SFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
I'm aware that at least two different threads deal with the Terri Schiavo tragedy. This thread is not about this, but about how Democrats are dealing with this and other controversial social issues.
I was quite surprised by the fact that the US Senate passed the so-called Schiavo Law by a voice vote, unanimously. Not a single Democrat Senator objected this law, not even Kennedy, Kerry or any other liberal.
In my opinion, these Democrats saw this issue in a way that many A.netters refuse to accept: a case of human decency. Most people don't like the government messing with their most personal decisions, such as the tragedy Terri and her family is facing. Even more, almost everybody would agree that in a decision like this is up to the next of kin (namely the spouse) to call the shots. Yet, this particular case is a good example of what John Paul II calls the Culture of Life vs. Culture of Death.
When we start to consider ourselves capable judges of others people quality of life, it becomes easier to say that somebody should die with "dignity" rather than continue living in hardship. Therefore, today we are eager to say that Terri is suffering and should be allowed to die. Tomorrow, we will see "mercy killings" as a normal part of our society. The risk is who will appoint him/herself as the one to define who should be helped to die. That's the culture of death, the culture of abortion, death penalty, euthanasia and so on.
My hope is that more Democrats will start to consider that, after all, the defense of life is also a Democrat cause.
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1672 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1443 times:
Quoting SFOMEX (Thread starter): I was quite surprised by the fact that the US Senate passed the so-called Schiavo Law by a voice vote, unanimously. Not a single Democrat Senator objected this law, not even Kennedy, Kerry or any other liberal.
Are you aware that there were only 19 Senators present at the time of the voice vote and that all voice votes are recorded as unanimous.
Quoting SFOMEX (Thread starter): The risk is who will appoint him/herself as the one to define who should be helped to die.
That is why there are well established laws to dictate the nature of such decisions, laws that, in this case, extremists in Congress are attempting to weaken in order to advance an evangelical agenda. It is outrageous.
And a culture of Life is what exactly?
Life & Death go hand in hand, one does not exist without the other. If you have a culture of Life, you must therefore have a culture of Death. because if you live, you will die.
The way of the world is that things ultimately come to an end, and it is our right to manipulate our own existences to what we want as much as humanly possible, if we won't nobody else will. Obviously natural causes will catch up with us, but this is not a natural death. Her natural life is being extended beyond where her physical circumstances should have taken her. Had she existed just a century earlier she would not have survived 15 years in a coma. She would have died as soon as she could not take food/water.
It is a loss of respect and understanding of the process of death that is the problem, not the process of life. All she is doing by staying alive is cheating Death temporarally - in other words it's completely and utterly futile in the end. A waste of time and effort by all for no gain. Nature does only what it needs to survive - the path of least resistence and nothing more...
Inherently Humans recognise this, we know in our minds that if we want to continue our survival longterm it must be on Life's terms, not our own. We know it goes against the survival grain to keep someone on life support, and by taking a path of more resistence we increase the chances that we too will overshoot the mark, and step out of our survival niche. Why do you think most people have such a problem with letting the advanced sciences be in sole command of our existence as a species? It's our ancient survival instincts knowing we could go too far, not ethics or religious deities.
We are an empathetic species, we can put ourselves in another's shoes and make decisions. It is this ability for collective decision making that has got our species so far. No one wants to be taken before their time, but at the same time they don't want to live a meaningless existence where they cannot experience and enjoy the essential functions of life. What is the point? It serves absolutely no advantage to anyone in the slightest, in fact it is detrimental. If you cannot experience that then you may as well not exist - you have outgrown your usability as a member of society. Life is far more of a bitch than death, death is objective and infallible - it controls everything perfectly. Life manipulates and schemes things the way it wants, short-term sacrifice to benefit the longterm survival. It only helps those it wants to. If she is damaged to that extent, Life is preparing her for the final process in Life - Death.
Quoting SFOMEX (Thread starter): we start to consider ourselves capable judges of others people quality of life
Well if we don't consider ourselves judges of other people's quality of life then we are gonna end up with the same attitude to death as any other creature fighting for their individual life. A zebra that sees another zebra in their family herd being jumped by a lion does not care about the other's quality of life, it's a part of their existence. Their Job is to try and develop the essential survival traits long enough to produce a next generation with those same traits. As we are empathetic, we are slightly more complex than that. We have a little more control of our environment than they do, we can decide exactly what is right for our needs.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12822 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
I am a loyal Democrat, and many Democrats are either keeping away from participating in a vote, or if they face a contested election soon, siding with the Republicans to prevent a objecting stand from being used against them in challangers' campaign ads.
Another factor is also that many moderate and religious/social consertive Democrats are spintering from the left wing of the party, not only in the Schiavo case, but as to Abortion, and other issues. For some Democrats, from safe liberal districts are challanging this policy and are concerned with other important issues besides this woman's plight.