*This is not intended as a flame*
I think you err by making the assumption that enough SPCs agree with you and Lee on enough subjects to make that much of an impact.

You’d be surprised.  The issue is NOT Terry Schiavo.  The issue is what in the FUCK does the federal government think it’s doing getting involved?

Almost everyone agrees that Terry shouldn’t be forced to go through what she’s going through right now, including me. However, I deplore Congress’ violations of the COTUS more, because the Constitution is bigger than any one person.

However, I deplore Congress’ violations of the COTUS more, because the Constitution is bigger than any one person.

That’s the exact situation at hand. For some reason, these pundits have no problem talking to these so-called doctors who claim to have been nominated for a Nobel Prize, but really weren’t, when asking for briefings and opinions about the situation, but no one has bothered to ask any of us on the legal side, any legal scholars, or anyone outside of the left or right fringe. Frankly, I think that’s pretty dumb.

Another thing that I would like to point out is that when you take the fight to the mat, the question is not whether or not she (Terri Schiavo) deserves to live --- I think most people will agree, regardless of political affiliation, that she does --- but whether stomping all over the Constitution is worth saving a life.

A good question for people on the right, who are so driven to save this girls life that they’ll do whatever possible to make it happen, is whether or not they would feel the same way if Janet Reno was governor, and Bill Clinton was President, pulling these same antics.

The answer, my friends, is no, they wouldn’t.

It’s going to take a lot more than this to make me leave the Republican party. Frankly, I can put up with my party doing stupid things like this, as long as it isn’t done all of the time. I think it will take too long to build the Libertarian party, unless as JimK said, a majority of the conservatives who are tired of putting up with the Religious Right decide to jump-ship, and the Libertarian party welcomes them with open arms.

The Libertarian Party would have to be open to accepting people who want to leave, and at the same time, make an honest effort to say, “Are you fed up? Come join us,” instead of taking that elitest stance the LP has always had of saying, and act like, “Well, we’re far superior in thought and ways to everyone else… we’re not going to ask them to come, they can volunteer to join us.”

I’m not sure if I would be able to handle that or not. I would probably be able to make as big of a difference within my own party if I put enough effort forward. Also, in reality, since we’re on the topic of life and death, it won’t be too long until the current Republicans who hold office have to give up their chairs and let younger, brighter, and frankly, more appealing people step in. If you really want to make a difference, let’s get some of those people in office, instead of starting from scratch and ending up with what we could put into place, with less effort, right now.

IF terry schiavo was black, or hispanic or gay no one would have given two shits, especially the media. Man we live in a world where thousands of people are killed every day in africa from disease , genocide and starvation and this shit is what they report on, or michael jackson. The media is sick.

I think Nick was able to put a better face on the main thrust of what I was trying to say.  My comment is not regarding the Schiavo issue.  I am honestly split on that one.  But to use Nick’s works.  “I would probably be able to make as big of a difference within my own party if I put enough effort forward.”

I just don’t understand this at all. The President, the GOP, they are PRO-LIFE. They’re not the Democrats, who only think the life we should try to save is some death-row lifer about to be put to death.

I really just have to chuckle at this libertarian talk...ever get deep down into that movement? I have been in the past and they are just depraved as the democrats. And they are all TALK Jim. Why don’t people understand this about the LP? They’d rather go start their own country than stay here. The hardcore ones anyway.

I have been in the past and they are just depraved as the democrats. And they are all TALK Jim.

“Don’t leave the Church, Jim, there’s no God or faith outside of the Church...”

A good question for people on the right, who are so driven to save this girls life that they’ll do whatever possible to make it happen, is whether or not they would feel the same way if Janet Reno was governor, and Bill Clinton was President, pulling these same antics.

The answer, my friends, is no, they wouldn’t.

Speaking just for myself, I will say you are dead wrong. If this was Clinton & Reno, and we where still dealing with a case where I felt the activist Florida courts was allowing a husband to kill his wife AFTER he had used her tragedy to collect a ton of money and found himself a new love interest (both clear reasons why he very likely doesn’t have her best interest at heart) I would be feeling the exact same way I do now.

