With Terri Schiavo's death being the focus of the prolife community, the passage of a cloning bill in Massachusetts' Senate has gotten little attention.
Boston.com has a story that illuminates the kind of outlandish rhetoric and psuedo-science that is being used to help pass this bill.
Some excerpts of the article:
Researchers are already conducting stem cell work in Massachusetts, but they fear that an ambiguous state law could be used to block their plans to begin cloning human cells to make embryonic stem cells.
Are they hoping to clone human cells or human beings? Since when do embryonic stem cells come from human "cells?" Have we discovered a new way to get embryonic stem cells without killing an embryo? Nope. We're just so dishonest that we can't admit that we're actually in favor of cloning human beings for the sole purpose of experimenting on cloned human embryos.
Proponents of the bill say that Romney is muddying the issue when he says therapeutic cloning is the creation of human life. The process involves taking the nucleus of a cell such as a skin, heart, or nerve cell and implanting it in a human egg cell that has had its nucleus removed.......Because the egg is never fertilized, supporters argue, scientists are not creating a human life.
So Dolly the sheep wasn't a "sheep life" because the sheep egg was never fertilized? All those other cloned animals like cows and cats are "cow life" or "cat life" because the egg wasn't fertilized with sperm? The fact that people actually fall for this baloney astounds me.
Some lawmakers are opposed to any kind of embryonic stem cell research, believing as the Catholic Church and other antiabortion groups do that an embryo is a human being, whether it is left over from in vitro fertilization or produced by therapeutic cloning.
That's right Bostonians. Only Catholics and anti-abortion groups believe that an embryo is a human being. It's not like it is an established scientific fact.
More scientific disinformation from the Washington Post:
Embryonic stem cells are widely believed to be the most versatile and therefore valuable for research purposes, but they are also the most controversial because extracting them destroys the embryo. Opponents, including some social and religious conservatives, also say the research could lead to the cloning of humans.
Could lead to the cloning of humans? That's what this bill expressly allows!
Backers of the bill said it includes many safeguards against abuse. It establishes penalties of as many as 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for scientists engaging in human reproductive cloning -- the creation of babies through cloning.
"Reproductive" cloning doesn't create anything. It's merely implanting the already created cloned embryos.
Another quote from a Yahoo article:
"That Gov. Romney would actually lock up those scientists whose life's work is to cure diabetes or Parkinson's disease is amazing," said Sen. Cynthia Creem, a Democrat.
Romney is unfortunately in favor of killing embryos from fertility clinics for research but is trying to stop his state from legalizing human cloning. The biotech companies aren't buying though. They want the whole pie.
It's "amazing" that Governor Romney is against human cloning? He must be insane. That loon. How dare he stop someone life's work (cloning I presume) when that life's work hasn't even begun. What has our country come to if a state's governor can be derided for not wanting to legalize human cloning in his state?
Thursday, March 31, 2005
How Will Terri Schiavo be Remembered?
How will the woman whose brain was severely damaged in 1990 be remembered in a year, 5 years, and 10 years from now? Will she be remembered as a woman who struggled to live for more than 300 hours without food and water? Or as an organism whose "real life" was already gone? Will she be remembered as the woman whose tragic death convinced large portions of America to get some form of advanced directive? Or as a blimp on the radar screen of those that think they could never end up in a condition similar to Terri's? Will she be remembered by those who took no time to learn the facts of the case as a brain dead vegetable who was thankfully allowed to die? Or will people investigate and learn how the mainstream media was hardly forthcoming with numerous findings and plainly dishonest with others? Will she be remembered as the woman whose case awakened America to the inordinate amount of power that is given to men and women in robes? Or will our country continue to allow the bad rulings to allow innocent women to starve for almost 2 weeks?
Will she be remembered as a living human being whose life was tragically taken from her by the faulty rulings of a judge based on the hearsay testimony of an unfaithful husband or as a thing, a broken music box as described by Anna Quindlen, that was no longer valuable because it lacked its former ability or dignity?
What will her autopsy reveal? Abuse? Neglect? Only the best medical care? That her brain was the consistency of "Jell-o" as columnist Ellen Goodman described it? Or just having severe atrophy similar to a "75 year old female who was somewhat senile but fully functional" asdescribed by the medical blog CodeBlueBlog?
And these are not all questions of the "we'll wait and see" variety. Many of them are questions of how well we can educate the public about Terri and her tragic death. The way in which many of these questions will be answered reflects on how persistent and strong our voices can be. Will we tell our friends and family the truth of Terri's death? Our co-workers and acquaintaces? Or will we let the Anna Quindlens and Ellen Goodmans of this world have the upper hand? We all play a role in deciding how Terri will be remembered and don't you forget it.
Will she be remembered as a living human being whose life was tragically taken from her by the faulty rulings of a judge based on the hearsay testimony of an unfaithful husband or as a thing, a broken music box as described by Anna Quindlen, that was no longer valuable because it lacked its former ability or dignity?
What will her autopsy reveal? Abuse? Neglect? Only the best medical care? That her brain was the consistency of "Jell-o" as columnist Ellen Goodman described it? Or just having severe atrophy similar to a "75 year old female who was somewhat senile but fully functional" asdescribed by the medical blog CodeBlueBlog?
And these are not all questions of the "we'll wait and see" variety. Many of them are questions of how well we can educate the public about Terri and her tragic death. The way in which many of these questions will be answered reflects on how persistent and strong our voices can be. Will we tell our friends and family the truth of Terri's death? Our co-workers and acquaintaces? Or will we let the Anna Quindlens and Ellen Goodmans of this world have the upper hand? We all play a role in deciding how Terri will be remembered and don't you forget it.
Terri has died
Kathyrn Jean Lopez of The Corner is reporting that Terri Schiavo has passed away this morning.
UPDATE: The brief Yahoo story is here.
UPDATE #2: From the Boston Herald/AP:
Brother Paul O'Donnell, an adviser to Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, said the parents and their two other children ``were denied access at the moment of her death. They've been requesting, as you know, for the last hour to try to be in there and they were denied access by Michael Schiavo. They are in there now, praying at her bedside.''
UPDATE: The brief Yahoo story is here.
UPDATE #2: From the Boston Herald/AP:
Brother Paul O'Donnell, an adviser to Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, said the parents and their two other children ``were denied access at the moment of her death. They've been requesting, as you know, for the last hour to try to be in there and they were denied access by Michael Schiavo. They are in there now, praying at her bedside.''
Krugman Taken Down
Numerous excellent bloggers have spoken their piece regarding this column by Paul Krugman of the New York Times where he says that danger religious extremists (Christians who vote for Republicans) wield great political influence and that liberal politicians live in a climate of fear because a former associate of Randall Terry (a clown pumped up by the media with no political power) killed an abortionist.
From what I've seen they best of the bunch include:
John Mark Reynolds
Powerline
Kobayashi Maru
Right Wing Nut House
I find it disappointing that at least one liberal Christian blogger thinks this column was great.
From what I've seen they best of the bunch include:
John Mark Reynolds
Powerline
Kobayashi Maru
Right Wing Nut House
I find it disappointing that at least one liberal Christian blogger thinks this column was great.
Santorum Interview
Rick Santorum recently did an an interview for Christianity today where he discusses among other things same-sex marriage, abortion, poverty, and how he draws no line between his faith and his decisions as a public official.
My favorite parts below:
Q: How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
A: I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?
It's important to understand proper civil discourse, where people are invited to bring all their ideas, irrespective of their origin, to the public square to be debated and hashed out and for compromises and agreements to be made and the majority to proceed forward. That's how democracy and civil affairs are to work.
The idea that only ideas without religious overtones, or religious perceptions, are allowed in the public square—the founders would not only turn in their graves, they'd be spinning.
Q: The book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?, says that many people vote against their own economic interests when they vote for Republicans on the basis of social issues.
A: That's just the kind derogatory, elitist pablum that you get when people don't realize that there's a lot of people who don't put their treasure in this world and look for something more than just "how much more money I can make." They understand that life is more than a bank account. That's the postmodern view of the world, which is it's all about me; it's all about how much I can get now for me. There are a lot of people who worry about, not just their economic well being, but they worry about their kids, they worry about the culture their children are going to be raised in, they worry about the pervasive incivility that we see in this country. They worry about national security issues. They worry about a lot more things than just me and how much money I'm making. It's certainly important, and I would say that's one of the factors people should consider. But there are a lot of folks who have not bought into the Greenwich Village view of the world.
Thank God for Kansas.
HT: Naaman
My favorite parts below:
Q: How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
A: I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?
It's important to understand proper civil discourse, where people are invited to bring all their ideas, irrespective of their origin, to the public square to be debated and hashed out and for compromises and agreements to be made and the majority to proceed forward. That's how democracy and civil affairs are to work.
The idea that only ideas without religious overtones, or religious perceptions, are allowed in the public square—the founders would not only turn in their graves, they'd be spinning.
Q: The book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?, says that many people vote against their own economic interests when they vote for Republicans on the basis of social issues.
A: That's just the kind derogatory, elitist pablum that you get when people don't realize that there's a lot of people who don't put their treasure in this world and look for something more than just "how much more money I can make." They understand that life is more than a bank account. That's the postmodern view of the world, which is it's all about me; it's all about how much I can get now for me. There are a lot of people who worry about, not just their economic well being, but they worry about their kids, they worry about the culture their children are going to be raised in, they worry about the pervasive incivility that we see in this country. They worry about national security issues. They worry about a lot more things than just me and how much money I'm making. It's certainly important, and I would say that's one of the factors people should consider. But there are a lot of folks who have not bought into the Greenwich Village view of the world.
Thank God for Kansas.
HT: Naaman
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Preserved Fetus Stolen
The Associated Press is reporting a story that a "preserved 13-week-old fetus" was stolen by two women from an exhibit at the California Science Center.
The fetus, infused with polymers in a process called plastination to prevent decay, was part of a traveling display entitled "Body Worlds 2: The Anatomical Exhibition of Real Human Bodies."
A surveillance video showed the suspects removing the fetus from an unlocked display case on the third floor between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. Saturday during the round-the-clock closing weekend of the exhibit, police Detective Jimmy Render said Tuesday.
Angelina Whalley, director of the Institute for Plastination said, "How can somebody do this ... it's such a disrespect."
Our country is a funny place isn't it. Taking a dead yet preserved human fetus from an exhibit is a crime worthy of investigation but killing living human fetuses is not.
The fetus, infused with polymers in a process called plastination to prevent decay, was part of a traveling display entitled "Body Worlds 2: The Anatomical Exhibition of Real Human Bodies."
A surveillance video showed the suspects removing the fetus from an unlocked display case on the third floor between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. Saturday during the round-the-clock closing weekend of the exhibit, police Detective Jimmy Render said Tuesday.
Angelina Whalley, director of the Institute for Plastination said, "How can somebody do this ... it's such a disrespect."
Our country is a funny place isn't it. Taking a dead yet preserved human fetus from an exhibit is a crime worthy of investigation but killing living human fetuses is not.
Revisiting Bush's abortion increase myth
Michelle Malkin has received a response from Nicolas Kristof of the NY Times regarding his column that falsely asserted (without a source) that abortions have increased significantly under George W. Bush.
His response:
michelle,
thanks belatedly for your note about hillary and abortions. i was in zimbabwe, skulking around and pretending to be a tourist, and didn't have web access. but now i did have a chance to look at your web link, and i'm afraid i disagree.
you're right that it was stassen's work that originally pointed me to this issue and that the data cover only 16 states. but stassen has considerable credibility, since he is himself pro-life and trained in statistics, and others in the repro health field have found his work sensible. moreover, while the data are incomplete, the states represented include a range of different geographic areas and seem representative. and among those 16 states, the trend was very clear. Stassen calculates that there are 50,000 more abortions a year than if the previous trend had continued.
sorry for the delay....
allbest, nick kristof
This is atrocious. "I'll take the word of a guy who says he's prolife (even though it is doubtful that Kristof would trust people who work for prolife organizations and are actually trained in statistics) without actually looking to see if his statistics are accurate (even though typing "stassen" and "abortion" into any search engine will get you a bunch of blogs and organizations that disprove Stassen's faulty use of faulty statistics) and then I'll pass that work on as fact in my column without providing a source."
Bravo!! What journalistic integrity!
The standards Kristoff uses for purporting something as fact are lower than most of blogs I've ever read. Most blogs at least usually try to provide some source/link or reasoning and check to see if that source is credible. Kristoff just takes one guy's faulty research and displays it as fact without even mentioning Stassen's name or how he came up with these statistics.
This complete lack of analysis and sourcing doesn't belong in a middle school term paper much less the "paper of record."
His response:
michelle,
thanks belatedly for your note about hillary and abortions. i was in zimbabwe, skulking around and pretending to be a tourist, and didn't have web access. but now i did have a chance to look at your web link, and i'm afraid i disagree.
you're right that it was stassen's work that originally pointed me to this issue and that the data cover only 16 states. but stassen has considerable credibility, since he is himself pro-life and trained in statistics, and others in the repro health field have found his work sensible. moreover, while the data are incomplete, the states represented include a range of different geographic areas and seem representative. and among those 16 states, the trend was very clear. Stassen calculates that there are 50,000 more abortions a year than if the previous trend had continued.
sorry for the delay....
allbest, nick kristof
This is atrocious. "I'll take the word of a guy who says he's prolife (even though it is doubtful that Kristof would trust people who work for prolife organizations and are actually trained in statistics) without actually looking to see if his statistics are accurate (even though typing "stassen" and "abortion" into any search engine will get you a bunch of blogs and organizations that disprove Stassen's faulty use of faulty statistics) and then I'll pass that work on as fact in my column without providing a source."
Bravo!! What journalistic integrity!
The standards Kristoff uses for purporting something as fact are lower than most of blogs I've ever read. Most blogs at least usually try to provide some source/link or reasoning and check to see if that source is credible. Kristoff just takes one guy's faulty research and displays it as fact without even mentioning Stassen's name or how he came up with these statistics.
This complete lack of analysis and sourcing doesn't belong in a middle school term paper much less the "paper of record."
C and Eers
Every year on Easter Sunday and around Christmas time churches see a significant increase in attendance. Instead of being sparsely attended they become half-full, instead of being half-full they become mostly full, instead of being full they become packed to point of ushers bringing out additional seats. Many churches even have additional services just to account for the annual increase in attendance. Churches reach their full capacity with people who seem to attend church only around Christmas and on Easter Sunday or what my wife's 85 year-old grandfather calls C & Eers.
The church we attend has three services, two of which are contemporary and one which is traditional. We usually attend the middle service which is contemporary. This is a new service that the church recently started and so it probably has the least attendance (maybe 150-200 people or about ½ full). Yet on Easter Sunday, it was packed. Ushers brought out extra chairs to accommodate the people waiting in the hall looking for seats and people were asked to move to the middle of their rows to make room. The usually late arriving crowd was seated before the music started.
To me it seems peculiar to come to church just two weeks a year. As I looked around the sanctuary I couldn't spot a single C & Eer. No one stuck out like a sore thumb. They were singing, praying, and worshiping like everyone else. They were dressed in their Sunday best and so were their children. And maybe that makes it easier to come to church only two weeks a year. If you attend and seem to still have the praying, singing, and worshiping down and the sermon doesn't cover anything you haven't heard before then why should you attend regularly? You know you're saved or at least fairly certain of it anyway. You say grace at the dinner table and teach your children good moral values. You give money to charity. You have a Bible on the bookshelf and read it occasionally. You don't need to go to church every Sunday to know what's right and wrong. You're busy and have better things to do. You'd like to come more often but your spouse is never in the mood or dealing with the kids is too much trouble. You feel like you don't really fit in even though you're good at faking it. No one seems interested in getting to know you when you do attend.
I wondered about a few things after this service. Why do these people only come to church on Christmas and Easter? I'm sure there is a plethora of reasons but what are the biggest reasons? Do they attend the same church every Christmas and Easter or pick one out a week before? How much more could churches do if these people were all regular attenders? Do they ever feel like attending church more regularly? What stops them? What encourages them? Are their spiritual needs being met by coming to church twice a year? Are the spiritual needs of their children being met by attending church twice a year? Were their parents C and Eers? Or did their parents force them to come to church every Sunday against their will? Do C and Eers come to church on those dates because they know the birth and resurrection of Christ are important dates or because it's tradition or customary? How do churches best reach out to people who only attend church on Easter and Christmas?
The church we attend has three services, two of which are contemporary and one which is traditional. We usually attend the middle service which is contemporary. This is a new service that the church recently started and so it probably has the least attendance (maybe 150-200 people or about ½ full). Yet on Easter Sunday, it was packed. Ushers brought out extra chairs to accommodate the people waiting in the hall looking for seats and people were asked to move to the middle of their rows to make room. The usually late arriving crowd was seated before the music started.
To me it seems peculiar to come to church just two weeks a year. As I looked around the sanctuary I couldn't spot a single C & Eer. No one stuck out like a sore thumb. They were singing, praying, and worshiping like everyone else. They were dressed in their Sunday best and so were their children. And maybe that makes it easier to come to church only two weeks a year. If you attend and seem to still have the praying, singing, and worshiping down and the sermon doesn't cover anything you haven't heard before then why should you attend regularly? You know you're saved or at least fairly certain of it anyway. You say grace at the dinner table and teach your children good moral values. You give money to charity. You have a Bible on the bookshelf and read it occasionally. You don't need to go to church every Sunday to know what's right and wrong. You're busy and have better things to do. You'd like to come more often but your spouse is never in the mood or dealing with the kids is too much trouble. You feel like you don't really fit in even though you're good at faking it. No one seems interested in getting to know you when you do attend.
I wondered about a few things after this service. Why do these people only come to church on Christmas and Easter? I'm sure there is a plethora of reasons but what are the biggest reasons? Do they attend the same church every Christmas and Easter or pick one out a week before? How much more could churches do if these people were all regular attenders? Do they ever feel like attending church more regularly? What stops them? What encourages them? Are their spiritual needs being met by coming to church twice a year? Are the spiritual needs of their children being met by attending church twice a year? Were their parents C and Eers? Or did their parents force them to come to church every Sunday against their will? Do C and Eers come to church on those dates because they know the birth and resurrection of Christ are important dates or because it's tradition or customary? How do churches best reach out to people who only attend church on Easter and Christmas?
