Me too... I'm tired of the gov't, and religion, thinking that they can just push a piece of paper around, and say... THIS IS HOW IT IS. You have no rights... we will choose how you do everything... what you eat, when you sleep... hell... who you sleep with! Deal with it, boys and girls... WE RUN THE SHOW!!!
To which I say... to both.... *flips up both hands giving the bird* ENOUGH SAID!
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
After the hearing last night...people were calling into C-span and telling what they thought of the issue and whether they agree or not.
There was this one lady who called...she was a Republican...and even she was outraged by what she was seeing...she stated that this will make her change parties.
I am also a Republican..for many reasons..but not all.....but today, Ive been shamed by that party as well.
I, too, have decided to look into changing my party. I dont think Ill be voting Republican anymore after this fiasco. Im not a full fledged Dem either though I do agree with some things, as I agree with some on the Repub side...anyhow..
Im thinking the Independent Party is sounding good after this.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
As a life-long Independent I stand to salute you. Not only for considering restating your affiliation but for having the courage to post it. We're simply not getting served by our gov't in it's current form. A choice for the lesser of two evils is no choice at all.
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
[i]There was this one lady who called...she was a Republican...and even she was outraged by what she was seeing...she stated that this will make her change parties.
I am also a Republican..for many reasons..but not all.....but today, Ive been shamed by that party as well.
I, too, have decided to look into changing my party. I dont think Ill be voting Republican anymore after this fiasco. Im not a full fledged Dem either though I do agree with some things, as I agree with some on the Repub side...anyhow..
Im thinking the Independent Party is sounding good after this.
There has to be a place for us Republican moderates who believe in old-fashioned Republican principles like LESS government interference. Where is it written that because I don't equate abortion to murder, don't care if gay people get married and don't believe in any organized religion that I can't believe in fiscal responsibility and states' rights? Before the cancer that is the right wing hijacked the Republican Party, it stood for something other than hypocritical moralistic gesturing.
As a life-long Independent I stand to salute you. Not only for considering restating your affiliation but for having the courage to post it. We're simply not getting served by our gov't in it's current form. A choice for the lesser of two evils is no choice at all.
Agreed! I have to put things in perspective...I cant agree with what either party does as a whole.
One of my brothers will also be pleased with this choice!
There has to be a place for us Republican moderates who believe in old-fashioned Republican principles like LESS government interference. Where is it written that because I don't equate abortion to murder, don't care if gay people get married and don't believe in any organized religion that I can't believe in fiscal responsibility and states' rights? Before the cancer that is the right wing hijacked the Republican Party, it stood for something other than hypocritical moralistic gesturing.
Thats just it! Everything you just said...are all the things I dont agree with on the Republican side.
There is no place for in-between anymore....there just isnt.
I have no other choice but to start voting Independent from here on out.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I think in a situation such as this where a life hangs in the balance, then yes, they should and Im the last person that would say something like that.
Part of the problem of this whole debate is the "right to life no matter what" ethic that is fueling it.
First off, no one involved in this debate really, truly believes that all life deserves all efforts to sustain it and every possible heroic measure to prolong it. I think it's safe to say that all of us sustain our own existence by eating things that used to be alive, be they plant or animal. If you have a bacterial infection, you probably don't refuse to take antibiotics on the grounds that you're taking the life of an innocent bacterium. None of us mourns the flies on the windshield. More seriously, there are probably people who believe just as fervently that Terri Schiavo's body should be sustained until it finally dies some years hence as they believe that execution is right and proper, or that going to war - which inevitably results in lots of people dying - is sometimes the right thing to do. (I'm not saying where I stand on these topics - just pointing out that "right to life" is not, by anyone who utters the words, a blanket belief in the right of any and every living thing to live.)
Thus stated, I will accept the "right to life" platitude only from someone who protests the taking of _any_ life, not just human life, and not just lives of people that meet the speaker's standard of being sufficiently good and worthy of such rights.
Having ruled out pretty much everyone in the United States who wraps themselves in the blanket of "right to life," let's more closely examine the typical demographic that stakes claim to it, which is to say the current-day incarnation of the Christian religion.
I say current-day, because the ideology behind the judaeo-christian religions is not necessarily one that equates life=good and death=bad. Historically, over the millennia, this is a religious thought that has been especially popular with the downtrodden for the simple reason that it teaches that life is ephemeral and that something better awaits the true believer. I quote in brief: "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." The righteous person does not fear death, which is treated as a transition from brief earthly life to eternal life with Christ the saviour; and even if heroic means of preserving life were available at the times these religious works were penned, pursuing them would puzzle the true believer. Why would you struggle to delay meeting your eternal gift of life everlasting?
Life wasn't terribly pleasant for most in those faraway days. There was no golden age. People died early of disease, lacked for food; early civilizations often had featured social structures that led to a small number of privileged and a vast number of suffering. For many, life was all about suffering, something to which the bible directly speaks, as in "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Indeed, to put it succinctly, the bible manages to condemn just about everything that might make actual life either pleasant or enjoyable. Such pleasures and enjoyments impede your growth in Christ; they also make you more likely to want more time in this life and to treat death as something to be feared and delayed if possible.
There's a tremendous quote in a recent MSNBC item by a Jesuit bioethicist, speaking about earlier writings by theologian Richard McCormick: "He [McCormick] said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology—these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human."
He thus refers to the switch that has occurred in the relatively modern day to the ascendency of "right to life" from teachings that life, as we know it, is little more than means to eternity, as nothing short of heresy.
It's not really intended to be heresy - it's political convenience for the religious right. "Right to life" has evolved as a means to condemn undesirable practices and behaviors. In order to roundly condemn abortion, for example, they must be equally vociferous and unbending on the other end, lest they introduce any wiggle room for debate. If it's alive and it's human, whether it's a fetus or someone who's been in a coma for 25 years, its life must be defended at all costs. As soon as you start introducing complications - does it have consciousness, is it suffering, etc - the foundation is shaken; therefore, all human life must be sacred.
Now, many of the people standing around protesting the Terri Schiavo situation may, as individuals, not be a party to this whole line of thought. It's appealing to worry about the so-called "slippery slope" effect: today, people in comas and PVS states, tomorrow Downs' Syndrome children. Or, for some who believe the quackery and nonsense that has been circulating, there's the good-intentioned worry of "What if she's locked in there, not wanting to die?" I don't doubt the sincerity of Terri's parents, who probably really believe this stuff because all they have to hold onto is that belief. (After all, they have lived in denial of her death for the 15 years that Terri, the person, has really been gone - what's going to happen when her body finally follows her long-gone spirit?) But the well-organized backing of this whole show is perpetrated by political elements that don't have the remotest interest in championing life.
I would have more sympathy for the cause of the religio-conservative right if they actually cared more about life, rather than seeming only to be interested in foisting it upon people. They are all for the rights of every unwanted fetus to become a baby, but absent when it comes time to educate, house, feed and provide medical needs for it. They are usually in the forefront of movements to prevent euthanasia on reasoned and sound-minded request.
But then, I suppose they harken to the primitive roots of their belief that life itself was never guaranteed to be pleasant. "Right to life - no matter what."
I have a few thoughts about this, let me add my 3 cents. If this lady, Shiavo, is in vegetative state and literally doesnt have the ability to think, and will never get better as stated by every doctor who examined her, why was she kept alive all this time - 15 years? I mean, why would they keep her alive all this time? Whats gonna happen if everybody will decide to be kept alive artificially? I dont wanna sound devilish but people have to die, sooner or later. If she suffered irreversible brain damage, there is no point keeping her alive.
Sometimes old people who are disabled physically, like those who cant walk or see or hear properly, get the treatment they need - like nurse who helps them do things, etc. Difference is, these elder or disabled persons still think and want to live - i mean, anybody whos able to think wants to live. But since Shiavo is NOT able to think, she does NOT have a mind, WHY would she live? I dont think it's even proper to call it "living" - her body exists, but without a mind, it's useless. I, for one, would prefer to have my brains and not my body than the other way around - and i would NOT want to "live" - or more properly, "stay alive" - on the expense of others in either case.
This is a tough question for the religion too. Since Shiavo's mind is not in her body, where is it? And if her body is still alive, is it possible that her soul went up to the heavens? Where is it anyways? Is she alive or dead in religious terms? Someone enlighten me on this because im not getting it too well.
Good points Mr Juko. I believe that after centuries of existence, humans still haven't come to grips with death. Death is a part of life and because we don't understand it we believe that it's better to sustain it under any conditions for as long as current medical technology can do so.
I agree, what Terri was doing was existing not living. She expressed her desires and it is only those who refuse to accept it that are making the most noise.
What they all don't know is that even though they want Terri to live, they all don't have the same reasons why, just a common results of desired outcome.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
I also concur. I may be liberal, but that doesnt mean that I am in favor of big government, which, by encouraging or permitting congress to pass laws on cases like this, is what we are, essentially, enabling. Do we really want government regulating how and when we can die? Beware the slippery slope...
As far as Shiavo herself...Let nature take it's course. It's not unnatural or unholy to let her die by not feeding her, its unnatural and unholy to surgically insert a tube into her body so that you can prolong her dying for another 15 years.
Me too... I'm tired of the gov't, and religion, thinking that they can just push a piece of paper around, and say... THIS IS HOW IT IS. You have no rights... we will choose how you do everything... what you eat, when you sleep... hell... who you sleep with! Deal with it, boys and girls... WE RUN THE SHOW!!!
03-21-2005 10:07 PM
