Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

Schiavo case - why the religious right are so involved

Because it is really about abortion.

Once you accept that someone without higher cognitive functions can be allowed to die then you are implicitly accepting that a fetus without higher cognitive functions can be aborted.
Permalink Actively Disengaged 
March 24th, 2005
"Because it is really about abortion."

I dont really agree, I think its just because they hate to see someone deliberately killed.

who can blame them? its a dreadful decision.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 24th, 2005
The women is dead already. How many courts must affirm that before we bury this dead woman?
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
I agree the religious right see this as connected to the abortion issue. That is why they are involved. I disagree strongly that it should be linked.

How we treat the aged and incapacitated is a different issue than how we treat the rights of an unborn fetus against the rights of its mother. It is actually much easier to make the case that Terri could be allowed to continue to exist than it is to make the case that a 16 year old un-wed mother must bring her 1 month old fetus to term.

Thus they think it is to their advantage to make this linkage. But in doing so I think they merely muddy the argument.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 24th, 2005
With Enron the focus was always on the evil men who stoles millions from old ladies life savings. What got lost in the mix was the real lesson of diversifying a portfolio.

With Schiavo the lesson learned for me is having a living will written. With so much coverage, I have seen and read nothing like "This could have been averted by Schiavo having a living will; so let this be a lesson and go write one today."

I agree it is a tuff emotional decision, but I side with herr husband, he seems very confident of knowing what her wish in this situation would be, and does not seem to have any alternate motive.
Permalink Christopher Hester 
March 24th, 2005
Ok, so is she in a persistent vegetative state or not?

If she is then she is clinically dead, end of argument.

If she isn't then you have to maintain her unless she manages to escape to Switzerland where she can suicide with help.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 24th, 2005
Her parents think she still feels and might still recover because the body responds to some stimuli and sometimes "smiles", but read this to see why.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&e=18&u=/nm/rights_schiavo_videotape_dc

Essentially her parents just can't accept she's dead.
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
"Once you accept that someone without higher cognitive functions can be allowed to die then you are implicitly accepting that a fetus without higher cognitive functions can be aborted."

a fetus has some potential to gain higher cognitive functions.

a vegetable is a vegetable is a vegetable.
Permalink Kenny's back 
March 24th, 2005
>>>Because it is really about abortion.<<<

No, it is about a nation obsessed with stupidity!!!
Permalink JoSer 
March 24th, 2005
> I dont really agree, I think its just because
> they hate to see someone deliberately killed.

Except for criminals of course. Or iraqis posing as collateral damage.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 24th, 2005
OK, they hate to see someone 'innocent' killed. Righteous hatred or righteous fear of the non-innocent can justify anything these days, apparently.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 24th, 2005
> they hate to see someone 'innocent' killed.

I thought we were all sinners. Nobody is innocent.

Aren't iraqi child innocent? Is a convinction by the state enough to desanctify you enough to become killable? How does that work exactly? Is it like communion?
Permalink son of parnas 
March 24th, 2005
Yes, a conviction by the state is enough for you to become killable by the state. It has a lot of checks and balances wrapped around it. Recently DNA evidence has shown that apparently some innocent people were on death row. They were promptly freed, and this threw into question the death penalty itself.

If we can't prove well enough that the innocent ARE innocent, and the guilty are guilty, then perhaps the death penalty is too final a judgement for the state to impose.

And yes Biblically we are all sinners, thus my single quotes around 'innocent'. But the Religious Right seems to ignore that literal part of the Bible when they go on and on about the rights of the unborn, (who is certainly innocent of any crime) and ignore the rights of the mother (who since she is pregnant is not innocent? We may have some explanation here for how vicious the pro-life adds can be.)
Permalink AllanL5 
March 24th, 2005
> Yes, a conviction by the state is enough for you to
> become killable by the state.

Certainly by the state. But we are talking about religion. The christian wrong think it's bad to abort and unplug, but not bad to lethally inject. They base this disctinction on an action of the state, which i think doesn't has any place in the religious realm. Afterall, if the courts and laws say it's ok to abort, they still think abortion wrong. The degree of certainty of the process isn't really at issue.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 24th, 2005
It's kind of disgusting that this is getting special session of congress and all the press. She is a turnip with a bed-pan. It is time to let go. Where was all the outrage from the religious right when all the Rwandans where getting slaughtered? This whole "sanctity of life" thing seems exclusive to middle to upper class white Americans.
Permalink Woodie 
March 24th, 2005
Perhaps in the religion it is ok to kill some (not all) criminals.

And religion is, or should not be about politics. So believers should follow the law of the state.

Of course if the law of the state is against their religious teaching, it should not be followed -- like abortion.

Not all christians are for death penalty.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 24th, 2005
Actually, this "separation of Church and State" idea is rather new in human history. I think it has had enormous impact in terms of freeing human endeavors. But it is rather new, and some religious fundamentalists have a hard time with it.

Kings traditionally drew their legitimacy from God, or from the Pope. Using the Church as an instrument of the State, or the other way around, was the traditional way of keeping everyone in their place.

Following the revolutions of the 1700's, this new idea that the two entities were corrupting each other, and should be separated was implemented in the U.S., and I believe France. England still has a state religion, I believe.

So don't be too hard on people. From the ancient Egyptians to the Romans to the Protestant Reformation there's always been some form of God-King as the head of States.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 24th, 2005
> From the ancient Egyptians to the Romans to the
>Protestant Reformation there's always been some
>form of God-King as the head of States.

Except for those pesky greeks and their democracy.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 24th, 2005
> there's always been some form of God-King

Probing that rule: perhaps not in the classical Greek democratic city-states?

Their Olympic athletes (etc.) were godly; but a god-king (like the Persian king) would have been also known as a tyrant.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 24th, 2005
How about we stop stereotyping everyone else, bringing in off-topic subjects (Iraq, etc.) and stick to the origianl topic.

To those who have made the remarks about vegetables, turnips, already dead, etc., do you know any severely disabled people? By know, I mean, friends of the family, part of your family, etc.? I don't speak for the "religious right", but I am religious and conservative. The issue to me is whether someone has the right to kill a disabled person. Just because someone is severely disabled, should we stop caring for them? Can we now start euthanising the severely disabled? What are the rules, what is the threshold for determining who should and should not be euthanised?

Also, how many of us (myself included) have made the off-hand comment "I don't ever want to live like that." Of course we don't want to live like that, but most of our parents would still want us. Unless you sit down and write some sort of advanced directive, it is hard to determine if those were bona fide wishes that were considering the totality of the situation, or just a remark based upon the undesireable situation of being brain damaged.
Permalink Jim L 
March 24th, 2005
Jim, there are many case of brain death where bodies that could be sustained indefintely are allowed to die. Most of those cases aren't contreversial because it's also visibly obvious they are brain dead. In this case, a trick of nature makes it appear that she might be somewhat alive because she responds to some stimuli. However, every specialist that's examined her has made the same determination, she's already dead and is well beyond making any recovery.
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
" The women is dead already. How many courts must affirm that before we bury this dead woman?"

I don't give a flying fuxx how many courts say that. The most recent Dr to examine her says differently. Let's see. Some judge that went to a dr once, or a dr, who to believe. That's a tough one.
Permalink ceep 
March 24th, 2005
Thank God for the Greeks -- good point, I had left them out in my too-sweeping statement. Wait -- why was Athens named for Athena?

What was the relationship between the Greek rule and its pantheon of gods anyway? That's one of the very-very minor problems with education in this country. Since we do try to separate church and state, we don't always get the full story of how influential religion has been in historical cultures. But we sometimes lose the influence sexuality has had, also.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 24th, 2005
I've also read that several different doctors have looked at her, and all but this most recent one (brought in by Jeb) agreed she was gone.

So, who to believe?
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 24th, 2005
An MD is not the same as recognized specialist.

But if your willing to believe anyone with a license, I can sell you some "enlargement" creams that are doctor approved.
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
"The christian wrong think it's bad to abort and unplug, but not bad to lethally inject."

Wow. Lots of misinformation being spewed forth on this thread.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 24th, 2005
Hey, I don't believe or disbelieve any of it. Just saying that "I've read" something. I really don't care except that I think that it's a bit dumb for the entire frickin government to get involved.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 24th, 2005
Oh, and clearly Ms. Shiavo is not "dead". If she were dead she'd be rotting, no? If she were completely brain-dead she'd need a heart-lung machine to survive.

So to the casual observer, her state is that of a new-born. To the more discerning observer, her state is that of an 80 year old who has had alzheimer's for 40 years, but is otherwise in amazing physical condition. In other words, nobody is home, and the situation is not going to improve. (Unlike a new-born, where somebody is already home, and the situation can improve dramatically)

So it IS an ethical and moral (and financial) problem. I don't want to minimize that. But it is also a problem that has been run through the courts multiple times.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 24th, 2005
the cerebral cortex is dead but the brain stem is still working.

No approximations to foetuses or patients with senile dementia are at all appropriate here.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 24th, 2005
""The christian wrong think it's bad to abort and unplug, but not bad to lethally inject."

Wow. Lots of misinformation being spewed forth on this thread.

Kyralessa"

So you disagree?

Of course every one is allowed to die. It's just no ok to kill someone.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 24th, 2005
I guess I wouldn't fit your stereotype anyway; I think it's wrong to abort and unplug, but I'm also against capital punishment, mostly because in recent years it's become obvious that it's far too easy to condemn innocent people, and that--like starving someone who might one day regain cognitive function--is not a mistake you can undo.

The Roman Catholic Church is beginning to strongly oppose capital punishment too. So I wonder just how many people your stereotype really fits. Of course, I don't have any data on how many evangelical types really approve vs. oppose capital punishment. But then I bet you don't either.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 24th, 2005
----"like starving someone who might one day regain cognitive function"----

The doctors who have testified appear pretty adamant this isn't going to happen.If you think of the damage that a stroke that holds up oxygen to the brain for fifteen minutes can cause, what do you think the damage is going to be after thirteen years of inactivity?

Facts seem in short supply here, but the judges, who have full access to them, appear pretty clear on the matter.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 24th, 2005
"Chrisitian Right" has a particularly implicit meaning.

If you oppose death penalty, then you are not 'christian right'.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 24th, 2005
> Wow. Lots of misinformation being spewed forth on this thread.

Feel free to disabuse me.

Strtict roman catholics are different. But the christian right isn't roman catholic.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 24th, 2005
But why is the "Christian Right" such a bogeyman?
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 24th, 2005
I have an elderly relative with advanced Alzheimers who is generally less responsive than Terri Schiavo (based on the videos). Some days though she can still talk, although she's not particularly understandable. Does that mean it is okay to starve her to death?

Forget religion! What bothers me the most about all of this is that the main reason her husband seems to want to get rid of her is that she is an inconvenience to him. He has a new girlfriend; he wants to move on with his life and he resents that all of this money is going towards his wife's care.

Terri is not in pain; from all accounts she seems to be rather happy, she still has people who care for her and about her. It's not even that she is on life support - she breathes on her own.

Terri's parents were denied the right to let her die in their own home, they were denied the right to try and feed her not using a feeding tube.

A ten year kid was arrested and taken away in handcuffs because he tried to give her water, and you folks think this is a "religious right" thing?

Yikes!
Permalink Phibian 
March 24th, 2005
The left see the 'christian right' don't respect the constitution and want to force their religious view on other.

You have to ask left why disallow abortion is forcing their 'religious view' on others.

Or how disallow euthanasia/ doctor assisted suicide is forcing their 'religious view' on others.

Whereas tax as much as possible for government program is not.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 24th, 2005
Hold on hold on hold on...

Is Rick Tang and Rick Tsang the same guy or what?
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
Yup.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 24th, 2005
Thank god. I thought one might be an evil twin with a goatee and cane.
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
Christopher :

It's not enough in some states to have just a living will. You will also need to make arrangements with someone to have power of attorney over your affairs should you be in Schiavo's conditions. On NPR I heard that in the state of Michigan, even if Schiavo had a living will, it would not have helped her situation.
Permalink Yoey 
March 25th, 2005
---"Some days though she can still talk, although she's not particularly understandable. Does that mean it is okay to starve her to death?"-----

The Schiavo woman has her whole cerebral cortex dead. Any reactions she has are purely reflex actions.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 25th, 2005
> But why is the "Christian Right" such a bogeyman?

Because they want to bring biblical rule to the US, exactly like in muslim countries.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 25th, 2005
"I have an elderly relative with advanced Alzheimers who is generally less responsive than Terri Schiavo (based on the videos)."
Many of those video are over 10 years old. Also, is your elderly relative capable of eating? I agree there is a huge grey area here, and both sides are have made me naseous... but I doubt your relative would have been labeled as being in a "persistent vegetative state" by many specialists.

"What bothers me the most about all of this is that the main reason her husband seems to want to get rid of her is that she is an inconvenience to him. He has a new girlfriend; he wants to move on with his life and he resents that all of this money is going towards his wife's care."
People have offered to let him keep all of the settlement money and divorce his wife. (They offered to support her.) Why would he deal with all of this if he just wanted to get rid of her and keep the money, unless he really believed it was her wish?

"Terri is not in pain; from all accounts she seems to be rather happy, she still has people who care for her and about her. It's not even that she is on life support - she breathes on her own."
This, however, is an argument that I think holds some water.

"Terri's parents were denied the right to let her die in their own home, they were denied the right to try and feed her not using a feeding tube."
Both the law and western society have consistently held the spouse's rights to be above the parent's. Personally I'd much rather have my wife decide than my parents, and she has said the same of me. (well before any of this came to public attention)

"A ten year kid was arrested and taken away in handcuffs because he tried to give her water, and you folks think this is a "religious right" thing?"
This could have caused her to choke and die on the wafer, would it not? (Otherwise, she wouldn't need a feeding tube.) If Terri is alive, as you seem to support, should he be charged with attempted murder?
Permalink Tito 
March 25th, 2005
"People have offered to let him keep all of the settlement money and divorce his wife. (They offered to support her.) Why would he deal with all of this if he just wanted to get rid of her and keep the money, unless he really believed it was her wish?"

Perhaps because accepting such a deal would have put his reputation just slightly above that of Scott Peterson in the public's eyes? Whereas under the present circumstances at least he gets major kudos from all the euthanasia advocates.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 25th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics