The Disrespect For Life

Quote:

If I had been making a blanket comparison, you would be right. However, the only parallel I was drawing was the single point that often things are legal that are not moral.

Ah. A SINGLE POINT. We wouldn't dare address the issue of morality in general because it would point to the failings of claiming your morality is the only one that matters.

The problems don't occur until one group feels they can force their choices and morals on everyone else in spite of legal and other moral codes. The biggest threat to this society is not that some people can make a choice about their life but that others feel that they can force that choice to be what they want it to be. Just because someone doesn't make the choice you wanted Brandon does not make them immoral nor does it make you moral.

After having had various conversations with you Brandon, I have come to the conclusion you need to learn the difference between making a choice or watching someone else make a choice. They are not the same thing. Perhaps some morning you will wake up and realize this, but until then have a nice life as long as you stay out of mine.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

Oh, yes, I'm sure that the person who posted the link to the mocking Terri Schiavo dance was one of those who campaigned tirelessly for her to be allowed to have food and water.

I see we now get to revel in your "morals" of changing a couple of small facts to suit your argument. A lie isn't a lie if it is for a good cause, right Brandon?

You know what Brandon, I am not going not going to let you get away with lying. I will point to it and call it what it is. Terri couldn't eat or drink no matter how many times you lie about it. No one didn't "allow" Terri to have food or water. She was free to ask for it. She was free to get up and go get it. Terri was incapable of chewing or swallowing.

Just keep paving your road with those good intentions Brandon. We all see where you are going with this.

0 Replies

Don't we already have, like, a 1291823989 page thread about Terry Schiavo? Just wonderin'.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon wrote:

Quote:
Oh, yes, I'm sure that the person who posted the link to the mocking Terri Schiavo dance was one of those who campaigned tirelessly for her to be allowed to have food and water.

I see we now get to revel in your "morals" of changing a couple of small facts to suit your argument. A lie isn't a lie if it is for a good cause, right Brandon?

You know what Brandon, I am not going not going to let you get away with lying. I will point to it and call it what it is. Terri couldn't eat or drink no matter how many times you lie about it. No one didn't "allow" Terri to have food or water. She was free to ask for it. She was free to get up and go get it. Terri was incapable of chewing or swallowing.

Just keep paving your road with those good intentions Brandon. We all see where you are going with this.

I never said and never intended to say that she was able to eat by herself. In fact, had she been, this entire incident would not have occurred.

Since you have just called me a liar publicly, I challenge you to find a deliberate falsehood that I have posted. And please, don't play the game of quoting me in something that I said in good faith, but later turned out not to be true, or a matter where there is no consensus of opinion as to what is the truth, etc., etc., etc.

0 Replies

smog wrote:

Don't we already have, like, a 1291823989 page thread about Terry Schiavo? Just wonderin'.

Yes. That is why I have taken such pains to repeat over and over in this thread that it is not just about her.

0 Replies

Brandon,

If I understand what you are saying with your statements like "planting the seeds of disrespect for life"... you are trying to make the case that our society is getting less "moral" and less humane.

I think you are making an emotional argument with no basis in fact or reason.

Our country has overcome slavery, lynchings, and Indian wars...

It seems like, if anything, we have more respect for life than we did in history.

The Terry Schiavo case (as you may have noticed) is very controversial. There are people of good will on both sides of this emotional issue.

Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you is showing "disrepect for life"? I think this is an extreme and unsupportable postion.

If you are looking at society as a whole... I think you would be hard-pressed to show that this isn't one of the times in our society with the most respect for life.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

If you are looking at society as a whole... I think you would be hard-pressed to show that this isn't one of the times in our society with the most respect for life.

Abortion, particularly partial birth. Oh, forgot, we define that not to be killing, so it isn't.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

allowed to have food and water.

What is the meaning of this statement?

Allowed means -

Quote:

al·low Audio pronunciation of "allowed" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lou)
v. al·lowed, al·low·ing, al·lows
v. tr.

