It is pretty obvious how most folk on this site feel about abortion. Most feel that it truly is not Pro choice because the baby does not have a say it the decision.
A topic I have not seen come up since the Teri Shiavo fiasco is "euthanasia". In the case of Terri Shiavo, it was rather ambiguous because she never specified on paper what she would have wanted if she became brain dead or a vegetable. That being said I feel if a person makes perfectly clear in their will, living trust or statement to their doctor, there is nothing wrong with it. This truly is pro choice because it is what the individual wants.
Wikapedia says:
"Active euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States.
Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive
appropriate management of pain at their request (passive euthanasia),
even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths. Additionally, futile
or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support
machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances.
A recent Gallup Poll survey showed that 60% of Americans supported euthanasia.[30]
Attempts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide resulted in ballot
initiatives and legislation bills within the United States in the last
20 years. For example, Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119
in 1991, California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992,
Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998, and Oregon passed
the Death with Dignity Act."
I respect the people's views on abortion butI feel the government should butt out of this personal choice.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
right to die
October 3, 2007 - 22:19 ET by shawn228euthanasia is something I defend, because it is a personal choice and unlike abortion your are only hurting yourself. I believe Dr. Kevorkian might have been a little extreme, because he had no right to decide who wanted to die and who did not, but if you one specifies their your wishes, then nobody should interfere.
When "wanting to die is your reason to live..."
October 3, 2007 - 22:25 ET by UnsaneI would note that the only nation that has legalized euthanasia that I am aware of is the Netherlands, and I would suspect that the reason for that is the Nanny State. Those old folks get expensive to take care of in old age, so it is cheaper for the State to have them do their "duty to die" (as former CO Gov Lamm once said, earning him the nickname "Gov Gloom") rather than take care of them.
"DO YOU WANT TO DIE?!?!?!?!?" - Slayer, "Postmortem", from Reign In Blood (1986)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}---> Hey, Shawnee
October 3, 2007 - 22:27 ET by Cool ArrowI don't think the District Attorney will prosecute if you decide to euthanize yourself.
Knock yourself out.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Ca
October 3, 2007 - 22:32 ET by shawn228ahhh, thx CA. Thats the nicest thing you have ever said to me:-)
The butterfly effect
October 8, 2007 - 08:34 ET by TruthMongerI would assert that every single action we make, even in private - even including all thoughts and feelings - have a dramatic effect on the entire planet...
Therefore one person choosing euthenasia - even though it is a "choice" - does not only "affect the victim" - it dramatically affects the entire human population - forever...
God even grieves the sparrows that fall in the forest
(Matthew 10:9)
A service of the new NB respect police
Sorry, Uns.
October 3, 2007 - 22:31 ET by BlondeWhy can this country have the right to abort unborn children, but an adult (obviously one who is in great pain and ready to give up this life) has no "choice"?
It's idiotic.
Be the person you really are...."Free to Choose". If one has no control over one's own life...what else is there?
Leon mandating transfat? Hillary telling us what to do?
I think you get my point. An adult, making THAT decision, vs. an unborne child, with no voice. What crazy kind of morality is going on here, anyway?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Two valium+whiskey=...
October 3, 2007 - 22:50 ET by UnsaneJust because I would rather not have a doc do the deed doesn't mean I have a hangup with euthanasia, per se.
No one is stopping you from taking two valium with whiskey.
"NECROPHOBIC!!! CAN'T CONTROL THE PARANOIA!!! SCARED TO DIE!!!" - Slayer, "Necrophobic", also from Reign in Blood
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
botching
October 3, 2007 - 22:54 ET by shawn228Not so easy. What if we botched the job. Imagine putting a gun in your mouth pulling a trigger and surviving?
Suicide
October 3, 2007 - 22:59 ET by UnsaneHas that happened?
There is a reason men are more effective than women in killing themselves. Men tend to do what works: most men who kill themselves use firearms. Men who kill themselves REALLY WANT to do it, by and large. Most women who attempt it will do it when people are nearby who can intervene, and also they tend to refrain from firearms. (Even in death they must be beautiful; even if many haven't seen death up close, and trust me, it is NOT pretty by a long shot, no matter how.) The preferred method among women are pills.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}---> botched suicide
October 3, 2007 - 22:59 ET by Cool ArrowI guess you'd be talking out of the other side of your mouth then.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
CA
October 3, 2007 - 23:06 ET by shawn228I appreciate all the creative sarcasm CA, but do you have anything useful to add to this discussion?
}}---> Not at your level, Shawn
October 3, 2007 - 23:13 ET by Cool ArrowIt's pretty much established those who really do wish to kill themselves are highly successful at it.
Your "botched suicide" nonsense post deserved the sarcasm I meted out.
You weren't serious with your post. Why should I be?
Maybe you could teach classes on it if you think people don't know how to kill themselves. Maybe not "classes", plural, but you could teach it once.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
CA
October 3, 2007 - 23:18 ET by shawn228Great CA, then I guess there is no need for you to comment on my thread anymore if you do not like it. If you have something valuable to post then please do.
