Cameron described Schiavo case as face-off between "culture-of-life conservatives" and "right-to-die civil libertarians"
On the September 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron reported that "the controversial Terri Schiavo case ... pitted culture-of-life conservatives against right-to-die civil libertarians," echoing the "culture of life" term used by President Bush to describe his overall objective in supporting those who sought to block Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, from having Terri's feeding tube removed. Bush at the time explained his attempted intervention in the Schiavo case by saying, "It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life." Cameron was discussing Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's recent campaign stop with Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), and reported that Thompson "has stumbled on a handful of issues near and dear to Florida Republicans," including that "Thompson said he couldn't remember details of the controversial Terri Schiavo case."
Schiavo had been in a persistent vegetative state after collapsing in 1990. In March 2005, after a Florida state judge ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed at the request of her husband, Congress quickly passed -- and on March 20, 2005, President Bush rushed to sign -- Republican-initiated legislation that allowed Schiavo's parents to have their case for keeping Schiavo alive heard anew in the federal courts. The federal courts refused to intervene, and Schiavo died on March 31, 2005.
In a March 17, 2005, statement about the Schiavo case, Bush said:
The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.
Then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan, at a press briefing that same day, used the same rationale in supporting congressional action:
Q: All right. On another subject, the United States Congress is -- seems poised to pass a piece of federal legislation in the case of Terri Schaivo to try and save her life. What is the president's position on it?
McCLELLAN: Well, the president has previously expressed his view on the case. The case raises complex issues. And the president believes our goal, as a nation, should be to build a culture of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and attention. And the president believes a society that is built on a culture of life ought to welcome, protect and value all individuals.
Q: So the president would sign such a piece of legislation if it came to him?
McCLELLAN: Well, the president stands on the side of defending life. In instances like this case, where there are serious questions and doubts raised, the president believes that our society and our laws and our courts ought to be on the side of presumption in favor of life. And we appreciate the efforts by members of Congress. The president's views will continue to be those that defend life.
In addition, as Media Matters for America noted at the time, several prominent conservatives said that liberals "want" Schiavo to die.
As Media Matters documented, polling from March 2005 found broad support across religious lines for the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube and against congressional intervention in the case. Additionally, a Pew Research Center poll conducted November 9-27, 2005, found that 72 percent of Americans believed Congress "should have stayed out" of the case, while 17 percent thought Congress "did [the] right thing."
From the September 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
CAMERON: Look out, Rudy Giuliani: The new guy, Fred Thompson, is catching on fast in your must-win firewall state of Florida.
THOMPSON: You know, I've been down here hundreds of times, and I consider it to be my neck of the woods, as we would say back home. But Florida is extremely important.
CAMERON: So is a photo op and kind word, not to say endorsement yet, from Florida's popular governor, Charlie Crist.
CRIST: He's a good friend and making a great candidate. We've had a few great days already in the state of Florida.
CAMERON: The Sunshine State is key to Rudy Giuliani's strategy, as the biggest and most moderate among the early voting states. He's raised more money in Florida than any candidate in either party. Thompson has drawn his largest and most enthusiastic crowds yet in Florida. And after two weeks on the trail, he sounds almost cocky.
THOMPSON: I haven't run a whole lot of elections. But I've never lost one, and I don't plan on losing this one.
CAMERON: But he has stumbled on a handful of issues near and dear to Florida Republicans. Last week Thompson said he couldn't remember details of the controversial Terri Schiavo case, which pitted culture-of-life conservatives against right-to-die civil libertarians. And though most Floridians deeply oppose drilling for oil off Florida's delicate coast, he refuses to rule it out.
THOMPSON: I'm not going to start out by taking this, that, or the other off the table, in terms of our overall energy situation. We're going to have to do a lot of things better.
And all this time I thought Randall Terry and his mob were just Troglodyte Fascist buttinskies.
What part of pro-death penalty, any war is worth fighting because it's a war culture of life don't you understand?
I can't help but let Iraq immediately come to mind whenever I read or hear the "culture of life" talking point because I'm still wondering what kind of culture we're building in Iraq.
Oh, I forgot the screw the poor, pro-torture culture of life.
Well, the imprisoned enemy combatants still have life, it may be a little torturous, mentally destructive and physically inhumane, but it's still life.
The party of moral values. Our morals, their values.
War is often times necessary in order to save more lives in the end, and the death penalty is simply justice. Supporting a culture of life means valuing innocent life and ensuring that innocent people are not killed. Administering the death penalty for people who have MURDERED another human being sends a message that we won't tolerate people who destroy innocent human life. It's actually a pro life policy.
Rino, does it trouble you that the death penalty has never been shown to reduce the crime rate and some stats show that it may actually do the opposite?
Some psychiatrists have speculated that in places where the government has the power to kill, people with a sick violent wish for death themselves may be more likely to kill someone. They eventually get what they 'want' at the hands of the state. It's sort of like the 'suicide by cop' thing where someone draws on the police looking for a ticket out. Only more complicated.
Sure, it's speculation. Some simply maintain that the government killing people to show that we shouldn't kill people just makes us more violent as a culture and leads to more murders not less. No way to really show that except that the statistics support it at least as well as any notion that the death penalty saves even one life ever.
Does any of that matter? I mean if it's really about a culture of life, shouldn't we consider factors like that? Or is it just more a culture of Justice? Or Revenge? Seems weird to me that so many people who claim to follow Jesus are so keen to support this. The Jesus I was raised with probably wouldn't have been pulling switches on anyone and hey, come to think of it I think he got executed by the state. Weird huh?
Seems like maybe, just maybe there's something more to all this than some desire to preserve life.
"Rino, does it trouble you that the death penalty has never been shown to reduce the crime rate and some stats show that it may actually do the opposite"
The studies have been mixed on this issue. Some studies show that the crime rate has gone down a little bit and other studies have shown that there's been no effect. But the reason I support the death penalty is that I believe that it's a just punishment. The punishment fits the crime. It you kill someone you deserve to die yourself. The Bible makes it clear that the innocent should be protected and that there's nothing wrong with putting the guilty to death. I realize that you may not get your views from the Bible, but many pro life people oppose abortion and support the death penalty because those two positions are supported in the Bible.
So is stoning women for adultery. Over thousands of years one of the many people writing one of the many books that we now group together into what we call the bible probably had something that would have condemed just about everyone here for something or other. Even you. Not sure we really want to use that to design our government. Works ok for the Taliban and the old Spanish Empire I guess, but I grew up in a small town called the US OFFREAKINGAMERICA! It's fundamentalist religion or patriotism. You guys can't have both. It's way way too goofy.
I don't want our government based off the Bible either. I was simply pointing out why many conservatives oppose abortion but support the death penalty. To me it doesn't seem inconsistent, but apparently it does to you. We just disagree.
Why do people use the term "pro-life"? The folks in question are "forced-birthers". This is entirely consistent with the so-called "conservative" philosophy bandied about these days. Most advanced societies consider such positions a crude, primitive and reactionary response to things they don't understand as such a position (forced-birthing) compels others to conform to a type of morality based on fantasies espoused in ancient texts compiled by individuals left out in the sun way too long...
Looks like Rino went to Jesus Camp. Oshkalabooshabacadabra Jesus!
Sorry. Meant "pro life" people, not conservatives.
Understandable slip. I just think the issue is getting confused. Give the pro-life crowd exactly what they want. A fetus is a child that deserves equal protection of the law. Think about it. It flat out doesn't work, no matter what our sensibilites say. We simply cannot have a nation of people free to pursue life liberty and happiness and try to codify into law that a fetus shares the same right. I think as a nation we are arguing about two different things. Pro-choice is really what it says to me. It's not pro-abortion. It's simply that the government cannot have the power to ban a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus. It's not that anyone is happy about any of it. There simply is no other way. Not in this country.
Ummmm... abortion is not mentioned in the bible. Specifically speaking, abortion has been practiced chemically (specifically, herbally) for millennia, so the writers of the tome certainly would have known that it existed although, it being a "woman's issue," they likely didn't care much about it.
Think about it - a society that obsesses over family lineage through pages and pages of "begats" doesn't bother to write down one rule about a woman aborting an unwanted pregnancy? They write laws against mixing clothing fibers, but can't find the time to take on an issue that so many conservatives think is key?
The conservative base is not obsessed about abortion because the bible tells them to be - they are obsessed about this private woman's health issue simply because they've been told to be by those who find it to be politically expedient to pick an issue that only effects a historical political minority.
The conservative base is not obsessed about abortion because the bible tells them to be - they are obsessed about this private woman's health issue simply because they've been told to be by those who find it to be politically expedient to pick an issue that only effects a historical political minority.
Baloney! The conservative base believes that the point of conception is when life is created. They believe that it is wrong to make the distinction between a fetus and a child since they both meet all the criteria, short of breathing air on their own, necessary to be described as living. They believe that to destroy a fetus is the same as killing a child. They believe that like a child, the fetus is helpless and defenseless and deserves to be protected.
I believe that in our modern world, especially in the United States, there is no excuse for not taking precautions to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. I know sex feels good. I know people are going to have sex. I believe the fact that a large part of society accepts abortion is sending the wrong message to people and causing them to not take the precautions they should since they can always just get an abortion after the fact if they get pregnant. Heaven forbid we should expect people to act responsibly!
The human potential that is destroyed thru abortion is obscene...It has nothing to do with politics.
That would be nice CB if it had nothing to do with politics. But it does because people want the government to enforce the morality you're describing. No one is saying you shouldn't have those values or preach them in your church. It's the other 'side' saying the government should make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion. I maintain that it is sanctimonious to accuse people who recognize the needs of a free society with murder.
"The human potential that is destroyed thru abortion is obscene"--cb
I don't understand. You don't think "human potential" is destroyed when you wear a condom, but abortion is obscene? Have you compared the numbers there? It looks like you are just being arbitrary here. Sperm is arguably human life as well. It galls me to see you treat the use of a condom to destroy that human potential so casually. Every sperm is sacred.
backup link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Sperm is not human life. It cannot develop on its own.
Sperm is indeed human - it is a part of the human life cycle and it is alive as anyone can see by its movements. Your point is moot regarding the human life question.
Yes, sperm is alive but cannot develop into a human being without the egg. It is only half of the dna structure of a human being. It's not really worth arguing about. A fetus is entirely different than "just" the sperm or the egg. It's genetic code is complete.
You are changing from the original argument however slightly, but importantly. The original argument is whether a sperm is indeed "human life" or potential "human life". Not whether it is a human "being". Perhaps you have somehow conflated the two distinct arguments in your mind.
Of course it is inarguable that if you accept that a zygote, embryo or a fetus is "human life" then you necessarily must accept the same about a sperm and arguably even an egg.
If you are going to start changing the argument to being about human beings, that is a whole other can of worms with its own set of logical problems.
Very well. All human beings are also human life. Not all human life are human beings. I get that. I just reject the leap that because a fetus is to be protected in some peoples mind that that protection logically extends to sperm because it does not.
Bruce,
I agree with you as you have stated it. The problem I had was with the way CB presented the abortion argument as "The human potential that is destroyed thru abortion is obscene".
My point is that "human potential" is treated pretty casually as it is if you consider sperm "human potential". CB was being pretty vague and sanctimonious IMO and I was specifically targeting that part of his argument to demonstrate my point.
We all can differ about when one becomes a human being. It appears to me to be a judgment call. It kind of depends how you want to define "human being". I have not seen a single satisfactory scientific definition of that term that has successfully either excluded what we might consider human beings or included things that are obviously not human beings.
It is a philosophical question that should be left minimally to the individual and her physician as far as I am concerned.
I don't approve of it personally and I hope one day medical advances and possibly improvements in education can make it rare or obsolete as I believe you have stated as well in the past.
Neither can a fetus without a mother.
People can believe anything they want including that the TV schedule is controlled by Reptilian aliens from Zeta Reticuli. There is NO scientific evidence ANYWHERE that supports that claim nor does the bible say ANYWHERE that a seperate life is created AT CONCEPTION. So your BELIEF based on YOUR BELIEF is NOT a solid basis on which to make LAW.
Besides the fact Solon, that it's absolutely impossible to guarantee equal rites under law to a fetus. If that were the case, when my wife and I had already had two miscarriages, we should have been barred from conceiving again. Because the odds of another miscariage was at least 50% at that point. Who could possibly, knowingly put a child at a 50% chance of dying? When we did miscarry again should we have been charged with manslaughter? Should the nice Christian nurse who encouraged us to try again have been tried as an acoomplice? Actually it was a double homicide of sorts because it was twins. I saw the two hearts beating. I know just how real and how human a fetus is. But we make different choices regarding fetuses and children all the time.
The Right are just a bunch of sanctimonious jerks on this issue when they try to put how nasty abortion is on those who would protect our Constitution and our way of life. There is no way to make a fetus on equal legal footing as a child no matter how much we recognize our humanity at that stage of development. Grow up and deal with it. (Not you Solon, I'm going off here)
In this 'pro-life' world a husband could intentionally screw up contraception in spite of his wife's wishes and make her have his baby. A psychopath could rape your 15 year old daughter because he wants to see his seed in the world and she would have to give birth to his child. The feminists of a generation were dead right on this. They are proposing a misogynistic society on the level of the Taliban. Every one of these sanctimonious goofs should just take all the flag decals off their cars because they are about as un-American as you can get.
My mother became toximic with each pregnancy. They monitered her closely the pregnancies ruined her kidneys not completely she wasnt on dialysis but they caused her problems the rest of her life. And she was closely monitered. Had her toxic levels gone too high, which she was close to a few times the Doctors told her she would have to abort or lose a kidney. Would the pro life group DEMAND she take the pregnancy to term and lose that kidney and maybe 10 years off her life? This issue is far to complex for simple answers. Far too little is known about exactly what life is or when a seperate life is created. Health issues are rarely either/or. I have little patience with people who see everything in Manichean terms and leave no room for the obvious fact that complex problems RARELY have simple answers.
This is why their thing is bs, it can never work. There is no way to parse this down into levels of legality. Not much beyond setting time limits on how far into term. It just doesn't work because I don't think you can get American women into that tight of a box any more. (just deal with the pun, I'm leaving it)
They've been tweaking this thing for decades now and guys like Rove use them for now. But there's a point where they'll push to far and then they'll feel how diferent we are from the 1950's. This really is about American women and I predict that you can't really f#@! with her as bad as this. They're talking all kinds of smack, they're very sure of themselves and organized but they're also confused as hell. Most of them don't even know what they're demanding. They confuse demanding morality from their fellow citizens with what a law should look like. And most folks aren't alarmed because they haven't bothered to think too clearly about exactly what they're demanding of the law. But if they ever get that close and it's a matter of passing real bills people and especially women are going to be blown away by what they're trying to do. Because it's the freakin Taliban. You can't stop part way when you give a fetus equal protection under the law. Rape? Incest? People think there will be acceptions? Should she bring a note from her rapist? Does there have to be a conviction? Did her husband jump her in her sleep because he really wanted a baby and he knew she'd come along once it was born? Did he poke a hole in a condom for that reason? Is that rape? Does she have a case? Or is it just time to baby up? Show the 21'st Century American woman the possibility of a scenario like that and then we'll have one of those clear moments where we see how different things have become.
There's a reason the GOP only accomplishes so much in this regard. Why kill the hen with the golden eggs? And I think some of them might be bright enough to know that if they get too close to the sun they're gonna get burned.
Exactly so, I mean I believe Rino is honest and wants something like this but the GOP would MUCH rather have the issue than do anything about it, which is why they never even TRY to abolish abortion.
They may eventually overturn Rove if we keep letting them nominate Justices. Then folks will get to see how fun it is to live in a red state. I could see a piece-meal mess of different states with different restrictions. I think eventually after causing much pain and strife (how Christian!) it will lead us to do what we need to do, namely pass an amendment to finally guarantee a woman's right. That's what the Constitution does after all, guarantee rights, not take them away. But that's in America which seems to be challenging for these folks. Aside from the pie and guns, they don't seem to want the rest of it.
I like the slip SunDog ;). I hope they overturn Rove too!
Overturn Rove. I picture a pale white bloated thing feebly kicking it's legs in the air as some weird turtle.
I picture the nursery rhyme about Humpty Dumpty.
That's a nice image. Mine was more of a Naked Lunch kind of nightmare thing.
"short of breathing air on their own, necessary to be described as living" CB
One would think that breathing on your OWN is pretty damn important!.
One would think that breathing on your OWN is pretty damn important!. P.S.
It is important but necessary to be alive. There are plenty of people who are alive but unable to breath on their own. Do you think it would be alright for a family who no longer wanted the burden of caring for a family member who could not breath on their own to just unplug them to avoid the hassle? That is the reasoning behind many abortions and I personally believe it is wrong.
I believe that if the mother’s health is in danger abortion is ok. Like many complex issues there is no absolute right course of action for every case. All things have to be considered. Logic must be applied. The abortions that bother me are the ones that are a direct result of irresponsibility. That is by far the biggest reason for abortions in this country and those are the abortions that should not occur.
CB, you put it well and clearly here. The ones that bother you. They actually bother just about everybody. But what are you guys asking for? A law that says a fetus is a child guaranteed of equal protection except sometimes? I keep asking, how is that going to work? Will we define rape more clearly as in maybe a husband getting his wife pregnant when she doesn't want to? Maybe a young girl is raped because someone knew he could make her have his child? There are a thousand scenarios that are a total mess under your ban.
And if a fetus is no different than a child, way too many of them are being put in serious jeapordy simply based on who conceives and when. How far should the government go enforcing child endangerment laws regarding fetuses? Is there a different standard? Doesn't that refute your equal protection under the law rule?
It's easy to preach about how people should act. No one is trying to amend the Constitution so you can't preach what you want. But to tie it in with this fantasy of the government enforcing your standards is just confusing issues. I may agree with you completely on a personal level but you would paint me as pro-abortion simply because I think through the implications of what the 'pro-life' side is proposing. It's sanctimonious to do that. The whole movement is creating pain and confusion and doing far less to prevent unwanted pregnancies than some good programs that have come out of organizations that the 'right' side demonizes.
There are paradoxes here. Deal with it. Pro-choice could be seen as pursuing a far more Christian society than what the 'right' is clamoring for. If what is Christian still means a compassionate society. It aint perfect but we're still biological animals as well as spiritual. It makes things complicated. That's the hand your God dealt you, can we start trying to deal with it with a little more grace and thoughtfulness?
One would think that breathing on your OWN is pretty damn important!. P.S.
It is important but necessary to be alive. There are plenty of people who are alive but unable to breath on their own.
I can't let this statement go.
A fetus before 20 weeks can't breath outside the womb, even with help. They're not the same as "people" who can breath, but only if they get help.
Abortion is not the same as euthanasia.
Fetuses who cannot survive outside the womb should not have the same rights as people who are surviving outside the womb.
Yes, but the purpose of breathing is to receive oxygen. Oxygen is delivered via the mother’s blood before the time regular breathing can be performed. Fetuses do have brain function, they do feel pain and are basically alive inside the womb in the same way we are alive outside the womb. Like an infant after birth they are defenseless...unable to take care of themselves. And by the way, a child who is born and is alive and breathing on their own can not survive on their own outside the womb without assistance anymore than a fetus could.
I don't remember when I started being aware that I was alive. I don't remember when I started hearing that voice in my head that everyone hears as a normal process of being alive. But I believe life begins at conception and I believe to stop a beating heart, or stop the internal voice that is life at the most basic level should not be allowed without a very good reason.
I’m glad my parents didn’t find my pending arrival too inconvenient or expensive or too much of a hassle and I bet you feel the same way…just glad to be here…glad you had a chance at life. Once conceived, everyone should have a chance.
CB,
Interesting points. What do you think about pregnancies due to rape and incest?
Since you think every conception should have a chance, are you for guaranteeing health care for mothers who don't have it so the baby born to a mother that does not want it has a chance?
Once the baby is born, is it on its own if the mother and father lack the resources to take care of it?
Considering the numbers of children waiting to be adopted, what do you propose for all of the children will be born if abortion is abolished?
I would hope that you would show the same level of compassion for the born and living children as you do for the fetus.
Since you apparently would have a child be a legal entity at conception, do you want to change the emphasis we now have on birthdays in favor of conceptiondays?
Should couples start filming conception moments instead of the birth, which according your apparent reasoning is merely relegated to an insignificant event.
Should it be considered murder to take birth control - the pill - that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg (which according to your reasoning would be a legal entitiy at that moment)?
It is nice that you believe life begins at conception, but to me it looks like you are simply picking an arbitrary part of the life cycle where nothing more happens then the combining of genes between a sperm and egg to make a new organism. True that is a significant point in the cycle, but is that where life actually begins? We will never really know for sure. It is nice to know you are so ready to legislate your beliefs on everyone else though.
If life begins at conception, shouldn't we have death certificates and funerals for all mis-carriages?
Looking at the statistics for mis-carriages, it certainly would be an economic boom for funeral homes. Do you own a funeral home?
And explain why death certificates should not be a legal requirement for mis-carriages and funerals a moral requirement.
The Bible makes it clear that the innocent should be protected and that there's nothing wrong with putting the guilty to death. I realize that you may not get your views from the Bible, but many pro life people oppose abortion and support the death penalty because those two positions are supported in the Bible. Rino
Rino the bible also says "Judge not lest you be judged" .
When you star using the bible as your reference make sure to use all of it not just the parts that support your argument.
RH,
I get most of my views from the Bible and that is why I am completely opposed to the death penalty.
If there is any chance at all that a mistake will be made and an innocent person killed, that blood is on the hands of the society that accepts this form of punishment which makes us murderers.
If it stays around, its administration needs to be changed drastically. The death penalty predominantly goes to non-white people who kill whites. The system is deeply, deeply flawed.
I respect your opinion. I think that Christians can have either view when it comes to the death penalty. Each person has their own convictions. I respect your position on the issue, and I hope that you can respect mine.
Of course I do, RH. I see below that you really don't care too much about the death penalty so I can leave it at this: If you do become passionate about the death penalty and work for its permanence, I hope you work to fix the fundamental fairness flaws it has had over the years.
But those that disagree with you on other things, such as when a fetus becomes a human being worthy of rights... we get no such respect and should have to live by your laws, right?
You get to vote for people who share your views and your values. I then vote for people who share my views and my values. Whoever gets the most votes implements their agenda and gets to put their political views into law. It's called democracy.
Your argument is ludicrous on the face of it. Life in prison without parole STILL sends the message we dont condone killing. Saying that we KILL people to show we dont condone killing people and that means we KILL people because we have to show a respect for life cannot withstand one seconds scrutiny. There is no possible way to claim we saved more lives in Iraq by invading that is beyond dumb. According to HRW Iraq was seeing about 300 deaths a year attributable to the government. Since the death toll in Iraq is well over 600,000, it would take more than 2,000 years to get anywhere near that figure. I just dont think the Hussien regime would have been in power that long. Do you spend, I dont know, even one second thinking whether or not the nonsensical talking points you are about to spew make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER?
I didn't say that the Iraq War has saved more lives. I'm just saying that war can SOMETIMES save more lives. For example, when we used the atomic bomb in WWII we probably ended up saving lives by ending the war early, even though the bomb killed a lot of people. If Saddam had actually had WMD's and had sold them to terrorists who then used them here in the U.S., that could have costed us millions of lives here at home. I believe that that was what we were thinking when we went into Iraq. I don't buy the idea that Bush lied to get us in there. I think we just got bad intelligence. And I don't really care that much about the death penalty one way or the other. It's not an important issue for me. I just think that the punishment should fit the crime. So if you take someone's life pre-meditatively, you deserve the same fate yourself. But again, life in prison is a pretty bad fate too. I really could care less about the death penalty.
If Saddam had actually had WMD's and had sold them to terrorists who then used them here in the U.S., that could have costed us millions of lives here at home.
Except of course he didn't, hadn't for a long time, and the inspections were proving that. And yet this culture-of-life President chose to lie about that and invade anyway, killing what may be over a million people now and displacing over four million people.
That argument is often made however the Nuclear attack on Japan is unlikely to have saved lives. That is what the right likes to say. It is not extreme to figure around 300,000 people died due to the bombings. 70 and 90 thousand in the initial blasts alone. Japan was done, the war was essentially over and they were already negotiating surrender terms when we dropped those bombs. I dont think the idea lives were SAVED by dropping them can be supported.
As for Saddam if he had MAGICAL powers things would have been different too. Such hypotheticals are basically worthless since the CIA was telling us they didnt BELIEVE he was a threat to give any weapons he DID have to terrorists. Yeah we all know you refuse to accept reality. I have PROVEN over and over and OVER that Bush told DEMONSTRABLE LIES about Iraq. You havent even come close to refuting them you just slink away then come back another day and say you dont think he lied. Perhaps you dont think the sky is blue or water is wet either. That doesnt change the color of the sky or the wetness of water.
As to the death penalty my argument against it has nothing to do with what some people deserve. I believe there are monsters out there. Some people do things that mostly likely make them deserving of things no civilized people would do. The way you treat someone is a whole lot more about who YOU are than who THEY are. So I just think we shouldnt be the kind of people that want to kill people. The danger of convicting innocent people also has me queazy. If they are in prison for life and I support life without parole, then if we find we made a mistake a miscarriage of justice has happened but at least we can then let them go. Once they are DEAD thats it.
Maybe they should have had a graphic of Dr. Kevorkian's cadaverous face in that spooky negative, sepia tone while she was saying this. I think someone in the back of the bus might have missed the implication. Spooky music too? That might have helped. Perhaps follow it up with a shot of Bush in the Rose garden on a sunny spring day with some children? I think they're getting too subtle.
Sundog, weren't you commenting on the Republicans courageous stance on winning a Victory? I think they're goiing out on a limb with the "life is better than death" position, too.
Har har, I thought of that too.
So, let's review. The Democrats are scum because they want to take all your money. The Republicans are going to take a position in favor of Winning and Victory and yes..... Life! It is just another brave new ititiative on their part isn't it? I mean, are you AGAINST life? Tune in next week when they drop a bombshell and come out in favor of kittens and sweets that don't rot your teeth.
If they come out in favor of kittens I'm leaving.
;-)
More of a Sunrise kind of guy huh?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
"It's not what you say, it's in the way you say it!" This is the finest of Republican Values, not exactly altruistic, or maybe so??
The "culture-of-life conservatives against right-to-die civil libertarians," could by others be call the "evangelical anti-abortion fanatics vs the freedom loving civil libertarians."
The Republicans interupting of a vacation to have a "emergency session" for the purpose of saving a "brain dead" woman waiting for her turn to die at the consent of her spouse after years of protracted legal maneuvering that would disturb any rational person was the most bizarre episode in Congressional history!
The most disturbing part was the near deafness to a 5 day warning to a pending categorie 5 hurricane off the shore of New Orleans, and the 4 days the President waited to finally fly over New Orleans and patting the back of "hell of a job" Brownie as a Republican's best response!
A media that actively distorts critical issues facing the nation for the continued power of the Republican scoundrels!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
MMFA, if anyone who can do anything about it can read this - this poor woman's twisted visage was used for political purposes enough as her life ended, is it really necessary to use it as your primary source photo here? Use a picture of the person you're criticising, please.
BLR - I second that sentiment as well.
That's not a bad suggestion BLR. I didn't need to see her to understand this story. Especially after realizing a little bit what she was like and how mortified she would have been to have this be the lasting image of herself. This was such a sick episode in our politic. The subject deserves mentioning because of what it reveals but I appreciate the perspective to let this woman be on her way with some dignity at last.
I agree with you all. I think the pictures and videos put out there for public consumption were a total invasion of this womans privacy. I would prefer if MMFA showed respect for this woman's privacy and removed the picture also.
Interesting perspective. Do you feel the same way about showing the caskets of slain military?
Just wondering.
A closed, flag draped coffin...no, don't see any invasion of privacy there.
No no, we should hide all those dead soldiers. It's the only way to honor them. To look at them would just part of all that 'negativity' that's losing the war.
Sundog wrote, "I didn't need to see her to understand this story. Especially after realizing a little bit what she was like and how mortified she would have been to have this be the lasting image of herself."
I simply wondered if the same held true with our fallen heroes. Apparently you are not giving them the same consideration you feel for poor Mrs. Schaivo.
He's giving them more consideration for their duty to this country. Somebody ought to tear you a new one for that dismal remark.
Julia,
So you think it is okay for Sun to say "No no, we should hide all those dead soldiers..." is respectful?
Uh ok.
In my opinion it is not. Tear away.
He's being sarcastic to you, not disrespectful to them you eejit. Sheesh.
Ahh your not so subtle outrage and putdown notwithstanding...
so now his supposed sarcasm to me is acceptable and my reply only saying his sarcasm is not respectful as his his original remark about Mrs. Schaivo makes me the bad guy.
Apparently it is okay in your mind for you to toss out invective and hurl misspelled insults at me while I cannot point out what I see as an inconsistency in Sundog's posts.
Go figure.Outrage...I thinks you might project too much. Eejit is idiot, eejit. But I understand you can't attack the argument so you opt for obsfucation. Good try though.
Pardon me. I didn't know you were making an argument? I thought you were just engaging in some simple name (eejit) calling and putdowns (tear you a new one).
Next time I'll have to remember that is what you think constitutes an argument.
Actually, she began by pointing out a flaw in your argument.
You are the bad guy for making such a disengenuous and ludicrous argument. Conflating seeing HER PICTURE with seeing an anonymous coffin is not even apples and oranges its gnats and Planets.
point out what I see as an inconsistency in Sundog's posts.
So how about pointing out the inconsistency of all the posts that make up this topic from guys like Rino? This whole topic is about inconsistency of the supposed "culture-of-life" that has to date killed as many as a million in Iraq.
Our fallen heroes are typically not shown dead or dying, ad nauseum. You see no mask of pain or severed limbs, unless the US military is now using glass coffins.
when did conservatives grow squeemish at the sight of a coffin, let alone a dead body? Geez, during WWII we used the malmedy massacre to rally the troops, the gas chambers to drive public sentiment against the nazi's, and gave pulitzer's to photographers like ernie pyle for great pictures showing soldiers at the moment of getting shot. That sure didn't bother them...
I understand the difference. War is indeed hell and I grieve over all the noble soldiers who gave their life for our country. I also grieve for those who suffer the loss of family members.
The only consolation I take is my belief that we may one day be reunited in Heaven with our loved ones who have gone on before us.
AA, you have got to be kidding me. You really want to pursue that analogy? Honorably burying our veterans in dignified funerals in view of the public is the same thing as putting videos of a helpless, brain-dead woman on the air a thousand times in order to try to stir emotions about her plight and confuse the public and score points politically? You really see that as analagous?
Them hiding our war dead is a very specific and recent policy intended to keep people from thinking too much about the costs of war. That's really healthy huh? The action wasn't taken by 'lefties' trying to manipulate the public. The action was taken during the administration of Old Bush. The government ordering that the 'free' citizens of this democratic repubulic shouldn't see the flag draped coffins of the people who died fighting for us. As a patriotic American I find this to be disgusting. I'm not clear on how the patriots on the Right are digesting it. Maybe you can explain it to us?
Sundog,
My opinions are my own. Others are free to agree and/or disagree.
I understand your point. I simply asked the question because to me there are similarities between your stated desire to provide privacy for the members of Mrs. Schaivo's family and the expressed intention of our government to protect the privacy of grieving family to those killed in war.
I do not believe that I mentioned anything about honorable funerals in front of the public. The issue, I do believe, was showing the caskets as they returned from overseas.
I know it is a fine line with regards to showing those images and people of good will can disagree. Some here are arguing that it is okay to take pictures and video of the fallen precisely because it is political. Because they believe showing these pictures will influence the public. That is fine. One can hold that view.
However it seems inconsistent to me to want to show the returning coffins, for what I would deem a political purpose that you agree with and at the same time object to seeing a picture of Mrs. Schaivo because it conveys a political stance with which you disagree.
If you feel there is no inconsistency, go right ahead.
Again AA I have to point out that we are free citizens. We inherently have rights unless the government can show cause to restrict them. That's the set up. Our own soldiers coming home from war. Someone wants to take a picture of them for WHATEVER reason. Maybe they just think it's more respectful that we see some of the reality and pain caused by war because that's how you honor people who make this sacrifice. THAT's where the government has stepped in. In between us the people and our fellow citizens who died for us. What is the due cause that outweighs our inalienable rights? Being polite to the families?? That's what you're buying? I'm guessing there are some families who would like the country to be weeping with them over the loss. What of their consideration? Is this really necessary or was the government trying to sway public opinion by diminishing certain realities? Pretty reasonable questions for a free citizen to ask.
This is part of the historic record and it's recent. The ones trying to sway public opinion are the government by choosing to deny us yet another right. THEY took the action to do this. It's not up to us to explain why we have a right to see our fallen. It's up to them to explain exactly why they have the power to deny us the right.
This stuff kind of cuts to the core of what we're supposed to be about. The lack of a freedom instinct Americans seem to have these days seems really disturbing to me. Sometimes I see all the flags plastered all over the cars and the words FREEDOM LIBERTY and all the symbols and it looks like grasping at something, not confidence in its existance.
You are good Sundog. That was very incisive
I would respect the "right's" opinion more if they were to say this is demoralizing to the soldiers instead of saying it demoralizes america. I would agree the way we did it in the past was rather barbaric, having new recruits boarding ships bound for war on one side of the docks while the coffins returning from the same conflict in question piled up on the other side of the docks. I'm sure that was quite demoralizing to the troops. But that isn't the argument being presented, is it?
Snoop, I would maintain that it's absolutely essential that the public has to deal with a certain level of war's reality. Should only the families of the dead and maimed have to deal with the toll? I thought we were all so proud of all the Freedom and Sacrifice and Honor of it all? Are we fighting a war where the public really wouldn't think the sacrifices are worth it? And if that's the case, in a free society, are the sacrifices worth it? Is it really appropriate for the government to be allowed to sanitize a war to make it a more palateable 'product?' It's actually really disgusting if you think about it for half a second.
People passed out when the first battlefield photos went public. It was the Civil War when it first happened in America. It deepened the country's sense of sacrifice even in a war where every town was losing many of it's boys already. I ask, if a war is just, what is wrong with that? The Right can just shove all their little yellow ribbons right up their tailpipes as far as I'm concerned. They don't put their money where their decals are.
Sundog, we are so on the same page! I mentioned earlier how our WWII photo's were to die for (pardon the pun!). Methinks the right only want's to see the dead if they can politically benefit from it. That's why they replayed the jumpers from the world trade towers over and over again. They are clearly two faced on this subject.
BTW, those decals are made in China. Conservatives buying them in mass supports a communist nation they hate. Waaaay to funny!
Sundog, AA is having a "whale" of a time coming up with "crappy"analogies. Or maybe he's just being a "bass".
JJ, that was a fishy post. What are you angling for?
Reading all that has got me perched. I think it's time to drink like a fish.
I often disagree with those that I generally find on the same end of the political spectrum as myself.
This is one of those situations, and I can't sit by quietly.
Whales are not fish.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes, I realize whales aren't fish and was prepared for someone to say so. But it was a pun after all.
IF coffins were made of transparent plexiglass and you could IDENTIFY who they were you would have a point. They arent. You dont.
A pro-war conservative who runs a joke list (with some of the filthiest jokes, btw) sent me those forbidden pictures of caskets on the plane home with messages about supporting the troops. Lots of other pictures in that email of guys kneeling before the gear of fallen comrades, etc.
Pro-war folks are pretty good at trotting out casket laden coffins when it suits their needs.
Personally, I think we should see every coffin that comes back from Iraq on the nightly news and on the front page of every major newspaper. One would think those deaths should be big stories.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
BLR / Thursday September 20, 2007 12:55:56 PM EST
Who chose the photo, MMFA?? Not at all, MMFA presents the clip, they don't produce it!
You nee to make the distinction since that is the core of the MMFA mission, debunking the failing 4th Estate!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I understand the difference, but MMFA has multiple screenshots to choose from. Apparently, someone agreed that the woman deserves some dignity, as the photo was changed, and for this I am thankful. If FOX wants to use her for political capital, it is not MMFA's obligation to mirror FOX's lack of tact, respect, or dignity while reporting the story.
BLR, I just noticed the picture of Mrs.Schaivo has been replaced. I think they heard you. :-)
I hope they realize that I truly do appreciate it. It pains my heart to see her in that state. I could not understand the media's obsession over showing her over and over again as a brain-dead shell, and I still don't understand it today. Perhaps it's the vanity in me, but I would be horrified to be used that way if something similar happened to me.
BLR, from what was said about her, it sounds like she was exactly the type of person who would have felt just as you described. It seemed like yet another needle in the whole painful episode to hear how shy she had been in life.
Yes, the few times the shows produced pictures of Terry while she was still active and happy made it clear just how much her body had changed as her brain deteriorated into nothing.
Perhaps a hallmark of being a leftist, then, is being intelligent and vain enough to want to expire if you lose your ability to think and reason? I fully accept that it is a significant amount of vanity on my part that makes me feel this way. I'm an exceptionally proud person, and while I could deal with exceptional physical disfigurement if I could communicate effectively, losing my appearance, my communicative ability, and my ability to reason would be hell for me. I cannot fathom willingly forcing my husband, my mother, or anyone else I love to live in that prison.
No, Carl. It pitted people who don't want government interfering in their affairs against people who think every life is precious when they're an embryo or brain dead and at no point in between.
Kev - once you're past the embryonic stage and out of the womb, they could care less if you aren't wealthy...
Once you're out of the womb conservatives simply want to leave you alone and let you live your own life. You don't need the government to drag you along your whole life. The best government is one that you can barely even tell is there.
Once you're out of the womb conservatives simply want to leave you alone and let you live your own life.
What if that life is destined to be lived in a drug infested high crime area with crappy schools. Do you want to help the borned cope with that?
Lynn, hate to say it but sound like your SOL. Republican right wing evangelicals are only concerned with a fetus and when your dead. Of course if THEY decide to kill you (death penalty) that's a different story.
Based on the Shaivo case I'd say they want to keep you alive as long as possible. Can't filch money out of the dead or something like that.
What I said was basically just a general rule. In regards to education conservatives supporting giving vouchers to poor people so they can afford to send their kids to private school. But that's an issue for another day on a different thread.
"Culture of Life" and the present crop of neo-cons....
Would that qualify as an oxymoron?
yup, it ranks up there with compassionate conservative.
We've got a compassionate conservative in the White House who is gonna demonstrate his compassion by vetoing a bill that provides health care for children. Overwhelming, his compassion.
"Pro Choice" and the present brand of big government liberals.
Would that qualify as an oxy-moron?
Big government liberals? That's pretty funny considering it was your ultra conservatives under Bush who just created the biggest government in the history of the US.
Bush is more of a liberal on fiscal issues than a conservative. He certainly isn't an ultra conservative. He's never been a traditional conservative. Bush doesn't represent traditional conservatives on spending issues, because he isn't one.
You are INSANE. Bush is not liberal on ANY issue. He is definitly ultra conservative. I wouldnt call him a traditional conservative rather I would describe him as a radical statist. That however is no where NEAR a liberal position. YOU just want to define ANYTHING bad as liberal it wont fool anyone but the most terminally brainwashed.
Bush has spent A LOT of money and has grown the size of government, and yes that is a very liberal position. A conservative position is cutting spending and reducing the size of government, and Bush certainly hasn't done that. Bush has never been an ultra conservative or even much of a conservative at all. I guess you could probably call him a big government conservative if that phrase isn't too much of an oxy-moron.
Pure delusion. Bush is absoluty a complete conservative just not, as I said a traditional conservative, and NO a blanket statement like growing government is a liberal postion is purely simpleminded. Bush GREW government in the areas of mostly surviellance, defense, grabbing power for the executive branch, more secrecy, and the like. His fiscal policies were to cut taxes on the rich and borrow money from CHINA to pay for it. That is not anywhere NEAR a liberal postion. You never know what you are talking about you just pull these ludicrous strawman arguments directly out of your ass and pass off these baseless assertions as IF they had any basis in reality whatsoever when they CLEARLY DONT.
Spending money does not make you liberal or conservative. Its what you spend it on. If that was the case, Reagan and Bush would be two of the most liberal in history!
Bush has spent A LOT of money and has grown the size of government, Rino
Rino, Junior was not alone is all that spending. I guess Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Dennis Hassert & Co. were also "liberals". Boy I bet they'd be surprised to find that out.
The reason that all of these conservatives became fiscally irresponsible is because they had complete POWER. Power often times corrupts. They simply didn't have any checks and balances, and their greed got the best of them. They decided they wanted to use the Democratic tactic of buying votes. Often times divided government works better and leads to more fiscal responsibility. In the 90's when we had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress we had a surplus and spending was under control. The Republicans simply got drunk on power when they got total control.
RH,
Buying votes? Please provide examples! That is a serious charge!
If the Republicans just got "drunk with power," how will you ever trust them again?
Bush has spent A LOT of money and has grown the size of government, and yes that is a very liberal position.
Bizarre talking point. Bush is extremely conservative. It's his INCOMPETENCE and his choice to go to war that has resulted in the ballooning debt that we have.
Bush greatly increased spending on domestic programs as well. He increased spending on welfare programs. He created an entire new entitlement program through Medicare. Bush is not a fiscal conservative. If I was President we wouldn't have a deficit. I'd probably cut the size of the federal government in half.
And also Bush is not extremely conservative. He's been very conservative on social issues and national security issues and more moderate to liberal on economic issues. JFK was probably more conservative than Bush on economic issues.
That would explain his support of more stem cells.
Glad you hate the police state he created, that was certainly a liberal position if there ever was one.
<snicker!>
We don't live in a police state. That's just ridiculous. Your life hasn't been affected in any way nor has anybody elses from Bush's anti-terror policies. No liberal I have ever talked to have ever come up with an example of how Bush's anti-terror policies have affected them personally, because they don't. We don't live in a police state or anything resembling it. We have more freedom in this country than anywhere else in the world.
Rino, what an absolutely un-American sentiment to say that giving up fundamental rites like Habeus Corpus to the government only matters if it affects us personally. Pardon me for saying it but that's an unpardonably cowardly sentiment. Do you know anything about this counry? You break my heart. What are the freedoms you're so proud of our soldiers dying for? This stuff is an absolute disgrace.
"Rino, what an absolutely un-American sentiment to say that giving up fundamental rites like Habeus Corpus to the government only matters if it affects us personally"
Habeus Corpus rights haven't been taken away. AMERICAN CITIZENS are still entitled to Habeus Corpus rights. It's actually the left that has been trying to change habeus. They want to extend those rights to FOREIGN TERRORISTS. I simply believe that Habeus Corpus rights should extend to U.S. Citizens but not foreign terrorists.
Who is a foriegn terrorist Rino? Anyone we say is a foriegn terrorist? Do you know how much of a fascist you sound like? I know I know that's always hyperbole and an empty insult blah blah blah. But if the shoe fits. You really need to think more about this stuff. And they are violating the rights of citizens Rino. I guess until its your neighbors or you it just doesn't matter? Did they write the Constitution because they were cowards and figured we could just pitch the thing when it got inconvenient? I'm sorry, I hate this kind of confrontational language but I'm genuinely outraged by the things you say. I can't believe my countrymen could come to this.
Have I yet to mention Habeus Corpus? Stop trying to put words in my mouth and respond to what I actually said. We are a police state, I provided evidence why, you are denying it is true. Back it up.
I have corrected you on this already MANY TIMES. The RIGHTS in the Bill of Rights are NOT only for citizens EACH ARTICLE says PERSONS NOT CITIZENS. That is pure fact. IF someone is being incarcerated BY our criminal justice system they ARE subject to the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. THAT is why Guantanamo isnt in US territory. Also people are not TERRORISTS just because YOU or BUSH say they are. They are not guilty of crimes until 12 people SAY SO. So do you EVER know what you are talking about?
I say we do. We have cameras covering large % of the city recording everything we do, they cover the streets, every transaction you make is recorded, why with the right computer access you could practically find out everything you ever wanted to know about someone, from who he calls, to what he buys, to where he goes. You don't call that a police state?
"We have cameras covering large % of the city recording everything we do, they cover the streets, every transaction you make is recorded"
I believe you're thinking about London. There's been talk of implementing that here in the U.S. as well, but so far it hasn't been done. I would oppose that. Things like the Patriot Act, NSA Surveillance, etc has not affected my life in any way. My life is no different than it was when Clinton was President. If I didn't watch the news I wouldn't even know that these things exist. We don't live in a police state; we have more freedom here than anywhere else in the world. A police state was Nazi Germany in WWII. We're simply taking precautions that are necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.
You are so full of it! We already have that here! Tollroads have camera's, most every business I know has camera's inside and outside to record everything going on. Do you really want to sound stupid and say every single credit card swipe you make isn't recorded? Do you really want to sound stupid saying every single phone call you make doesn't have at least the from/to recorded? Your life is recorded lock, stock and two smoking barrels on a hard drive in America and the only reason you don't seem to know about it is because you weren't paying attention!
I was talking about the government having surveillance in major cities. I don't know of that happening here in America. And private businesses certainly have the right to place cameras in their buildings. Do you really disagree? And they have to have cameras at toll roads so that they can catch anybody who drives through without paying. It sounds like you basically want anarchy.
