Schiavo gone at 9:05 a.m today

[Fergie]

I’m saddened by Terri Schiavo’s death. Certainly, every photo published of her was calculatingly sympathetic. I’m saddened by her parents loss, and struggle. I’m saddened by her husbands travails.

But this stuff about the sacredness of life has got to stop. There is NOTHING sacred about life, it is no more sacred than the process of erosion. Because that is all life is, a natural process, a result of the existence of the universe. If anything life is just the universe’s way of hastening its own entropic death, since life creates more entropy than it reduces when it uses the universe to reproduce itself.

The only thing worthy of protection is individual consciousness. This is the only truly irreproducible thing in the universe. There was no more consciousness in Terri, all that was left was a bunch of cells. Cells do react to input, that doesn’t make them conscious, otherwise slime molds would rule the earth.

There is no individual consciousness in a fertilized egg. My son only became remotely human when he was 6 months old. I am not callous, this is a child that I had to carry into neonatal intensive care. I loved my son from the first moment he was in my arms, but that doesn’t make him conscious. He had only the possibility of consciousness, even at birth. Consciousness is the realization that you exist separate from the environment. Consciousness is a bunch of carbon atoms looking at themselves, and realizing that they are a bunch of carbon atoms looking at themselves. Not something a fertilized egg is capable of. I think there should be some politically
realized agreement on the point that elective abortions should be discontinued, but that is an emotional argument.

I’m not expecting anyone to agree, just wanted to vent a bit. The old $.02 isn’t worth much if you don’t get to spend it. :laugh3:

Fred

Don't forget us crazy Christians out here...thinking life is sacred and all, and that a fetus means more than just a mass of cells that can be sucked out by an industrial vacuum.

And yes, I know non-Christians hold life to be sacred...is called a generalization.

Churchlady- Its too bad you appear to be so concerned over Ms. Schiavo and all the actions and decisions that took place. What is even worse is that it still doesnt concern you, or any one else not involved, in the least bit.

I, oon the the other hand, am very interested in seeing where future legislation goes regarding this type of situation.

By the way, the Sun Chips were awesome!

Fergie

 

[Churchlady]

Churchlady- Its too bad you appear to be so concerned over Ms. Schiavo and all the actions and decisions that took place. What is even worse is that it still doesnt concern you, or any one else not involved, in the least bit.
Fergie

Fergie, I'm no longer concerned over Ms. Schiavo. She's gone. I'm concerned over the same thing I believe those "hypocrites" you saw on TV were crying about--the soul of the society my 19 grandchildren will live their lives/raise their families in.

 

[5-90]

If it was such a "peacefull" way to die and she was "in a persistant vegetative state", "feeling no pain", then why in the Hell did they have her on a morpine drip for the last few days? Guilty conscience? Wasn't really PVS? Everyone has their own side to this, mostly they fall on the same side as their pro/anti-abortion. That's why pro-abortion should be renamed pro-innocent death. Because we all know, most pro-innocent death people are anti-death peanlty...I'll step off the :soapbox: now.

Interesting you find a correlation. Here's a summation from my own POV -

Abortion - I feel that abortion should be discouraged when considered as a form of retroactive birth control (condoms are cheaper and easier,) but should be allowable for cases of medical necessity or extreme duress (conception by rape, for an example of the latter. Ectopic pregnancy, for the former.) However, I relaise that the genie is out of the bottle and that we're stuck with it - but that doesn't mean that 1) I have to like it and 2) I have to encourage it.

"Assisted Suicide" or human euthanasia - I have no trouble with this. If you are terminal, why waste away if you can have the option to die on your own terms? I also don't have any trouble with the "living will," "do not resuscitate directive," or the order of "no heroic action." It's my life, and I'd like the option if I should find it necessary - I don't have any trouble with the actions of Dr. Kevorkian.

So, what is the problem here as I see it? I have a problem with the government getting involved. It's none of their damn business, and it wasn't their perogative to get involved. The purpose of the government is to protect the body politic at large from threats they are unable to deal with (typically foreign forces,) and it has been proven time and again that there is no duty to the public at large as individuals.

Was this murder? That's an area of medical ethics that is still being explored. Death itself has not yet been thoroughly defined and cannot be quantified beyond the total cessation of biological function. We have yet to properly define "partial" death - like brain death. When does the brain die, if the heart and lungs are still operating? If we aren't killed, when do we die? Does the brain continue to function, if it is unresponsive to stimuli and does not communication with the outside world? I think it would be instructive to interview revivied coma victims and ask them about dreams and thoughts they may have had while "out to lunch." Very instructive indeed...

So, we have the death of someone whose status was quite indeterminate - was she killed, or already dead? If she was already dead, how could she have been killed?

My problem is that she'd been kept alive through what are considered "extraordinary means" by any definition, and we really don't know if she was already dead (technically) or still alive (technically.)

This is a question that has been asked very often, and still has no answer.

I just have trouble with the idea that the government can be expected to step in on this - there's no reason for it to have gone to court, either...

Oh - do I think life is cheap? Considering I've been dead myself (for a minute and a half...) and I've had to kill people under orders, I keep a rather high value on human life...

5-90

 

[TRNDRVR]

 

[Urban Redneck]

...My problem is that she'd been kept alive through what are considered "extraordinary means"...

You had me until here. I've worked in skilled care nursing homes, have seen stroke patients on g-tubes. Some have been taught to swallow and go on to have the tube removed, others...well, you know the drill. I don't see a g-tube as an extraordinary measure. I just thought it was pretty crappy the way they let her die. Death by starvation and dehydration is a pretty bad way to go. It isn't painless or euphoric, like they were trying to say on the news. Like it has been said, we don't know all the aspects of the case, we never will know all the aspects of the case, but it was the lastest hotness that the media used to get people to draw up sides against one another...again.

 

[Eagle]

This might be time to interject a comment or three to point out the theological difference under which many of us are operating.

Regarding "Christian" versus Christian versus non-Christian is, I believe, not pertinent. All major and most minor religions value human life. What is at issue, both in the abortion debates and in the right-to-die debates, is what constitutes "life."

How many of those who feel Terri should not have been allowed to dir / killed (your choice of terminology will be related to your outlook) are strict vegetarians?

Assuming that many, if not most, are not I will point out that cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, and fish are "alive." They have blood circulation, they respirate, they react to stimuli and they feel pain. They are creations of GOD (for those who believe in God) as much as people are creations of God. Yet, unless you are a strict vegetarian you do not object to their being killed so that people can eat them. Why is this?

It's because those humans who rant about the sanctity of life are not talking about ALL life, they are talking about human life, as in consciousness/self-consciousness indicative of the presence of a divine soul. In short, the divine spark illustrated by Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

And this is where people of good intent may differ, because not all religions hold the same view regarding the soul, or the spirit. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the soul enters the body (which doesn't exist yet except as a single cell) at the moment of conception. Other religions, including some Christian denominations, believe that the soul does not enter the body until the time of birth (or even a short time after the moment of birth).

Ditto on dying. Those who consider that Terri Schiavo was "murdered" believe that her soul was still present in her body. Other equally firmly held religious beliefs hold that her soul ... that which made Terri Sciavo Terri Sciavo, and which made her a "person" as opposed to a mammalian organism ... had departed her body long before, and that what was being kept "alive" was not Terri Sciavo, but a simple bio-chemical organism.

Note that both sides, both views, are BELIEFS. Neither side knows the truth, neither side has ever been able to muster any proof for their BELIEF, or proof that the opposing BELIEF is incorrect.

There is even a name for this concept. It's called "ensoulment," and it refers to the process of the divine soul uniting with the human body.

Ultimately, it is the human soul that we sanctify as "life," not the bio-chemical organism we call the body. I don't know if is the appropriate place to be debating this, but as long as it has come up I think proponants of both sides need to recognize that there are to equally valid religious perspectives here. I hope this discussion will not devolve into those of one BELIEF calling proponants of the other BELIEF names, because doing so does not advance the debate, nor does it respect the RIGHT of each person to follow the religion and the religious teachings of his/her choice.

 

[Fergie]

Great googly moogly! Eagle, and 5-90, you have got to be some of the most long winded e-people I know!

I don't see religion as part of this either. Fred made his point, and I made my generalization.

For me, sanctity of life is selfish, and takes more for folks to admit that they are selfish, than to just say life precious. Here is what I mean....If it comes down to me or the other guy living, or my family/other guy living, then I choose me and my family. The other guy's life isnt as important. However, it is a dichotomy.....I have in my heart the thought that I would willingly give my life for someone else as a selfless act, or I would die fighting for this country....so the whole thing is complicated.

And 5-90 made a great point about the government....the different branches had no right to be involved, and should be punished/sanctioned accordingly.

As I said before, it will be VERY interesting to see what kind of new legislation and what kind of new debates stem from this controversy.

Churchlady- Don't worry about the soul of the society...after all, the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed until 1964...so what does that say of your society? Just make sure your kids are taught well enough that your grandchildren know fundamental right, from fundamental wrong.

Fergie

 

[TRNDRVR]

SHE'S DEAD!!!
It's all over now.
Unless you've worn the shoes that that family has, everybody's arguments are MOOT.

hasta hasta hasta hasta hasta hasta

 

[Lawn Cher']

I want one of these T-shirts...

 

[Churchlady]

This might be time to interject a comment or three to point out the theological difference under which many of us are operating.

Regarding "Christian" versus Christian versus non-Christian is, I believe, not pertinent. All major and most minor religions value human life.

Thank you, Eagle. I was wondering why it would be automatically assumed that anyone who thinks something smells to high heaven in this case must be a Christian--esp. when the most impassioned article I posted was written by one of America's most prominent athiests, Nat Hentoff of TVVoice and neither I nor anyone I quoted made a theologically-based argument.

I want to address some of the comments (some are not worth dignifying but Rabbi had an excellent question, several others raised legitimate points, & Eagle has obviously given the matter a lot of thought); but I'm in the middle of dealing w/clearing out the contents of a 3-story 40 room inn & will be for another 3 or 4 days.

So on the principle of "As well be hanged for a sheep as a goat", I'll get back to this ASAP. You've gotta do what you've gotta do, as they say, and if I can open one person's eyes to the simple fact about this case that's been lost in the media blitz to kill this woman, it will be time (and rep) well spent.

In the meantime may I suggest that if dissent w/the majority opinion on certain subjects is intolerable, those threads be marked w/a :gag: or :hang: ?

 

[BillR]

I want one of these T-shirts...

:laugh3: :laugh3: