← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 17501 | Posts: 39 | Started: 2005-03-24
2005-03-24 20:01 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24relig.html?]New York Times[/URL] Schiavo Case Highlights Catholic-Evangelical Alliance By LAURIE GOODSTEIN Published: March 24, 2005
The powerful outcry over Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose case has provoked a national debate over whether she should live or die, is a testament to the growing alliance of conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals who have found common cause in the "culture of life" agenda articulated by Pope John Paul II.
In their fight to keep their daughter alive, Ms. Schiavo's parents, who are Catholics, have been backed by an ad hoc coalition of Catholic and evangelical lobbyists, street organizers and legal advisers like the Rev. Frank Pavone, the Catholic priest who runs a group called Priests for Life and evangelical Protestants like Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, and the Rev. Pat Mahoney of the National Clergy Council.
The struggle is only the latest indication of a strengthening religious alliance between denominations that were once bitterly divided. Evangelical leaders say they frequently lean on Catholic intellectuals like Robert George at Princeton University and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things, to help them frame political issues theologically.
An increasing number of Catholics hold crucial staff positions in some of the religious conservative groups that lobby Washington. And conservative Catholics and evangelicals meet weekly in Virginia with a broad array of right-leaning lobbyists.
"The idea of building a culture that values human life is a Catholic articulation, but it echoes in the hearts of many people, evangelicals and others," said William L. Saunders Jr., director of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council in Washington.
"It was articulated by John Paul II, who is a great hero to pro-life people, regardless of their church," said Mr. Saunders, who is among the Catholics working at an organization founded by or affiliated with evangelicals.
The "culture of life" language has been widely adopted by conservative politicians. President Bush said in a news conference yesterday that government must "err on the side of life" in making every effort to keep Ms. Schiavo alive.
The Catholics and evangelicals first joined forces in the anti-abortion movement. And their alliance has now extended to include promoting sexual abstinence education and opposing stem-cell research and euthanasia. It is an array of issues they link under the rubric of "respect for the sanctity of life," whether that life is an "unborn baby" or an unresponsive patient lying in a hospice bed.
"Who can judge the dignity and sacredness of the life of a human being, made in the image and likeness of God?" asked the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, on Monday, commenting on the Schiavo situation. "Who can decide to pull the plug as if we were talking about a broken or out-of-order household appliance?"
Burke J. Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, said the religious alliance on the Schiavo case had also been given a great boost by disability rights organizations that saw Ms. Schiavo as a disabled American deserving legal protection.
Joni Eareckson Tada, a quadriplegic who runs Joni and Friends, an evangelical ministry for disability rights in Los Angeles, said: "When you look at those videotapes, you are unable to rule out that she is in some way conscious or cognizant. When reasonable doubts like that are raised, we who are disabled believe her condition should be exhaustively investigated."
Historically, the Catholic and evangelical alliance is very new. Less than half a century ago, Catholics and evangelicals still shared little but a history of mutual contempt and mistrust. When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, evangelical leaders sent out a letter to Protestant pastors asking them to preach against him, arguing that as a Catholic, his true allegiance was to Rome.
It was only 11 years ago that a group of evangelical and Catholic leaders and theologians released a groundbreaking statement, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," drafted after a series of unusual meetings. While the document treated primarily theological issues, it said that evangelicals and Catholics could unite on a broad social agenda that included "pro-life" issues, strengthening the family and government support for religious schools.
Now the alliance of evangelicals and Catholics is among the most powerful forces molding American politics. Last year, conservative evangelicals cheered when a handful of Catholic bishops said that Senator John Kerry, the Catholic who was the Democratic presidential nominee, should not take communion because of his stance on abortion. Mr. Bush courted evangelical and Catholic voters in 2004 and benefited from their mobilization.
But evangelicals have so far shown little interest in joining Catholics in opposing the death penalty, which Catholics also regard as a "culture of life" issue.
On Monday, Catholic bishops announced a renewed campaign to oppose the death penalty. A representative of the bishops said that while he did not expect that Protestant organizations or denominations that support the death penalty would change their positions, he did find change among individual Protestants who had been exposed to Catholic thinking.
"Certainly in the Catholic tradition, culture of life includes concern about the death penalty," said Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. "There are many Protestants who've been great admirers of Pope John Paul II and his witness, and have well-thumbed copies of his encyclical on the gospel of life, and have read it more carefully than Catholics have. And as a result, they have done more thinking on the death penalty, as well."
People who have opposed removing Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube have said in interviews that evangelicals were the first to take a stand in their support, even though Ms. Schiavo is Catholic. Her parents had the spiritual support of individual priests, but Catholic bishops had been reluctant to become involved, with a Florida bishop's issuing a statement saying he would "refrain from passing judgment."
There were differences of opinion among Catholic ethicists, Mr. Doerflinger said, on whether assisted feeding constituted exceptional medical intervention, which is not necessary under all circumstances, or "basic care," which must be provided to a sick person. He said the pope helped clarify the teaching a year ago, after delivering a message to a Rome conference on end-of life-issues in which he said that providing food and water was "morally obligatory."
The pope said, "I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act."
Since then, bishops have spoken out unequivocally on the Schiavo case. Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington said Monday that the court-ordered removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube was a "form of euthanasia," which the Catholic Church condemns as "gravely wrong."
2005-03-25 02:58 | User Profile
This Terri Schiavo case and the people involved on her behalf remind me that good guys cross denominational lines, and alot of the bad guys cross denominational lines. Just like in Gibson's Passion of the Christ, you had alot of moderate to liberal Catholics bashing the film, while Evangelicals and traditional (Wander) Catholics gave it tremendous support. Watching these saints protesting and working on behalf of Terri has made me realize religious faith, the Christian faith, is in reality being followers of Jesus Christ. It is the antithesis of sitting around bs-ing about soteriological minutiae or Christological distinctions, something I'm not altogether comfortable acknowledging since I tend to be the latter, i.e., sitting around condemning everything that doesn't comport with my Garrigou-Lagrangian Thomistic formulation.