}}---> Shawn
October 3, 2007 - 23:29 ET by Cool ArrowI think what you mean is "If you have something (that strokes Shawn the right way) to post then please do.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
CA
October 4, 2007 - 00:15 ET by shawn228Lol......CA. You still never answered my question if you were the master of your own domain:-)
blonde
October 3, 2007 - 23:13 ET by shawn228I agree with you 100 % Blonde. Have you ever watched million dollar baby. Hilary Swanks character was paralized from the neck down. She tried to commit suicide by biting her tongue and bleeding to death.
}}---> Bad case - bad law
October 3, 2007 - 23:41 ET by Cool ArrowYup, it's the abortion debate all over again. Start with the most sad, pathetic test case imaginable, Baby Knauer, and you've got them hooked. Read about him or you're not serious with this discussion. Your reference to Million Dollar Baby puts you in certain company with whom I'm hoping you won't feel comfortable.
Is that serious enough for you? Should I stick to sarcasm?
Lead on Adolph.
Just bumped this post to avoid any chance you "missed it", Shawn
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
CA
October 4, 2007 - 00:17 ET by shawn228You know CA, i really try get along with people. I actually saw the good in you when you were quite successful on getting SeeJay banned. Now you call me Adolph? You can really be a jerk sometimes.
}}---> It's your slope Shawn
October 4, 2007 - 00:22 ET by Cool ArrowI just choose not to slide down it with you. As I posted below.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
}}---> And, Shawn
October 4, 2007 - 00:25 ET by Cool ArrowYou didn't respond to my Baby Knauer argument. Is it because your thread demands narrow specifics for the nonce?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool Arrow
October 4, 2007 - 08:50 ET by shawn228I did not respond to you CA, because you called me adolph. Well.....at least you attempted to respond with something useful, too bad you had call me the worst war criminal Nazi in mankind to get your point across.
Okay, Baby Knauer is totally different. It is deciding for somebody else what should be done. It is compasionate, but at the same time murder. Doctor assisted suicide is a choice for yourself and not for others.
Thanks for maintaining
October 8, 2007 - 08:43 ET by TruthMongerThanks for maintaining respect and civility shawn! Bravo...
A service of the new NB respect police
tm:-)
October 8, 2007 - 08:55 ET by shawn228Thx TM, I think CA is the one that should be be taking anger management classes.
PS
I want to add this to my you know what collection lol
shawn ol buddy
October 8, 2007 - 09:05 ET by TruthMonger...yes, I think so - but thanks again for your efforts here - fantastic. Please point CA or anyone else like this to my forum (link below)
A service of the new NB respect police
Dr. Kevorkian
October 3, 2007 - 22:30 ET by well99He was asked for the help by people as far as I know.I agree with what you say otherwise.My mom is home hospice because she is terminal.She goes thru alot of pain.She has a laundry list of heath problems.Her home is a bed.I will never understand those that are against euthanasia.I not talking about for a hang nail or something.There are people that suffer everyday and there is life consist of living hell.Why not spare them that.To bad people arent like wine and improve with age.
Dr. Death
October 3, 2007 - 22:54 ET by UnsaneMy problem with Dr. Kevorkian was that he seemed to be enjoying himself. A LOT. Like he was actually feeling some excitement in ending someone's life.
(Incidentally, Belo-owned CBS affiliates did not show that infamous segment from 60 Minutes. As KENS in San Antonio ws one of them, I missed its initial showing, but I caught it elsewhere. Quite disturbing.)
Euthanasia is so much easier than people realize. Suck on a gun and pull the trigger. That's ONE way...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Maybe I am totally lackin in tact, but really, I have a point
October 3, 2007 - 23:04 ET by UnsaneReally, well99, I don't mean to sound like a cold-hearted, zero-compassion bastard (as my parents are advancing in age, I may face your issues sooner than you realize), but my point is that I'm just not all that crazy about the doctors doing the deed. It's one thing if you decide to end it all, and another if they do it.
Also, consider the example of the author James Michener. If you recall, he quite possibly could be alive today. But he HATED dialysis, and announced to the world that he was going to stop doing it one day. IIRC it took him less than two weeks to succomb. Last time I checked, no one strapped him down in a gurney and FORCED him to undergo dialysis.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
One example.I sure there
October 3, 2007 - 23:29 ET by well99One example.I sure there are many more like that.Still there are many who dont have the physical capacity to end their pain.There are some who wont do themselves do to their religious beliefs.With a doctor assisted at least hopefully done mercyfully it will put a end to their suffering.Their choice.
"I don't mean to sound like a cold-hearted, zero-compassion bastard" Just a note:I flunked sensitivity training.So saying what you believe is not going make me go to my room and cry.At least admit to it.
Sensitivity training?
October 3, 2007 - 23:33 ET by UnsaneHey, I have long had a very annoying habit of not shutting up. Especially on NB. And it's good to see another sensitivity training flunkie. Guess that's why we can't be Leftists. :-)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}---> Ah there's the rub(out)
October 3, 2007 - 23:39 ET by Cool ArrowThe real story here is that Doctors already put such measures in the hands of family. It's "Death by Morphine".
It gives the patient, and finally the family the tools to do the deed.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Easier said then done
October 3, 2007 - 23:57 ET by well99Actually have morphine here.It is a decision I havent faced yet but it is there.Her choice no matter what.I dont think there are to many out there who want to kill their mom.Or assist in it.Bottom line you do what is best for her no matter the consequences.
}}---> And, that, I respect
October 4, 2007 - 00:04 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe there's a law against it. I don't give a sh!t.