The difference/reality is that Clinton would have ignored all this because he would feel it politically too dangerous (remember he ran this country by polls) to touch. I have a feeling he would have spent his time fantasizing that it was him pulling the plug on that bull-dagger wife of his however.

To all you people trying to shoe-horn everyone that disagrees with you on this topic I want to again point out that this has nothing to do with religious beliefs or political expediency for many that agree with me. Its about the fact that a court has allowed someone with clear conflict of interest to not only remain the legal guardian of a victim, but to use “the law” to get her out of his way.

Frankly I prefer to see the whole house of cards to come tumbling down than see “the law” being used to commit murder.

he had used her tragedy to collect a ton of money and found himself a new love interest (both clear reasons why he very likely doesn’t have her best interest at heart)

This argument makes absolutly no sense to me. If he didn’t care about her he could have signed power of attorney over the parents and got a divorce. This would have been simple and he could move on with his life. To me it shows remarkable committment that someone is prepared to fight for someone for 15 years like this; and given that he *has* collected the money, what benefit is there now? Makes absolutly no sense to me at all.

I just don’t understand this at all. The President, the GOP, they are PRO-LIFE. They’re not the Democrats, who only think the life we should try to save is some death-row lifer about to be put to death.

Really, killing a death row inmate = euthenasia? Wow, thats a strecth. I have to admit I don’t understand how people like Bush can get themselves all worked up over this case but be happy executing lots of people while Governor. I can certainly understand how people can believe in the dealth penalty and thats fine (although I disagree) but I can’t see how you can be fine about the dealth penalty but then get all upset about abortion and euthenasia. I have lots of problems with the Cathloic church on these issues; but at least they are consistant - anti dp/ethuenasia and abortion. Bush’s position seems to be completly inchoherent to me - but then I guess its more just political grandstanding than any position he really has.

Frankly I prefer to see the whole house of cards to come tumbling down than see “the law” being used to commit murder.

Really. You’d rather see society crumble and descend into anarchy, where anyone that cared to could come in and slaughter your entire family, and with no one to hold them accountable except maybe yourself, if you could manage? You’d rather see the end of our way of life and hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions die in riots, unhindered crime, and street wars, than allow euthenasia?
Way to organize your priorities there, buddy.
(For the record, what they’re doing… or did, I haven’t been keeping up… to Terry Shiavo isn’t euthenasia. It is a strange, confusing act… I was all for the removal of the feeding tube, but refusing to try and give her any food or water orally? That’s just… sick.)

Wow, thats a strecth. I have to admit I don’t understand how people like Bush can get themselves all worked up over this case but be happy executing lots of people while Governor.

Are you retarded or are you just being stupid on purpose?  You just equated the death of an innocent person with that of a person who committed a capital offense.

Terri committed no crime for which she needed to forfeit her life, whereas a death row inmate did.

Kevin,

Are you retarded or are you just being stupid on purpose?  You just equated the death of an innocent person with that of a person who committed a capital offense.

Are you retarted or are you just being stupid on purpose? You just equated the death of someone who wants to be dead, and someone who is being killed against their wishes.

I completly understand the difference - but you can’t claim to be “pro life” (ie all that matters is someone is alive, them being braindead is irrelevant) and yet be prepared to kill people, even those who have comitted horrendous crimes.

The same applies if you are so pro-life you can’t cope with the morning after pill. If you can’t all you care about is some very strict sense of “alive” or more likely some religous belief in a soul. I don’t understand how you can believe in that, but again be prepared to kill other people; whatever they have done.

I certainly can’t understand how you can claim to get your views on these issues from Christianity but be prepared to kill people; I find it hard to find something in the New Testament that would call for such things.

needed to forfeit her life

There is no “need” to kill a person on death row, it is a choice that a state makes.

Are you retarted or are you just being stupid on purpose? You just equated the death of someone who wants to be dead..

