Terry Shiavo and the Sanctity of Life...

[loki09789]

It isn't over cause they still have another appeal going in the Florida court and Jeb B keeps threatening to have DCF take custody of her. Honestly, won't be truly over until she dies. Just they aren't going to get a injunction to get the tube back in immediately.
I do love the irony of all the senators pandering to this group of people, making this law to move the case to federal courts and all the courts rejecting the appeals brought up.
I have to wonder all these people who say it is terrible to starve her to death, how bad is it to keep "tricking" her, pull the tube out, put it back in, pull is out, in...have to think that it could be worse than just pulling it out and letting what will happen, happen.

Word was, according to the news this morning, that the Gov himself was threatening to make her a ward of the state and put the tube back in...the news also said that the Attorney General said that the Gov would be over stepping his role and that every sheriff in the state would be required to block any such action if people attempted to act on it.... very heated at this point.

It seems that medically as well as politically, she will only be at peace when she is clinically dead. The family will have to live with the aftermath - I hope that they can reconcile in time.

 

[rutherford]

This is another excellent distraction from the continual degradation of our republic. Everyone focus on the objectification of this corpse while we strip any hope you have of maintaining any democracy in the face of corporate and moneyed interests!

To be clear, I merely meant that it's a distraction because many people feel strongly about this issue and the news media is covering it 24/7.

Whether or not the possible upcoming rules changes in the Senate would benefit from a public dialog is debatable, but not in this thread.

As for the health of the Republic and the hope of Democracy . . . I'm a bit more optomistic.

 

[shesulsa]

I have to admire the family and the husband especially for sticking it out - I imagine there are people who would just scoop Terry up and spirit her away to either keep her alive or allow her her liberation to face criminal charges later.

Dignity ... honor ... respect. Where is it?

 

[rmcrobertson]

We made TWENTY-SIX!! Workin' on twenty-seven.

Just FYI for the ignernt, there have now been: three separate guardians ad litem (her husband has NOT always had control), FOUR Supreme Court Decisions, several INDEPENDANT teams of court-appointed doctors, and two new Florida legislature decisions. They all agree, basically.

But let's keep on going, because at some point the dead may come to life.

By the way, a Deist is--by definition--someone who believes in God. As the, "Deus," root should have suggested.

 

[Brother John]

By the way, a Deist is--by definition--someone who believes in God. As the, "Deus," root should have suggested.

I know it's somewhat of a third rail in this discussion, but Robert...
isn't a Deist someone that believes in God, believes that God is transcendent but not immanent?
...examples being George Washington, Ben Franklin and many other of our founding fathers.
Thanks

Your Brother
John

 

[heretic888]

I know it's somewhat of a third rail in this discussion, but Robert...
isn't a Deist someone that believes in God, believes that God is transcendent but not immanent?
...examples being George Washington, Ben Franklin and many other of our founding fathers.

Not necessarily, no.

A deist, very simply, is simply a theist that rejects the notion of supernaturalism and "divine intervention". In other words, they think there is a Spirit or Divine of some kind that made the universe and gives it meaning --- but they don't think this Spirit is muddling in its affairs with His big stinky middle finger.

Associated beliefs with deism is also the belief in the "God of Reason", "Divine Architect", "God of Nature" or "Nature's God", the idea that science and reason and human rights and democracy are God-given gifts to human beings that we're supposed to use and exercise, and really strong belief in free will and rejection of fatalism. They also believe the markings of this "God" are revealed in the laws of nature.

The vast majority of believing and practicing theists don't really believe "God" is "immanent", either. Lip service is often played, to be sure, but actually philosophically accepting this viewpoint would also mean acknowledging that your religion really ain't that different from the likes of Hindu Vedanta or Madhyamika Buddhism.

Because, if "God" is truly and fundamentally "immanent", then there's no "heaven" or "hell". Or any "evil" at all, for that matter. The traditional delineation between "saved" and "unsaved" also becomes meaningless.

This is not a position that vast majority of practicing theists are willing to accept.

 

[loki09789]

Not necessarily, no.

A deist, very simply, is simply a theist that rejects the notion of supernaturalism and "divine intervention". In other words, they think there is a Spirit or Divine of some kind that made the universe and gives it meaning --- but they don't think this Spirit is muddling in its affairs with His big stinky middle finger.

Associated beliefs with deism is also the belief in the "God of Reason", "Divine Architect", "God of Nature" or "Nature's God", the idea that science and reason and human rights and democracy are God-given gifts to human beings that we're supposed to use and exercise, and really strong belief in free will and rejection of fatalism. They also believe the markings of this "God" are revealed in the laws of nature.

The vast majority of believing and practicing theists don't really believe "God" is "immanent", either. Lip service is often played, to be sure, but actually philosophically accepting this viewpoint would also mean acknowledging that your religion really ain't that different from the likes of Hindu Vedanta or Madhyamika Buddhism.

Because, if "God" is truly and fundamentally "immanent", then there's no "heaven" or "hell". Or any "evil" at all, for that matter. The traditional delineation between "saved" and "unsaved" also becomes meaningless.

This is not a position that vast majority of practicing theists are willing to accept.

God 'helps' those who help themselves (in other words, those who make a difference are using what God gave them). Instead of God as an active interventionist that 'makes' things happen?

 

[Brother John]

Agree & Disagree on that, Heretic...
but oh well.
Hey, for those interested, here's a decent link that defines "Deism" pretty well and gives further background.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Deism

Your Brother
John

 

[MA-Caver]

This is a sad thing. It's too bad that she can't speak for herself and have to have others presume to speak for her as far as her wants and needs.

All I know is that if it were me or if I'm ever vegged out to where I can't function on my own... for gods sake pull the damn plug. I believe there is a better life for me out beyond this one, if I canna function to keep learning like I'm supposed to as I go through this life then there's no need for me to be here.
I gotta remember to put that in a will or something to ensure I don't end up being some stupid drawn out painful supreme court case.
The family is suffering enough and I'm sure Terry is suffering enough as well.

Let it end I say. There's a better life beyond this one. All it takes is faith.

 

[oldnewbie]

I gotta remember to put that in a will or something to ensure I don't end up being some stupid drawn out painful supreme court case.
..........

I agree. This has really got me thinking about doing some serious paperwork....

 

[heretic888]

God 'helps' those who help themselves (in other words, those who make a difference are using what God gave them). Instead of God as an active interventionist that 'makes' things happen?

Well.... no offense, that sounds more like a closet Deist trying to rationalize their adherence to a Theist belief system. My wager is that a fair majority of practicing Christians in the West fall into this category.

 

[heretic888]

Agree & Disagree on that, Heretic...
but oh well.
Hey, for those interested, here's a decent link that defines "Deism" pretty well and gives further background.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Deism

Your Brother
John

If you'll note, the description I gave is pretty much in agreement with laborlawtalk.com's definition.

The underlying idea behind Deism is one believes in the "God of Reason" --- as opposed to what has been called the "God of the Church" or the "God of Faith". The idea is referred to as "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, because it was believed one came to know of this "God" by observing the workings of nature.

Most modern-day Christians in the West are what you could call quasi-Deists.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I actually had something kinda dumb in mind--if you say you're a Deist, then you're a follower of a God, and there's no way around it.

Hey, what court case number are we working on?

 

[Tgace]

Hey! Who cares? The tube is out. The court cases go on. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ruling so Terry can die now. The Parents didnt want her to die and they used the system to attempt to prevent it. Whats the problem with that? Maybe we should stop all appeals on death penalty cases while we are at it? Besides the political move of congress getting involved, everything else has gone through the proper legal channels.

 

[heretic888]

I actually had something kinda dumb in mind--if you say you're a Deist, then you're a follower of a God, and there's no way around it.

Depends on the individual, I suppose.

Strict "Deists" typically adhere to a belief in "God", but would most likely be reluctant to identify themselves with any "tradition" or "following".

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. They had no standing in law to bring these repeated cases, which is a fundamental reason they keep getting thrown out.

2. They had no evidence whatsoever for their claims, because all the physicians who actually examined this woman over a 15-year period agreed. As did the three separate guardians. And how many courts?

3. They, and their supporters, repeatedly made completely-unsubstantiated allegations about the husband.

4. The Congress butted in only for the most cyncial of reasons, as far as I can see.

5. This has been repeatedly used now to keep blatting the dangerous blat that the courts are crazy, and only fundamentalist Christians have any morals.

6. There have been far too many irrational claims and groundless claims around this case, when we've got far too many irrationalists running around already.

 

[Tgace]

Apparently they did have enough "legal standing" as each of these appeals (up to this last one) were entertained by the courts.....

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...the last four were rejected without further hearing, on the grounds that there wasn't anything new to hear. Nor has there been, it seems. Pretty much since about 1995.

 

[Tgace]

Then whats the problem? They attempted legal intervention, as was their right, were turned down but kept on trying. Either way she's going to die...you should be content.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Most likely, "my problem," lies in a) actually knowing something about the subject, and what it's like for these patients; b) my suspicion that the endless court battles, all of which turn out to have been basically frivolous, and c) trying to respond politely to comments such as, "she's going to die....you should be content."