In the hopeless stage of immeasurable suffering, the family may make that choice. The balance against misuse is the possibility of prosecution. I don't see any DA's out there eager to prosecute a caring family making that decision.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Yup
October 3, 2007 - 23:41 ET by well99That belief in freedom of speech thing keeps getting in the way.We believe in it.Lefties are against it unless it supports their view.
Wow that solved that
October 3, 2007 - 23:16 ET by well99No need to go on anymore with this subject.There is the answer.Oh wait what if someone cant pull the trigger because of no strenght in their hands to do it.Maybe they have suffered a stroke or have some dibilitating disease or injury.Say no to waterboarding terrorist but let people who wish to end their suffering continue to die in slow painful way.
Knock yourself out..
October 3, 2007 - 23:27 ET by Sergeant ROCK..just don't call on the government or legislation to justify your act.
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
Unsane,
October 4, 2007 - 00:27 ET by Dave R...he seemed to be enjoying himself.
That was always the impression I got, as well. It was that kooky smile he always had on his face. He struck me as being much to eager, if you ask me.
It was almost as if he would have been comfortable in the role of Mengele, standing in the depot and seperating those who would live (a little longer) from those who were to be gassed immediately.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
well99
October 3, 2007 - 22:57 ET by shawn228I am very sorry to hear about your mom well99:( Is she in lot of pain?
Yes
October 3, 2007 - 23:03 ET by well99Sometimes even morphine doesnt help.She doesnt like the way it effects her though so she prefers to deal with the pain.Thanks for asking.
Suicide Watch
October 3, 2007 - 23:09 ET by Sergeant ROCKEuthanasia shouldn't be sanctioned by the government. There's nothing to prevent someone determined to kill themselves from doing so.
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
sergeant rock
October 3, 2007 - 23:14 ET by shawn228How about being paralized from the neck down? Not so easy to do away with yourself is it?
TX
October 3, 2007 - 23:20 ET by UnsaneIn TX we have "living wills" and DNR orders.
Besides, here's one for you: what if you hit a landmine that takes your sight, speech, hearing, arms, legs, soul, and left you with life in hell? (h/t to Metallica)
(Here comes a line of questioning that begins with something to the effect of "but...but...but...[insert screen name here] what if [insert situation here] happens. Never mind that we simply cannot plan for every single possible contingency and circumstance...)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
DNR
October 3, 2007 - 23:38 ET by well99They have them here also.My Dad went that way.My point is if it is your choice you should be allowed to have a Doctor give you a painless way to go.I have a dnr paper from the VA in my wallet.Never leave home without it.
Liberal tactics
October 3, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Sergeant ROCKThen, YOU do it! Leave the government out of it.
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
government interference
October 4, 2007 - 19:51 ET by shawn228Thats exactly the poine SR. I do want to leave the government out of it. If euthanasia is overwhelming voted in the overall population of a state, the feds should mind their own business, justs like medicinal marijuana.
Back in 2004 and other ramblings
October 4, 2007 - 21:25 ET by UnsaneMedicinal marijuana. What a joke. When AK had an election to legalize pot in 2004 (BTW, if an Anchorage power-tripper [or any other power-tripper in AK] pulls you over to harass you over BS, and they see a 1oz. joint in your car, they cannot touch you, thanks to a 1975 AK Supreme Court ruling), the pro-pot side was rolling out every sufferer of every ailment known in order to justify the legalization of getting high. Not to mention the pro-pot's laughable attempts to contort the matter into a civil rights issue. The measure was shot down; only Juneau had a majority of residents who voted in favor.
Anyways, if you want to kill yourself, you can. What is the power-tripper going to do to me if I did? Send me to jail? Imprison my family?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane
October 4, 2007 - 21:41 ET by shawn228Well you like to preach freedom Unsane, but your not willing to let people that are ill access to pot? The people of California overwhelming voted for it, what business is it of the feds to take it away from them?
Preaching the values and benefits of going nowhere
October 6, 2007 - 15:03 ET by UnsaneYou sure like to preach the virtues of Going Nowhere. No, I do not want to induce rot in this society by encouraging people to become drug-addled burnouts. That illness thing is an excuse. Just like those losers who paraded everyone with an illness before the cameras for advertisements in AK to try and get pot legalized. "I have (insert illness here) so I need pot." Right. As pot-crazed as AK is, they STILL didn't fall for that and shot down Proposition 2 in 2004.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Pot Heads
October 6, 2007 - 15:11 ET by Sergeant ROCKOf course, should you have 'medical' pot, then every illness known to man will be treatable using pot!
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
medicinal marijuana
October 6, 2007 - 19:12 ET by shawn228Alot of people that use it are very sick with Cancer or AIDS, it helps them get their appetite. You hate it when i do the what if game. Now you are doing the exact same thing.....Welll ummm what if they were faking the ....insert fake sickness" Practice what you preach:)
Nope!
October 7, 2007 - 03:02 ET by UnsanePlease notice that I wasn't playing "what if". I was highlighting what the pro-Prop 2 crowd was doing in AK. I was most certainly practicing what I preach.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane
October 7, 2007 - 10:53 ET by shawn228Ok, next time we get into a "universal healthcare debate" instead of saying "what if" i will simply highlight a article about how seriously ill childrens health cost are putting people into bankrupsy.