I suggest you ask some death row inmates whether they wish to be dead or not, you’d be surprised just how many would actually say no.

and someone who is being killed against their wishes.

Any evidence she is?  Or is it merely your opinion she is?  I’d go with the latter, but that’s just me.

And you are a retard and being stupid on purpose.  Hard to imagine someone could pull off both of those at the same time.

I completly understand the difference

No, you don’t.  Which is made quite clear with this statement:

- but you can’t claim to be “pro life” (ie all that matters is someone is alive, them being braindead is irrelevant) and yet be prepared to kill people, even those who have comitted horrendous crimes.

There is no equivalence between an innocent person being killed and a death-row inmate who was tried and convicted of a capital offense.  Terri did nothing to forfeit her own life (and for the record I believe she needs to be let go in this instance, albeit with an overdose of morphine or some type of euthenasia agent), whereas a death row inmate committed a conscious act to be where they are.

The same applies if you are so pro-life you can’t cope with the morning after pill. If you can’t all you care about is some very strict sense of “alive” or more likely some religous belief in a soul. I don’t understand how you can believe in that, but again be prepared to kill other people; whatever they have done.

And you’re attempting a moral equivalency argument where there is no moral equivalence to be found.  There’s a difference between a woman terminating her pregnancy by way of an abortion, where an innocent life is involved, and a death row inmate who committed a capital crime.  If you cannot see the difference inherent between these two cases then there is well and truly no hope for you.

I certainly can’t understand how you can claim to get your views on these issues from Christianity but be prepared to kill people; I find it hard to find something in the New Testament that would call for such things.

And where did I say I got my views on this from Christianty?  Where did I say, exactly, I am in favor of the death penalty?  The only thing I pointed out is that there is a difference between Terri’s tragic situation and an inmate who sits on death row.  Might want to look up the definition of the straw man logical fallacy, because you just committed it.

[iThere is no “need” to kill a person on death row, it is a choice that a state makes.

No, in most cases it’s the voters who have; either directly at the ballot box or indirectly through their elected representatives.

I suggest you ask some death row inmates whether they wish to be dead or not, you’d be surprised just how many would actually say no.

Yeah, I hear that is true. Living on a permanent state of borrowed time on death row can’t be much of a life; so its certainly something I can understand (not even suggesting it should be different). But clearly, not all think this.

Any evidence she is?  Or is it merely your opinion she is?  I’d go with the latter, but that’s just me.

I trust the court rulings on the matter. What else is there to believe? The evidence was presented, more than once, and this is what was accepted by the courts. Do you have some other special knowledge on this? Perhaps you where in the trial and had a different conclusion?

There is no equivalence between an innocent person being killed and a death-row inmate who was tried and convicted of a capital offense.  Terri did nothing to forfeit her own life (and for the record I believe she needs to be let go in this instance, albeit with an overdose of morphine or some type of euthenasia agent), whereas a death row inmate committed a conscious act to be where they are.

Personally, I don’t know of many “pro-lifers” who talk about “innocent life”. I have never heard a Christian say that it is innocent life that is sacred. They say “life is sacred”. They generally accept killing in self defense as a seperate issue when it is absolutly necessary; which dealth penalty executions are not. If you can find a Christian reference that suggests that it is only innocent life that is sacred; then I might accept your point.

And you’re attempting a moral equivalency argument where there is no moral equivalence to be found.  There’s a difference between a woman terminating her pregnancy by way of an abortion, where an innocent life is involved, and a death row inmate who committed a capital crime.  If you cannot see the difference inherent between these two cases then there is well and truly no hope for you.

I certainly see a difference, a 3 day fertilized egg is not human in any understanding I have of the word; and morally killing a 3 day fertilized egg has a moral equivalancy of pulling out a hair follicle. Killing a conscious human being seems to be fundamentally different. Again, where does the status of “innoence” fit into the idea of sanctity of life. This is what Christians are talking about; sanctity of life - the value of life in of itself and not for its instrumental value. This very notion excludes what that life is used for as irrelevant. I completly disagree with the idea of sanctity of life - but this is the Christian dogma that right wign christan republicans base their beliefs on but then completly contradict themselves over abortion/ethuenaisa v war(sometimes)/capital punishment.