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Links and more on Terri
Terri Schiavo has now been without food for more than 10 days. When I think about this I wonder if I'd be able to survive that long with no nutrition or hydration. I have not felt the pains of hunger or thirst very often and when I have it was over a very small period of time.
Some people say that we humans are frail and in a way we are. Our skin can be broken fairly easily. We are often physically harmed by something as innocent as a piece of paper. We don't have a hard shell or dense fur to protect us from the outside world. Our bones can be fractured without too much effort or force.
Yet in another way the life of a human being is far from frail or fragile. The life of a human being who isn't dying is difficult to take without the use of force. The body of a human being who isn't dying naturally works to sustain itself for long periods of time when no sustenance has been provided. Terri Schiavo could be killed in a second with a gun or with a knife but killing her by removing food and water is a long journey. She has resolutely held onto life for a week and a half without food or water. How can anyone say that we are "letting her die" when she is alive more than 10 days after being denied food and water?
Myopic Zeal has a listing of the cast of characters involved in Terri Schiavo's case and treatment.
Here's an interesting article in Touchstone Mag by William Luse that compares Terri Schiavo's condition with the condition of Christopher Reeve before his death.
Some excerpts:
And so I'd like to return to the case of Christopher Reeve, which I find instructive, for I never saw any pained editorials in the press or heard any incredulous chorus of experts bemoaning the fact that he preferred living to dying.
In short, is Terri's inability to swallow the same thing as Reeve's inability to breathe? How does each situation differ from, or resemble, the other? The most obvious difference is that one is conscious, the other barely so (or so we are told). The most obvious similarity? One is kept alive by a tube that forced air into his lungs, the other by a tube that forces food into her digestive system. Are they in fact the same?
On the assumption that we already know the other side's answer, let me give mine: No, they are not. One is the loss of an involuntary function, the other of a voluntary function. One is thus a fatal condition, the other is not. Under normal circumstances, I cannot breathe for you, but I can feed you. Some will not admit this difference, but I don't see how it can be other than of the essence. If it is not, the argument on Terri's behalf is lost, and we must delay Michael's request no longer. Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube is no different from a spoon held to her lips, as to a baby's, and that's why I believe that the possibility that she might be taught to take food from a spoon is a matter of no relevance.
and
But I maintain that the better parallel is not between the two forms of technology, but between Reeve's nervous system and Terri's digestive system, the latter of which works while the former does not. By a fatal condition I mean one that will not suffer amelioration by treatment. Such a circumstance does not describe Terri's case. The tube indeed treats her condition quite well. Allowed food and hydration, she lives.
But, goes the counter-argument, allowed air, so does Reeve. The ventilator treats his condition quite well. Allowed air, he lives. His tube and hers both force an element necessary to survival into the patient's system. The accurate parallel is not that between his nervous system and her digestive system, but between the nervous systems of both, for it was damage to her nervous system that caused the inability to swallow.
And so far, I would say, so good, with one crucial difference: Take away Reeve's tube and he will at once stop breathing; take away Terri's, and her digestive system will not at once shut down. It will continue working until all the food is gone. In fact, it will begin to digest her own tissues until starvation is complete. Reeve's lungs would have no such residual activity.
Some people say that we humans are frail and in a way we are. Our skin can be broken fairly easily. We are often physically harmed by something as innocent as a piece of paper. We don't have a hard shell or dense fur to protect us from the outside world. Our bones can be fractured without too much effort or force.
Yet in another way the life of a human being is far from frail or fragile. The life of a human being who isn't dying is difficult to take without the use of force. The body of a human being who isn't dying naturally works to sustain itself for long periods of time when no sustenance has been provided. Terri Schiavo could be killed in a second with a gun or with a knife but killing her by removing food and water is a long journey. She has resolutely held onto life for a week and a half without food or water. How can anyone say that we are "letting her die" when she is alive more than 10 days after being denied food and water?
Myopic Zeal has a listing of the cast of characters involved in Terri Schiavo's case and treatment.
Here's an interesting article in Touchstone Mag by William Luse that compares Terri Schiavo's condition with the condition of Christopher Reeve before his death.
Some excerpts:
And so I'd like to return to the case of Christopher Reeve, which I find instructive, for I never saw any pained editorials in the press or heard any incredulous chorus of experts bemoaning the fact that he preferred living to dying.
In short, is Terri's inability to swallow the same thing as Reeve's inability to breathe? How does each situation differ from, or resemble, the other? The most obvious difference is that one is conscious, the other barely so (or so we are told). The most obvious similarity? One is kept alive by a tube that forced air into his lungs, the other by a tube that forces food into her digestive system. Are they in fact the same?
On the assumption that we already know the other side's answer, let me give mine: No, they are not. One is the loss of an involuntary function, the other of a voluntary function. One is thus a fatal condition, the other is not. Under normal circumstances, I cannot breathe for you, but I can feed you. Some will not admit this difference, but I don't see how it can be other than of the essence. If it is not, the argument on Terri's behalf is lost, and we must delay Michael's request no longer. Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube is no different from a spoon held to her lips, as to a baby's, and that's why I believe that the possibility that she might be taught to take food from a spoon is a matter of no relevance.
and
But I maintain that the better parallel is not between the two forms of technology, but between Reeve's nervous system and Terri's digestive system, the latter of which works while the former does not. By a fatal condition I mean one that will not suffer amelioration by treatment. Such a circumstance does not describe Terri's case. The tube indeed treats her condition quite well. Allowed food and hydration, she lives.
But, goes the counter-argument, allowed air, so does Reeve. The ventilator treats his condition quite well. Allowed air, he lives. His tube and hers both force an element necessary to survival into the patient's system. The accurate parallel is not that between his nervous system and her digestive system, but between the nervous systems of both, for it was damage to her nervous system that caused the inability to swallow.