I am very depressed by this Terri Schiavo case. I can't believe it is legal, let alone judicially mandated, in this country to starve and dehydrate a mentally-diminished human being to death. Something has to be done about these despots in black robes who seem to think they are the only branch of government (as well as the wimpy politicians who cower at the mere mention of the courts).
2005-03-25 06:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]I am very depressed by this Terri Schiavo case. I can't believe it is legal, let alone judicially mandated, in this country to starve and dehydrate a mentally-diminished human being to death. Something has to be done about these despots in black robes who seem to think they are the only branch of government (as well as the wimpy politicians who cower at the mere mention of the courts).[/QUOTE]
Great post.
I think that this Shiavo case combined with Jorge's arrogant refusal to enforce our southern border underscores that the time for incremental change has likely passed.
We need a collapse of the regime.
2005-03-25 09:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]I am very depressed by this Terri Schiavo case.
As am I and millions of others, Jack. I think this picture says more than words can about where we are now in this country:
[IMG]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050323/i/r4209066064.jpg[/IMG]
Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo.
Watching events like this occur makes me think it's time to dust off the squirrel gun. It makes me sick to my stomach.
2005-03-25 10:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Watching events like this occur makes me think it's time to dust off the squirrel gun. It makes me sick to my stomach.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's appalling.
A disabled woman is being starved to death at the word of an openly adulterous and reportedly abusive husband and can find no protection in our courts.
What can you say?
Game over.
2005-03-25 14:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]As am I and millions of others, Jack. I think this picture says more than words can about where we are now in this country:
[IMG]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050323/i/r4209066064.jpg[/IMG]
Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo.
Watching events like this occur makes me think it's time to dust off the squirrel gun. It makes me sick to my stomach.[/QUOTE]
You caught that one too? I was disgusted. A ten-year-old being hauled off in cuffs for trying to take a drink of water to a dying woman says more than ever exactly how far we've sunk. I know the cops were just doing their jobs, but how do they sleep at night?
I wish the people cheering on this lady's imminent demise would have to courage of their convictions and go do her in themselves.
2005-03-25 16:58 | User Profile
These are the ones to hate for all time .. worse than jews. more degraded, depraved, maggot souled ... Schiavo conservatives.
Your folks, WY?
[B]What is everybody pretending to be so numb and depressed a[/B]bout? WhAt? death of white girl --- 15 years ago? You stupid pieces of shit. What do you think the abortion kick is all about? Saving the lives of the unborn? Saving Iraq for the Iraqi's? -- its about pathological lying and psychotic killing --and torture -- blamed on whoever opposes them. Tested and found to be Fool Proof. And that is all it has ever been about for those who supported the Vietnam war. They are called r-i-g-h-t w-i-n-g c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e re-pube-liccuns. The reason to have abortions legal and widely practiced is to prevent maybe even one individual on their ilk from surviving.
You are lookin at what they are (dead in the head) and what you are too to the extent you ever went along even for one minute with Ronald Raygun.
This is what has killed America. Pick up your gin. hee hee hee hee hee hee hee here hee hee hee hee hee here hee hee hee hee hee hee here hee
2005-03-25 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]These are the ones to hate for all time .. worse than jews. more degraded, depraved, maggot souled ... Schiavo conservatives.
Your folks, WY?[/QUOTE]
I take it that you do not share my revulsion for starving Terri Shiavo to death?
2005-03-25 18:07 | User Profile
To my Protestant friends, please note that no one pays attention to the bishops these days. No one cares what they say. No one takes them seriously. No one wants their "leadership." No one respects them. Their actions are as irrelevant as they are trivial. No one is listening. Most of them are probably queers. If you want to know what Catholics believe, don't read anything published after Pius XII's death (1958). Historically, Popes have not only endorsed the death penalty, but they have even [B]imposed[/B] it in the areas they governed.
The Church is in eclipse. "The moon is not sending forth its light," as the scriptures predict (or was it the BVM?). The Pope today is an egomaniacal circus clown. He is the embodiment of his wicked generation. He has brought nothing but confusion and chaos. I will have hope only when God takes him home, wherever that will be.
2005-03-25 21:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]These are the ones to hate for all time .. worse than jews. more degraded, depraved, maggot souled ... Schiavo conservatives.
Your folks, WY?
What is everybody pretending to be so numb and depressed about? WhAt? death of white girl --- 15 years ago? You stupid pieces of shit. What do you think the abortion kick is all about? Saving the lives of the unborn? Saving Iraq for the Iraqi's? -- its about pathological lying and psychotic killing --and torture -- blamed on whoever opposes them. Tested and found to be Fool Proof. And that is all it has ever been about for those who supported the Vietnam war. They are called r-i-g-h-t w-i-n-g c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e re-pube-liccuns. The reason to have abortions legal and widely practiced is to prevent maybe even one individual on their ilk from surviving.
You are lookin at what they are (dead in the head) and what you are too to the extent you ever went along even for one minute with Ronald Raygun.
This is what has killed America. Pick up your gin. hee hee hee hee hee hee hee here hee hee hee hee hee here hee hee hee hee hee hee here hee[/QUOTE]It has often been said that saints are hammered out on the anvil of hard times and the times are never so bad a good man cannot live in them. It seems the most radical way you can disavow everything you mentioned that you loathe is to lead a life according to the Gospels. And if you're secular, well, lead a life more like Frank Serpico and a little less like Karl Rove.
2005-03-25 22:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I think that this Shiavo case combined with Jorge's arrogant refusal to enforce our southern border underscores that the time for incremental change has likely passed.
We need a collapse of the regime.[/QUOTE] The recent issue of TAC has on its cover, "See You in 2008: How the GOP exploits social conservatives". The article, "Republican Stepchildren. Message to social conservatives: Thanks for the votes. We'll call you in four years." Boy, if nothing else this Schiavo case highlights the real impotence of the social conservatives. A Republican administration and Congress along with a few select propaganda organs can launch a full-scale war when it wanted on evidence it knowingly fabricated for reasons extraneous to the interests of any American. So what if the war violated the Constitution? So what if it violated international law and was technically a war crime as defined by American Judge Jackson who served on the Nuremberg Trials? Meanwhile they cannot save a mentally-retarded woman from starvation and dehydration? This President can pull out all stops to launch a war at a pre-determined time, but he cannot issue a directive stopping this inhumanity and injustice?
2005-03-26 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I take it that you do not share my revulsion for starving Terri Shiavo to death?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'll answer that. You got the name of the reaction right, but you got what it is to exactly reversed. She's been dead 15 years, according to the doctors. But maybe they don't know. If you were her parents, that "maybe" might mean something, from a purely subjective point of view. People go quiet mad from being unwilling to let go what they love -- if they love their love above everything else. If you aren't her parents, you really have no right to put your opinion above medical doctors, then berate those who don't as wanting to starve her to death. It is phrarisaical posing, without the equipment. Pull the damn plug already.
I share revulsion, all right. For those who assault human sensibility by repeatedly inflicting that grotesque vacant head shot and lifeless body on the American TV audience. It is a historically unprecedented grotesquerie. These people who worship life unto death deserve to die -- the U.S. General said it's fun to kill some people. I have to take his word, never having done it, but it has got to be as much fun as that Jeff Weiss had, the Indian boy, who probably picked up the appetite from learning about the way his people had been treated by the likes of fetus worshippers. I pray for God to do it, expect that He will, and will cheer when he does. He may use humans, of course. God works in mysterious ways, you know.
I call what the parents and their puppeteers are doing abuse of being -- what it is to be human. They are Jesus abusers.
And by "Jesus abusers", I don't mean just the kind who get a kick out of beating on him, like Mel Gibson, I mean those who use the name to beat on others. Like right wing cohort whalers Cal, the "were all sinners in need of redemption" Fox-slut Thomas -- liked Gibson's Chr*stianity. And Randall "There will be hell to pay if she dies" Terry. And Rudy, the "Zionism is holy" man Giuliani, may he relapse. --
I take it you agree with torture, too?
2005-03-26 18:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Yes, I'll answer that. You got the name of the reaction right, but you got what it is to exactly reversed. She's been dead 15 years, according to the doctors. But maybe they don't know. If you were her parents, that "maybe" might mean something, from a purely subjective point of view. People go quiet mad from being unwilling to let go what they love -- if they love their love above everything else. If you aren't her parents, you really have no right to put your opinion above medical doctors, then berate those who don't as wanting to starve her to death. It is phrarisaical posing, without the equipment. Pull the damn plug already.
I share revulsion, all right. For those who assault human sensibility by repeatedly inflicting that grotesque vacant head shot and lifeless body on the American TV audience. It is a historically unprecedented grotesquerie. These people who worship life unto death deserve to die -- the U.S. General said it's fun to kill some people. I have to take his word, never having done it, but it has got to be as much fun as that Jeff Weiss had, the Indian boy, who probably picked up the appetite from learning about the way his people had been treated by the likes of fetus worshippers. I pray for God to do it, expect that He will, and will cheer when he does. He may use humans, of course. God works in mysterious ways, you know.
I call what the parents and their puppeteers are doing abuse of being -- what it is to be human. They are Jesus abusers.
And by "Jesus abusers", I don't mean just the kind who get a kick out of beating on him, like Mel Gibson, I mean those who use the name to beat on others. Like right wing cohort whalers Cal, the "were all sinners in need of redemption" Fox-slut Thomas -- liked Gibson's Chr*stianity. And Randall "There will be hell to pay if she dies" Terry. And Rudy, the "Zionism is holy" man Giuliani, may he relapse. --
I take it you agree with torture, too?[/QUOTE] I wonder if there is any hope that the larger population will realize what's up, when some brazen iconoclast like TexasAnarch doesn't even realize he's a stooge of the enemies of true civilization. Before it could be dismissed as the mere rantings of someone who has inadvertently imbibed the poisonous waters of trickle-down Hebraism. But in light of this Schiavo case, well, he's swallowed the bird, feathers and all. Those who controls the academy control the mind and therefore its natural goal, happiness. Those who control politics and the courts control liberty. Those who control medicine control its object, life. Perhaps things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seem quaint and out of date, but the society that relinquishes these things will soon find itself out of date.
2005-03-26 20:28 | User Profile
Does the husband benefit from this financially, as in life insurance?
2005-03-26 21:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Does the husband benefit from this financially, as in life insurance?[/QUOTE] Yes. Several ways. One obvious way is that he was awarded $700k for her care. After she dies he stands to get what is left over. This is why he has been requesting no rehab, no medical, no dental. She's had teeth pulled that rotted in her mouth because Michael Schiavo insisted on no dental care. She had a urinary infection and Michael Schiavo prevented any medical care for this non-lethal condition. He slapped ointment out of the hands of a nurse applying it to an open sore of Terri telling her "My wife doesn't need anymore medical expenses." He didn't say these things because he's an SOB, which he is, but because the sooner she dies, the less that is spent on her, he gets. Given his status, he needs the money. From what I gather he is a manager at a hamburger-flipping joint. He said $300k of the settlement went to his education-- he studied nursing and respiratory therapy.
Btw, Fmr. Congressman John Kasich revealed that the judge in this case. Judge George Greer, received campaign contributions from Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos and his firm. Greer did not return the "contribution".
2005-03-27 22:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy..... Before it could be dismissed as the mere rantings of someone who has inadvertently imbibed [B]the poisonous waters of trickle-down Hebraism. But in light of this Schiavo case[/B], well, he's swallowed the bird, feathers and all. ..... Perhaps things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seem quaint and out of date, but the society that relinquishes these things will soon find itself out of date.[/QUOTE]
Cro magnon liberals werenââ¬â¢t Hebrews; liberal Jewishness descended from them (talking along ago).
I have never claimed to be anything other than four-square cro magnon liberal, in politics. The positions I take are where any two ends of whatever is divided among partisans of every sort meet if they talk America ââ¬â beyond left and right, center or extreme, early or late: where what just is is. Because it canââ¬â¢t be anything or anyplace else. (Even beyond Max Boot and il ragno, but Iââ¬â¢ve picked their style, somewhat.)
[B]What liberty means in the life of nations was defined by this one, with the blood of those who fought in the revolutionary war under its name. Jews and Catholics, while generally tolerated, comprised less than 2% of the population calling itself ââ¬Åthe peopleââ¬Â back then. If these two groups had pressed their old-world understandings of what ââ¬ÅGodââ¬Â was, for them (ââ¬ÅDeusââ¬Â and ââ¬ÅYHWHââ¬Â) back then , radically distinct from that of the King James Version of the Bible as it is in critical parts, as loudly and forcefully as they do today, the toleration might well have been withdrawn, as it was by the 1850ââ¬â¢s No-Nothings. Not that they denied those groups personal dignity of those meanings for their users, whatever it was. It is not a matter of ââ¬Åanti-Catholicismââ¬Â or ââ¬Åanti-Hebrewismââ¬Â in the religious sense, when talking about national polity. It is a matter of talking the language that was spoken and understood when the nation was founded.. [/B]
Since America is the only nation whose people, exercising the freedom they won in this war to set up their own government, explicitly sealed the commonly understood meaning of the term ââ¬Ålibertyââ¬Â with their blood, under God, that is the meaning it has now, today.
IN FACT it was congregations who call and allow themselves to be called ââ¬Åevangelicalsââ¬Â ââ¬â though their grandparents would barely be able to explain anything at all that meant in relation to the faith their family inherited ââ¬â such as Jerry Falwellââ¬â¢s koolaiddrinkers who allied specifically with Netanyahu Zionist Likkudnick. Then W.F. Buckley cheerily hands over the NR to the Jewish kids, a situation documented with hand wringing aplenty on OD forum threads. Not that I care. It just shows what he was to those, such as I, who saw him milk (his) ââ¬ÅGod at Yale" shtick to help Nixon. The title of this thread shows where all these anti-American, illiberal influences converge. Wrenching the heart, gut string, sphincter with off-shore definitions of ââ¬Ålifeââ¬Â (ââ¬Åminimal consciousnessââ¬Â, to incl. ââ¬Åthe unbornââ¬Â -- where it actually applies, in a form revified in later flashbacks, and still is nobody's business but the mother's).
Terri Schiavo is quintessential ââ¬ÅJewââ¬Â. Perpetually, relentlessly suffering, on feeding tubes, living on the loving care and concern of others -- the base-line of humanity. Never mind that one neuro-psychologist who actually examined her after her first heart attack reported that it flatlined for many seconds, so the difference between ââ¬Åpersistent vegetative stateââ¬Â, with no hope for recovery, and ââ¬Åminimal consciousnessââ¬Â is pure projection, on the part of those whose heart bleeds for ââ¬Åherââ¬Â. A projection over control of life they would gladly inflict on all. Saving helpless Jews bound for the crematorium is nothing if not the grand heroic mission of all good Roman Catholics repentant for their roll in WWII abominations. Saving the unborn (in some other motherââ¬â¢s belly) and saving Terri Schiavo is the least they can do. For ââ¬Åusââ¬Â.
Liberty includes the right to die.
But Liberty also includes freedom to live at a quality level of group life unsaturated by the experience of watching a once-beautiful, long brain-dead catatonic grotesquerie driven into the national psyche for political purposes. It is not just non-American in human spirit. It is anti-American in essence. Those whose cry is ââ¬ÅSave Terry Schiavo!ââ¬Â are traitors of America, calling for its death
Jews control the media. Anything that wasnââ¬â¢t good for the jews wouldnââ¬â¢t be allowed to play out drop-by-drop, like Jesusââ¬â¢ blood itself on their product. Anyone who allows mongering helpessness unto death to wedge against their own kind as Americans are Jews under the skin.
2005-03-28 08:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Terri Schiavo is quintessential “Jew”. Perpetually, relentlessly suffering, on feeding tubes, living on the loving care and concern of others -- the base-line of humanity. Never mind that one neuro-psychologist who actually examined her after her first heart attack reported that it flatlined for many seconds, so the difference between “persistent vegetative state”, with no hope for recovery, and “minimal consciousness” is pure projection, on the part of those whose heart bleeds for “her”. A projection over control of life they would gladly inflict on all. Saving helpless Jews bound for the crematorium is nothing if not the grand heroic mission of all good Roman Catholics repentant for their roll in WWII abominations. Saving the unborn (in some other mother’s belly) and saving Terri Schiavo is the least they can do. For “us”. Liberty includes the right to die.[/QUOTE]
So those who fight for every individual's basic God-given right to life are seeking to 'control' life, while those who want to kill are promoting liberty.
Liberty through death -- welcome to bizarro world. If anything TA, that's a good reminder why liberals, cro magnon or otherwise, are always on the wrong side of everything, including common sense.
2005-03-28 11:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So those who fight for every individual's basic God-given right to life are seeking to 'control' life, while those who want to kill are promoting liberty.
Liberty through death -- welcome to bizarro world. If anything TA, that's a good reminder why liberals, cro magnon or otherwise, are always on the wrong side of everything, including common sense.[/QUOTE]
"Liberty through death"? Where did you get that? If you don't think "liberty" means the right to die, what do you live for?
To call it "common sense" to regard dead people as living? -- and stick pictures of their corpses in everyone's face 24/7 to prove it? Like Randall Terry skipping a squiggly fetus in Clinton's hand...
There's no excuse. Pull their plug, God.
I, myself, have never been on the wrong side of anything when it comes to America. I only call myself "cro magnon liberal" because that fits the origin of humanity itself emerging from the caves that people who call themselves "conservative" always dig for themselves and plug in whoever will take their abuse. As you found, when the jews took it over, attached a "neo", and started using it against you. So go with John O'Connor -- he taught that all the little unborn fetuses are Holocaust Jews you can help save from the Nazis.
2005-03-28 13:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]"There's no excuse. Pull their plug, God. is.[/QUOTE]
The point is that they're not "pulling the plug" in this case.
Terri Shiavo does not require machine assistance to breath or to keep her heart beating.
We're only talking about FEEDING her.
The rule is that while all measures can be taken to alleviate pain even if it means shortening days, and no heroic measures need be taken to preserve or extend life, it is NEVER LICIT to deny a patient food and water.
And that's what makes this case so dangerous. This sets a precedent that food and water can be denied when that will knowingly lead to death.
This is barbaric, and America is a barbarous land.
2005-03-28 14:09 | User Profile
The Terri Schiavo saga is now getting copious airtime over here in Australia. Things are clearly getting out of hand.
In response to the notion that feeding someone via a feeding tube does not constitute "extraordinary measures" in the same sense as keeping someone alive on an artificial respirator, I disagree.
Using a feeding tube to keep someone alive is not fundamentally different to putting someone on an artificial respirator.
Both oxygen and food are necessary to keep someone alive.
As the patient on an artificial respirator is capable of absorbing oxygen through their lungs if it is blown in through an artificial respirator, so is a PVS patient capable of digesting food if it is administered via a feeding tube.
As a patient on an artificial respirator is unable to draw oxygen into their lungs of their own volition, so is a patient with a feeding tube unable to nourish themselves.
As a patient on an artificial respirator cannot inhale, a patient with a feeding tube cannot swallow.
Tell me what is the difference?
For the record, I oppose starving Terri to death, but this ain't the reason.
Furthermore, Terri Schiavo's situation is not comparable to an infant (or an elderly person), in the sense that an infant is capable of the swallowing reflex.
2005-03-28 16:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Furthermore, Terri Schiavo's situation is not comparable to an infant (or an elderly person), in the sense that an infant is capable of the swallowing reflex.[/QUOTE]
So whether or not we starve someone to death depends on their being capable of a swallowing reflex.
Bizarre.
2005-03-28 19:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The point is that they're not "pulling the plug" in this case.
Terri Shiavo does not require machine assistance to breath or to keep her heart beating.
We're only talking about FEEDING her.
.[/QUOTE]
"For all practical purposes, Terri Schiavo has been dead for more than a decade. It's been dishonest on the part of television to keep showing the same tape of her, which is several years old. Let the poor woman die in peace. Cut the lawyers off their sugar teat. Tell the politicians to do their real job and stop grandstanding for political purposes."
There's no "her" to feed, to starve, to do anything with except bury.
Hasn't been for 15 years.
Except to those who are brain dead, too. God kill them all -- sooner, not later, so we can watch.
2005-03-28 19:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]The Terri Schiavo saga is now getting copious airtime over here in Australia. Things are clearly getting out of hand.
In response to the notion that feeding someone via a feeding tube does not constitute "extraordinary measures" in the same sense as keeping someone alive on an artificial respirator, I disagree.
Using a feeding tube to keep someone alive is not fundamentally different to putting someone on an artificial respirator.
Both oxygen and food are necessary to keep someone alive.
As the patient on an artificial respirator is capable of absorbing oxygen through their lungs if it is blown in through an artificial respirator, so is a PVS patient capable of digesting food if it is administered via a feeding tube.
As a patient on an artificial respirator is unable to draw oxygen into their lungs of their own volition, so is a patient with a feeding tube unable to nourish themselves.
As a patient on an artificial respirator cannot inhale, a patient with a feeding tube cannot swallow.
Tell me what is the difference?
For the record, I oppose starving Terri to death, but this ain't the reason.
Furthermore, Terri Schiavo's situation is not comparable to an infant (or an elderly person), in the sense that an infant is capable of the swallowing reflex.[/QUOTE]
Very well put RRP, I agree with your post. Thanks for articulating what I was unable to express. All in all, this is one sad, sad case. Interesting how Schiavo gets tons of media while Rachel Corrie got squat. The Media is Satan and Satan is the Media.
2005-03-28 21:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] This is barbaric, and America is a barbarous land.[/QUOTE]
Lets just break that in two, shall we?
"This is barbaric." Agreed. The title of this thread shows who inflicted it.
"America is a barbarous land." Wasn't until the Catholic - Jew influence corrupted it. It will happen everywhere they swarm, by combination of the same factors There will always be brain dead "conservative" types around to help keep the trains running on time. There is no taste of freedom in either tradition, so how could it not go barbaric?
There must be a purge of whoeverwill not sign a "no higher loyalty" oath to America and the God it was founded on. .
2005-03-29 01:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So whether or not we starve someone to death depends on their being capable of a swallowing reflex.
Bizarre.[/QUOTE]
No, whether or not feeding someone constitutes "extraordinary measures" (or whatever the legal term is) depends on their being capable of a swallowing reflex. And I didn't say I was in favour of starving Terri to death.
BTW, this is actually what the law says, I'm not just making this up as I go along. There is a legal definition of "extraordinary measures" and a feeding tube is one of them, along with an artificial respirator.
2005-03-29 03:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]The Terri Schiavo saga is now getting copious airtime over here in Australia. Things are clearly getting out of hand.
In response to the notion that feeding someone via a feeding tube does not constitute "extraordinary measures" in the same sense as keeping someone alive on an artificial respirator, I disagree.
Using a feeding tube to keep someone alive is not fundamentally different to putting someone on an artificial respirator.
Both oxygen and food are necessary to keep someone alive.
As the patient on an artificial respirator is capable of absorbing oxygen through their lungs if it is blown in through an artificial respirator, so is a PVS patient capable of digesting food if it is administered via a feeding tube.
As a patient on an artificial respirator is unable to draw oxygen into their lungs of their own volition, so is a patient with a feeding tube unable to nourish themselves.
As a patient on an artificial respirator cannot inhale, a patient with a feeding tube cannot swallow.
Tell me what is the difference?
For the record, I oppose starving Terri to death, but this ain't the reason.
Furthermore, Terri Schiavo's situation is not comparable to an infant (or an elderly person), in the sense that an infant is capable of the swallowing reflex.[/QUOTE]First off the the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of sustaining life are not applicable here. This distinction dates back to 16th-century moral theologians and they apply solely to preserving [u]dying[/u] [u]human[/u] life. Thus they are not applicable to the death of non-human animals, nor are they applicable to non-dying human beings. Terri Shindler's condition is not terminal, and she is not dying as a result of that condition (and I offer her 15 years in the condition as evidence).
Secondly, there is no parity between a respirator and a feeding tube. Since a terminal condition is requisite in order to properly use the distinctions ordinary and extraordinary, let's assume this is the case (and not simply a crushed trachea where the patient can neither breathe nor swallow, but certainly not a reason to let them die or euthanize them). Now, in the the former case, the respirator, it is an immediate and continuous necessity in order to sustain life. A human being can go many days, even weeks, between meals, while the same human being cannot go minutes between breaths. A feeding tube is a medical and nursing convenience and thus unlike the respirator it is not an immediate and continuous necessity in order to sustain life. Even with a patient who cannot swallow, it would be entirely possible to insert it once or twice a day for feeding, or not use it at all.
But alas I'm sure these distinctions will be lost of most people, since they view things through the lens of the culture of death, and see this issue as a question of 'When is it ethically acceptable to euthanize someone?' The question of course already assumes it is acceptable to euthanize a human being.
2005-03-29 03:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]First off the the distinction between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" means of sustaining life are not applicable here. This distinction dates back to 16th-century moral theologians and they apply solely to preserving [u]dying[/u] [u]human[/u] life. Thus they are not applicable to the death of non-human animals, nor are they applicable to non-dying human beings. Terri Shindler's condition is not terminal, and she is not dying as a result of that condition (and I offer her 15 years in the condition as evidence).
Secondly, there is no parity between a respirator and a feeding tube. Since a terminal condition is requisite in order to properly use the distinctions "ordinary" and "extraordinary", let's assume this is the case (and not simply a crushed trachea where the patient can neither breathe nor swallow, but certainly not a reason to let them die or euthanize them). Now, in the the former case, the respirator, it is an immediate and continuous necessity in order to sustain life. A human being can go many days, even weeks, between meals, while the same human being cannot go minutes between breaths. A feeding tube is a medical and nursing convenience and thus unlike the respirator it is not an immediate and continuous necessity in order to sustain life. Even with a patient who cannot swallow, it would be entirely possible to insert it once or twice a day for feeding, or not use it at all.[/QUOTE]
Good points. You have by and large convinced me.
However I don't see how the length of time it takes a patient to die after treatment is removed is important in determining what constitutes an extraordinary measure. For example, I would consider keeping alive a comatose patient on a kidney dialysis machine to be an extraordinary measure, even though a patient takes several weeks to die from the accumulation of toxins after dialysis is discontinued.
It is by an large an academic argument anyway, since both of us oppose removing the tube. For me, the main reason is that I don't think the hearsay of her husband is good enough to establish her wish to be allowed to die, I think a formal "living will" should be required in these situations.
2005-03-29 03:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Good points. You have by and large convinced me.
However I don't see how the length of time it takes a patient to die after treatment is removed is important in determining what constitutes an extraordinary measure. For example, I would consider keeping alive a comatose patient on a kidney dialysis machine to be an extraordinary measure, even though a patient takes several weeks to die from the accumulation of toxins after dialysis is discontinued.
It is by an large an academic argument anyway, since both of us oppose removing the tube. For me, the main reason is that I don't think the hearsay of her husband is good enough to establish her wish to be allowed to die, I think a formal "living will" should be required in these situations.[/QUOTE]No, I didn't want to suggest that the ordinary and extraordinary distinction is anyway a function of time, but rather that it is a function of the immediacy and necessity of the device without which a human being will not live. In other words, the device itself is the means of sustenance, and that makes it extraordinary. So you are correct about the dialysis machine, it is an extraordinary means. But again, this distinction is only applicable to dying human beings.
ps- this distinction I made is only applicable to medical devices as ordinary vs. extraordinary means. Ordinary vs. extraordinary means is also applied to medical procedures, surgeries, treatments, etc., and their costs, complexities, and usefulness relative to a particular patient and his or her specific terminal condition.
2005-03-29 08:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The rule is that while all measures can be taken to alleviate pain even if it means shortening days, and no heroic measures need be taken to preserve or extend life, it is NEVER LICIT to deny a patient food and water.
And that's what makes this case so dangerous. This sets a precedent that food and water can be denied when that will knowingly lead to death.
This is barbaric, and America is a barbarous land.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Walter, America is broke, and every judge in the land is acutely aware that Medicare and Medicaid will bankrupt this country long before Social Security Old Age benefits can.
It is the latest fad in medical care cost containment - refusing to prolong life by artificial means. This is also the latest fad in "medical ethics" taught to the docs in med school. They are now taught that they must make these life or death decisions daily, and that the driver is cost.
While we have the technology to prolong life, we cannot afford it.
With this case we just redefine "artificial" to include intravenous feeding and hydration - if she can't eat under her own power, let her go.
When it is a contest between God and Mammon, Mammon will win every time in the courts.
2005-03-29 08:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Yggdrasil]With this case we just redefine "artificial" to include intravenous feeding and hydration - if she can't eat under her own power, let her go. [/QUOTE]It is also rather obvious with that other nebulous category "vegetative state". It was rather obvious looking at her tapes that she didn't correspond to what we normally associate with this word. But I sense the courts didn't want to tread here, because they realize this would open up a whole 'nother can of worms.
There must be an awful lot of Terry Schiavo's out there.
Pretty soon I suspect they'll have to redefine these terms where a medical condition makes ones life unworthy of sustenance even more loosely. Like "not capable of quality life" or "even incapable of meaningful and positive interactions with others".
I suspect if anyone is known as a WN or even paleocon, he will be diagnosed with this condition in the hospital automatically. :sad:
2005-03-29 09:41 | User Profile
I've kept quiet on this simply because I had nothing but the sketchiest information to base an opinion on. Haven't really been following the news stories on this one. While I'm a little more up to speed on this, I'm still not quite clear on a lot of the details.
But I saw a few seconds of footage tonight that brought tears to my eyes. It was Terri Schiavo - not sure if it was a few days or a few weeks old - being comforted by someone, I assume a relative. And....her eyes were open. There was recognition, response, even what seemed like a smile flashing across her face. This was [I]a human being[/I], not an unofficial cadaver. The soul had not departed, it was still strong, even if her body was perilously weak.
Not too long ago, I had a deathbed vigil of my own to witness and endure. I got the call that said 'come now' and jumped on a plane and got there a few hours too late - she had slipped, in a fingersnap, from alert, waking consciousness into a deep coma, and lingered in it for weeks before she passed, oblivious to all sight and sound. What I wouldn't have given for one minute, thirty seconds...ten seconds!....of the kind of responsiveness I saw in that footage of Terri Schiavo. Just one more chance to see her smile and tell her how much I loved her. As it was, I never even got a chance to say 'goodbye'.
But of course, if she'd shown that sort of life-sign, the word 'goodbye' could have never left my lips, because where there is life, however fleeting, there is hope. And here is this fragile, precious woman, Terri Schiavo, showing you not just life-signs - but will, and fight, and determination.
I don't really need to know the whole back story to realize that what is happening to this woman is an obscenity. I don't dismiss that one can grow weary after years and years of caregiving, but if you can look into her eyes and see even a flicker of recognition - and you damn sure don't need any doctors or lawyers to know if it's there - then what you're doing is committing murder.
2005-03-29 10:27 | User Profile
Those are the best words I've seen written on this, il ragno.
2005-03-29 16:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]There must be an awful lot of Terry Schiavo's out there.
Pretty soon I suspect they'll have to redefine these terms where a medical condition makes ones life unworthy of sustenance even more loosely. Like "not capable of quality life" or "even incapable of meaningful and positive interactions with others".[/QUOTE]In Latin America, there are two medical care systems - one for the "Europeans" with money or middle class jobs and another for the Latin American Indians. The sine qua non of this system is constant political deception, with the Euro elites of these countries continually strutting their anti-Euro bona-fides, and dressing in drag as "permanent institutional revolutionaries" bent on achieving equality.
The United States is taking the Argentine path to third world status, but at this point we are trying to maintain the illusion of a single, unitary medical care system for all.
But we are increasingly hearing about "quality of life" as a major factor in the medical profession's triage decisions in all sorts of cases.
The "DNR cards" routinely placed at the foot of the emergency ward beds of the homeless are spreading to medicaid patients in general. And judges slavishly follow the recommendations of anyone with an MD and a state license in a wide range of cases, from mental health committments to DNR cases.
The touchstone is that medical resources will be applied only where the MD feels that a reasonable quality of life is possible for the patient if medical resources are invested.
What you are seeing in the Schaivo cases is that judges absolutely refuse to second guess these decisions by MD's - and wisely so, for the judges have a triage system of their own involving their own case loads, most of which must now be disposed of without trial, and the last thing they want is additional tens of thousands of intensely emotional lawsuits pleading to keep relatives alive when the MD's say there is no realistic prospect of the patient returning to a state which allows a "reasonable quality of life."
A complex society exists on cheap energy and a supply of high IQ labor capable of administering complexity. The Schaivo legal manuevering is just one more marker of the beginning of a collapse to a lower order of complexity for the U.S. as cheap energy disappears and as high IQ labor becomes much more scarce.
MDs have taken upon themselves life and death power with respect to medical resource allocation. I would argue that acceptance of this power is politically unwise. It is one thing for an inherently deceptive "democracy" to starve social security recipients back into the work force by monkeying with the CPI (hedonic "quality" adjustments and owners equivalent rent). But allowing relatives to die when their lives could be prolonged is a much more emotional and politically dangerous power.
The courts don't want that power, so they will always defer to the MDs.
Right now, the public can just walk into a hospital at any time and wander around more or less at will. I wonder how long that will last.