Glad you cleared that up.:-)
}}---> Get real Shawn
October 7, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Cool ArrowYour not quite being up front are you. If medical marijuana were legalized:
Would you be in favor of putting tracking agents on medical marijuana, controlling its distribution, and treating as felony the unauthorized use as a result of redistribution?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
CA
October 7, 2007 - 11:11 ET by shawn228Wow, a post from you to me without a cheapshot. Interesting progress. No I would not be in favor of putting tracking agents on it.
btw
When you have a chance, could you answer me about when Clinton used harsh measures?
}}---> Sure, Shawn
October 7, 2007 - 11:18 ET by Cool ArrowClinton never used harsh measures.
All he did was turn the captives over to the Egyptians and Saudis for "interrogation"
I know you love the clinical purity of it, but it's no different than sentencing a murderer to life in prison with a pack of hungry lions.
Tell me you're not serious, Shawn.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
cool arrow
October 7, 2007 - 11:30 ET by shawn228serious about what? You answered my question and said Clinton did not use harsh measures. Thx for that:) Lets stay on topic shall we?
}}---> Leave it to Shawn
October 7, 2007 - 11:38 ET by Cool ArrowShawn, your willingness to claim your point made on the evidence I've provided diminishes your credibility precipitously.
Enjoy your victory, however foolish.
I gues bal was right.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
cool arrow
October 7, 2007 - 11:45 ET by shawn228Thx for being so gracious CA. You have a lovely day:)
What a phony
October 7, 2007 - 11:01 ET by ThisnThatI'll bet most people use this stuff for "medicinal purposes". Yeah, right. This is a sham; it was set up as a sham; and now we have people like you defending the sham. Pathetic (my word of the day).
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
seriously ill childrens
October 7, 2007 - 11:05 ET byseriously ill childrens health cost are putting people into bankrupsy.
exceptional cases Shawn. Shouldn't we support establishing the 'rule' (measure) of law not the 'exception' of law?
Now, if you wish to set up a specialized program that deals only within a specified criteria of specialized cases, make your argument.
Support our Troops
botg
October 7, 2007 - 11:21 ET by shawn228"exceptional cases Shawn"
Depends on what you mean by exceptional, one case , two cases, hundreds, thousands. Not sure the statistic. Anyways I don't want to move too much off topic. It was my own fault, I never should have mentioned medicinal marijuana and this thread is already going kaflooey.
If you want to put this in a open thread or forum in the future, I will glady debate
Government is Government
October 6, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKYeah, you'll invoke State rights here on this issue, but on another you'll invoke Federal government. That's how you people operate.
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
Sergeant Rock
October 6, 2007 - 19:14 ET by shawn228How we people operate?
I just said the Feds should not get involved in this matter. Your going off topic a little aren't you?
He apparently means...
October 7, 2007 - 11:06 ET by sarcasmo"You, me & Justice Thomas," ever since that Raisch dissent...Off to play some poker, have a nice afternoon, all. :)
JMR
(Edit on Monday AM: -- I ten-tupled my money after drinks/tips, and then gave 10% to the church this morning & another 10% will go to tip-cards for Dr. Paul. Yay, pocket 7s.)
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Pot Head
October 8, 2007 - 08:53 ET by Sergeant ROCKIf the Federal government passed legislation to endorse gay marriage, for example, and Texas then passed legislation to ban it, you'd be whining about how awful it is that Texas is circumventing Federal law.
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
Interesting topic ...
October 4, 2007 - 00:09 ET by Conservative_in_mass."I respect the people's views on abortion but I feel the government should butt out of this personal choice."
Well put Shawn. The difference between abortion and assisted scuicide is choice. An unborn child did not ask to be concieved nor to be terminated. There is obviously no cognative thought ability present.
If a coherent, lucid individual is capable of making the decision to end their life, they should be allowed to do so. Brain cancer took my dad quickly, mercifully within the space of eight weeks. I could not think of what it would have been like to see him linger...and KNOW that is not what he wanted.
He knew he was ready, I will never forget the look in his eyes. The last thing I would ever want to see is that type of decision to be "legislated" by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Or any Republican for that matter. None of their business.
This can be a slippery slope. Life is precious, and certainly the basic instinct of survival resides in all of us. There is an old saying that people don't mind being Martyrs so long as they don't have to die for it. The inate struggle to survive is in every living creature; Yet even in the wild, their is that instict that kicks in "When the time comes", animals will often wander off from the community to go and die.
As humans, we have the ability to plan for that event, if we so chose. It's not only instinctive, it is an intellectual decision as well. THis debate will not be concluded here or in any other forum. It will simply be debated as nauseum.
Again Shawn, great forum topic.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
right to die
October 7, 2007 - 23:23 ET by shawn228Thx for the kind words CIM, I am very sorry to hear about your Dad. We both agree that is none of the governments business, Dem or GOP.
}}---> That's Taliban Shawn
October 8, 2007 - 02:54 ET by Cool ArrowYou want the government to butt out but you want the government to legalize it. So what you're saying is you want it both ways.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
I disagree
October 8, 2007 - 03:09 ET by sarcasmoUnder a Taliban-like government, my friend Mary Ruwart's sister Martie would not have been allowed to end her life in dignity and peace, like she did. When the government leaves us the hell alone, it doesn't cost you a cent as a taxpayer. When the government doesn't leave peaceful people alone, it costs us a lot both as taxpayers and in freedom. (BTW, in addition to being a great author, I think Mary Ruwart would make an excellent President of the United States.)
