 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Enigma: Sanctity of Life and Quality of Life | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/28/2005 9:30 PM (GMT -6) |   |
TGB said...
If Michael Shiavo is really a murderous creep who doesn’t love Terri anymore, then God will settle up accounts with him later. My point is, Michael’s character or sincerity isn’t what defines what is morally incumbent (or not) with regard to Terri. It’s not as if it would be OK for Michael to pull the plug if he were a real gem of a guy, but wrong of him to pull the plug if he were an immoral creep. Does his motivation play any role in determining the morality of pulling the plug on Terri. I don't see that it does.
Wow Tom,
Once we lose our value of life, anything goes. In Terri’s case, her life lost value for her adulterer husband once he found someone new and began his affair. Coupled with the million dollar life insurance carrot, the value of her life for him has taken a downhill slide ever since (funny how sin works that way). His pursuit for her death is contrary to Terri’s families wish who have demonstrated the value of her life with their love and honor and seem to me to be in a better position to make the needed decisions regarding her life. Unfortunately, Terri never had a Living Will so her fate is left in the hands of her( loosely termed) husband. Because it is not illegal (but immoral) for her husband to enter into another relationship (with children in this case) Terri is still legally bound to him and legally her fate lies in his hands. Her husband can exercise his legal right to pull the plug, similar; an expected mother can exercise her legal right to pull the plug on a life she carries. Much of what is legal is not morally right.
WWJD,
Mark
 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/28/2005 9:08:45 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/28/2005 9:45 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Hmmm...about slippery slope argumentation...
"Slippery Slopes and Androsexuals:
The Inadequacies of Social Conservative Arguments"
by Joe Carter
MephEternal said...
Some Christians have been talking about civil disobedience. Doing something illegal to try to help her. Some people have already been arrested trying to bring her some water. I don't know how far they'd go, though.
I'm wondering though. What if a Christian person decided to go in and euthanize her?
I'm not being facetious. What if a Christian decided to go in, end her pain, give her some anesthestic and lethally inject her while she slept?
Would Christians applaud that? Would they call that person a murderer? Would they try to lock that person up for life? What do you think?
Honestly, if the circumstances were similar, that is what I would want someone to do for me. Again, honestly, if my friends or family asked me to do it for them under such circumstances, I would.
Mercy Meph,
Slippery slope? You have already slid, all the way down to the level of wanting to kill her yourself.
Is this what you mean by “complicit in evil”?
Lord have mercy,
Mark
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/28/2005 9:01:29 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/28/2005 10:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Mark: Once we lose our value of life, anything goes.
Tom: Which is why we must not lose our grip on the value of life. But we already agree that there are situations in which taking life, or pulling the plug, is justified. So determining just how that value is affirmed in Terri's case isn't a matter of just saying, "We should keep her alive because we value life." We obviously don't think we should keep innocent Iraqis alive because we value life. On the contrary, we actually have insisted that affirming the value of life requires their deaths. I'm not suggesting that legal guardians deny the value of life by being empowered to make the choices to pull the plug in cases of PVS.
Mark: In Terri’s case, her life lost value for her adulterer husband once he found someone new and began his affair. Coupled with the million dollar life insurance carrot, the value of her life for him has taken a downhill slide ever since (funny how sin works that way).
Tom: As much as you might be right about him, it just doesn't affect the question of what ought or might justifiably be done in PVS cases. Do you really wanna suggest that her value would be affirmed if only Michael was a loving husband in addition to pulling the plug? Is it his not being a moral person that makes pulling the plug in this instance immoral? Would it be moral if he was not an adulterer? See the difficulty? To make Michael's morality/immorality that which determines the question about what ought of might justifiably be done in the case of PVS victims like Terri just misses the point I think.
Mark: His pursuit for her death is contrary to Terri’s families wish who have demonstrated the value of her life with their love and honor and seem to me to be in a better position to make the needed decisions regarding her life. Unfortunately, Terri never had a Living Will...
Tom: Are you saying that Terri had the right before her accident to determine via a living will that she would not be kept alive in the event she was in PVS? If so, on what grounds do you believe she has this right to not value her own life?
Mark: Because it is not illegal (but immoral) for her husband to enter into another relationship (with children in this case) Terri is still legally bound to him and legally her fate lies in his hands.
Tom: I understand. Let's assume the guy is a total creep. Does that ITSELF mean his choice to remove her feeding tube in light of Terri's being in PVS is not the most appropriate choice for Terri? Does his being an adulterer means he MUST be wrong about knowing what Terri's wishes were in the event such a thing would happen. Are you saying that you wouldn't be opposing any of this were Terri's husband a moral and good man who claimed he knew Terri did not wish to be kept alive in this state?
Mark: Her husband can exercise his legal right to pull the plug, similar; an expected mother can exercise her legal right to pull the plug on a life she carries.
Tom: I wouldn't agree that PVS and pregnancy are similar states.
Blessings,
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 3/28/2005 9:29:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/28/2005 10:34 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Which is why we must not lose our grip on the value of life. But we already agree that there are situations in which taking life, or pulling the plug, is justified. So determining just how that value is affirmed in Terri's case isn't a matter of just saying, "We should keep her alive because we value life." We obviously don't think we should keep innocent Iraqis alive because we value life.
Tom, why do you keep drawing parallels with the war? How in the world does Terri (or any PVS person) become an innocent victim of some kind of war casualty? I don’t understand the analogy, Mark
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/28/2005 9:40:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/28/2005 10:42 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...I'm just pointing out that valuing life consistently doesn't mean never admitting that there are situations in which taking life is justified. Once that's faced, then one cannot argue that Terri be kept alive simply because "we ought to value life." We obviously feel we continue to value life when we take it in other situations. Tom
Even at war we value life, we call them prisoners. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/28/2005 9:45:12 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/28/2005 10:45 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Mark: Even at war we value life, we call them prisoners.
Tom: Only those we don't manage to kill first. But for those we DO kill, especially the innocent "collateral damage," we don't call it murder. We justify it.
Tom
It’s a war crime to intentionally pull the plug trigger on innocent civilians. We have limits of cruelty, even in war, It's called civilization. It would be a war violation to starve prisoners to death.
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/28/2005 10:05:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/28/2005 11:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Mark: It's a war crime to intentionally pull the trigger on innocent civilians.
Tom: Quite so. But then I'm not talking about them am I? Do you have any idea how many innocent civilians we've killed in Iraq? Come on Mark. I'm not saying we're out there intentionally targetting them. We're not doing that. But innocent civilians do "get in the way" and die. We regret it, but we justify killing them. You recognize this don't you Mark? They were alive. Now they're dead. They were killed, their lives were "taken" from them by somebody. And that somebody was US. Our bombs and bullets killed them. We're sorry and we didn't intend it, but we did it. And we justify it.
Look, I'm not denying that there are moral and immoral ways to treat innocent prisoners. And I'm happy to agree that it's immoral to shoot innocent prisoners. But I'm not talking about prisoners. I'm talking about innocent women and children, the "collateral damage." THEY'RE innocent too, Mark. But we kill them and DON'T call it immoral. I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it here. I'm JUST saying that we obviously don't believe that valuing life in itself means never under any circumstances whatsoever taking lives. We don't justify killing innocent prisoners, but we DO justify killing innocent civilians if they're collateral damage. We justify THAT! We believe affirming the value of life prohibits our shooting prisoners but permits our killing civilians who constitute collateral damage. Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 3/28/2005 10:08:13 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/28/2005 11:15 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Mark: It's a war crime to kill innocent civilians.
Tom: Then who is taking George Bush to the Hague? Do you have any idea how many innocent civilians we've killed in Iraq? Come on Mark. I'm not saying we're out there intentionally targetting them. We're not doing that. But innocent civilians do "get in the way" and die. We regret it, but we justify killing them. You recognize this don't you Mark? They were alive. Now they're dead. Our bombs and bullets killed them. We're sorry and we didn't intend it, but we did it.
Look, I'm not denying that there are moral and immoral ways to treat innocent prisoners. And I'm happy to agree that it's immoral to shoot innocent prisoners. But I'm not talking about prisoners. I'm talking about innocent women and children, the "collateral damage." THEY'RE innocent too, Mark. But we kill them and DON'T call it immoral. I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it here. I'm JUST saying that we obviously don't believe that valuing life in itself means never under any circumstances whatsoever taking lives. We don't justify killing innocent prisoners, but we DO justify killing innocent civilians if they're collateral damage. We justify THAT! We believe affirming the value of life prohibits our shooting prisoners but permits our killing civilians who constitute collateral damage.
Tom
Collateral damage and friendly fire is usually unavoidable, an accident or just plain negligence. Does Terri fall into this category; is Terri an unavoidabe accident, does negligence come into play here, is this a simple case of malpractice? Let me answer, NO.
Forget starving the POW, your analogy would come closer to the mark if you said: We intentionally capture innocent civilians and then starve them to death. Oh sorry, I guess that has already been done by Hitler.
Two wrongs don’t make a right,
Mark
P.S.
When I was thirteen years old, my older brother (a proud Marine who I looked up to) was left in a coma. All the doctors told my family that he would never come out of the coma and even if he miraculously did come to, he would be a vegetable for life. I never prayed so hard in my life. He woke up. He has since been working successfully at Honeywell for over twenty years.
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/28/2005 10:35:39 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/28/2005 11:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Sweet! Love ya Alan baby (though I disagreed with his other stuff on “becoming a person” and still do. What this is meant to say is that no one is being inconsistent but only a few extremist pro-lifers AND YOURSELF because it is YOU who is bringing the charge. Think about it. The argument goes both ways. Some people who complain about pro-lifers say this: If life is sacred in the womb, why is it not sacred on the battlefield or in death penalty situations? Or if life is sacred at the end of life, then why is it not on the battlefield or death penalty situations? From the pro-lifers it will THEN be asked, “If life is sacred on the battlefield or in death penalty situations then why is it not sacred at the end of life? So again, it is a straw man FOR YOU to bring this up. Remember WHO it is that is making the charge here. The decisive factor in this is guilt or innocence. Bottomline.
Here we go...
~MR: The innocence or guilt of the one to be killed is morally IRRELEVANT to the justifiability of ending their life.
If a person bases the human right to life (ie it's maintenance and preservation) PURELY on the facticity of universal human sanctity, then moral innocence or guilt WOULD be irrelevant to the justifiability of ending their life.
This is part of my point.
To affirm MR is to NEGATE the idea that universal human sanctity is the SOLE condition that determines the justifiability or non-justifiability of human killing. Since many people like the one's we are talking about affirm MR anyway, then it's purposeless to try to bring in the sanctity of human life as a means of affirming WHY PL is true. To do this ends up in inconsistency. Check it out. These people want to say innocent beings like the unborn and poor souls like Terri should be preserved because they are created in the image of God and are therefore sacred, regardless of their "personhood" status. This is to say that their form of PL is based upon their belief that any human beings are SACRED creatures before God, regardless of if they demonstrate any signs of personhood or not. And based on that sacredness, their lives should NOT be ended unnaturally. It's very important to note that this sanctity is NOT based on any morally relevant factors!
Now here's where things get interesting. Because people who are given the death penalty are just as sacred as the unborn in the womb or Terri Schiavo. So, if they were CONSISTENT, we would say that it's IMPOSSIBLE to hold MR at the same time they are using an argument that LOGICALLY IMPLIES ~MR to fight against abortion and euthanasia.
Does that make sense?
All I'm saying is this: If a person wants to argue that abortion and euthanasia is wrong, hey, go for it. But don't try to argue this point SOLELY (or even MAINLY) from the idea of universal human sanctity dealing with God's image in ALL human beings...while at the same time, believing in MR. Because once you do THAT, you are being inconsistent.
Clear as crystal, baby?
******************************
Brandon:
I am saying that when you work from a “quality of life” ethic rather than “sanctity life” ethic then there is no basis whether in the conscience of the nation either as individuals or as reflected in the laws of the land that would deny someone “their right” to end life whether at the beginning or at the end. If I’m having a bad hair day and you are on the verge of bankruptcy, no one would could deny us the right to end our lives.
Brandon, the sanctity of life idea just underscores WHY the question is important in the first place. It is not prescriptive about whether or not someone ending either their own or another person's life is justifiable...not if someone holds to MR.
*****************************
Meph:Sparknheart talked about the slippery slope. And this is the main clarion call of evangelicals right now. (That's why Joe replaced this particular article at this time on his website) As far as having no basis to deny their right...WE NEVER DO. Do you know how many people commit suicide every year? It's one of the top 5 killers of all people in the world! It's not like we are STOPPING it from happening as a phenomenon. We are talking about what can be done in situations where there is terminal illness, persistent vegatative state, or something like that.
Brandon:Yes we do. We do this with assisted suicide. The basis is the sanctity of life and these days, I base that not so much on anything necessarily inherent in the person, but in God who is the giver of life (Grenz). Laws should be BASED on that.
Could you please show me how our policies on assisted suicide are purely BASED upon an idea of the SANCTITY of life? I'd really like to see that.
*********************************
Brandon:
Who hasn’t in this technological age? But that is highly individualistic. Here is a situation in which Shiavo’s parents want to take care of her whatever the responsibility. There are funds set up for her so as to help with the costs. They will love her. Comb her hair. Hug her. Hold her. Bathe her, FEED her, etc, like they have been TRYING to do since this has happened over the last 15 years. But the old man didn’t and won’t have any of it. She won’t even be his responsibility AT ALL. But he is insistent upon having her die (it has been reported that he has made statements like, “Has the bitch died yet?). She will bring pride and joy to her family. Why? Because it isn’t only her life that we are concerned about here. It is the lives of others that she will deeply impact. The community that is surrounding this individual, this PERSON. This is about US! We short circuit the cultural mandate and all that goes along with that (CREATIVE LOVING efforts) in euthanasia.
and...
And so, it is fully in keeping with biblical truth to stave off sickness and death--Christians have been building hospitals and providing hospice for centuries. Sickness. Death. They are our enemies. And so our enemies must be fought with the best of our ability--our human intelligence and creativity. “Health care” is one response to our enemy. The role of the health care professional is to cure if at all possible, care ALWAYS, and never to harm or HASTEN death. The way we meet the legitimate needs of the suffering and dying is through enhanced pain management (also called palliative care) as well as hospice care to assure as far as possible that one has a good dying process (a part of the cultural mandate to use our freak‘n God given intelligence and creativity).
and...
At the same time we still die until that time. And so there is also a death that evidences a failure to acknowledge its inevitability. And so, with the best medical care it cannot utterly be forestalled. (Waaaaah). And so to keep a body alive indefinitely at all costs (sometimes called vitalism) goes to show the sad unwillingness to face the reality of the human condition. And so, we must acknowledge that EXTENDED LIFE is not our Lord. God who is not only the giver of THIS life but of the AFTER-LIFE is OUR Lord. And so, we vigorously fight death, but also come to a peaceable acceptance that death is inevitable BUT NOT A MOMENT BEFORE.
Ok. This is what I'm getting from you, Brandon...
1) Things like suicide and euthanasia eliminate opportunities for a community of people to show creative loving ways to support people who are in some of the worst existential situations we can imagine.
2) Biblically speaking, death and sickness are enemies of God. Because of this, we need to do everything we can creatively to stem these things...at least until death is seen as inevitable.
What both of these things entail is that any decision that we make either as a community or as individuals that 1) eliminates opportunities for a community of people to creatively love people in extremely harsh existential situations and/or 2) promotes premature death.
So, what I'm gathering are that these are arguments that you want to use to say why people SHOULDN'T make living wills. You DO see it that way, don't you? If what you are saying is true, then a person's decision to make a living will prescribing something like a "do not resusitate" order is being fundamentally SELF-CENTERED and is CAPITULATING to God's enemies. Thus, living wills should be seen as fundamentally immoral. How so? Well, simple. If a person were truly caring about the community and their devotion to God's purposes, a person would NEVER think about doing a living will that, in effects, gives directions that may lead to them dying prematurely, when they COULD be saved and loved by the community.
Actually, if I'm understanding you right, now I DEFINITELY don't understand how a Christian would back any type of "just war" theory instead of strategic non-violent resistance. Or how a Christian could back any type of authorization of lethal force...including the death penalty.
But notice how NONE of this essentially deals with the sanctity of life itself...but deals more essentially with what you perceive as being along the trajectory of divine aims.
Do you see the issue??
Check it out, Brandon. I understand and agree with what you are saying as far as we SHOULD be a society who that is WILLING to be a community who surrounds people in such a way. I also understand and agree with you saying that death and sickness whould be fought against. Where we differ is that I believe that there is more involved than just this. There is the power of individuals and communities to choose what they feel is best for them. There is the acknowledgment that life is MORE than just biological function. Am I saying that these decisions are to be made hastily? By no means. But I'm also saying that it's more complex that what I believe you are making it.
You and I agree that we want to be a fundamentally life-affirming (rather than life-denying) society of individuals-in-community. It seems very obvious to me that we disagree on what this entails.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/29/2005 12:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
What I'm saying is that our affirming the value of life while taking life in SOME situations itself proves that simply regurgitating the words "...because we should value life" in ANY situation cannot be a reason why we shouldn't take life. You have to actually argue why "valuing life" justifies taking life in some instances but not in others. You have to spell it out.
I'm very happy to hear about your brother. But Terri has not been in a coma. She's in a PVS, so far as I understand. Was your brother's cerebral cortex gone? Did doctors tell your parents that your brother was in a PVS? That would be something if he came out of a PVS.
Tom
Tom,
your analogies of war and self-defense against an intruder is like comparing apples and oranges when it comes to Terri’s case. See, I agree with Starkman, it’s a case of “murder” to starve someone to death. There is a huge difference between "valuing life" and murder.
Exodus 20:13 (NRSV)
You shall not murder.
Good Night and blessings,
Mark
P.S. All I remember, for over a month, the doctors kept saying my brother would be a vegetable. I don’t know if there was/is a non-persisted vegetative state, outside of miracles anyways.
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/29/2005 12:46:00 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
VisitingAgain
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 3/29/2005 4:21 AM (GMT -6) | | I have not read all the things said here, but I've been following this case of Terri's (praying for her, have written senators several times, praying and more praying). I agree though along the lines of Sparknheart.
First there's the obvious- her husband not only has a "fiance" whom he lives with and shares children with and has said he will marry once his wife dies, but he also had two other serious girlfriends very shortly after Terri died. At first though, he was the "loyal" husband, saying he'd do all he could for her, but then a million dollar suit was awarded. And then he got his lawyer, who is a known "right to death" lawyer. They both will receive alot of money when Terri dies. Once he got that lawyer, he "suddenly remembered" that Terri supposedly said she wouldn't want to live like this. And from that point on, he sought her death. He denied her such things as therapy, light (the windows had to be closed), and music. She was denied dental care and has had several teeth pulled as a result. For awhile, he would not let her parents visit her. To this day, only "his" doctors are allowed access to her. He does not allow her to be photographed or video taped. There is allegded abuse on his part. AND it is debatable whether she is PVS. There have been several doctors who have said she is not and that given therapy, she could improve greatly. How many of us would be thriving, healthy people if we had no light, no music, no dental care, no therapy for our sickness? She can breathe on her own, she is said to be responsive, there were doctors who said they thought she was a prime candidate for speech therapy (her "husband" would not allow it however). So why doesn't the husband just divorce her for goodness sakes? He refuses to. Here she has loving parents who are committed to her care. Why doesn't he just let them care for her? Because if he does that, then both he and his lawyer will not get the money they are going to get as husband and husband's lawyer.
Personally, I believe I am witnessing a murder, nothing less. Yesterday, they actually gave her morphine. I could not believe the irony/hypocrisy. These people say she's a vegetable, can't feel pain, doesn't know she's dying, yet they give her morphine!? Isn't that an indication that YES she feels pain? And to say that she's not being allowed dignity in her death? Or that her privacy is being violated? These are being said by the same people who are saying she's a "vegetable" and that there is no life in there. So someone please explain, how on earth does a "vegetable" who has no life in her feel such things as dignity and experience violations of privacy? If she can't even feel the pain of being starved to death, how on earth does she feel indignified?!
Either she is a life or she isn't. Personally, for me, I would never ask anyone to starve me to death. I would hate to put any of my family through that. Starving to death is quite different than removing the tube that provides air for a person who cannot otherwise live, but even then, there are stories like sparknheart's of people who have recovered when once deemed a "vegetable" or hopeless case.
And where does the line get drawn? We are a society that literally worships youth, beauty, and success. We view the handicapped, the elderly, the unborn, the impoverished, the suffering, the ugly as being lesser beings, better off dead than alive. They are inconveniences and hinderances to our lives. What 16 year old wants to be "burdended" with a fussy, poopy baby. It's a burden that is easier handled by killing the unborn child with the excuse that it's only an embryo. What successful businessman wants to be burdened with his aging, Alzheimers father? Put him in a home and let him dwindle away. The businessman has better, more important things to do. And of course, what person would want to be burdened with a handicapped child, or a family member that is a "vegetable?" I mean, get real. We do NOT view these people highly. And there are some who DO have world views that view life as "survival of the fittest" and believe that killing someone is better than dealing with them.
I would think that of all people Christians would be the ones who do value life, ALL life, and who are able to recognize that 1) this "husband" has committed adultery and is not fit to be the one "in charge" of whether she lives or dies, and 2) Terri is being starved to death and not given water either. I simply cannot believe that we, as a nation, are witnessing a woman being starved to death. To me, it's absolutely inhumane and sickening. I cannot believe that based upon her husband's word alone, doctors have agreed to starve this poor woman to death. Based on her husband's word alone, a man who possibly abused his wife, who has a fiance, who has money to gain from all of this, who has denied Terri therapy for years now. It is also frightening because to me, this case is a prime example that the judges in America truly rule America. I am shocked that a judge has more "power" than a governor, a President, and a Congress. Even the majority of Congress felt that there should be investigation into this case. In fact, the diagnoseses are years old. No recent examinations of Terri have taken place. Pres. Bush said that it is better to "err on the side of life" and I agree, but as a result of one husband, one attorney, and several judges, she is dying. And it seems that no one can usurp the power of the American judge, and that to me, is a very, very frightening thing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
VisitingAgain
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 3/29/2005 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Why would you give morphine to a person who is a "vegetable" being starved to death?! (They gave her morphine yesterday). The parents actually think it might be used to hasten her death. I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
I do believe that starving someone to death is murder. Speaking of quality of life. Let's take the Jews in Concentration camps. MephEternal mentioned something about how if he couldn't experience and contribute to beauty, meaning, etc. then life would not be worth living. He'd rather be dead. So, if you've ever read of Corrie ten Boom, she tells the stories of how she was in the Concentration camp, living in literally flea-infested barracks, starving, etc. There was no beauty, no meaning, and TREMENDOUS suffering. So, would it have been better for us to have just killed them (well, the Nazis did that)? I mean, what kind of life is that? Well, God spared her life and she has had an amazing testimony that has led many people to the Lord.
Or take Joni Erikson Tada. She was/is quadrapalegic and although she now paints, writes, and even has a husband, during the years following her death, she was depressed and felt uselss, no meaning, etc. I'm sure she probably wanted to die. Maybe even asked someone to kill her. Many people would rather be dead than quadrapalegic, but that woman has touched and influenced more lives than I have, even though I have the use of all limbs.
It's not always about us! God uses the weak, the sick, the poor. God can use Terri to touch other's lives, and maybe she's a handicapped woman (because I personally disagree that she is PVS, based on what has been said and observed about her and the pics. and video I have seen of her) who seems to be a huge burden (burden because the husband can't marry his fiance and get the money until she dies) and useless, but who knows what lives she can touch and in what ways. I worked with a handicapped person once-- I think he had cerebral palsy. I can't remember. We worked at a large camp together. He walked very strange, I think when he was a child, the doctors said he wouldn't live, he certainly wasn't the GQ guy. But of all people at that camp, he touched more lives in such profound ways. It was almost as if, well, he was different. He was kinder than the average person, more friendly, more pure and innocent someone. And since then, he went to college and now he is a speaker who speaks to thousands of kids at that camp. And it is his handicap that touches people because God uses those things.
God views things far differently than we do. It was Christ who touched the lepers. Everyone else avoided them. I'm sure many thought that lepers were better off dead. What kind of life would it be to be a leper, shunned from all society, sick and ugly and poor? Where does the line get drawn? Where do we get our criteria for deciding who is and who isn't worthy to live?? What one person views as an unlivable situation, another does not. | | Back to Top | | |
|
VisitingAgain
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 3/29/2005 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | | Meph, are you really interested in other's viewpoints that aren't aligned with yours or is this just sorta an argument and point of contention with you? Just wondering. Be honest (esp. with yourself). | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2005 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Visiting Again: (emphasis mine)
Meph, are you really interested in other's viewpoints that aren't aligned with yours or is this just sorta an argument and point of contention with you? Just wondering. Be honest (esp. with yourself).
I'll be charitable with this. Yes, VA, I do care about other people's viewpoints. If all I wanted to do was have an "echo chamber" of sort, I damn sure wouldn't be here. This is a marketplace of ideas, with lots of THINKING people. And I look at all of em. Do I agree with all of them? No. And it's not like I'm supposed to. But the ideas do help me look at things from different angles and hone my own thinking, such that I sometimes have to wholly change my own opinions. That's a GOOD thing. And as far as me being "honest with myself", baby, you have NO idea. If anything, I'm often BRUTALLY honest with myself. Ask my friggin therapist. Heh. 
Soooo...I'm choosing to take this particular statement in what I believe to be it's best possible light...that you just wanted to know where I was coming from. Now you know.
*****************************************
I'm speaking for myself here. I think the Terri case itself is a debacle BECAUSE so many balls have been dropped. The level of incompetency on a lot of levels is staggering. I think the amount of stupidity is obvious in that people obviously WANT her to die, but so there won't be any "killing", they'd rather let her starve and dehydrate to death. Ludicrous. However, this has never really been my main point here! My point has NOT been a critique of the American judicial system and it's sometimes oppressive operation. It was not about the sheer travesties against human existence that go on EVERY DAY in this country with disenfranchised people that most people don't take the time to think and pray about. It was not about examining the inherent dysfunctionality of contemporary American cultural aesthetics and morality. It was not about talking about people who overcome overwhelming odds to contribute hope, love, and beauty to the world in their own ways, like Hellen Keller, Viktor Frankl, some of the late Henri Nouwen's friends at the Daybreak community for the mentally handicapped...AND Joni Erickson. All of these things could be done (and should be done!) Great discusssions. MY main beef was twofold that deal essentially with the same question:
If a person or society holds that the inherent sanctity of human beings DOES NOT PRECLUDE either allowing someone to die when they could be preserved or actively taking someone's life prematurely, then what circumstances, reasons and/or principles make the taking of human life or the allowance of human death morally justifiable...possibly even morally obligatory?
(People who hold the inherent sanctity of human beings as creating DEONTOLOGICAL maxim would DENY that human beings should just allow someone to die when they could be preserved or actively taking someone's life prematurely...like the official stance of the Catholic Church ala the Pope.)
When we talk about this, we necessarily get into questions of what kind of society we want to be, what are the logical ramifications of our decisions, needs of individuals vs. social cohesive factors, our individual and collective abilities to choose, etc. We talk about what the lines ARE, where they are, and why they are (or should) be there. And NONE OF THIS hinges directly on the sanctity of life. The sanctity of life idea for people who hold ideas like "MR" are the reason WHY these questions are so important. We don't usually ask these kinds of questions to this depth when we are talking about gerbils, mice, or lizards. (Though some people would say that we should...because ALL forms of animal life are precious...but that's another story.)
So...for the record, I think the Terri situation is absolutely horrible in a LOT of ways. And I think that it points to many issues that Americans and human beings in general need to think about. My main thing deals with the REASONS and/or PRINCIPLES behind how we arbitrate things like suicide, euthanasia, "mercy killing" in war, etc. PRIMARILY if most of us AGREE that human sanctity does NOT preclude either allowing someone to die when they could be preserved or actively taking someone's life prematurely.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 112 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:42 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|