Terry Schiavo - RIP

[Stephen]

I believe that it was Stalin who said one life lost is a tragedy, one million is just a statistic."

 

[Jaime86]

I think that what happened is terrible. Just because her husband wanted to marry someone else doesn't mean he should have the right to "encourage her death." Her family should have had the last say in the matter and the whole thing should not have been dragged out in such a way that it was. The courts and the government had no right stepping into this case and Terri Schiavo's family should have had the right to keep their daughter alive...no matter what the husband wanted. NO matter what!

 

[dmc]

I think that what happened is terrible. Just because her husband wanted to marry someone else doesn't mean he should have the right to "encourage her death." Her family should have had the last say in the matter and the whole thing should not have been dragged out in such a way that it was. The courts and the government had no right stepping into this case and Terri Schiavo's family should have had the right to keep their daughter alive...no matter what the husband wanted. NO matter what!

Her family did.... It's called her husband...
Doesnt that count for anything in todays ultra moral society??

I'm gettin sick and tired of the religious right trying legislate morality based upon Christianity...

 

[Stephen]

I'm gettin sick and tired of the religious right trying legislate morality based upon Christianity...

And what should morality (and thus, our laws) be based on? Your belief system? My belief system? There are tribes that believe it's enitrely acceptable to kill and eat other people. Isn't it awfully insensitive to want to change them to the Judeo-Chrisitan belief of the sanctity of life?

What about Nazi's moral ethics? KKK's? Why should their belief system be considered any more or less moral or legitimate than yours or mine? Don't point to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independance... they were based on Judeo-Christian values.

The answer is that morality cannot come from within man alone. We will choose wrongly every time.

-Stephen

 

[dmc]

I'm gettin sick and tired of the religious right trying legislate morality based upon Christianity...

And what should morality (and thus, our laws) be based on? Your belief system? My belief system? There are tribes that believe it's enitrely acceptable to kill and eat other people. Isn't it awfully insensitive to want to change them to the Judeo-Chrisitan belief of the sanctity of life?

What about Nazi's moral ethics? KKK's? Why should their belief system be considered any more or less moral or legitimate than yours or mine? Don't point to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independance... they were based on Judeo-Christian values.

The answer is that morality cannot come from within man alone. We will choose wrongly every time.

-Stephen

How about something a little less secular..??

Or a little less Tom Delayish....

 

[hammer]

I'm gettin sick and tired of the religious right trying legislate morality based upon Christianity...

And what should morality (and thus, our laws) be based on? Your belief system? My belief system? There are tribes that believe it's enitrely acceptable to kill and eat other people. Isn't it awfully insensitive to want to change them to the Judeo-Chrisitan belief of the sanctity of life?

What about Nazi's moral ethics? KKK's? Why should their belief system be considered any more or less moral or legitimate than yours or mine? Don't point to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independance... they were based on Judeo-Christian values.

The answer is that morality cannot come from within man alone. We will choose wrongly every time.

-Stephen

The problem that I see with the "religious right" is that it's not just Judeo-Christian values that they espouse (and try to enforce upon others), but their particular "version" of these values.

It's interesting how the religious right can have such strong feelings about this case and yet still support capital punishment. If the "sanctity of life" is so important, than how can one support the government-sanctioned pre-mediated killing of another human being, no matter who they are or what they did?

Sorry if this strayed a bit off topic...

 

[Stephen]

If the "sanctity of life" is so important, than how can one support the government-sanctioned pre-mediated killing of another human being, no matter who they are or what they did?

2 different issues.

Death as a punishment is a last resort for those that are corruptible beyond repair.

Death as a convenience (Abortion, Euthanasia, Insurance money from a malpractice settlement, want to marry someone else) is aborrhent.

-Stephen

 

[dmc]

If the "sanctity of life" is so important, than how can one support the government-sanctioned pre-mediated killing of another human being, no matter who they are or what they did?

2 different issues.

Death as a punishment is a last resort for those that are corruptible beyond repair.

Death as a convenience (Abortion, Euthanasia, Insurance money from a malpractice settlement, want to marry someone else) is aborrhent.

-Stephen

nice... just like the script says...

Good job!!!

 

[Stephen]

nice... just like the script says...

Good job!!!

Wow... so because there are people who agree with me, I'm incapable of expresing a valid thought?

Is that the best response you've got to my last point? Do I win that easily? :beer:

-Stephen

 

[dmc]

nice... just like the script says...

Good job!!!

Wow... so because there are people who agree with me, I'm incapable of expresing a valid thought?

Is that the best response you've got to my last point? Do I win that easily? :beer:

-Stephen

You win for following the Religious Right script!!!

And for attempting to force your religious morals on me...
Just like the big guys in Washington do!!

Good job... There could be a job with GWB and Tom Delay waiting for you!

 

[Stephen]

And you still haven't refuted what I said. Therefore I'll assume that you have nothing to respond with other than claims of following our leaders.

-Stephen

 

[dmc]

And you still haven't refuted what I said. Therefore I'll assume that you have nothing to respond with other than claims of following our leaders.

-Stephen

I said what needed to be said...
Now I'm cvommenting on your religious moral agenda...

Which - will backfire eventually... I'll just wait it out...

 

[ctenidae]

Morality is the basis of our laws, no doubt about that. The problem I have with the religious right (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, Tao, or whatever) is their propensity to declare that things must be the way they say they must, because that's what they think it says in the Bible/Koran/I Cheng/whatever. There are many Christian moderates who support abortion rights, euthenasia, free speech, what have you. Unfortunately, they are not terribly vocal (like all moderates, hence the term), so the Bible thumpers get heard.
There's a theory, I think Bloom did it, that describes the psychology of behavior. At the lowest level of development, you don't do things because you fear punishment (jail, hell, what have you). At the highest, you behave in a certain way because it's "right", according to an internalized framework that matches the society in which you live. As a society, we need to evolve beyond the "Because you'll go to Hell" phase and into the "because it's right" phase. However, as long as the thumpers speak louder than anyone else, the government will continue to legislate morality, rather than define right and wrong based on society's actual (humanistic) views.

my $.02

 

[Stephen]

But who defines what is "right" What society's views should we adopt? There is no one society anymore. We are a collection of separate societies within this country. Whose do we choose as the one to legislate against?

 

[ctenidae]

That's the real problem, isn't it? Who's morality is "right"? An informed and active electorate should, in a perfect world, have the ability to move legislation in the direction that society, as a whole (as defined by the largest number of people who agree on a particular point), deems right. Unfortunately, when barely half the people can be bothered to vote on something as important as the last Presidential election, and those that did were evenly split, it's tough to say the US has an electorate that is either informed or active.
Jefferson said that Democracy is the best way to insure the people get the leadership the people deserve, and Mencken posited that Democracy shows the true desire of the people, and eventually we'd have a slobbering idiot in the White House. We're not there yet, but the signs don't look good. As long as people depend on whoever's shouting the loudest to set their beliefs ad opinions, things will contiue on their current course. "Right" will be determined by "Might", measured by teh volume of one's voice.

 

[hammer]

If the "sanctity of life" is so important, than how can one support the government-sanctioned pre-mediated killing of another human being, no matter who they are or what they did?

2 different issues.

Death as a punishment is a last resort for those that are corruptible beyond repair.

Death as a convenience (Abortion, Euthanasia, Insurance money from a malpractice settlement, want to marry someone else) is aborrhent.

-Stephen

I can understand and respect that view (although I don't agree), I just would not call it a good example of "Judeo-Christian values".

If I remember right, there's a pretty large Christian organization called the Roman Catholic Church that is opposed to Capital Punishment, and based on what I've read, their opposition to Capital Punishment is for the same reasons as their opposition to death for reasons of "convenience".

So, IMO, support of Capital Punishment and opposition to Euthanasia may be a moral issue, but it's definitely not a universal "Judeo-Christian value".

 

[dmc]

But who defines what is "right"

Sounds like your trying your hardest...

 

[ctenidae]

I wouldn't call abortion or euthanasia as a "convenience", either. It's a quality of life issue, for everyone involved. A fetus, and particularly a blastocyst, is not a life, and neither is a few months of horrible pain with the spectre of death hanging over you.

 

[Stephen]

So, IMO, support of Capital Punishment and opposition to Euthanasia may be a moral issue, but it's definitely not a universal "Judeo-Christian value".

Gee, I guess I got an outdated copy of the "script".
:wink:

It's a quality of life issue, for everyone involved.

Who decides the quality of life of the aborted baby? Hitler honestly felt he was helping Jews from suffering their low "quality of life" issues. I doubt you'd agree with his conclusions. Why would any one else's be more correct?

Sounds like your trying your hardest...

I give reasons, you give anecdotes.

"Right" will be determined by "Might", measured by teh volume of one's voice.

Personally I am frustrated by the groups out there that, when the majority are with them, insist that we have to follow the majority. However, when the majority is against them (as with gay marriage and abortion), then the minority must be "protected".

I'm taking a break for a while... I've stirred enough hornets up for this month.

-Stephen

 

[JimG.]

The saddest thing about all of this is that nobody seems to care about what this poor woman wanted. It's all about politics and religion and personal views of morality.

So, make your living will now, put it in writing and videotape it. This way, the political/religious parasites in abundance in this country won't be able to trample on you like a soapbox.

Pitiful!