For the government to legalize something, it must have first (often stupidly, as I've repeatedly said in the case of the holy, tax and spend drugwar) have outlawed it via dimwitted politicians writing yet-another control-freak law. Which side are you on? More government (more laws) or less government?? I want my family, not my nation's current politicians, involved in this decision, and the rest of the family feels the same way. Leave us alone.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Good story - not pertinent
October 8, 2007 - 03:51 ET by Cool ArrowWith some difficulty, we arranged for his help.
Seems to imply but does not say: "We petitioned the government, but they refused to listen." Likely because the "difficulty" was more in Dr. Jack's court than the government's. Likely the government wasn't even consulted.
Dr. Jack caught it when he thumbed his nose at the government on 60 Minutes. He was doing what doctors all across America are already doing with the terminally ill.
Without the possibility of prosecution, we can make some pretty stupid decisions. I'm also unaware of how much Mary's premature death cost the taxpayers. Do you know?
Wholesale euthanasia will happen soon enough without the government going carte blanche.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
The "difficulty"
October 8, 2007 - 04:37 ET by sarcasmoWas that they were already after Dr. Kevorkian, who was rightly scared of new patients wanting to honestly-die. And with the hyper-biased media trying to paint him as "Doctor Death" with no balance whatsoever, who could blame him?
And Mary, thankfully, isn't dead yet, since she's so Presidential IMO. It was her sister Martie who had the right to choose how she died and then wisely exercised that right. How much do libertarians NORMALLY cost American taxpayers? The answer to that question (which we all know...) answers yours about Mary's sister.... And you say "likely the government wasn't even consulted" as if they had any RIGHT to be consulted in a free country. Why do you think the government has that right??
One question, and I don't care about others here as I can't control them...And first of all, telling the truth -- even when folks don't like to hear the truth -- isn't "thumbing your nose" at anyone but the pretenders who want to live in lie-world, IMO, but please tell me: Am I "trying to have it both ways" in the debate here, or am I consistently for less-government in every situation?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Seems to me
October 8, 2007 - 05:37 ET by Cool ArrowIn a State somewhere East of Louisiana, the government got dragged into just such a situation.
So who decides the fate of a Terri Schiavo? Seems that wasn't entirely a unanimous family vote.
But I'll bet if it weren't for the parents, a united family could have pulled the plug quietly, without attention.
It's already happening, sarc.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Exactly.
October 8, 2007 - 06:17 ET by sarcasmoAnd who SHOULD have decided was the courts, NOT some gasbag like Tom DeLay second-guessing said courts (just as the courts should not intrude into law-making -- and for the same reasons, in both cases it increases the size and power of big government). If Tom DeLay doesn't like a judge's decision in Florida, he has a variety of ways to protest it besides abuse of the legislative branch's authority.
These Schiavo parents managed to lobby the pro-life right into once-again betraying small government principles in order to try (without much success...) to score political points in what looked a lot like the abortion debate at the time. The good thing is, horrid cases like that and Karen Anne Quinlan's make people talk with their families and say "definitely pull the plug on me" or "definitely spend the last dime to keep me alive if possible."
I agree that it's "already happening," that's part of why our grandkids are in such deep yogurt, and why I'm working to vastly shrink the size and scope of government at all levels.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Back to Pre Civil War
October 8, 2007 - 06:26 ET by Cool ArrowIt's a neater package when there's a living will, but there wasn't.
You know you just trashed the "Equal Protection" Clause?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Huh?
October 8, 2007 - 06:35 ET by sarcasmoI only trashed the federal legislative branch intruding into a state judicial case. How is that bad? If congresscritters don't like a particular judge's ruling, it doesn't give their branch of government extra rights to re-decide the case, sans facts or witnesses or legal process.
And the judge's ruling, regardless of the nonexistence of a nice written living will, should have been binding on everyone. This means "even Republican congressional gasbags -- who should have been busy trying to CUT SPENDING for once, instead of getting even more control over individuals' lives."
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> but sarc
October 11, 2007 - 04:30 ET by Cool ArrowLife and Equal Protection are tenets of the Constitution. Such cases have a valid route to remedy at the SCOTUS level.
I don't think passing a law condoning euthanasia can be construed as anything less than intruding.
What? Congress intrudes just long enough to say "We haven't intruded up until now, but we're intruding just this once to say we won't intrude"
Though the hippocratic oath is no longer required of doctors before they begin practice, I'm pretty sure current law is common as a result of it.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
What DeLay was doing in this case.
October 11, 2007 - 06:34 ET by sarcasmoWas a federal (big government, even when Republicans do it and like it...) intrusion into a Florida STATE COURT CASE. Congress needs to do 2 things instead of what they did in the Schaivo case:
1. STFU on the congressional record, it's at least $50 grand a page when last I checked. Go blog about it if you must vent, but pass no more stupid laws and leave state court judgements alone even if they annoy your politically-well-connected constituents.
2. Spend less tax money. They needed to concentrate on that to avoid losing in 2006, which Republicans (at least, the ones who lost) deserved.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Game DeLay
October 11, 2007 - 06:43 ET by Cool ArrowI remember DeLay trying to horn in, but I don't remember him getting any legislation passed. Did I miss something.