2005-03-29 18:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Yggdrasil]What you are seeing in the Schaivo cases is that judges absolutely refuse to second guess these decisions by MD's - and wisely so, for the judges have a triage system of their own involving their own case loads, most of which must now be disposed of without trial, and the last thing they want is additional tens of thousands of intensely emotional lawsuits pleading to keep relatives alive when the MD's say there is no realistic prospect of the patient returning to a state which allows a "reasonable quality of life." .[/QUOTE]
Great post, Ygg.
This is indeed all about allocating scarce resources. Your use of the word "triage" is much to the point. The regime needs to back away from big promises it made now that the bill is coming due with the Boomers retiring and all, but it must do so behind the veil of high sounding universalist nostrums lest the sheeple wake up and realize they're being fleeced.
"Quality of life" appears to be the marketing slogan that will carry this cost-cutting measure forward to placid acceptance in the minds of the sheeple, just as "the mother's right to choose" was ZOG's marketing hook to get the sheeple to accept the murder of (very disproportionately) low IQ babies (a plurality of them black and brown) coming on line. And as "celebrate diversity" was the slogan used to make us white sheeple bleat our approbation of our own dispossession.
Some folks say we're becoming like pagan Rome, but I think we're more like the pagan Carthaginians, who would roast their children alive on market square in the honor of Baal to ensure that their ship would arrive at port safely. There's really not much we Mericans won't do to make a buck. And if it means aborting our children for the convenience of our careers or starving an innocent white woman to death to save $5,000/month in nursing bills, then as Madelaine Albright said of the suffering Iraqi children, that's a price we're willing to pay.
It's interesting that Terri Schindler-Shiavo was a middle class white woman, once young and the very picture of perkiness. I suspect that there was method to this choice for a test case and the constant barrage of those picture images from her young life, including her wedding day. After all, if the regime can starve the looks-like-your-daughter Terri Schindler to death, how much more easily will it take even more willfully callous measures to terminate the lives of poor whites, much less those of blacks and browns who have outlived their usefulness if indeed they were ever of any economic use?
I pray for a collapse.
2005-03-31 03:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]"Quality of life" appears to be the marketing slogan that will carry this cost-cutting measure forward to placid acceptance in the minds of the sheeple, just as "the mother's right to choose" was ZOG's marketing hook to get the sheeple to accept the murder of (very disproportionately) low IQ babies (a plurality of them black and brown) coming on line. And as "celebrate diversity" was the slogan used to make us white sheeple bleat our approbation of our own dispossession.
I pray for a collapse.[/QUOTE]It is sad that the media play the Jerry Springer drama angle that this is a contest between evil husband and caring parents. It obscures the issue which all of us should be deeply concerned about.
The moral duty to prolong the lives of our fellow citizens is a paramount glue of civilization which binds us together. Indeed, the medical profession is founded on this very principle - prolonging life. But now society has forced this profession to serve conflicting goals by becoming "richter und henker" in the allocation of medical effort and resources.
These are decisions which create conflict, and about which people fight.
We accept infanticide as long as the victim is hidden within the mother's body. The Schaivo cases go one step further and place the imprimatur of the state behind passive euthanasia driven by economics of resource allocation administered by MDs.
We are a short step away from specific gene selection for procreation - leading to beautiful and athletically talented children with 150 IQs for all who can afford it - a procedure that will become practical, I am told, within 5 to 10 years. This will dramatically accellerate the pace of group evolution, increasing inequality and provoking conflict - especially in a multi-racial society.
A homogeneous society with high internal trust levels and true democratic discussions of these kinds of issues might be able to reach and enforce a moral concensus. But in a multi-culti society like the U.S. it is completely hopeless.
Like you, I fervently pray for a collapse to a lower order of complexity so that the races may separate and then attain the internal cohesion necessary to control and adapt to modernity.
2005-03-31 10:56 | User Profile
But I saw a few seconds of footage tonight that brought tears to my eyes. It was Terri Schiavo - not sure if it was a few days or a few weeks old - being comforted by someone, I assume a relative. And....her eyes were open. There was recognition, response, even what seemed like a smile flashing across her face. This was a human being, not an unofficial cadaver. The soul had not departed, it was still strong, even if her body was perilously weak. Yes, and right now her basal brain is screaming Food!, Water!, or they've "mercifully" given her morphine so her brain can't tell her she's dying of thirst and malnutrition. Sub-human monsters on death row get more due process.
This case really is a milestone on the way to the bottom.
2005-03-31 15:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]This case really is a milestone on the way to the bottom.[/QUOTE]
Indeed it is. A black day in America. :angry: :sad:
2005-03-31 17:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Indeed it is. A black day in America. :angry: :sad:[/QUOTE]
The filthy low-down rotten black-robed sons of bitches.
They just starved a woman to death at the instruction of a man who claims to be her husband while his actions clearly negate such a claim inasmuch as he lives as the common law husband of another woman. He has no right to be heard, and yet the courts chose his authority over that of her parents.
Indeed, there is some suspicion (unconfirmed) that he had a hand in putting her in this situation in the first place.
He had no Natural Law rights here, and that is clear to all. This was another assault on the sovereignty of the Tao, and the subsidiary nature of man made law.
As Aquinas and the Church teach us, if a state's laws become inimical to the Natural Law, we have not only a right but a duty to disobey if basic morality so requires; and indeed in extreme circumstances we have a duty in Christian charity to resist tyranny by force of arms if necessary.
I pray that our people will awaken soon.
2005-03-31 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]As Aquinas and the Church teach us, if a state's laws become inimical to the Natural Law, we have not only a right but a duty to disobey if basic morality so requires; and indeed in extreme circumstances we have a duty in Christian charity to resist tyranny by force of arms if necessary.[/QUOTE]
I agree, Walter.