And so far, I would say, so good, with one crucial difference: Take away Reeve's tube and he will at once stop breathing; take away Terri's, and her digestive system will not at once shut down. It will continue working until all the food is gone. In fact, it will begin to digest her own tissues until starvation is complete. Reeve's lungs would have no such residual activity.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Beckwith on Boonin
Francis Beckwith of Right Reason has linked to a paper he wrote for the American Philosophical Association Pacific Division discussing one part of David Boonin's "In Defense of Abortion.
Worth the read.
Also, check out his baby on the porch example.
Worth the read.
Also, check out his baby on the porch example.
Wesley Smith debating for Terri
Wesley Smith has posted an excerpt of a debate he had with bioethicist Bill Allen on Court TV.
The entire debate is here.
Wesley posts a section about "personhood" but I found this interesting:
Question from rusty: Who is currently paying for Terri's care?
Bill Allen: The Woodside Hospice is using their indigent funds for the hospice costs, and her medications and physician bills are paid by Medicaid.
Wesley Smith: What I find terribly ironic, is that in 1998, Terri had more than $700K in her trust account to pay for her care. The bulk of this money instead went to lawyer George Felos and other attorneys, to help end her life.
Bill Allen: Well, if she did not want to have the care, why should her trust fund pay it, and if she did not, it is appropriate for the fund to pay the legal costs of fighting for her rights.
Wesley Smith: Well, her parents had to take their legal fees out their own pocket, and indeed have spent most of their assets trying to save Terri's life.
Bill Allen: Well, use of the trust fund by Terri's husband is using her own funds, too.
Wesley Smith: Yea, but not his funds.
Bill Allen: But if she didn't want the care, then using her funds is OK.
Does Bill Allen not understand that Michael won that money by claiming that it would be used to care for and rehabiliate Terri? If she didn't want the care (which he would have known back then), why did Michael say the funds would be used for her care? If she didn't want the care, why did Michael sue for money to care for her?
Hat Tip: Between Two Worlds
The entire debate is here.
Wesley posts a section about "personhood" but I found this interesting:
Question from rusty: Who is currently paying for Terri's care?
Bill Allen: The Woodside Hospice is using their indigent funds for the hospice costs, and her medications and physician bills are paid by Medicaid.
Wesley Smith: What I find terribly ironic, is that in 1998, Terri had more than $700K in her trust account to pay for her care. The bulk of this money instead went to lawyer George Felos and other attorneys, to help end her life.
Bill Allen: Well, if she did not want to have the care, why should her trust fund pay it, and if she did not, it is appropriate for the fund to pay the legal costs of fighting for her rights.
Wesley Smith: Well, her parents had to take their legal fees out their own pocket, and indeed have spent most of their assets trying to save Terri's life.
Bill Allen: Well, use of the trust fund by Terri's husband is using her own funds, too.
Wesley Smith: Yea, but not his funds.
Bill Allen: But if she didn't want the care, then using her funds is OK.
Does Bill Allen not understand that Michael won that money by claiming that it would be used to care for and rehabiliate Terri? If she didn't want the care (which he would have known back then), why did Michael say the funds would be used for her care? If she didn't want the care, why did Michael sue for money to care for her?
Hat Tip: Between Two Worlds
Associated Press - Clueless as can be
The Public Theologian, a blogger named Tim Simpson who left comments here on a post of mine about Glen Stassen's faulty use of statistics was featured in an article by the Associated Press. Or at least his comments on Jollyblogger were. David Wayne who runs Jollyblogger is against the actions that are starving and dehydrating Terri Schiavo while Tim Simpson, the Public Theologian, is not.
From the AP article:
On JollyBlogger, maintained by Maryland minister David Wayne, a correspondent who calls himself ``Public Theologian'' presents a strictly pragmatic view:
``The overwhelming evidence is that she is not going to get any better. This business about her communicating verbally is bunk _ her physicians have testified repeatedly that this is not the case. If she could do this there would be no question in the matter _ the courts would simply ask her what she wanted. Her husband has the right, as next of kin, to make her health care decisions for her. Tampering with this right by conservatives will undo centuries of legal precedent by taking that out of the hands of families ...''
To the AP, someone who comments on a blog is a "correspondent." Do their editors not understand that anyone can leave a comment on most blogs? Or that commenters for the most part have no association (except possibly friendship) with the blogs they comment on?
I wonder if his mention in the AP story has boosted Tim's hits.
From the AP article:
On JollyBlogger, maintained by Maryland minister David Wayne, a correspondent who calls himself ``Public Theologian'' presents a strictly pragmatic view:
``The overwhelming evidence is that she is not going to get any better. This business about her communicating verbally is bunk _ her physicians have testified repeatedly that this is not the case. If she could do this there would be no question in the matter _ the courts would simply ask her what she wanted. Her husband has the right, as next of kin, to make her health care decisions for her. Tampering with this right by conservatives will undo centuries of legal precedent by taking that out of the hands of families ...''
To the AP, someone who comments on a blog is a "correspondent." Do their editors not understand that anyone can leave a comment on most blogs? Or that commenters for the most part have no association (except possibly friendship) with the blogs they comment on?
I wonder if his mention in the AP story has boosted Tim's hits.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Schiavo family feud
USA Today has a story on the feud between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers.
Some intersting quotes:
Some of the protesters gathered outside Woodside Hospice here have demonized Michael Schiavo, accusing him of everything from murder to adultery because he lives with a woman and has two toddlers, a daughter and a son, by her.
At least USA mentions that Michael lives with another woman and has children with her. Many stories point out that Michael is Terri's husband but forget to mention his current family situation (which I think is something that most people would deem important). But "accusing him" of adultery? That's like saying Osama Bin Laden is "accused of" planning the 9/11 terrorists attacks or that Michael Moore has "been accused" of being against the War in Iraq. How about "pointing out" instead of "accusing."
The article then goes on to discuss the differing accounts of the rift between Michael and the Schindlers. Michael says that the Schindlers wanted some of the $300,000 Michael was awarded for the "loss" of Terri. The Schindlers claim that Michael refused to use the money ($700,000) he won to rehabiliate and care Terri to rehabiliate and care for her.
The article continues with what seems to be a quote from a ruling by Judge Greer in 2000.
"On Feb. 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed," Greer wrote. "While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler."