I'm generally all for Congress doing a lot of hollering while doing nothing. It's usually more productive than when they actually do something.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Yes.
October 11, 2007 - 06:47 ET by sarcasmoYou missed a bill, tailored for this particular hyperpolitical case, that transferred jurisdiction to federal court when congresscritters didn't like the state court outcome.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> OK, I get it now
October 11, 2007 - 06:54 ET by Cool ArrowSo congress needed to reiterate Ms. Schiavo's right to equal protection. The bill was worthless except it forced the federal courts to rule on a person's Right to Life.
Sorry, but that right was already federally protected in the Constitution.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
No.
October 11, 2007 - 07:10 ET by sarcasmoCongress needed to stay out of state court business, like they used to when government was smaller. There was no "need" to reiterate anything in this case simply because you didn't like the outcome. Once again, get used to it (like I have). This case and the custom-made big-government intrusion law you were unaware that it inspired was all a big political ploy to substitute for cutting spending. It didn't work, deservedly, see 2006's losin' Republican results.
In fact, the pro-life side's overplaying of their hand in the Schaivo case is probably, in part, responsible for Ghouliani's strength in our primaries. Unintended consequences, anyone???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Get used to it?
October 11, 2007 - 07:44 ET by Cool ArrowOK, I can handle being as "used to it" as you are.
Besides, I'm white and Kansas-Nebraska doesn't affect me much one way or the other. Yeah, maybe Congress needs to stay out of affairs the courts refuse to rule fairly on.
I still disagree.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
alot of fancy words and
October 11, 2007 - 10:52 ET by TruthMongeralot of fancy words and phrases - it's still murder/suicide - morally wrong
A service of the new NB respect police
To you it may be.
October 11, 2007 - 11:02 ET by sarcasmoTo me it's still federal gasbags trying to second guess a state court judge, whose decision they didn't like, as a substitute for doing their jobs and cutting spending. It didn't work, on me or on the American people generally, and it's part of why we've got a Democrat congress right now.
And look what all this big government meddling actually got the pro-life side strategically & within the party -- a pro choice Republican is now the Republican front-runner. Yay!!! That's what happens when you overplay your hand, whether in politics or poker.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
On Kevorkian
October 9, 2007 - 04:38 ET by UnsaneAnd with the hyper-biased media trying to paint him as "Doctor Death" with no balance whatsoever, who could blame him?
I hate to burst your bubble, but this is yet another example of not "owning it". As I pointed out earlier, I saw that 60 Minutes piece, after I broke free of San Antonio and its Belo-owned CBS affiliate, and I did not see a doctor performing euthanasia solemnly and with compassion, as I might have been led to believe. I saw a doctor who was GLEEFULLY helping people die, and as I stated earlier as well, he seemed to be enjoying himself a LOT, as if he was SO HAPPY to help/watch people die. That's not the kind of spokesman or example you want for pro-euthanasia advocates; as Dave R (IIRC) pointed out, it was as if he would have been comfortable in the role of Joseph Mengele. That is NOT a good thing.
Blame "media bias" all you want, but here, Kevorkian had a perfect platform upon which to make his case, and he blew it.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Yeah, right...
October 9, 2007 - 04:44 ET by sarcasmoI'm sure media bias wasn't involved at all in dubbing him "Dr. Death." Riiiight... And I didn't see any "glee" in him at anything but telling the truth for once about what doctors do anyway. As far as his patients went, he was a professional who got prosecuted anyway for it by a too-huge government that thinks it owns our bodies. "Own" that.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
A missed opportunity you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge
October 9, 2007 - 05:02 ET by UnsaneKeep whining, and whining, and whining, and whining (as that is your specialty), but the fact remains that the 60 Minutes piece was a point in time where Kevorkian could have changed countless minds and run roughshod over the "Dr. Death" image. I for one was not sold on the "Dr. Death" thing, until I saw that piece. Then, I saw a guy who was truly enjoying himself and helping people die with a big smile on his face. He brought about his own downfall. Deal with it. "Own" that!!!
(Oh, I forgot: you are Sarcasmo, you are allergic to the concept of responsibility. If a Libertarian ideal fails to catch on, or repels, the general public, why, it isn't their fault for screwing it up!!!)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Coming from the whiner-in-chief
October 9, 2007 - 05:10 ET by sarcasmoThat's quite amusing! And the "Dr. Death" spin was in 60 Minutes' agenda (gee, CBS apparently isn't biased at all this time, in your blinkered world, right??) BEFORE the interview.
A government prosecutor wasting tax money on this case brought about Jack's downfall, not a stupid interview. so deal with that, oh pompous whiner-in-chief!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Hypocrite-in-chief
October 9, 2007 - 05:21 ET by UnsaneHypocrite-in-chief, you lecturing me on whining is exactly like a whore lecturing me on the virtues of chastity. But the fact remains indisputable: you simply cannot and will not accept responsibility for why Libertarian concepts like the right to die don't catch on with people, and the reason that is, is because when the cameras turned on Kevorkian, he was behaving as if he was deriving some sort of disgusting sexual gratification from the deaths of others!!!
"Dr. Death" was not the invention of CBS or 60 Minutes. I heard that making the rounds YEARS before that (a media invention to be sure, but by who exactly???), and again, I brushed that aside. He had his chance to run roughshod over that. Had he behaved as a doctor with what we in the real world call a "bedside manner" and acted with a freaking SEMBLANCE of solemnity, why, no doubt he would have won people over in a society full of people who care for painfully aging relatives.
However, whine and cry all you want, but I (as was the case with millions of others) saw a man who was GLEEFULLY helping people die. I have had dogs put to sleep with veterinarians who behaved with more respect, concern, compassion and solemnity than Kevorkian did, and that was with dogs! Is it too hard to ask that Kevorkian do the same with people? It probably is, in your fantasy world, far too much to ask.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Despite all the name-calling...
October 9, 2007 - 05:31 ET by sarcasmo(And as usual you have NO proof I'm a hypocrite, oh vaunted uber-whiner...)
I do agree that Jack could have handled the piece better -- probably by refusing any interview and forcing his lawyer to talk to a biased outfit like 60 Minutes, which has a history of editing subjects to look worse than they really-are. His mouth is what got him into trouble, but by that point they were already calling him "Dr. Death" in the media anyway.
I also agree that 60 Minutes probably didn't invent "Dr. Death." Maybe the media invented that moniker, or maybe some ambitious prosecutor came up with it, but this whole thing took an ambitious prosecutor along with Jack. And as far as I know, Jack's not a libertarian, either, as if I care. (I heard he'd been a Democrat before he became a felon, actually!)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Bottom line
October 9, 2007 - 06:17 ET by well99It shouldnt be about a individual doctor.It is about ending someone's suffering.If a doctor performs it then the family wont feel the guilt of killing a loved one.Even done with compassion in their heart.It would be hard to live with.The goverment shouldnt have a say in it.At least not to ending the suffering of a terminal patient.There are exceptions and extremes to everything.Still you have to look at what is best for the person going thru the torment.With their permission they should be allowed to die with a doctors help.
For me...
October 9, 2007 - 06:23 ET by sarcasmoRuwart's description of her sister Martie's death at this man's hands differs from 60 Minutes' description. Shockingly, I think that CBS might be lying and biased instead of my friend, Doctor Mary (she has sure never lied to me on any other subject!). Go figure...
But I basically agree with "Unsane" that Jack's speech got him into trouble, and I'd just add that it was a bad decision to go on 60 Minutes at all. They were well-known as biased even back then.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ed Bradley was
October 9, 2007 - 11:40 ET by well99I basically looking at the overall picture."Dr Death" is just one doctor.There are alot of good doctors out there.They could help the family.The idea is to help the person who is suffering.A doctor can do it and do it right.That is what I am looking at.The goverment shouldnt be get involved in it.To many times it becomes about politics.
interesting
October 8, 2007 - 07:56 ET by shawn228Ok so CA. So far you called me adolph, told me to kill myself at least twice, Now it is the taliban. What have I done to make you so angry? You obvious disagree with my posts, why do you keep trying to ruin my threads? At least you are civil with sarc. Can't you like go pick on Leon or something?
Hmph.
October 8, 2007 - 08:02 ET by sarcasmoI thought I'd just trashed the equal protection clause. Anyway, this is a classic "who owns your body, anyway?" issue. Is it you & your family, or is it the state that's in the end the true owner. As the state takes responsibility for things like health care, they're likely to want to assert more & more ownership as their socialist system invariably fails just like public schools are failing, so the problem does NOT just come from the political right usurping judicial power instead of cutting spending.
Statists want one answer to the body-ownership question, and anti-statists want the other. It's important to stipulate there will be bad/disputed outcomes no-matter which side wins the day. As some lawyers say "hard cases make bad law," and the Schaivo case certainly proves it. I wonder how many tax dollars were spent in the 5#!Tstorm over that?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> sarc
October 11, 2007 - 06:02 ET by Cool ArrowI have a sneaking suspicion sarc can hold his own rather than clinging to the self proclaimed Respect Police Shawn runs to.
This is probably unnecessary, sarc, but I humbly apologize for hurting your feelings with the "equal protection" remark. I'm so ashamed.
I hope we can play paddy-cake in a touchy feely forum someday with feeeelings and Kumbaya playing over the intercom.
Maybe even share a bowl of Pablum. Ah, such spirited times we'll have.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
I'm just mystified...
October 11, 2007 - 06:15 ET by sarcasmoI've been thinking about equal protection and your remark, and I still don't get what you mean by it, because being left the hell alone for once by our bloated government is the very essence of "equal protection" in my book. Maybe it's a when-life-begins issue? In that case it's a whole 'nother thread...
I'm not the best person to discuss abortion policy anyway since -- shockingly-enough -- whenever I do it both the left and the right tend to get pissed-off at my views, or the discussion derails into other aspects of body-ownership that have nothing to do with abortion.
And my feelings are fine, thanks. I'll just keep callin' 'em as I see 'em around here. But I don't share Pablum.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> My Schiavo point
October 11, 2007 - 06:30 ET by Cool ArrowWas that the husband knew what Terri wanted and the Parents knew what Terri wanted. Neither really knew what Terri wanted.
The Parents and the husband received their measure of equal protection, but I don't believe Terri did.
Her alleged DNR appeared anecdotally (years later)at just about the time the husband chose to move on.
I just never heard Terri (whose parents were willing to care for her) communicate she wanted to die.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
She *could* not communicate
October 11, 2007 - 06:44 ET by sarcasmoBecause, as was found, she was a total vegetable, contrary to the assertions of her family.
And you may want to call it an "alleged DNR," but it's not that to me. To me, a state court found that particular DNR to be a "VALID DNR." Don't like the judge's ruling? Well, frankly that's tough. I don't like lots of judges' rulings, either, but I've found a way to live with it without wasting a bunch of your tax money instead of cutting spending every time it happens.
Big government needs to STFU & quit spending my tax money on this issue. It's an issue that in a time of smaller government would not have been a national issue anyway, it would have been a FAMILY issue. This is about marriage and family and the finality of state court judgements. All of those are things small-government fiscal conservatives supported in the past. See why DeLay ran a Democrat as a Republican against Ron Paul???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> I don't see
October 11, 2007 - 06:49 ET by Cool ArrowI don't see which government officials got paid more (or less) money to pursue the issue.
Was DeLay successful in pushing through legislation (either way) concerning Terri Schiavo?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Yes.
October 11, 2007 - 07:14 ET by sarcasmoIIRC, Bush even cut a Texas vacation short to sign the custom-made law, but I could be wrong on that. ANY new federal law, even one addressing a state judicial outcome you happen not to like, INCREASES THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT AND CAUSES A NEED FOR MORE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, but especially this law, because it was passed in emergency House & Senate sessions on a weekend with my taxes paying the overtime.
As a substitute for cutting spending, which didn't work politically.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I agree
October 8, 2007 - 01:34 ET by well99My condolences to you and your family.
The government should stay out ONLY if it's Clear
October 7, 2007 - 11:19 ET by Dee Bunkwhat they wanted. If it's not clear (in writing) then it should be based on what the majority of the family believes she wanted. Family being defined as Husband, Mother, Father, Brother, sister and children. No in-laws and if it can be proven that they were estranged from any of them then that person's vote shouldn't count. In the event of a tie, life should rule.
In the Shaivo case it would have been at least 4 to one in favor of life (5 if estrangement was proven).
dee bunk
October 7, 2007 - 11:27 ET by shawn228I agree Dee Bunk:) Also if it is clear and in writing, we should respect the wishes of the individual.
Shawn - I don't see how anyone could disagree
October 7, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Dee Bunkexcept if they are letting someone pull their strings.
}}---> This might help, Shawn
October 7, 2007 - 12:00 ET by Cool ArrowJudas went out and hanged himself.
Go ye and do likewise.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Am I misunderstanding something Cool Arrow?
October 7, 2007 - 12:40 ET by Dee BunkI find you statement very offensive and ignorant and unless you clarify or apologize I'll know to ignore anything else you have to say.
dee bunk
October 7, 2007 - 14:47 ET by shawn228Thx dee bunk:-), I was waiting for non liberal on this site that would expose CA for the mean spirited person he is. I have had problems with people in the past, now I consider alot of those same people my friends. CA is in a category all to himself. Not easy to misinterpret what he meant.
}}---> Sorry Dee Bunk
October 7, 2007 - 22:51 ET by Cool ArrowI thought I was responding to Shawn's post (as evidenced by the heading) but inadvertently attached to yours. But you knew that. If that twist of logic from the Bible bothered you, I don't see that your ignoring me is particularly devastating. To your credit, you didn't say: "I'm appalled". I hate "appalled".
Shawn has a habit of refusing to listen to reason as evidenced earlier. Follow from here and decide for yourself.
He's looking for permission from the government to end a life as though a legal license somehow bleeds over into the moral side.
I know "everybody else is doing it" works very well with abortions. And if you're young enough, you'll be there to whittle away at the myriad of reasons why grandpa needs to die.
Good luck living with it. I know it's just a pragmatic decision. After all, the government says it's OK.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
ignorant and offensive
October 7, 2007 - 23:08 ET by shawn228Silly fool arrow, she did not say she was appalled, she said she found your post " very ignorant and offensive" hmmm. Sour grapes on your part I suppose. Feel free to ignore my posts if you feel I do not listen to reason. If you keep responding to my threads or post, I will just assume you are obsessed with getting in the last word like a little troll.
}}---> Frank
October 7, 2007 - 23:40 ET by Cool ArrowNo secret where Shawn is headed with his thread, is there?
Check this out. I know Shawn's "concerns" seem compassionate enough, but what does he really mean?
I've seen thicker skins on a Vidalia.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Interesting theory. Who is
October 7, 2007 - 23:50 ET by shawn228Interesting theory. Who is Frank?
Synopsis
October 8, 2007 - 09:46 ET by Sergeant ROCKOutraged over the mounting Social Security debt, Shawn, a computer nerd 15-year-old blogger and member of the Green Party, incites massive cultural warfare when he politely suggests that Baby Boomers be given government incentives to kill themselves by age 50. His modest proposal catches fire with millions of citizens, chief among them "an ambitious senator seeking the presidency." With the help of Washington's greatest spin doctor, the blogger and the politician try to ride the issue of euthanasia for Boomers (called "transitioning") all the way to the White House, over the objections of the Religious Right, and of course, the Baby Boomers, who are deeply offended by demonstrations on the golf courses of their retirement resorts.
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.