And where did I say I got my views on this from Christianty?  Where did I say, exactly, I am in favor of the death penalty?  The only thing I pointed out is that there is a difference between Terri’s tragic situation and an inmate who sits on death row.  Might want to look up the definition of the straw man logical fallacy, because you just committed it.

Kevin, I assumed when you argued with this:

Wow, thats a strecth. I have to admit I don’t understand how people like Bush can get themselves all worked up over this case but be happy executing lots of people while Governor.

you shared that point of view. If not fine, but my argument has been against people like Bush. There are lots of people who can support capital punishment and opposed abortion for various reasons; but not those who claim their authority from Christ/Christianity. Then it makes no sense. Bush has claimed he is guied by God etc - yet his moral stance on these issues in relation to that moral status is contradictory.

No, in most cases it’s the voters who have; either directly at the ballot box or indirectly through their elected representatives.

Sure, in a democracy the people = the state. Thats sort of the point!

You know what would be smart of us?  The 18-45 year-old, South Park-style conservatives?  If we ALL registered Libertarian and actually made a difference in that party.

Of course, you’d all have to actually VOTE Libertarian as well to make a difference. It would take some serious commitment to do this.. I mean, you’d theoretically be handing election after election to the Democrats until you’d have enough critical mass to start winning. Does the name “Ralph Nader, 2004” ring a bell?

Personally, I don’t know of many “pro-lifers” who talk about “innocent life”. I have never heard a Christian say that it is innocent life that is sacred. They say “life is sacred”. They generally accept killing in self defense as a seperate issue when it is absolutly necessary; which dealth penalty executions are not. If you can find a Christian reference that suggests that it is only innocent life that is sacred; then I might accept your point.

1st Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Murder.

Murder is by defintion the killing of an innocent.  Whenever you hear those on the pro-life side of the abortion issue they, as almost a matter of routine, refer to the procedure as murder.  A person sitting on death row committed a capital crime and therefore are de facto guilty and no longer innocent.  There’s the distinction.  Whether I agree with that distinction is irrelevant to the discussion.

I certainly see a difference, a 3 day fertilized egg is not human in any understanding I have of the word; and morally killing a 3 day fertilized egg has a moral equivalancy of pulling out a hair follicle.

Uh-uh (yawn)

Killing a conscious human being seems to be fundamentally different.

Sure.  However, that human being committed a conscious act, a conscious act that society deemed that they forfeit their own life for.  That unborn 3-day old child is, to your example, not aware it committed any capital crime (and indeed it’s incapable of committing a capital crime), so why should that child forfeit it’s life?

Again, where does the status of “innoence” fit into the idea of sanctity of life.

Because if you kill an innocent person you are punished for it.  Be it murder, manslaughter, or by sheer negligence, you pay a price.  Why?  Because the law says that you do.

This is what Christians are talking about; sanctity of life - the value of life in of itself and not for its instrumental value.

Yeah, sure. (yawns some more)

I completly disagree with the idea of sanctity of life -

So, you just basically admitted to being a psychopath.  That’s good to know.

Kevin, I assumed when you argued with this:

And that’s what you get for assuming.  That there is a fundamental difference between an unborn child and a death row inmate was whole part and parcel my point.  Pro-lifers aren’t being hypocritical when they call for an end to abortion, yet support the death penalty.  One deals with an innocent life being terminated the other does not.

If not fine, but my argument has been against people like Bush. There are lots of people who can support capital punishment and opposed abortion for various reasons; but not those who claim their authority from Christ/Christianity.

Really?  So Christians are not allowed to have a point of view in your world.  Good thing we don’t live in your world then.

I don’t have a problem with a secular world view, indeed, for the most part I have one.  However, when a secularist/atheist (which what I am guessing you are, by your statements) says Christians do not have a right to their opinions simply because it is derived from Christ’s teachings that’s dangerous. 

You’re an idiot, Padders, and I’m done with you.

Totally unrelated to the post above, how ya doin, Sean?

Just thought I would pop in here and say there is a difference between “Christians” and “Catholics” when it comes to the sanctity of life. Typically as I understand it, Christians believe that all life is sacred until such time as an act is committed by that person that is deemed by man to qualify for death. Catholics typically believe that all life is sacred and that regardless of what a person may do, no other person has the right to decide to put them to death because that decision belongs solely to God (since He made all life sacred to begin with). I find it to be an interesting difference.

1st Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Murder.

uh

you mean “sixth” commandment....

jojo: not even in the top 5!

one more thing…

Murder is by defintion the killing of an innocent.

i know of no such definition, as it simply does not exist.  try a dictionary.

sean: apparently, not working on the sabbath takes priority over life ;)

Silly Jews.

As for the definition of murder, I’ll help him out: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Note the absence of “innocence” as a prequalifier.

Silly Jews

asd;jf

we prefer “quirky” ;)

you mean “sixth” commandment....

Uh-uh.  Whatever.

i know of no such definition, as it simply does not exist.  try a dictionary.

Oh, you have completely and throughly decimated my argument with that well thought out and concise rebuttal.

One of many definitions.  There does that make you happy?

Snark much?

Oh, you have completely and throughly decimated my argument with that well thought out and concise rebuttal.

One of many definitions.  There does that make you happy?

well, if you want to get technical, i suppose if you wish to fabricate a definition, it is “one of many definitions,” but i’m an attorney licensed to practice in 2 jurisdictions, and i have NEVER come across a definition of “murder” that includes a caveat for innocence.  all that is required (aside from homicide) is mens rea

for example, you can check the definitions of “murder” under the new york penal code.

or, as way of another example, the definition at law.com

if that’s not “well thought out and concise” enough for you, i’d be glad to give you more sources and/or case law if you would like.

in any event, it appears you inadvertently left out the source to support your “well thought out and concise” argument

Snark much?

you have an interesting way of countering corrections to your factual errors, but ok.

Hey, Kevin, y’know a professional dominatrix would probably look better than us and satisfy your masochistic urge to be treated like a worthless idiot just as easily, you don’t have to keep trolling like this.

Murder is by defintion the killing of an innocent.  Whenever you hear those on the pro-life side of the abortion issue they, as almost a matter of routine, refer to the procedure as murder

There certainly are lots of people who talk about it as murder; and thats fine. My problem is those who decide its murder because life is sacred but then don’t follow that for other situations.

ure.  However, that human being committed a conscious act, a conscious act that society deemed that they forfeit their own life for.  That unborn 3-day old child is, to your example, not aware it committed any capital crime (and indeed it’s incapable of committing a capital crime), so why should that child forfeit it’s life?

Because this has nothing what so ever to do with the sanctity of life. Do you even know what sanctity of life means?

Because if you kill an innocent person you are punished for it.  Be it murder, manslaughter, or by sheer negligence, you pay a price.  Why?  Because the law says that you do.

Maaaa .. Law != Religion. We are NOT talking about what the law is, we are talking about what a certain group of people believe the law should be based on their religion.

So, you just basically admitted to being a psychopath.  That’s good to know.

Well that proves it, you have no idea what sanctity of life means.

This is what sanctity of life means from a Christian point of view:

Link

This sums it up from another site quite nicely.

To say that life has sanctity (or is sacred) is normally to say that life per se has sanctity. For the assertion is meant to be distinguished from the view that the value of a life may depend on its quality, condition, or circumstances. To the sanctity of life proponent, lives have sanctity regardless of the degree or kind of suffering, deterioration, dependency, or development they manifest, and regardless of the imminence of death, the burden on others, and the wishes of the subject to live or die.

I completly reject that. I don’t think a brain dead person is sacred, nor do I thik a fertilized cell is. This does not make my a psychopath.

And that’s what you get for assuming.  That there is a fundamental difference between an unborn child and a death row inmate was whole part and parcel my point.  Pro-lifers aren’t being hypocritical when they call for an end to abortion, yet support the death penalty.  One deals with an innocent life being terminated the other does not.

I realise there is a difference and I can accept how people can hold both those views. You can not, however, on the basis of being simply PRO LIFE. You could on PRO INNOCENT LIFE but that is *not* what the bible suggests. In the bible LIFE is scared, not innocent life.

I don’t have a problem with a secular world view, indeed, for the most part I have one.  However, when a secularist/atheist (which what I am guessing you are, by your statements) says Christians do not have a right to their opinions simply because it is derived from Christ’s teachings that’s dangerous. 

They can have any opion they want, where did I say they can’t. That dosen’t mean I can’t say their opinions are self contradictory - which they are.

Remember, there are very few Christian churches that support the death penalty; the Catholic church being very much against. Support for the death penalty among Christians seems to be limited to right wing Americans (of course a number of African dictators still use it as well). Even Republicans seem to be reconsidering it here. Interesting that he tried to make the argument that it is “self-defense”. What nosense; that it is not possible to safely lock someone away is rediculous.

Just thought I would pop in here and say there is a difference between “Christians” and “Catholics” when it comes to the sanctity of life. Typically as I understand it, Christians believe that all life is sacred until such time as an act is committed by that person that is deemed by man to qualify for death. Catholics typically believe that all life is sacred and that regardless of what a person may do, no other person has the right to decide to put them to death because that decision belongs solely to God (since He made all life sacred to begin with). I find it to be an interesting difference.

You are completly right here; and to me this is far more of a cohrenet position. If this was Bush’s stance I could accept that, but you can’t both get all upset about Shivo (thus caring about sanctity of life, and nothing else) but then not care about executions. I just can’t see that as anything but hypocritical.

sean: apparently, not working on the sabbath takes priority over life ;)

I know you are kidding here, but this is actually an interesting subject. My girlfriend’s father is othrodox Jew (and very strict at that). He will not turn on light bulbs on the sabbath for example. If however it is essential that someone do work/travel etc for example to take someone to a hospital then they are not just allowed to, but mandated to. Not doing so would be wrong.

In the same way, a Jewish person would not deny a a transplant of say a pig heart valve if there was no other option. Life is considered far more important.

padders:  the one thing i always found interesting is the concept of a “shabbas goy” - which is basically a non-jewish person hired by a synagogue, for example, who will go into the shul and turn the lights on, and do all the things that observant jews will not do on the sabbath.  i always found that practice entirely hypocritcal. 

kind of like when i was in israel and on friday night to saturday night there was one elevator at the hotel that just stopped at every floor, so you can ride up and down, but don’t press the little button.  i understand where some may see the distinction, but i don’t buy it personally.

then again, it’s all about how you’re raised.  i was raised under the reform movement (i’m now a self-proclaimed agnostic cultural jew), and you can ask jim about all time times i broke yom kippur fast with bacon and ham pizza dipped in blue cheese dressing when i was in college ;)

Something to bring a smile to your day (well, it did to mine at least)

Jo-Jo, I tend to agree. The only way I can perhaps understand it is that Jewish people don’t try and convert people. Unlike both Christianity and Islam, there are not many (any?) people not born Jews who become one - Jews just don’t seem to attempt that.

In that sense, I guess they are happy to accept one rule for them, and another for others. Perhaps its similiar to the way Christians would borrow money from Jewish people in the olden days, but would not lend it to each other.

My girlfriend sounds similiar to you jo-jo. Her dad didn’t use to be like this until a divorce and her Mum is (midly) catholic. I can even persuade her to cook me a bacon sandwich every now and again :)

there are not many (any?) people not born Jews who become one - Jews just don’t seem to attempt that.

there’s actually a LOT of people who convert to judaism.  most often, in response to marriage to a jewish person.

on the other hand, i am not aware of any movement of jews who proselytize (not to say it’s not possible, i am just not aware!)

Just look at Madonna and Britney!

(ducking)