Posted on 03/23/2005 5:49:34 AM PST by xzins
XZ: I do think their moral stance on this issue is correct. Actively pursuing death is wrong in this instance.
The missing subject in the last sentence makes it hard to be sure of your contention. (i) Are you contending that the subject's active pursuit of his own death is wrong? (implicitly adopting the RCC's accretionist (i.e. non-biblical) suicide prohibition) or (ii) are you contending that the active pursuit of the subject's death by others in view of his advance directive is wrong (because of uncertainties that the subject has 'changed his mind' in the interim)?
Your better case is made if you give some awareness to a trapped, aware soul within that tent. But then you've affirmed the presence of the spark that makes caution the better choice.
Are you admitting that if one is compelled to factor in the active harm done to the subject with 'some awareness to a trapped, aware soul within that tent' by your 'morality' ministrations, your course of action violates the Golden Rule? [Of course, it does.]
Isn't it true that your 'morality' ministrations can only be counted as 'good' if the subject has the humanness of a CPR practice dummy? But even then there can be no 'good' in the actor's intentions unless they (mistakenly) think the subject retains 'some awareness to a trapped, aware soul within that tent'? [Where's the moral good if the actor knows he is pumping fluids into a practice dummy? That's why those here trying to resume pumping slurry into Terri twist themselves into mental pretzels trying to find some reason to believe there's 'somebody home.'] But if those mistaken intentions were objectively true, (i.e. the subject had some awareness), the actor's actions could not be 'good' because of the active harm done to the subject by their ministrations.
Either way, there is no moral 'good' here. Either the actions of the actor are based upon mistaken assumptions (i.e. awareness in a practice dummy) thereby have no moral value or the action is morally wrong because the actor does active harm to the unwilling subject (victim) by extending his suffering.
Yup, you and the RCC have a real winner there. It would work though if you (and the RCC) could only repeal the Golden Rule. Give 'em time.
It is true that Terri did not write her advance directive, but it is NOT true that we know nothing of her wishes except from her husband. We do know from him as well, but the Court placed the greatest weight on Terri's separate conversations with Scott and Joan, her brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
Her statements to them will make your spine tingle with their prescience.
Morally, in view of all of these things, I would say it would be better to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive.
See ## 275 and 281 above.
However, as I said before, the law now has little to do with what would be morally correct. The 20 plus judges who have reviewed this case were not about to be swayed by morality; they were going to follow the law. It doesn't appear that any other judge will do differently.
Actually, as in many areas, I think the law here is congruent with Christian morality. As outlined in #281 above, no moral calculus can devise moral 'good' to arise from pumping more slurry into Terri and her diapers. That is why the pumping proponents struggle so hard to protect the purported sincerity of their 'merely mistaken' beliefs by insisting they wish to 'err on the side of life'. Their very formulation posits their 'sincere error' for that is the only way to find any 'morality' in the course they propose. [And then it is Pharisaical (subjective) 'good' only, not objective 'good'.) This protection of the 'sincere error' assumption is why they insist on factual agnosticism (i.e. 'we just can't know whether she is aware or not' or 'we just can't know whether she could be trained to start running and typing and thinking again').
If she is not aware, more pumping is foolish. If she is aware, it is heinous and morally wrong. The necessity of 'sincere error' should cause the pumping proponents to pause.
Your tinfoil hat is askew again. Please adjust.
Your wit is so remarkable! Why don't you go to this site:
http://www.theempirejournal.com/56092_FDLE_agent_implicates_mccab.htm
and then come back and discuss it rationally, without the ad hominem cr*p that indicates a losing argument.
I'm saying that the catholic position that "actively causing death for an otherwise innocent party is sin" is the correct position.
My position is that innocent life trumps everything and must be protected at all costs from intentional destruction.
Your position is that innocent life can be intentionally destroyed and that practice will not damage our culture.
If there is awareness inside that shell, or if there is only life inside that shell, it is always a gift of God to be nourished and encouraged.
It appears now that the Supreme Court has refused to entertain the Schindlers' appeal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151347,00.html
FoxNews is reporting that the Supreme Court has refused to hear the Schindlers' appeal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151347,00.html
Sorry for the duplicate post.
As with so many things in areas of 'first things', it depends on the definition of "life." I contend that much more damage will be done to our culture by devaluing our definition of 'life' to a reflexive inflating and deflating of the lung sac and the muscular contraction of a mid chest muscle.
That might make a good working definition for a secular evolutionist, but certainly not for a Christian. By calling a body in a persistent vegetative state 'life' we devalue the Christian message.
BTW, your acceptance of the RCC position precludes the individual ending his or her own life and suffering. That is truly a non-Christian position.
This dispute about Terri, with those presuppositions from the accretionist positions of the RCC, is not about whether she is in a PVS, or whether the Court's fair and just determination of that can be trusted, or whether her husband's testimony ought to be distrusted. It is simply that, under RCC dogma, she cannot authorize the termination of her body after her spirit has left.
Not only is that barbaric and morally untenable in its ramifications (in light of 'modern medicine'), it is amazing that a protestant thinker should slide back into RCC error. What's next? Confessions to a priest? An eBay sale on indulgences?
Not too much of a surprise there. It simply reaffirms that Whittemore's analysis was correct.
I guess that leaves it in the area of some unlawful action by Jeb based on his RCC ties. [His performance the last few days proves I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher. He has no respect for the rule of law.]
Other than that, Terri is 'stealing away home' right now.
The governor has been struck down; however, the Schindlers are going to try again. Hearing set for 6:00 pm EST.
I have never, ever heard of anything such as a protestant teaching that suicide is acceptable. It is the taking of a life.
You know me well enough to know I won't be selling any indulgences soon, but I do admire their steadfast upholding of life.
Yes, I would rather the rise and fall of that chest than to actively make it stop. I see no permission for that in scripture.
To allow natural death passively to take place is not a problem. A cool drink of water on the lips for a dying person would be a good thing.
I remember the Karen Quinlan story -- her parents wanted to remove life support, but the hospital fought them. This was long before there was such a thing as a living will or even the concept of "right to die." When the parents finally were successful in having all the machinery taken away, Ms. Quinlan lived on longer than anyone expected.
But you have never heard of a protestant position that suicide is 'a sin'. That's an RCC accretionist teaching; it does not come from the Bible. They are free, of course, to have any collection of man-made beliefs they want, but it is not Biblical. That should be our guide.
BTW, there is no Scriptural prohibition on the 'taking of a life.' As the RCC has found out, once you start making up rules like that, you soon find yourself against capital punishment -- which the Bible expressly authorizes.
Even the RCC has not taken a position on this. Father Gerard Murphy testified in the February 2000 trial before Judge Greer that pulling the feeding tube was wholly consistent with RCC teachings. If the hierarchy had taken some contrary position, he wouldn't have been able to so testify.
You know me well enough to know I won't be selling any indulgences soon,
Glad to hear you've not entirely lost your bearings. :-)
Yes, I would rather the rise and fall of that chest than to actively make it stop.
There you go again. What do you mean active? Terri is not being pumped with slurry, but that is the withholding of an active measure. She is dying because in her PVS she cannot eat on her own. That's passive.
I see no permission for that in scripture.
I see no prohibition for withholding active measures necessary to maintain life. I think even some of your newfound RCC friends would agree.
To allow natural death passively to take place is not a problem.
Glad to hear that. I agree. That is exactly what's happening.
Actually, I think it was raising the horror of keeping Karen Anne alive that raised everyone's consciousness and brought on the rash of new state laws allowing 'durable powers' and 'living wills'. Just as I think Terri's case will cause a lot of advance directives to be rewritten to expressly disavow feeding tubes.
I, for one, have been scared straight watching the last 7 years of judicial diddling and the last week or two of flat-out political cynicism while poor Terri had her stomach pumped with slurry against her wishes. All because people with different agendas said they 'couldn't be sure' of her wishes or could make wild and unsubstantiated charges against a good judge.
The real tragedy of Terri's case has been the last 15 years of imprisonment for her -- not her impending release.
And yes, I even saw where a guy was arrested for allegedly attempting to have someone kill Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. So much for pro-life.
Like I said, this isn't about Mrs. Schiavo. All sorts of motives and agendas out there -- none of which really have anything to do with her and whether she lives or dies.
My other concern, apart from (and yet related to) governmental interference in this matter, is that the extreme pro-lifers will try to abolish living wills. I heard a number of these fanatics carry on about how these directives legally sanctioned murder (not true). Apparently, it doesn't take much to have a legislative body or an executive at the state or federal level create laws under the guise of preseving life. What next? Will there be a situation where a person has a living will, but because someone doesn't like that living will, he or she will lobby some legislative entity to create a special law to strike down the wishes expressed in that living will? It's not that much of a leap from what has happened in the Schiavo case. That is why we have to be ever vigilant.
Ah well, enough soapboxing from me. This uncaring, unfeeling member of the culture of death is taking herself to Las Vegas for some well deserved R&R....although I doubt I will fully escape this controversy. I just hope no laws are passed to trample on my rights while I'm gone.
Rest in peace, Mrs. Schiavo. And I'm sorry we turned your last few years into a circus. You didn't deserve that.
Yes, many of the arguments made here reflect an absolutism which would negate advance directives of all types. I think the reason for it is that the proponents of physical-life-at-all-costs find it hard to wrestle with quality of life issues and want to negate all of them in search of some readily enforceable rule. That would be a great, great tragedy.
Rest in peace, Mrs. Schiavo. And I'm sorry we turned your last few years into a circus. You didn't deserve that.
Amen to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.