valuable, and I just want to know what it is. What is it about life that makes it valuable? The fact that it is unique is something I questioned, and if there is something else that makes it valuable, I want to know.

You questioned the uniqueness of each human life, but I don't think you refuted it. You have your life, and you can replace it with no other. Once it is gone, it is gone. Do you dispute any of this?

That said, I should have perhaps made myself more clear. Rather than use the word, I should have explained my use of the word "intrinsic." That I believe human life has "intrinsic" value means that I believe that it is valuable in and of itself. I don't need to point to anything else to explain its value.

I believe that, for some, the question, "what is it that makes human life valuable," is an opportunity to rid themselves of lives that do not possess X, whatever X may be.


Guin, I was unaware that an MRI scan for Terri Schiavo was out of the question or at least difficult.

But I didn't just mention an MRI.

I also mentioned that Terri did not have a PET scan. Is there another terribly convenient reason that she couldn't have had a PET scan, too?


BTW, I had a dream last night that her parents and all their followers were still screaming over her corpse (which was beginning to rot), still insisting she was alive and well.

Of course, there are two mistakes a person can make. One can scream that a corpse is alive...

...or one can scream that a living body is dead. I don't have to dream that that happened. I can point to posts in this very thread.

Before Terri Schiavo passed away, there were people here confidently declaring that she was already dead. Does that not cause you even a moment's hesitation?


Finally, Lady_Sami:

You very adroitly avoided answering the question. I used the example of making nifty posts here because that is the only part of your life I know about. It goes without saying that if you lost 40% of your intellect, you would lose a great deal more mental functioning than just being able to write witty posts.

I don't know... if the number of stars in the night sky decreased by 40%, would we really be effected?

As for answering the question, I'm not sure anyone can adequately answer tough questions like that as hypotheticals. Many who glibly say they wouldn't want to live without X (be it a family member, or a talent, or an ability like sight) and then lose X end up adapting.

You seem to be asking one question just to slip another through a back door. The question, "would you want to live without 40% of your mental functions," can be thought of in two ways:

- Would you want to experience living without 40%, to which most of us would quickly answer "no."

- If you were experience living without 40%, would you want to die, the answer to which is not obvious for anyone.

And, besides, the answer to the question "what would you w

 

Bubba, a PET scan wouldn't show anything significantly different than the CT, despite it being functional in nature.

PET scans measure the amount of radioactively-labeled glucose being used by specific neural regions of the brain. The CT scans tell us what results would occur on a PET scan - a whole lot of nothing occuring in the frontal cortices, in accord with what the CT showed (massive damage to the frontal cortices).

And there is the issue of the apparent inability to undergo an MRI (measuring orbital spins in a high-energy magnetic field to produce a high-def image of the brain) that Guin mentioned.

Bottom line is, imaging studies wouldn't give us any new information.

 

Thanks for filling in the gap of information about PET scans, but I still wonder what the problem would have been in conducting that test.

If the test would have been as unnecessary as you say, it would not have hurt Michael Schiavo's position, but it would have reassured the Schindler family, the other two branches of government, and the public at-large that the courts were taking every reasonable step to make sure the diagnosis was right.

So why object to it?

 

Because it's unnecessary. Hospitals do not have to provide unnecessary, excessive, or futile care - e.g., hospitals are under no obligation to perform dialysis on someone with the flu. While there is an extreme outside chance that it will do something, that's excessive and beyond the pale of what is needed. The CT scan sufficed precisely because the extent of the damage it showed demonstrated that other diagnostic measures wouldn't be needed to confirm the diagnosis.

EDIT:

Further, it's beyond the pale of what is generally done in hospice care; it is quite rare to perform such a radical diagnostic test on someone expected to die. Measures beyond normal palliation (e.g., pain medication) are done usually only in cases when the normal palliative measures are ineffective (e.g., using radiation therapy on a patient not in an attempt to cure, but in an attempt to temporarily reduce the size of a malignancy and decrease the patient's pain).

 

While it may be true that hospitals do not have to provide excessive care, we're not talking about care in this case: we're talking about diagnosis so that a court can make a life-and-death decision.

Maybe it's still the case that the hospital isn't legally required to perform either of those two scans, and maybe it's the case that the court doesn't have to have proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt, but maybe things should change.

Perhaps we should raise the bar of the burden of proof on the issues of the patient's wishes and diagnosis to match what is required in a criminal case. It doesn't seem right that euthanasia be treated as a less serious issue than capital cases.

The obvious alternative -- where "iffy" cases such as Terri's lead to cases where doctors use spurious diagnoses to kill patients despite their wishes -- is repellent to me.


But about the fact that Terri was in a hospice, I will remind you: TERRI SCHIAVO WAS NOT SUFFERING FROM A TERMINAL ILLNESS.

She probably shouldn't have been in a hospice to begin with, but we should not confuse where she was with the condition she was in. She was not diagnosed with a terminal illness, thus it is wrong to suggest that she should have been receiving hospice care.

You may be right that it "is quite rare to perform such a radical diagnostic test on someone expected to die."

But Terri was not expected to die. Nobody ever suggested that.

In fact, one of the arguments presented here for pulling her feeding tube was that she could be in that state for decades more and -- really -- who would want to live like that for so long?


You prove, I think, just how easy it is to muddy the waters on the issue of euthanasia: put a handicapped woman in a hospice, and people will start to assume that death is emminent, that she is "expected to die."

"Hospice" used to refer to a place where people would go when they were close to dying. It may soon mean a place where people are taken to be killed.