Bush is now in charge of life and death. Fucking great.

[SplishSplash]

Put yourself in her mother's position:

Imagine going to bed every night for the next two weeks with the following thought on your mind: "My child is starving to death right now."

[Guest]

So where's that piece of paper stupid?

[mjrpes]

This is a perfect issue for Republicans, as it is nation dividing and completely takes attention away from more important governmental issues.

Like abortion, this issue gives the public the impression that Republicans are on the side of 'life', while the evil Democrats choose the side of 'death'. Republicans can then convey to the public that they will do everything they can to be on the side of 'life', with emergency cogressional sessions and the president cutting short his holiday.

This causes people to not critically look at the bigger governmental issues. For one, they now can use the Terri Schiavo case as more evidence that the Republicans can be trusted to make the 'right' decision on other things. And two, they now are less likely to support a Democratic-sided issue, even if the issue sounds good and is in their favor (increase taxes for the rich), because they could never support a party that stands for 'death'.

[Guest]

The problem isn't at all the obvious political game the Republicans are playing. The problem is the lack of education to the general population, it's like the US is completely filled with fucking morons.

[tnf]

The problem isn't at all the obvious political game the Republicans are playing. The problem is the lack of education to the general population, it's like the US is completely filled with fucking morons.

Yes, most aren't quite as educated in matters of science and philosophy as they should be. Perhaps you could tour the states and enlighten them.

[lars63]

I wondered when I would see this brought up here. I was beginning to think I was the only who thought they should let her go. What right does the government have stepping in on something as personal as this. Way out of line

*Pesky edits by Lars*

[Guest]

The problem isn't at all the obvious political game the Republicans are playing. The problem is the lack of education to the general population, it's like the US is completely filled with fucking morons.

Yes, most aren't quite as educated in matters of science and philosophy as they should be. Perhaps you could tour the states and enlighten them.

Listen I don't claim to know everything, I like to talk about subjects I may not know a lot about but wtf man, you're a teacher and should realize you learn by talking about shit rather than ignoring it. This however is a simple matter of common sense and shouldn't be such a hot issue. The only reason it is, is because of the reasons you yourself stated very nicely. Religion makes people stupid.

If you're naive enough to buy into that bullshit it just makes you more gullible to eat up whatever else bullshit they throw at you.

[Hannibal]

People can differ on this...even rationally...but the US congress getting involved in this particular case is a MASSIVE FUCKING JOKE.

[tnf]

The problem isn't at all the obvious political game the Republicans are playing. The problem is the lack of education to the general population, it's like the US is completely filled with fucking morons.

Yes, most aren't quite as educated in matters of science and philosophy as they should be. Perhaps you could tour the states and enlighten them.

Listen I don't claim to know everything, I like to talk about subjects I may not know a lot about but wtf man, you're a teacher and should realize you learn by talking about shit rather than ignoring it. This however is a simple matter of common sense and shouldn't be such a hot issue. The only reason it is, is because of the reasons you yourself stated very nicely. Religion makes people stupid.

If you're naive enough to buy into that bullshit it just makes you more gullible to eat up whatever else bullshit they throw at you.

I don't buy into the bullshit. Not at all. I was just being sarcastic in response to your "completley full of morons" comment in regards to the US. There are a lot, no doubt, at least 51% as evidenced last November, but we aren't completely full of them.

Religion itself doesn't make people stupid, btw, anymore than nuclear technology makes people do evil things and kill 100,000s of people. Based on my own observations as an educator, people seem to have a narrow window during their development where they will either be 'programmed' to think freely, with or without religion. Before I go any further, let me say that the previous statement and following arguments are simplifications, but they will suffice for the point I want to make. Some people are taught that you get answers simply by looking to the Bible, and no further. Hell, there have been religious nuts (and even some more mainstream hardcore Christians) who have recommended people read NOTHING but the Bible. I would say we are seeing a growing number of these types as of late, or at least they are being given a greater voice in light of the current political climate in this country. Then you have the ones who have been taught to use their own intellect AND the Bible (or any other religious texts) for answers - if I am being honest, I fall into this category. Someone like C.S. Lewis would epitomize this (even though he became a Christian later in life, after spending years as a professed atheist.) These types will look to the Bible for spiritual meditation, perspective on broader issues, and probably some redemptive message that gives some deeper meaning to life apart from the mere physical nature of it. They realize, no matter how strong their faith is, that it is just that - faith. Then you have the atheists and the agnostics...who appeal to logic and our own emprical experiences for everything from the meaning of life (in the case of the atheist, there would be none, save for passing your genes on to further generations) to science.
If you read John F. Haughts work (things like "Deeper than Darwin"), he does a very nice job of showing how religion and evolutionary science can be easily reconciled. But even more interestingly, he argues that strict naturalists inhabit the same philosophical "flatland" that those aforementioned hardcore Bible thumpers who take a literal interpretation of the Bible to find answers to everything.

The common thread in both of those extremes, IMHO, is an underlying insecurity that there are some questions that cannot be neatly answered by the unchangeable epistemological framework they rely on (these being either a completely Bible-centered one or a completely physical [natural] one.)
The thumpers want to be able to find answers to EVERYTHING in one place - the Bible. Empirical observations, scientific data, history, etc., will all be bent and twisted by them such that they appear to be answerable in this way. Alternate theories are, at best, wrong, and at worst, the work of Satan himself (most of these types blame the theory of evolution for their perceived 'decay' of society, as it apparently places us on the same level as the lower animals...)
The naturalists want a world where the answers to EVERYTHING can be found by a thorough study of nature and natural processes. Things that are not yet answerable will eventually be. Emotions, etc., are all simply manifestations of purely physical processes, etc., etc. Ideas involving spirituality and the possible existence of a God (not just the Christian one) are simply the result of brainwashing. Religion is, at best, 'opiates for the masses' (Marx), and at worst, an eternal enemy of intellectual progress that stifles progress on a number of fronts, as well as a devious form of mind-control perpetuated on the masses (with the followers generally being perceived like those thumpers I just mentioned.)
Both extremes, IMHO, have philosphical and logical flaws, and, again, these flaws are better explained in the works of writers like C.S. Lewis (read "Mere Christianity") or John F. Haught (read "Answers to 101 Questions on God and Evolution" or "Deeper than Darwin.)

So, to sum up my response to you, Kracus, I agree wholeheartedly that you learn by discussion, not by ignoring. Also, I agree that many people use religion as an excuse to avoid taking part in discussions about issues that are difficult to answer with their simplified worldviews (like I described above.) But there are a large number of brilliant philosophers and scientists who are very comfortable in their faith, yet have no problem taking a common sense approach to many of these 'hot-button' issues.

[Geebs]

The idea of combining two flawed philosophies to make a better philosophy is a bit shaky, don't you think?

[Geebs]

So where's that piece of paper stupid?

Compared to the legal costs, the cost of keeping her alive's nothing.

[tnf]

The idea of combining two flawed philosophies to make a better philosophy is a bit shaky, don't you think?

There will be flaws with pretty much any philosophy. But it is a bit more than simply 'combining' the two extreme philosophies...

[RiffRaff]

FFS.. Bush has nothing to do with the legislation concerning the Schiavo case at this point. If people will take time to learn about our government, the bills are in the House and Senate. Once (if) they are passed, then they are sent to G.B. to be signed or vetoed. At this point he is signing off on what the MAJORITY of the House and Sentate passed. The bills are asking for Federal Court review of the case, something her parents haven't had an opportunity to see. They have asked for Supreme Court Review but have been denied. These bills would force this case and others like it to be reviewd by the Federal Courts at some level. Even condemned prisoners are allowed Federal review of their cases.

Now with that I believe she should be allowed to die although I think some form of euthanasia would be preferable to the death she will suffer this route. IMO her cognitive level is so low she probably can't even understand her situation or comprehend reality. What the parents want is more time to see if Terry can be treated with newer technology and I'm sure they personally wish to keep her alive as long as possible. It probably won't help but the husband hasn't allowed any formal level of treatment for her. It's odd that he hasn't been wanting to see if she can be rehabilitated at all.

What makes no sense is when Libs say it's ok to suck an innocent baby, even in late term sometimes and mainly for birth control, but don't want to execute heinous killers. :icon27: Personally I'll side on the side of the innocent over the guilty who had their chance. And I do believe abortions are ok if the mothers health is at risk, I just don't think aborthions should be a widely used form of birth control like it is now.

If people are so pro-life for killers why are they pro death in other situations? Seems contradictory.

[Freakaloin]

FFS.. Bush has nothing to do with the legislation concerning the Schiavo case at this point. If people will take time to learn about our government, the bills are in the House and Senate. Once (if) they are passed, then they are sent to G.B. to be signed or vetoed. At this point he is signing off on what the MAJORITY of the House and Sentate passed. The bills are asking for Federal Court review of the case, something her parents haven't had an opportunity to see. They have asked for Supreme Court Review but have been denied. These bills would force this case and others like it to be reviewd by the Federal Courts at some level. Even condemned prisoners are allowed Federal review of their cases.

Now with that I believe she should be allowed to die although I think some form of euthanasia would be preferable to the death she will suffer this route. IMO her cognitive level is so low she probably can't even understand her situation or comprehend reality. What the parents want is more time to see if Terry can be treated with newer technology and I'm sure they personally wish to keep her alive as long as possible. It probably won't help but the husband hasn't allowed any formal level of treatment for her. It's odd that he hasn't been wanting to see if she can be rehabilitated at all.

What makes no sense is when Libs say it's ok to suck an innocent baby, even in late term sometimes and mainly for birth control, but don't want to execute heinous killers. :icon27: Personally I'll side on the side of the innocent over the guilty who had their chance. And I do believe abortions are ok if the mothers health is at risk, I just don't think aborthions should be a widely used form of birth control like it is now.

If people are so pro-life for killers why are they pro death in other situations? Seems contradictory.

shut it jackass...

[Massive Quasars]

directed @ tnf

Strict naturalism is not an extreme. Only if by strict, you mean to actively refute that which they cannot test, verify, falsify. Such as actively refuting the existance of god, the supernatural soul, and other things supposedly outside the realm of the natural world. In such cases they can only assert possible superfluousness, or in the case of God, that he remains an unnecessary hypothesis not required to exist as far as we know by the natural world. That's far from a refutation of God's existance, or even a valid assessment of the likelyhood of his existance. So therefore a scientific position on God's existance would remain agnostic, as science remains agnostic to all hypotheses until evidence is brought forth to refute or bolster the claims made. Where supernatural beliefs make claims upon the natural world, they can be tested somewhat by science.

I'm simplifying the issue, God and gods are many things to many people. The spectrum can run from a deistic god to a god of major religions.

[tnf]

directed @ tnf

Strict naturalism is not an extreme. Only if by strict, you mean to actively refute that which they cannot test, verify, falsify. Such as actively refuting the existance of god, the supernatural soul, and other things supposedly outside the realm of the natural world. In such cases they can only assert possible superfluousness, or in the case of God, that he remains an unnecessary hypothesis not required to exist as far as we know by the natural world. That's far from a refutation of God's existance, or even a valid assessment of the likelyhood of his existance. So therefore a scientific position on God's existance would remain agnostic, as science remains agnostic to all hypotheses until evidence is brought forth to refute or bolster the claims made. Where supernatural beliefs make claims upon the natural world, they can be tested somewhat by science.

I'm simplifying the issue, God and gods are many things to many people. The spectrum can run from a deistic god to a god of major religions.

I agree with you. I was also simplifying...perhaps calling it an 'extreme' was not accurate...I was spewing a stream of consciousness and not really taking the time to put into words exactly what I was trying to say. These are not issues that are easily put into words, as, like you said, there is a spectrum of opinions and beliefs....

[tnf]

FFS.. Bush has nothing to do with the legislation concerning the Schiavo case at this point. If people will take time to learn about our government, the bills are in the House and Senate. Once (if) they are passed, then they are sent to G.B. to be signed or vetoed. At this point he is signing off on what the MAJORITY of the House and Sentate passed. The bills are asking for Federal Court review of the case, something her parents haven't had an opportunity to see. They have asked for Supreme Court Review but have been denied. These bills would force this case and others like it to be reviewd by the Federal Courts at some level. Even condemned prisoners are allowed Federal review of their cases.

Now with that I believe she should be allowed to die although I think some form of euthanasia would be preferable to the death she will suffer this route. IMO her cognitive level is so low she probably can't even understand her situation or comprehend reality. What the parents want is more time to see if Terry can be treated with newer technology and I'm sure they personally wish to keep her alive as long as possible. It probably won't help but the husband hasn't allowed any formal level of treatment for her. It's odd that he hasn't been wanting to see if she can be rehabilitated at all.

What makes no sense is when Libs say it's ok to suck an innocent baby, even in late term sometimes and mainly for birth control, but don't want to execute heinous killers. :icon27: Personally I'll side on the side of the innocent over the guilty who had their chance. And I do believe abortions are ok if the mothers health is at risk, I just don't think aborthions should be a widely used form of birth control like it is now.

If people are so pro-life for killers why are they pro death in other situations? Seems contradictory.

I'm a liberal, and not for late-term abortion. You won't find a lot of us who are (I'm sure there are some). Even fewer who are in favor of late-term abortions as a means of birth control. I'm not for abortion at all, TBH, but I think it skews the issue to say "pro-death" in many cases. In fact, many people simply want doctors to have the right to make medical decisions in the extreme cases where an abortion might be required to save the life of the mother. And I believe there is a lot of angst towards the administration regarding this issue because the laws being looked at are moving towards preventing docs from having that ability.
It was like Bush asking Kerry if he was for or against abortion as a yes or no question...and Kerry saying he was for doc's having the right to make that decision, which was not given in the bill he did not vote for (the bill about partial birth abortions.) But Bush didn't want to hear WHY he didn't vote for it. He is a binary president - Yes or No. Good or Bad. Us or Them. But those issues are not always binary in their possible solutions. Kerry could have responded to Bush "Yes or No, are you for or against war?" Then followed up with how he must be for it, because he authorized it..

These are all grey areas, all very difficult to really legislate.

[megami]

This reminds me of a BBC article I read a few weeks ago about a college aimed at far-right homeschooled Christian children, available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/c ... 311709.stm

One choice tidbit:

In fact all students have to sign a statement before they arrive, confirming, among other things, that they have a literal belief in the teachings of the Bible.

[feedback]

She doesn't have a life, so stop artificially supporting her. Half the world doesn't have a life either, kill them too. The veggie's husband knows what's best for her, and if the family doesn't want him to perform that part of his husbandly duties, then he should be allowed hospital visits to viciously fuck her vegitative holes so he can at least get something out of the marrige.

[Massive Quasars]

This reminds me of a BBC article I read a few weeks ago about a college aimed at far-right homeschooled Christian children, available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/c ... 311709.stm

One choice tidbit:

In fact all students have to sign a statement before they arrive, confirming, among other things, that they have a literal belief in the teachings of the Bible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/c ... 313107.stm

...
A literal belief in the Bible is not a bad thing, because the Bible has not been shown to have any error or fault.

Evolution is what worries me. Nobody who looks at the true evidence with an open mind can honestly believe that the earth is millions of years old, and that man and monkey are kin.

Man was made in the image of God. Look at the accomplishments and advances made by primates and compare them with human accomplishments. Pretty different, aren't they?

Which explains the reason for this better, creation or evolution? You decide.
Rick McDonnell, Illinois, United States
...

:icon32:

[mjrpes]

Which explains the reason for this better, creation or evolution? You decide.

What a crappy rhetorical question.

[MKJ]

yknow, the decision of letting someone live or die in a situation like this is ofcourse debatable.

what bothers me is that Bush seems to sign and refuses to sign 'revolutionary' laws without giving it much thought, like he's choosing between coke or pepsi :icon33:

[Hannibal]

directed @ tnf

Strict naturalism is not an extreme.

Sure it is...though I guess it would depend how strict your strictness is and what is precisely meant by 'naturalism'.

[Massive Quasars]

directed @ tnf

Strict naturalism is not an extreme.

Sure it is...though I guess it would depend how strict your strictness is and what is precisely meant by 'naturalism'.

How so?

Me:

Only if by strict, you mean to actively refute that which they cannot test, verify, falsify. Such as actively refuting the existance of god, the supernatural soul, and other things supposedly outside the realm of the natural world.

If strict naturalism means, in part, what I described above. I would consider it extreme.

[Massive Quasars]

I'm not sure it's worth arguing over semantics in this case. Strict naturalism may be extreme, but both "strict naturalism" and "extreme" are vague descriptions of a view or position. The label of "extreme" in this context may or may not describe the possible irrational refutation of positions, beliefs, outside that of strict naturalism.