1. To let do or happen; permit: We allow smoking only in restricted areas.
2. To permit the presence of: No pets are allowed inside.
3. To permit to have: allow oneself a little treat.
4. To make provision for; assign: The schedule allows time for a coffee break.
5. To plan for in case of need: allow two inches in the fabric for shrinkage.
6. To grant as a discount or in exchange: allowed me 20 dollars on my old typewriter.
7. Chiefly Southern & Midland U.S.
1. To admit; concede: I allowed he was right.
2. To think; suppose: "We allow he's straight" (American Speech).
3. To assert; declare: Mother allowed that we'd better come in for dinner.

Which meaning were you attempting to use? Because I see no instance of Terri not being "allowed" food and water.

Your use of "allow" is a false premise that is essentially a lie. Perhaps you did not INTEND it to be a lie but it is false none the less.

Another instance of your using words that are false in their premise

Quote:

I wonder what fraction of the people who wanted Terri Schiavo killed for her own good,...

Perhaps you can point to your meaning in the use of the word "killed" then you can explain how you know the motives of everyone that wanted her "killed for her own good."

Quote:

v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.

1.
1. To put to death.
2. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions.
2. To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic.
3.
1. To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat.
2. To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor.
3. To tire out completely; exhaust: "The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men" (Jimmy Breslin).
4. To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing.
5. To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy.
6. Sports. To prevent a hockey team on a power play from scoring during (a penalty).
7. To cause extreme pain or discomfort to: My shoes are killing me.
8. To mark for deletion; rule out: killed the story.
9. To thwart passage of; veto: kill a congressional bill.
10. Informal. To overwhelm with hilarity, pleasure, or admiration: The outstanding finale killed the audience.
11. Sports.
1. To hit (a ball) with great force.
2. To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game.

You consistantly use statements that are NOT TRUE as your premise. False statements would be lies would they not? Are you deliberately misusing words? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. However, I can still point out those falsehoods and you can either correct them or attack me. Your choice.

I fully expect your argument to be that Terri was "killed" because they removed the feeding tube. That would require that every instance of removing medical support would be "killing". If that is your intent then I think it is pretty easy to point to the lack of morals on your side when you allow so many others to die for lack of medical treatment. In reality, your arguments make no logical sense Brandon since you change meanings of words and facts to back up your viewpoint then ignore those meanings and "facts" you created when they don't suit your viewpoint.

0 Replies

Brandon,

Consider a hypothetical society where abortion was illegal, but lynchings were commonplace, and tolerated by society at large (meaning they are rarely prosecuted and nearly impossible to convict by juries).

Would this society be more respectful of life or less than what we have now?

What about a society where abortion is illegal, but it accepts slavery... including making it legal to beat slaves to death and to kill runaway slaves without trial.

Would this society be "respectful of life" considering it doean't allow abortion?

What about a society (again where abortion is illegal) that support a mass forced migration of a native population for hundred of miles causing the death of thousands of people. Would this make us more "respectful of life".

I consider it progress that none of these things would be tolerated or even possible in our current society.

It seems to me that any objective view... even a rational but less objective view symbothetic to the pro-life perspetive... would agree that we have come a long way as far as respect for life.

Brandon, your partisan political view is causing you to come to illogical and extreme conclusions.

You use of the term "respectful of life" is a very narrow one ideed.

0 Replies

Quote:

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:
If you are looking at society as a whole... I think you would be hard-pressed to show that this isn't one of the times in our society with the most respect for life.

Abortion, particularly partial birth. Oh, forgot, we define that not to be killing, so it isn't.

Abortion is hardly new. It has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Most European monarchies had "royal abortionists" in the 17th and 18th centuries. There were a whole series of home remedies used to create miscarriages at that time. Some of them quite dangerous like drinking lye. I think I read somewhere that even Cleopatra had an abortionist in her court in Egypt. Benjamin Franklin wrote a treatise on abortion in about 1750. Laws against abortion didn't appear in the US until the late 19th or early 20th century. It is hardly a new idea or a "process of disrespect for life" that allows abortion in the US.