It is clear? Two opposing testimonies and it is clear that one is true and the other is false? This strikes as odd considering that Michael never used the money he won to rehabiliate Terri. Something that should have been evident 7 years after the incident. After the money was awarded to Michael for Terri's care she was denied rehabiliative treatment, Michael put a DNR order on her chart, and didn't want her treated for an infection. It seems quite unusual when that 7 years after the disagreement that Greer could be clear that Michael was telling the truth while the Schindlers were lying, espcailly when the money Michael promised to rehabiliate Terri was never used for that and that Terri's parents were spending their own money fighting to keep Terri alive.
The more I read about Judge Greer's rulings, the more I realize how flimsy the evidence was. Read later on in the article how Greer ruled that Terri would have wished to have her feeding tube removed based on the hearsay testimony of Michael, Michael's brother, and Michael's sister-in-law vs. the hearsay testimony of Terri's mother and one of Terri's childhood friends. Terri is dying of dehydration and lack of nutrition because Judge Greer believed one story over another even though there is absolutely no conclusive evidence either way.
Another interesting quote:
Today, the money from the lawsuit settlement is almost gone, Grieco, the attorney, says. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March. The $700,000 in Terri's trust has paid for her care, lawyers, expert medical witnesses. Michael Schiavo's $300,000 share evaporated years ago, he says.
Maybe the story should mention that most of the money has gone to lawyers, specifically George Felos, who aren't Terri's lawyers but are Michael's lawyers working for Michael and on his behalf. Putting care first could lead readers to think that the largest portion has gone to caring for Terri when that is not the case.
Some intersting quotes:
Some of the protesters gathered outside Woodside Hospice here have demonized Michael Schiavo, accusing him of everything from murder to adultery because he lives with a woman and has two toddlers, a daughter and a son, by her.
At least USA mentions that Michael lives with another woman and has children with her. Many stories point out that Michael is Terri's husband but forget to mention his current family situation (which I think is something that most people would deem important). But "accusing him" of adultery? That's like saying Osama Bin Laden is "accused of" planning the 9/11 terrorists attacks or that Michael Moore has "been accused" of being against the War in Iraq. How about "pointing out" instead of "accusing."
The article then goes on to discuss the differing accounts of the rift between Michael and the Schindlers. Michael says that the Schindlers wanted some of the $300,000 Michael was awarded for the "loss" of Terri. The Schindlers claim that Michael refused to use the money ($700,000) he won to rehabiliate and care Terri to rehabiliate and care for her.
The article continues with what seems to be a quote from a ruling by Judge Greer in 2000.
"On Feb. 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed," Greer wrote. "While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler."
It is clear? Two opposing testimonies and it is clear that one is true and the other is false? This strikes as odd considering that Michael never used the money he won to rehabiliate Terri. Something that should have been evident 7 years after the incident. After the money was awarded to Michael for Terri's care she was denied rehabiliative treatment, Michael put a DNR order on her chart, and didn't want her treated for an infection. It seems quite unusual when that 7 years after the disagreement that Greer could be clear that Michael was telling the truth while the Schindlers were lying, espcailly when the money Michael promised to rehabiliate Terri was never used for that and that Terri's parents were spending their own money fighting to keep Terri alive.
The more I read about Judge Greer's rulings, the more I realize how flimsy the evidence was. Read later on in the article how Greer ruled that Terri would have wished to have her feeding tube removed based on the hearsay testimony of Michael, Michael's brother, and Michael's sister-in-law vs. the hearsay testimony of Terri's mother and one of Terri's childhood friends. Terri is dying of dehydration and lack of nutrition because Judge Greer believed one story over another even though there is absolutely no conclusive evidence either way.
Another interesting quote:
Today, the money from the lawsuit settlement is almost gone, Grieco, the attorney, says. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March. The $700,000 in Terri's trust has paid for her care, lawyers, expert medical witnesses. Michael Schiavo's $300,000 share evaporated years ago, he says.
Maybe the story should mention that most of the money has gone to lawyers, specifically George Felos, who aren't Terri's lawyers but are Michael's lawyers working for Michael and on his behalf. Putting care first could lead readers to think that the largest portion has gone to caring for Terri when that is not the case.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Klusendorf at Grand Valley
Last night I went with my wife to Grand Valley State University for a presentation by Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute.
The Grand Rapids Press write-up is here.
It strike me as odd that the article is titled, "Campus hosts abortion showdown." I know this is a headline hoping to catch a reader's eye but there was no showdown. One of the best prolife debaters in the country gave a prolife presentation for about 40 minutes and then took questions from the audience. One young woman who was pro-choice asked 2 questions both of which Scott answered quite nicely - he even made sure that she was allowed to ask the last question after time was up. The girls that were with her (who I'm guessing were also pro-choice) didn't have any questions.
Even though the woman couldn't challenge Scott's presentation of the prolife position (she asked one question about life of the mother scenarios and another on Terri Schiavo in which she falsely asserted that Terri Schiavo only had a brain stem left) by proving that the unborn aren't human beings, she still wasn't buying.
Shipman said afterward that argument did not wash with her. "You're talking about whether it's a zygote in my fallopian tube or a toddler, walking and talking. It's not a valid comparison."
I wonder if she ever said why it's not a valid comparison (maybe because to her walking and talking makes us valuable) or if she knows that zygotes aren't aborted.
Next week Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued Roe vs. Wade, will be coming to town. It's starts at 9:15 p.m. which means I probably won't get to bed in time but I don't think I'll be able to pass up an opportunity to ask questions to Sarah Weddington.
The Grand Rapids Press write-up is here.
It strike me as odd that the article is titled, "Campus hosts abortion showdown." I know this is a headline hoping to catch a reader's eye but there was no showdown. One of the best prolife debaters in the country gave a prolife presentation for about 40 minutes and then took questions from the audience. One young woman who was pro-choice asked 2 questions both of which Scott answered quite nicely - he even made sure that she was allowed to ask the last question after time was up. The girls that were with her (who I'm guessing were also pro-choice) didn't have any questions.
