« On the Rules of Engagement for Information Warfare White Paper | HomePage | Tom Daschle Speculation (Homosexualist South Dakota Values) »

Wednesday, June 15, 20051118886900

Schiavo Case Leads Conservatives to Support Euthanasia

"Re: Schiavo," by John Derbyshire, The Corner, 15 June 2005, http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_06_12_corner-archive.asp#066258.

More Derb

At the Atlanta bash last month, an audience member asked the panel whether the Schiavo case had caused any of us to change our minds about the underlying issues.

I piped up & said yes, the case had changed my mind in one respect. It had made me realise, a thing I never realised before, that I do favor euthanasia.

Ramesh asked me at some point why, if I were willing to see Mrs Schiavo have her feeding withdrawn so that she dehydrated to death over several days, I wasn't willing to just have her given a lethal injection. I couldn't think of any satisfactory answer to this, and haven't been able to since; so in all honesty, I am bound to say I favor the lethal injection, in at least some cases.


Good point.

This is why federalism is important. So when one state legalizes something, an uninformed majority doesn't snuff it out.

Comments

Yeah, John Derbyshire is an intelligent and usually reasonable mathematician and author. Unlike the rest of his fundie party, including his President, who today said that the autopsy results do not change his stance...

"We should always stand on the side of defending ... life".

Except for the following:
gays
"enemy combatants"
women
veterans
elderly
poor
Dan tdaxp (just for simple irony )
Aaron Thoreson ( just for simple spite )
anyone with chronic illnesses who may benefit from stem cell research
fetuses
wrongly convicted criminals
children w/o health insurance
Democrats

Posted by: aaron | Thursday, June 16, 2005

I meant to write "inviable fetuses." Apologies for my haste.

Posted by: aaron | Thursday, June 16, 2005

Aaron, a question and a statement, and a litany

1. You consider neoconservatives to be "fundementalists"?

2. "We should always stand on the side of defending ... life" is, indeed, stupid. I love eating cow life.

3.

gays

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of homosexualists, and then vacuuming up the remains.

"enemy combatants"

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of unlawful combatants, and then vacuuming up the remains.

women

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of women, and then vacuuming up the remains.

veterans

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of veterans, and then vacuuming up the remains.

gays

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of homosexualists, and then vacuuming up the remains.

elderly

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of old folks, and then vacuuming up the remains.

poor

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of poor folks, and then vacuuming up the remains.

anyone with chronic illnesses who may benefit from stem cell

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of anyone with chronic illnesses who may benefit from stem cell research, and then vacuuming up the remains.

[inviable] fetuses

I know very few, if any, conservatives who accept the meaningfullness of the viable / inviable dichotomy. Even Carl Sagan, noted atheist liberal, spoke out against it.

wrongly convicted criminals

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of wrongly convicted criminals, and then vacuuming up the remains.

children w/o health insurance

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of children w/o health insurance, and then vacuuming up the remains.

Democrats

I am unaware of any plan to legalize the dismemberment of Democrats, and then vacuuming up the remains.

Posted by: Dan | Thursday, June 16, 2005

They were going to dismember Terri Schiavo and vacuum up the pieces!? I say, I must support Senator Frist with all fervor now! I haven't heard of so much navery since the Punjab!

Posted by: aaron | Thursday, June 16, 2005

Aaron,

No, but it's a pretty standard method of abortion.

Years after the Supreme Court outlaws pre-birth infanticide

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/03/28/abortion_and_global_roadsterism.html

it will be rememberd in the same class as Indian widow burning or pre-Islamic post-birth abortion

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/21/for_what_crime.html

Considering the current autogenocide, a "go-slow" approach on the spookier parts of medical technology (stem cell research, "heroic" care, &c) isn't all bad.

Posted by: Dan | Thursday, June 16, 2005

Rhetoric aside, some commenting on my commenting.

I have stated in the past that I am anti-abortion. I look at it as a quick-fix to short-sighted opportunism. However, I don't think abortion should be illegal because absolute law only breeds lawlesness. I'd rather have a sanctioned, licensed medical professional perform it in an inspected environment than someone with a "good idea how" in the streets.

So, not sure how this got equated with my "cause someone to suffer needlessly for political gain" response, but let me elaborate on my rhetoric:

Gays - When someone is chronically ill, it is typically their families they turn to, and usually their families and loved ones that get them through. In some cases, it is the insurance of a husband or wife that gets them through. By denying homosexuals that ability to form lasting legal family units, we're alienating them and abandoning them to a world of too-expensive medical care and unsupportive society.

Elderly - Many people are living longer today than they would have 20 years ago, thanks to heart medication, diabetes medication, cholesterol medication, and we're even making research inroads to Alzheimer's. I understand that competition breeds innovation, but allowing prescription medication to be priced so far out of reach of many is cruel to people who, yes, could've made better, healthier life choices, but too late now.

Children - The same holds true. Dan says the cost of insuring a child, because of their relative health, is negligible. However, I have been in situations where another $20 a month in expenses would leave me overdrafting. This was during a time when I had a paid off car, lived in my parent's home, and worked only 5 miles from home. I was a landscaper, and there were people who worked with me that did that for A LIVING, not just to get by. I can't imagine what their financial situations were, but I never had the heart to ask. I know many of them picked up whatever extra hours they could and would wear the same jeans and gloves until they were truly worn out. These were good, honest people who were satisfied with their jobs and got satisfaction out of them, and who probably couldn't afford the extra $50 a paycheck to insure their children, if the employer even offered the option. I kind of rolled poor people into this too.

Wrongly Convicted Criminals - I could honestly care less about the death penalty. But shouldn't honest Christians like our President be up in arms that some of the people on death row claiming innocence might be telling the truth? I would think they wouldn't even want to take the chance. Texas ranks (and ranked) #1 in state executions.

Veterans - We know health care is getting more expensive. So this year we're doing the right thing and giving you an increase in funding that doesn't match the increase in cost. Thanks for defending freedom.

Democrats - Well, obviously. If Diebold can make 52% of our population vote for a President whose approval rating didn't come close to matching and looks even worse now, I'd imagine they can make machines to keep tabs on proud Kerry voters, and sneak into their house at night and losen their pipes, spilling water onto their washer and dryer in the basement. Bastards.

"Enemy Combatants" - I probably wrongly threw this in, but I was on a roll. Screw the Geneva Conventions, they're quaint antiquities. We were horrified at what might happen to the Iran hostages, but we're not too worried what might be happening to the A-rabs in Guantanamo. After all, they're not human, as they hate freedom.

Women - Difficult pregnancy might kill you? Baby probably won't survive anyway? Well, too bad, there's still a chance he'll grow up to vote for Billy Cheney.

Stem Cell Research - What's worse, to throw away unused embryos from fertility treatments literally in a garbage, or perform experiments on unsentient cells? I can't wait for masturbation to be outlawed... Think of the humanity being washed out of those gym socks across the vast adolescent masses of America!?

If Republicans wanted to err on the side of life, they'd be funding homeless shelters, free clinics, sponsoring clean environmental policy, defending the poor, and trying to keep health care costs under control... If Republicans wanted to err on the side of life, and not just garner votes while they continue to ride Americans' backs to Club Med, they'd be Democrats.

Posted by: aaron | Thursday, June 16, 2005

Post a comment