0 Replies

Out of curiosity, how many people here that sided with the death of Terri Shiavo also support the death penalty?

0 Replies

Me, for one. I am also pro-choice, and anti-gun control. (Except that there should be a waiting period, and background checks.)

0 Replies

I didn't side with or against her death. I didn't care. I give some value to human life, much more than to animal life (except *my* animals compared to some people). Letting her die didn't bother me at all. If I had to pick a side, I'd pick having her die because I would do that for my wife.

I'm so pro-gun it's gun-errific. Everyone should have access to guns with limitation made on age, demostrating competence, & criminal background, etc. I support *a* death penalty. I don't know enough about any existing death penalty because my state doesn't have one.

And with abortion, well, I'm not really pro choice or life. I'm a hybrid of the two, I suppose. I think abortions kill human beings, babies, persons, etc. I believe women should have access to abortion procedures except when they are married. I think married women should need their husband's consent to abort *their* child.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon wrote:

Quote:
allowed to have food and water.
What is the meaning of this statement?

Allowed means -

Quote:
al·low Audio pronunciation of "allowed" ( P ) Pronunciation Key.....
......Another instance of your using words that are false in their premise

Quote:
I wonder what fraction of the people who wanted Terri Schiavo killed for her own good,...

Perhaps you can point to your meaning in the use of the word "killed" then you can explain how you know the motives of everyone that wanted her "killed for her own good."

Quote:
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.

1.
1. To put to death......

What nonsense. If you cited 200 pages of references, it would be equally incorrect. Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that (a) living things need food and drink and the hospice did not feed her and (b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away. As for killing, anyone who deliberately sets in motion a chain of events in order to deliberately produce death in another person is killing him.

You sound like someone who robs a bank and then quotes hundreds of pages of definitions to "prove" that it was, in fact, not actually robbery.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Out of curiosity, how many people here that sided with the death of Terri Shiavo also support the death penalty?

Not to nitpick but I didn't "side" with the death of Terri Schiavo. I "sided" against the politicians and media who made a big issue of it for gain, real or perceived of some sort. It was a tough situation I hope to never be in, but all the courts decided on numerous occasions to act according to Michaels wishes because they courts decided that he was expressing Terri's wishes. That's all they could do, that's what the courts are for.

Having split that hair I believe that taking another person's life is murder. Period. In the case of certain people I don't have a problem with it happening though, and that's a character fault and between me and God. So in that respect I don't "support" the death penalty and I hope I'm never put in ther position to murder another human, but I have no feelings if someone I find deserving of the death penalty gets it.

Because I am subject to the same weaknesses and difficulties in living up to my own "high " standards as everyone else though, I think that for instance, the pedophiles who molest and damage and sometimes kill children, should be executed immediately. Not in a torturous vengeful way, just get 'em out of here. A 3 cent bullet to the brain. do not pass go do not collect 200.00.

Let's face it folks, we're all a bundle of contradictions and our best hope is not to be placed in a situation that requires us to put ourselves to the test. I'd like to think I would show the wisdom and fairness of Solomon, but I'm just an average dick truth be known, so who knows?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Out of curiosity, how many people here that sided with the death of Terri Shiavo also support the death penalty?

*Raises hand*

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

(a) living things need food and drink and the hospice did not feed her and (b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

a.) Living things eat food and drink water. Terri had not eaten for 15 years. She was getting sustenance from a feeding tube which is a medical intervention. The intervention was stopped. It was a case of stopping forced medical intervention not of "allowing" or "denying" her food.

b.) The people were turned away for trespassing. No one ever attempted to give her food orally. They never got that far and it would have been a silly gesture if not outright deadly for Terri to have food and water forced into her mouth.

Quote:

As for killing, anyone who deliberately sets in motion a chain of events in order to deliberately produce death in another person is killing him.

This definition, edited by you from your earlier definition, would appear to make every hospice worker in the US guilty of "killing". They deliberately stop certain treatments for the deliberate production of death. What do you think a DNR order is? It is a deliberate withholding of medical treatment that would keep a person alive hence it produces death.

