« Good News from Basra | HomePage | Screwing for Love »
Saturday, March 19, 20051111248000
Evangelicals: Marriage Irrelevant
Congressional Republicans Declare:
State Interest Trumps Marital Interests
Christians Criticize Husband Deciding for Wife
(Wife Not Objecting)
Husband, Wife 'Not One Body,' Born Agains Maintain
Preachers: Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:8 'Just Stupid'
These are the headlines I see in the Terri Schiavo case. I think the Democrats must see the same thing, because few are criticizing Republicans for righists' bizarre stand. When I see solid conservatives like Michelle Malkin and The Red Side of Belew join the statists I despair.
10:00 Posted by Dan tdaxp in Law , Republicans , Women | Permalink | Comments (4) | Email this | Tags: Schiavo, coma, theocrats, evangelicals, marriage
Trackbacks
Cross Debates
Two good trans-post debates:
Sites: CCK, tdaxp
Philosophies: tdaxp v. sodakdems
Chad, Seth, Charley, and I are debating jobs v. readiness in Box Elder, South Dakota's Next Ghost Town?, Ellsworth Revisited, and South Dakotan War on Terrorism (CKK:...
Trackback by: tdaxp | Monday, March 21, 2005
Comments
The problem here is that it has come down to he said / she said. Some claim Ms. Schiavo is in a vegetative state, others claim she is just severly mentally disabled. I think Mr. Schiavo has shown that his interest is in the quality of life and the wishes of his former wife by turning down the million dollar offer to keep her alive. I myself would not want to be kept in a paralytic, nearly comatose state, even if under the surface I were still moderately conscious. I also believe that Mr. Schiavo would have the best idea of what the wishes of his former wife were.
Removing her feeding tube is not murder, it is euthanasia, something Ms. Schiavo herself was accepting of, according to her pre-affliction beliefs. If Mr. Schiavo is not being dishonest, I believe that it is cruel to deny her those beliefs.
Posted by: aaron | Saturday, March 19, 2005
I mostly agree with Aaron, but I am cautious of the term "euthanasia." I know many sources agree with Aaron, but to me the term means taking action to end life. No one is suggesting doing that with Terry. The husband wishes to cease supporting her with medical technology. Something far more limited and less controversial, in my opinion.
Posted by: Dan | Saturday, March 19, 2005
What then would you call not taking action to end ones life? That is, not acting and the result being the end of ones life, not unlike a Do Not Resuscitate order.
Posted by: Brendan | Saturday, March 19, 2005
Not taking action. The negative is on purpose -- it is the lack of action. This makes it not homocide, which is the killing of a human.
You raise a good point. Euthanasia means "good death." Starvation is not a good death.
Posted by: Dan | Saturday, March 19, 2005