Even though the woman couldn't challenge Scott's presentation of the prolife position (she asked one question about life of the mother scenarios and another on Terri Schiavo in which she falsely asserted that Terri Schiavo only had a brain stem left) by proving that the unborn aren't human beings, she still wasn't buying.
Shipman said afterward that argument did not wash with her. "You're talking about whether it's a zygote in my fallopian tube or a toddler, walking and talking. It's not a valid comparison."
I wonder if she ever said why it's not a valid comparison (maybe because to her walking and talking makes us valuable) or if she knows that zygotes aren't aborted.
Next week Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued Roe vs. Wade, will be coming to town. It's starts at 9:15 p.m. which means I probably won't get to bed in time but I don't think I'll be able to pass up an opportunity to ask questions to Sarah Weddington.
Columnists for Starvation
Richard Cohen's latest column is the kind of writing/thinking that makes you sit back and realize how just how depraved people can be. Terri Schiavo who is a living human being has not had nutrition or hydration for almost six days yet to Cohen the Democrats are the real losers.
In his column, Cohen bashes the Democrats for a lack of leadership regarding Terri Schiavo. And not the lack of leadership working to save the life of a starving woman (who has no written directives and may or may not be in a PVS) but the lack of leadership working to make sure that Terri continues to starve.
"But for me the real loser was the Democratic Party."
A woman is starving to death and the real loser is the Democratic Party because they didn't stand up and back this forced starvation?
Two parents are watching their daughter die and can do nothing but appeal case after case and the real loser is the Democratic Party?
Large portions of our country look the other way as a woman who isn't in a coma, who isn't brain dead and isn't on life support is denied food and the real loser is the Democratic Party?
"Still, it seemed that the party's highest principle was to have almost none at all."
What would Mr. Cohen have their highest principle be? Starvation for all? Death is best? No MRIs or PETs for those supposedly in a PVS state? The adulterous husband is always right?
Ellen Goodman's recent column also leaves me scratching my head.
THIS IS the phrase running through my head whenever I think of Terri Schiavo: May she rest in peace. When will this become a benediction rather than a question?
Kind of reminds me of Michael's quote, "When is that ***** gonna die?"
My guess is that Terri was resting, probably fairly peacefully, until her only feeding tube was removed 6 days ago.
And don't forget the infamous ''talking points" memo ABC News found reminding Republican senators that ''the prolife base will be excited" and it's a ''great political issue."
Are columnists really this slow? Numerous bloggers, especially Powerline were all over these fishy memos yesterday.
Her cerebral cortex, the part of our anatomy that controls our ability to think and feel, is the consistency of Jell-O.
And you know this how? Did Goodman pick up a medical degree recently? Has she examined Terri's brain?
More to the point, bioethicists will also tell you that this case is about the right to refuse medical treatment -- chemotherapy, blood transfusions, or, yes, food and water. Can we make that decision, and if not, who can? Decades of hard cases have established our right to say no, and state legislation has determined that our spouses, adult children, parents -- in that order -- can act for us. In Florida, the courts determined that Michael Schiavo knew what his wife wanted and spoke for her.
Should depressed teenagers be allowed to starve themselves to death because food and water have unfortunately been defined as "medical treatment?" If they can't make that decision, then who can? Please not Big Brother.
Did Terri ever get the right to say no? Has Goodman discovered Terri's written directives? "The courts determined?" And we all know that the courts can't be wrong. Why can't I say, "Congress determined that Terri's life should receive another hearing" or "Members of Congress determined that we should err on the side of life." Are the courts some kind of omniscient power that is infallible and whose judgements can't be challenged?
Also notice how Cohen and Goodman both cite an ABC poll which falsely claimed that Terri was on "life support."
HT: The Corner
In his column, Cohen bashes the Democrats for a lack of leadership regarding Terri Schiavo. And not the lack of leadership working to save the life of a starving woman (who has no written directives and may or may not be in a PVS) but the lack of leadership working to make sure that Terri continues to starve.
"But for me the real loser was the Democratic Party."
A woman is starving to death and the real loser is the Democratic Party because they didn't stand up and back this forced starvation?
Two parents are watching their daughter die and can do nothing but appeal case after case and the real loser is the Democratic Party?
Large portions of our country look the other way as a woman who isn't in a coma, who isn't brain dead and isn't on life support is denied food and the real loser is the Democratic Party?
"Still, it seemed that the party's highest principle was to have almost none at all."
What would Mr. Cohen have their highest principle be? Starvation for all? Death is best? No MRIs or PETs for those supposedly in a PVS state? The adulterous husband is always right?
Ellen Goodman's recent column also leaves me scratching my head.
THIS IS the phrase running through my head whenever I think of Terri Schiavo: May she rest in peace. When will this become a benediction rather than a question?
Kind of reminds me of Michael's quote, "When is that ***** gonna die?"
My guess is that Terri was resting, probably fairly peacefully, until her only feeding tube was removed 6 days ago.
And don't forget the infamous ''talking points" memo ABC News found reminding Republican senators that ''the prolife base will be excited" and it's a ''great political issue."
Are columnists really this slow? Numerous bloggers, especially Powerline were all over these fishy memos yesterday.
Her cerebral cortex, the part of our anatomy that controls our ability to think and feel, is the consistency of Jell-O.
And you know this how? Did Goodman pick up a medical degree recently? Has she examined Terri's brain?
More to the point, bioethicists will also tell you that this case is about the right to refuse medical treatment -- chemotherapy, blood transfusions, or, yes, food and water. Can we make that decision, and if not, who can? Decades of hard cases have established our right to say no, and state legislation has determined that our spouses, adult children, parents -- in that order -- can act for us. In Florida, the courts determined that Michael Schiavo knew what his wife wanted and spoke for her.
Should depressed teenagers be allowed to starve themselves to death because food and water have unfortunately been defined as "medical treatment?" If they can't make that decision, then who can? Please not Big Brother.
Did Terri ever get the right to say no? Has Goodman discovered Terri's written directives? "The courts determined?" And we all know that the courts can't be wrong. Why can't I say, "Congress determined that Terri's life should receive another hearing" or "Members of Congress determined that we should err on the side of life." Are the courts some kind of omniscient power that is infallible and whose judgements can't be challenged?
Also notice how Cohen and Goodman both cite an ABC poll which falsely claimed that Terri was on "life support."
HT: The Corner
Supremes won't hear the Schindler's appeal
Here's the Yahoo story. It seems that at least Kennedy referred the case to the rest of the court.
The way these appeals have been handled by the federal courts make me more aware of how sad our federal courts have become.
The way these appeals have been handled by the federal courts make me more aware of how sad our federal courts have become.
Another doctor weighs in on Terri Schiavo's condition
Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt posted this affidavit from Dr. William Cheshire regarding Terri's condition. Dr. Cheshire has met Terri and reviewed the medical evidence in the case. He describes Terri's diagnosis of being in a persistent vegetative state as being "faulty."
Today the New York Times has interviewed Dr. Ronald Cranford who said, '"I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."'
Seems like Dr. Cranford is a bit defensive, throwing out insults instead of dealing with Cheshire's claims. Maybe he's scared that the medical community will realize his quick methods of diagnosis and lack of ordering basic tests aren't up to snuff.
From Rev. Robert Johansen piece in the National Review (Rev. Johansen has a blog by the way called Thrown Back):
The doctors brought in by the Schindlers spent approximately 14 hours examining Terri over more than two weeks; their conclusion was that Terri is not PVS, and that she may benefit from therapy.
In marked contrast, Dr. Cranford examined Terri on one occasion, for approximately 45 minutes. Another doctor for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Peter Bambikidis of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, examined Terri for about half an hour. When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: “You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious.” In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as “brutal,” he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a “reflex.”
"I asked Dr. Bell if he thought a moan uttered after a painful blow could be a reflex. "It's highly unlikely," he replied. He qualified his answer by noting that he had not actually seen the video of the exam, but he believes that the description of Terri's reaction is not consistent with a reflex. "A moan is not a reflex," Bell said. "A wince or grimace is not a reflex."
The article in the Times attempts to discredit Cheshire by proving that he's a Christian, he's done medical missionary work (the horror), is against embryonic stem cell research, has written poetry about the dangers of assisted suicide, and Art Caplan has never heard of him (God forbid).
Today the New York Times has interviewed Dr. Ronald Cranford who said, '"I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."'
Seems like Dr. Cranford is a bit defensive, throwing out insults instead of dealing with Cheshire's claims. Maybe he's scared that the medical community will realize his quick methods of diagnosis and lack of ordering basic tests aren't up to snuff.
From Rev. Robert Johansen piece in the National Review (Rev. Johansen has a blog by the way called Thrown Back):
The doctors brought in by the Schindlers spent approximately 14 hours examining Terri over more than two weeks; their conclusion was that Terri is not PVS, and that she may benefit from therapy.
In marked contrast, Dr. Cranford examined Terri on one occasion, for approximately 45 minutes. Another doctor for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Peter Bambikidis of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, examined Terri for about half an hour. When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: “You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious.” In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as “brutal,” he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a “reflex.”
"I asked Dr. Bell if he thought a moan uttered after a painful blow could be a reflex. "It's highly unlikely," he replied. He qualified his answer by noting that he had not actually seen the video of the exam, but he believes that the description of Terri's reaction is not consistent with a reflex. "A moan is not a reflex," Bell said. "A wince or grimace is not a reflex."
The article in the Times attempts to discredit Cheshire by proving that he's a Christian, he's done medical missionary work (the horror), is against embryonic stem cell research, has written poetry about the dangers of assisted suicide, and Art Caplan has never heard of him (God forbid).
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Is Terri Being "Allowed to Die?"
From Yahoo:
A few yards away, Pat Ellis, a retired nursing home aide from St. Petersburg, and Tim Harmon, 44, a Tampa hair-stylist, say they're speaking for Michael Schiavo and his effort to allow his wife to die. Ellis, who won't disclose her age, holds a sign that says: "Bravo! Courageous Judge Whittemore!" (emphasis mine)
Is Terri being allowed to die or is she being starved to death?
Why has Michael Swails been arrested in Florida? He was only allowing his cows to die.
Art Caplan further perpetuated this ridiculous position with this piece entitled, "The time has come to let Terri Schiavo die."
Here's a small community poll that clearly shows that poller doesn't get it while some people being polled clearly understand the bias in the "allowed to die" question?
National Review's John Derbyshire has also postulated this absurd notion.
The life Terri Schiavo has is not worth living. I wouldn't want to live it, and I wouldn't want anyone I care about to live it. For once, I believe, the courts have got it right. For pity's sake, let this poor woman die.
Scroll up to see Ramesh destroy Derbyshire's "let her die" baloney.
People who favor starving Terri to death can't seem to come around and say "Terri should be starved." They have to cloak it in false nuances like "let her die," "let her go" or "she shouldn't be forced to live any longer."
How long before someone charged with animal or child cruelty via malnourishment will play the "I was just letting them die" card.
A few yards away, Pat Ellis, a retired nursing home aide from St. Petersburg, and Tim Harmon, 44, a Tampa hair-stylist, say they're speaking for Michael Schiavo and his effort to allow his wife to die. Ellis, who won't disclose her age, holds a sign that says: "Bravo! Courageous Judge Whittemore!" (emphasis mine)
Is Terri being allowed to die or is she being starved to death?
Why has Michael Swails been arrested in Florida? He was only allowing his cows to die.
Art Caplan further perpetuated this ridiculous position with this piece entitled, "The time has come to let Terri Schiavo die."
Here's a small community poll that clearly shows that poller doesn't get it while some people being polled clearly understand the bias in the "allowed to die" question?
National Review's John Derbyshire has also postulated this absurd notion.
The life Terri Schiavo has is not worth living. I wouldn't want to live it, and I wouldn't want anyone I care about to live it. For once, I believe, the courts have got it right. For pity's sake, let this poor woman die.
Scroll up to see Ramesh destroy Derbyshire's "let her die" baloney.
People who favor starving Terri to death can't seem to come around and say "Terri should be starved." They have to cloak it in false nuances like "let her die," "let her go" or "she shouldn't be forced to live any longer."
How long before someone charged with animal or child cruelty via malnourishment will play the "I was just letting them die" card.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