Quote:

You sound like someone who robs a bank and then quotes hundreds of pages of definitions to "prove" that it was, in fact, not actually robbery.

Hardly an apt comparison since I didn't have anything to do with Terri Shaivo. A better comparison would be Brandon sees someone coming out of a bank with money and says they "robbed" it because it was a bank and the person has money. Then you refuse to look at any other possible reasons or even what really happened. Nor do you look at the meaning of the word "robbed" because it would make your argument fail.

But this is getting far afield from your earlier claim that we are now less respectful of life. 50 years ago Terri would have died 15 years earlier than she did. She would probably not have been resuscitated from her initial heart attack then she would never have had a feeding tube inserted. The fact that she was able to be kept alive as long as she was shows a respect for life that didn't exist before. (<---- mentioned by others here.)

But enough, I will do my best to not respond to you any more. It isn't worth it. It only gets threads locked, like this one was briefly. Which was probably a good thing because my response yesterday to your unedited post would have been much nastier. Live under your bridge in peace.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon wrote:
Quote:
(a) living things need food and drink and the hospice did not feed her and (b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

a.) Living things eat food and drink water. Terri had not eaten for 15 years. She was getting sustenance from a feeding tube which is a medical intervention. The intervention was stopped. It was a case of stopping forced medical intervention not of "allowing" or "denying" her food.

b.) The people were turned away for trespassing. No one ever attempted to give her food orally. They never got that far and it would have been a silly gesture if not outright deadly for Terri to have food and water forced into her mouth.

When you refuse to feed a person in your care, and you thwart other people's atempts to provide food, you are not allowing them to eat. I await your thousand page essay on the already clear meanings of the terms involved.

parados wrote:

Quote:
As for killing, anyone who deliberately sets in motion a chain of events in order to deliberately produce death in another person is killing him.
This definition, edited by you from your earlier definition, would appear to make every hospice worker in the US guilty of "killing". They deliberately stop certain treatments for the deliberate production of death. What do you think a DNR order is? It is a deliberate withholding of medical treatment that would keep a person alive hence it produces death.

In one case you are stopping treament from a person so that his/her medical condition produces death, in the case of TS, the medical condition that produced death was "life" and the need for food and water. Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
You sound like someone who robs a bank and then quotes hundreds of pages of definitions to "prove" that it was, in fact, not actually robbery.
Hardly an apt comparison since I didn't have anything to do with Terri Shaivo. A better comparison would be Brandon sees someone coming out of a bank with money and says they "robbed" it because it was a bank and the person has money. Then you refuse to look at any other possible reasons or even what really happened. Nor do you look at the meaning of the word "robbed" because it would make your argument fail.

I mean that you are apparently the type of guy to produce reams of scholarly documentation to refute what's on the face of it true.

parados wrote:

But this is getting far afield from your earlier claim that we are now less respectful of life. 50 years ago Terri would have died 15 years earlier than she did. She would probably not have been resuscitated from her initial heart attack then she would never have had a feeding tube inserted. The fact that she was able to be kept alive as long as she was shows a respect for life that didn't exist before. (<---- mentioned by others here.)

However, the Terri dance thread, in which the poster intended people to get a few laughs by making fun of other peoples' tragedy, does not show a lot of respect for life.

parados wrote:

But enough, I will do my best to not respond to you any more. It isn't worth it. It only gets threads locked, like this one was briefly. Which was probably a good thing because my response yesterday to your unedited post would have been much nastier. Live under your bridge in peace.

Well, if you feel you can't defend your various viewpoints, I quite agree. Imagine the idea of someone actually posting opposing opinions!

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

However, the Terri dance thread, in which the poster intended people to get a few laughs by making fun of other peoples' tragedy, does not show a lot of respect for life.

Did you even read the responses in that thread?

0 Replies

smog wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
However, the Terri dance thread, in which the poster intended people to get a few laughs by making fun of other peoples' tragedy, does not show a lot of respect for life.

Did you even read the responses in that thread?

Quite a few of them. You have a point?

0 Replies

The Disrespect For Life

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know