Still denying fact, aren't you? All the government has to do is request the video and they get it. My example? My best friend came back from overseas to his home base in Dallas. 1st day back, he was cruising around the block with his family checking out the area he intended to move to. Some @sswipe didn't have the patience to drive behind him, 1st opportunity he swerved around him firing off a dozen rounds from his ppenis pistol, killing my friend in front of his wife and child. FBI got the tape and found the turd.
Moral of the story? The government can access private data upon request. Small wall between reasonable access and abuse. Get it?
The irony of RINO there going on about minimal government, and especially coming out with 'after you're born conservatives want to leave you alone' then accusing others of 'wanting anarchy' is just classic.
I support limited government but not no government.
Wanting to spy on Americans and implement the programs that Bush has under the Patriot Act necessarily grows the government by leaps and bounds.
Wanting to spy on Americans and implement the programs that Bush has under the Patriot Act necessarily grows the government by leaps and bounds.
So would enforcing abortion bans, prohibiting the morning-after pill and funding all of the death penalty appeals.
I believe you're thinking about London. There's been talk of implementing that here in the U.S. as well, but so far it hasn't been done Rino
Sorry Rino, it's time for you to travel. Trot on down to downtown Las Vegas. Cameras are there monitored by the Las Vegas Metro Police Dept.
A LUDICROUS argument. Just because I dont KNOW if my phone has been tapped, if my home has been searched by the FBI or if my library records have been taken without warrant by the NSA doesnt mean it hasnt happened. I guess in your world if someone is murdered and no one has found the body no crime has been comitted. Do you ever THINK about what you say or is it simply a matter of regurgitating WHATEVER Savage or Limbaugh or whoever it is that tells you what to think has put in your head?
Your life hasn't been affected in any way nor has anybody elses from Bush's anti-terror policies. No liberal I have ever talked to have ever come up with an example of how Bush's anti-terror policies have affected them personally, because they don't.
How would we know? Bush enacted a lot of his anti-American policies in secret.
Big government liberals? That's pretty funny considering it was your ultra conservatives under Bush who just created the biggest government in the history of the US.
Yep. And Clinton shrunk the government after the years of Reagan expanding it dramatically.
Another right wing myth.
Clinton didn't shrink the government. That's absolute B.S. It just didn't grow AS FAST under Clinton as it has under Bush because their were actually checks and balances.
RH,
Do you not agree that the last three Republican, "small government conservatives" have grown the government bigger and faster than the "liberal big government" Democrats.
Isn't it ironic that the biggest deficits and biggest deficits over the past 30 years have been under Republican leadership?
I think there is a difference in perspective here between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives seem to believe that someone with no real brain activity is "alive" because it suits themselves just fine.
This issue is more of a quality of life issue to most liberals and libertarians and the government has no business interfering and telling people how they should feel about these tough family decisions.
Open, sounds like you're describing, liberals, libertarians, Christians and people of other faiths and people of no religion who believe in compassion and human dignity. Now maybe someone can tell me who these right-wingers are and why they run my country?
Sundog: Now maybe someone can tell me who these right-wingers are and why they run my country?
Answer: These right-wingers, namely George W Bush run "your" country because they got more votes than John Kerry, the Democratic candidate who was also pro-war and would have, according to his campaign, also gone into Iraq (unless he's a liar) and he was the Democratic nominee because the Democrats rejected the original front-running anti-war candidate Howard Dean.
Oh, I see. Thanks. That's a shame isn't it?
I HATE to admit this Bruce. However that was a pretty good response.
Ever since one of RedKing's comments a few months back, I can't help but to think of the end of the second LOTR movies, where you see the industrious orcs destroying the landscape, polluting the environment, and happily bringing about hell on earth, and the treants ferociously rebelling against the violation of the landscape.
Is that a suitable definition for you?
"This issue is more of a quality of life issue to most liberals and libertarians and the government has no business interfering and telling people how they should feel about these tough family decisions"
They didn't "tell people how they should feel about these tough family decisions." They simply made it possible for the Schiavo family to challenge the removal of the feeding tube in court. Congress didn't force the doctors to put the feeding tube back in. They simply gave the Schiavo family the OPTION of going to court to try to save their child.
Rino, what absolute bunk. The schiavo's already had the right to go to court and they did and they lost. The courts ruled against their request. The congress passed a law attempting to overrule the courts. You need to brush up a bit on the facts if you are going to argue this one.
Rino, SHE WAS MARRIED. Her father gave her away in marriage to another man. He as her husband honored her wishes.
A completely delusional take on the issue once again from Rhino
Open,
You wrote: Conservatives seem to believe that someone with no real brain activity is "alive" because it suits themselves just fine.
I think you are mistaken. If there were no real brain activity Mrs. Schaivo would have died. Obviously there was some brain activity because, as seen on the tapes, Mrs Schaivo could breathe on her own, could respond to stimuli, utter sounds, and at times cry.
Mrs. Schaivo was alive in every sense of the word except her higher brain functions. To say she wasn't alive would have been as preposterous as your opinion.
"Mrs Schaivo could breathe on her own, could respond to stimuli, utter sounds, and at times cry"
I think I'm getting a better understanding of the gap on this issue. It's the subjective interpretation of "real brain activity".
If we just added "wave a flag" and "screech 'Clinton'sporadically" to the list, a lot of the 30%ers wouldn't have noticed anything wrong with Schiavo.
"I think you are mistaken. If there were no real brain activity Mrs. Schaivo would have died."--AA
Fair enough. I was oversimplifying a bit at the expense of conservatives without revisiting the details of Schiavo's brain activity.
By "real" brain activity, I mean no "significant" higher brain activity. The part of the brain that contained what was once Terry was long gone - at least from what I remember of the autopsy results.
The analogy still holds true, but it is a bit more wordy and inelegantly put.
That's what amazes me about this administration...how in the world can they try and project this image of caring about life, when their actions prove otherwise. Here and abroad.
Well, you have to remember that it's all part of the GOP's political facade...which is absolutely essential to keep their Evangelical voter base in lockstep. If the Fundies ever realize how they're being used...holy crap! But, I don't see that happening; they're too easily distracted.
Why I'm not a Republican anymore: The hypocrisy of, among other things, supporting a veggie staying on life support (pardon my lack of tact), but being pro-bugzapping convicts; saying "less government" unless they want to get involved in a state election or social issue like abortion, etc, etc.
"Last week Thompson said he couldn't remember details of the controversial Terri Schiavo case..."
Well, they may have found their new Reagan.Even better, he's got the dementia in place before even declaring his candidacy.
As long as he sticks to the script like Ronnie did.
Sundog,
Perhaps you would be so kind as to define hypocrisy for Dex?
How is he missing it AA? Winning elections by saying you're for small government and then actually being a government that invades people's personal lives could be seen as hypocricy. I mean, whether you see that's what they're doing or not, I'm not sure where he was misusing 'hypocricy.'
Gosh! I thought misuse of the word hypocrisy might have bothered you like the misuse of the word "ironic".
Dex wrote: "saying "less government" unless they want to get involved in a state election or social issue like abortion, etc, etc."
Apart from being (IMHO) an incoherent rant, being for less government does not have anything to do with involvement in a state election, (I have no idea what he's referring to here,) or anything to do with social issues like abortion.
I thought maybe you'd put on your scholar's cap and point out the misuse of the word. I guess I was mistaken.
AA, government that invades the private lives and decisions of individuals could be seen as big government. He said they claim to be against big government and then invade personal lives with the power of the government. Like I said, you might disagree and think the government has a right to tread in these decisions but it doesn't change the manner in which he was trying to use the word. Thas all.
Many conservatives have the philosophy that people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. Many conservatives are against abortion because they feel that it interferes with the rights of another human being, obviously being the right to life.
What do you mean you're against abortion? I mean I'm against it too. It's a sad, tragic painful thing for a woman to go through and many maintain that it's immoral in and of itself. Is that how you see it? After that, how are you more 'pro-life' than I am? Do you think the government has the power to deny someone the right to get a safe abortion?
To be more specific many conservatives are against "abortion rights" because it interferes with the rights of another human being.
In other words, abortion is murder?
Never mind. That question was answered below.
Rino, justify the death penalty using the logic that you applied to abortion.
I don't have an issue with the stance you wrote about on abortion, I have an issue with those who have a different stance on the death penalty than they do abortion.
This is what I wrote:
"Many conservatives have the philosophy that people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others."
Anybody who murders another human being forfeits the rights that they had before. Punishing someone for murdering an innocent human being isn't "interfering with the rights of others." It's simply administering justice. A person forfeits their rights when they take away somebody elses life.
"Anybody who murders another human being forfeits the rights that they had before. Punishing someone for murdering an innocent human being isn't "interfering with the rights of others." It's simply administering justice. A person forfeits their rights when they take away somebody elses life." RH
A few questions:
1) If a jury wrongfully convicts a person for murder and that person is put to death, who has committed murder? If there is a finding of evidence tampering, should that person die?
2) Why, in your mind, can juries give the death penalty to some murderers, but not others?
3) If abortion is "murder" as some (not saying you) have said it is, should the people making that decision face the same consequences in your mind as someone who murders another human being?
I think that the ten year apppeal process is long enough to ensure that justice is carried out. The defendant has multiple opportunities to appeal the verdict and exonerate themselves. I don't buy the argument that innocent people are getting put to death all the time. And of course the death penalty should be used for the most attrocious murders. It's the worst penalty there is, and thus has to be reserved for the worst murders. And I responded to your third point in my response to Lynn.
RH,
I didn't say that innocents are put to death "all the time," but if it happens once, that is murder, correct?
Why are some murders death penalty eligible and some not?
I guess if that actually happened and the defendant was actually put to death, the person who tampered with the evidence should be put to death as well, or at least severely punished. But I've never heard of that happening before.
REALLY? And yet more than 100 people have been freed from Death row after being PROVEN innocent by DNA evidence. Illinois suspended their death penalty after the governor saw that while they had executed 13 people since 1975 they had let 12 GO because they were wrongly convicted. The last case that of Porter, was especially heinous. He was 48 hrs from execution. A stay was granted NOT on the basis of evidence but rather on the argument that since his IQ was only 51 he was unable to help in his defense. During this stay a college professor took his class to the scene of the crime to go over the investigative process they went over the police report. It said he killed the guy ran east and fled. Except THERE WAS NO EXIT to the east. When that was brought to the attention of the policeman he said they had been looking at someone else when the eye witness came forward the brought him and he confessed within an hour. Now no one in the criminal justice system had ANYTHING to do with this aversion of a miscarriage of justice it was a FLUKE. After this Maryland did a study that found 66% of their capital cases had serious and reversible errors. They didnt feel that bad because that was BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. During George Bush's Governorship one THIRD of all lawyers appointed to indigent capital cases were later disbarred for being drunk, on drugs or ASLEEP during their trials. At any rate if even ONE PERSON who is wrongly convicted is executed how does that NOT make us all accesories to murder?
"REALLY? And yet more than 100 people have been freed from Death row after being PROVEN innocent by DNA evidence"
Which is why the 10 year appeals process works. I asked for an example of someone who was actually wrongfully executed.
Which you know is a near impossible task. Once dead, the files are closed. Takes $ to open them up again, dontcha know...
Nice dodge PORTER was saved by a FLUKE. The appeals process didnt save him a good teacher and good luck did. Since the state fights tooth and nail to keep ANY attempt to prove a convicted mans innocence and destroys evidence after conviction that is unlikely to happen. however it is CLEAR many innocent people were ON Death Row and statistics alone are convincing that before DNA to exonerate people that innocents WERE executed. You didnt even CLAIM no one innocent has EVER been executed only that it wasnt happening all the time.
Rino,Since you believe that a zygote is no different than say a 49 year old like myself and that we're both human beings and there is no difference than I assume you advocate the death penalty for women who opt to have an abortion and the doctors that perform them should be put to death as well huh?
Lynn, I can never seem to get anywhere with 'pro-life' people when it comes to following through on their logic and seeing where it goes. It's why I can't help feeling it's nothing more than empty even selfish sanctimony to go on about being against killing babies while ignoring the implications of what exactly they are demanding of the government.
I think that the doctors who perform the abortions should be punished but not the women themselves. The women haven't actually committed the act, and it would also be politically unrealistic to prosecute women. I think that abortionists should receive the death penalty, but women shouldn't be prosecuted.
Wow! and thanks RINO.
That's kinda like saying "I just drove the getaway car".
It’s kind of scary, let's just hope he doesn't condone the assassination of doctors who perform abortions. I still wonder why he's giving women the break. If a woman took her 3 year old child to someone and asked someone to kill him and they did she would be charged with murder as well I'm certain. Since a zygote is the same a 3 year old why should the woman be given a pass? I understand that when abortions were illegal sometimes women tried to perform the abortions themselves, RINO would those women get the big DP in RINO world?
No, I don't support assassination or vigilanteism. Abortion should be made illegal through the political process. And my position is that the person who kills the fetus should be punished. That's the politically realistic position, and it's one that more and more pro life people are taking. And if a woman killed her own fetus, then she should be prosecuted. That's what the law says RIGHT NOW. Nothing would change in that situation.
You realize that the scenario you are describing is "murder for hire" or even conspiracy in real life. It is not a get out of jail free card to have someone else do the killing. Laws should be applied evenly. If a zygote or a fetus is a human being then there could not be an exception that you describe.
You may want the law to be like that, but it is not logically consistent with current law.
The mothers would indeed be arrested and charged with some form of homicide.
Uh, oh. Solon's back. It's time for a tongue lashing!
Thats interesting do you plan on giving or recieving said lashing? I am just asking,
I plan on receiving it as always.
One of the things I like about you Rino. Stubborn as you are you have always been mostly honest.
I think your (latent?) affinity for masochism is what keeps you here.
Nonetheless, I do enjoy our discussions.
WOW!!!!!! If the woman or the baby has to die, do you just let things happen or do you let the doctor make the decision? Is the doctor a murderer either way?
I know this may be harsh, but RH, you officially scare me on this topic.
If the woman wants the abortion, isn't she (since you think this is murder) "ordering the hit" so to speak? If abortion is murder, she is, at the very least, guilty of conspiracy which would make her guilty of murder as well legally, right?
"WOW!!!!!! If the woman or the baby has to die, do you just let things happen or do you let the doctor make the decision? Is the doctor a murderer either way"
I think that there should be an exception for the life of the mother. I've said that before. And my position isn't as extreme as you think. About 1/3 of the American people believe that abortion should be banned with an exception for the life of the mother, and that number moves up to 50% when you include exceptions for rape and incest. And sorry, I have to include political realism, because the pro life movement has to compromise a little bit and try to create a majority to pass laws. That's the main reason why women can never be prosecuted for getting abortions. The public would never accept it. You could never get a law passed with that kind of a provision. And just so you know, many pro life people have the same position that I do on the issue. John McCain has also said that abortion doctors should be prosecuted but not the women who actually get the abortions.
RH,
If women, under your hypothetical are not accessories, watch for the criminal code to change too.
RH,
Also, please don't include the "politically realistic" parts in your argument. They do not change your beliefs. For example, I would love everyone to be legally given the same educations in this country. I know that is not "politically realistic," but it does not stop me from fighting for raising the quality of public school education. Your beliefs are your own and you shouldn't worry about the political realities of them. If that is what you choose to fight for, that is your call, politically realistic or not.
That is an extremist position.
When the only choices are "yes" or "no" instead of "depends" we enter scary, scary territory.
And abortion on demand is an extremist position as well. Most people are more liberal than me on the issue and more conservative than you. Most people take a middle position on the abortion issue.
Spare me your inflamatory rhetoric.
You would have doctors executed for performing abortions but not women for making the choice to submit to one. That is an extreme position because, like religious fundamentalism, it has no internal logic.
I admitted that my position is extreme. I just stated that your position of abortion on demand and taxpayer funded abortion is also extreme.
Now you're just making stuff up. Give it a rest.
Dex,
I know you asked Rhino and I'm writing this before I see a reply, but in my view one can be for the death penalty and against abortion if one believes in the death penalty that sometimes the guilty forfeit their right to life by taking other lives. On the other hand, the taking of a life through abortion is the killing of an innocent life.
In one case the life of a person guilty of a capital crime is taken. In the other case, an innocent fetus/embryo/unborn baby life is taken.
Before anyone gets all over me, I am not for the death penalty. However, I'll admit I'm a bit ambivalent. I can see the arguments for it and the arguments against it. I am only trying to describe how I understand why some people do not feel it inconsistent to be for one and against the other. As usual, I know some will disagree.
I understand that position. I support abortion rights but understand the positions many take against it
While I understand that take on the issue I disagree with it. The way you treat someone based on their actions and how you treat what you SEE as someone who has had no chance to TAKE any actions are not really the same thing. Conversely, the way you treat a SOMEONE based on the way you treat a mass of cells you are not CONVINCED is as yet a someone is also not really the same thing. Now you can disagree with either take on the issue. However it is clear this is how it is seen by THEM. This is why I disagree that it is inconsistant to have be for one and against the other when discussing abortion and the Death Penalty
AA, it does, and it comes down to (maybe I made it up) the conservative/republican view of "small government" or "anti-big gov."
Now, I understand that being "anti-big gov" does not mean "no gov." Repeatedly, conservatives rant about a liberal, big government getting involved in healthcare, the economy, and issues of states rights like abortion and elections (it's a state issue because FL was deciding on electoral votes that it would cast for the 2000 election, that's what I was referring to). So, I find hypocrisy in what I take to be political stances taken not on overall principle (small gov = good gov) but on ideological convenience (small gov = unless two dudes are doing it in a bedroom).
Dex,
I see the point you are trying to make, however, like the first post, I find your examples to be incoherent.
HBL,
BTW, I agree with you regarding Thompson. His comment simply doesn't pass the smell test.
I agree, the picture of Terri Schiavo is not necessary to get our attention.
Everyone who has an issue with quality of life and death need only look to the Living Will as an answer to the problem on an individual basis. My wife and I each have one saying that no heroic measures be used to keep us alive. End of discussion, as least as far as we are conderned.
We have taken that very private decision out of others hands, and saved our son the problems of convencing a hospital or the government that this is what we wish.
That's good advice. However, I think you're giving the "culture of life" vultures a little too much credit. This wasn't really about Terri Schiavo's welfare, or her life...not really. This was a cynical, hamfisted dog&pony show to further their crusade against what they call "judicial activism" and the expansion of the Evangelical political power base.
I think there is rich irony in calling "right to life" people vultures.
May I say as one who believes in "right to life" that you haven't a clue. Your conspiracy theory regarding right to lifers is out there in tinfoil-hat land. I suggest you simply stick with expressing what you believe rather than making stuff up.
AA, everyone here believes in right to life. The whole thing goes actually, "Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Who here doesn't believe in the right to life? I sure as hell do.
As long as that person is out of the womb, correct?
What would a person be doing in a womb?
Oh, it's a euphemism. I want my rights when I'm "in the womb " just as I want them immediately afterward when I roll over and fall asleep.
"What would a person be doing in a womb"
Um, maybe breathing and growing? And if you didn't notice those outside the womb do the same.
A fetus breathes? Really? You sure about that there chief?
Open, a fetus does breath in the sense that we use oxygen while in the womb much the same way as when out, we just use our mother's lungs to get the O2 at that point. Trying to argue against the humanity of fetuses seems a really wrong direction to take this debate. If that's the fight you choose, we lose because it just aint true and it confuses the issues.
They have a right to preach in their churches or on the sidewalk for that matter that abortion is immoral. Trying to fight against the sensibility that recognizes our humanity at a fetal stage of development is as off the handle as the 'right' trying to gurantee equal protection under the law to a fetus. That's the only argument that needs to and should be happening in regards to the government. Let's settle that issue and then we can all talk on a personal level about what we feel is right and wrong.
In order to be a person you have to be able to breathe outside the womb.
Until about 6 months into gestation, fetuses can't breathe outside the womb. They aren't people then.
One could argue about them being near-people when they could survive outside the womb, but when they can't live, even with lots of medical help, they aren't people.
When sick people can't survive without help, but can survive with help, they're people. When they can't survive, even with help, we call them DEAD. We don't give them rights. We shouldn't give fetuses who can't survive "alive people" status either.
Sundog,
I don't believe we should go making stuff up and conceding points that are observably incorrect.
Feti don't breathe. Period. I am willing to concede that is the only real significant difference between a fetus and a baby, but I am not going to just let people get away with an outright fabrication like that.
It is a significant fact that not only has legal consequences, but undermines much of the religious argument against abortion used by some Christians.
In the Bible, it is quite obvious that ancient Jews and Christians believed that breath was the most significant source of life itself. The Old Testament has several references to "Breath of Life".
In the original Ancient-Greek texts of the New Testament, the word for spirit is "pneuma" - which means "breath" in Ancient-Greek. Even the Latin root of the word "spirit" which we use comes from "spiritus" - which means "breath" in Latin as well.
Do you find it more than a coincidence that the only difference between a fetus and a baby is the very word used in the Bible for "spirit"? I don't at all. Not for a second.
But Open, exactly what I was trying to do and what I think we should do is seperate the legal debate from the religious debate. Roe v Wade didn't didn't happen because of 'activist' justices after all. It really is unconstitutional to take this choice away from women without violating their civil liberties. It's IMPOSSIBLE. The religious argument has its place, but these people are trying to change our laws in a very significant way.
Your point of view is quite valid, but I still think taking the tack of denying our humanity while in a fetal state is just circling these people around the drain. They are trying to draw us into a religious, emotional debate which would be fine if they weren't doing it in order to subvert our free society. You give this a lot of thought. The next generation maybe hasn't. If they believe the debate is about whether a fetus is human or not and that's it, they are often misled as to whether they are pro-choice or not. Look at a fetus and say it's not human. It's as big of a trick of cognitive dissonance as any fundamentalist pulls. My point is, yes a fetus is human, but no matter how we feel about it, it's IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee a fetus equal protection under the law. This whole thing is about winning hearts and minds. They know that. I feel it's better not to play their game because it's dishonest. If you want to debate religion great. If you want to debate religion in order to slip under the radar while you fundamentally subvert the Constitution, I'm not having that conversation.
HBL, go to your womb right now, young man!!
My womb? I don't own a womb, JJ, I'm just a renter.Besides, I'm at work.But I'll try to go to "a" womb at my earliest opportunity.
HBL, I got a womb for me and my wife for a little fetus-sy hanky panky. Zygote her to put on the wonder woman costume, but I couldn't cell her on the idea of swinging from the chandleirs. I got really stem-ed when she aborted my plans.
Lol. We take our time getting out and the rest of our lives trying to get back in.
; )
It's not that simple Rino, no matter how much we want it to be.
I know you might get defensive, but I would really appreciate it if you indulge me. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, do you think she should be forced to carry to term and have the baby?
That's a really tough question, because it's such a terrible situation. Many pro life people do want an exception for rape, and I can definetely understand why. But my position is that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception on, and taking that life any time after conception is murder. Rape is obviously a terrible thing, but it's not the baby's fault it happened. Everything happens for a reason, and the woman still has the option to give her baby up for adoption. She isn't being forced to keep it.
And I also realize that it's not politically realistic to ban abortion in cases of rape. If I was a state legislator and attempting to ban abortion, I would probably have to compromise and include exceptions for rape and incest simply to get the law past. Even a conservative state like South Dakota couldn't get an abortion ban passed, because it didn't include an exception for rape and incest.
RH,
I appreciate your candor, what about incest? It boggles my mind that anyone would want a woman, if she didn't want to, to live and keep something around for 9 months as a lasting reminder of probably one of the worst events in her life.
My view on life is that everything happens for a reason. Rape and incest are absolutely terrible things, but I believe that God has a plan for all of us from the moment we are conceived. I don't believe that it's right for a woman to get an abortion unless her life is in danger. I realize that that's a pretty tough position to take, but I'm just being honest. A woman can always give her baby up for adoption in these extreme circumstances.
So Rino, in your world a man could rape a woman specifically to force her to have his child. You'd send him to jail sure, but he'd get his child into the world and he could use your daughters body to do it. I'm not just trying to sound offensive, this is what you're saying. And no, not that you want your daughter raped but in your world where a fetus has the same rights as my little girl, some psychopath could rape her specifically to get his 'seed' into the world and you're saying I can't take her to the doctor and abort the fetus? And if I do you're going to kill the doctor? Me too for taking her? Am I dead in that pro-life scenario too?
I know that it's a tough position and not a mainstream one, but I just don't think that abortion is ever right unless the life of the mother is in danger. But as I said before, if I was a state legislator I would probably include exceptions for rape and incest when writing legislation so that it could actually get passed.
And I wouldn't really have a problem with a woman using the morning after pill after she got raped. That's conflicting evidence about whether that actually kills an embryo or not, and I think it's a better alternative than getting an abortion.
How does the exception for rape and incest work exactly? Does she bring in a note from her rapist? I know that sounds silly. It is silly. In other words it's an impossible law. Does a woman need to just accuse someone of rape to get an abortion? What if it's her husband who wanted a baby and she didn't? Pretty easy for him to get her pregnant against her wishes. How much of her life do you think a woman should have to explain to get an abortion?
Do you see what I mean? I know how human a fetus is Rino. My wife and I have been through three miscarriages including with a set of twins. I saw all four of their hearts beating on the ultrasounds and I wanted like hell to hold each one of them in my arms. I know that we already have humanity at that stage of our lives. That really isn't the argument even though people on both sides confuse it with that. No one is saying you can't preach anything you want in your church or in your family. It's just impossible to guarantee a fetus equal protection under the law and still maintain anything resembling a free society.
RH,
Not sure if you are still reading this thread or not, but you must be against fertility clinics too, right?
They end up throwing away a lot of embryos.
I'm against funding for embryonic stem cell research. But I don't think the government can really crack down on fertility clinics. You have to draw the line somewhere.
RH,
If you are not willing to draw the line on rape and incest, why draw the line with fertility clinics?
In your mind, they are murdering hundreds and hundreds of embryos each year. Why not shut them down completely?
I hate to say it, RH, but if you are ok with the fertility clinics disposing of human life, you have probably entered a "slippery slope."
Rape is obviously a terrible thing, but it's not the baby's fault it happened. Everything happens for a reason, and the woman still has the option to give her baby up for adoption. She isn't being forced to keep it. Rino
Rino, it's not the woman's fault that she was raped either!. If your daughter was raped your would force her to carry her rapist's baby? You would make her live with a reminder of her rape for 9 months?
Or if it was incest as well, apparently. Just what we need, a bunch of inbred babies getting filtered through the adoption process. Can't wait until they try to find out who their true parents are.
There are two sets of grounds to oppose policy;societal and moral. Is there some societal reason why the children of rape and incest need to be protected? Ummmm, no. We're not exactly that short of people where we have to take all the babies we can possibly get, circumstances be damned.
Morality, apparently, is another story. "Everything happens for a reason". Hmm. So God sent a rapist to impregnate a woman as part of his grand plan, so that child could be brought into the world. Why, look! There's a star over Bethlehem! Grab your gold and fragrances, guys!
The whole idea that every conception of potential life bears a unique soul carries far too much weight with these people. That's the only possible reason. And furthermore, the idea has to be that God will send the soul of that aborted fetus to hell, as I've said before. Otherwise, what's the problem? We'd force a victim of rape or incest to bear the child because otherwise that soul would be "recycled" into another baby? This is a trumping concern...why, exactly?
So apparently, the view is that in the case of rape, that happened for a reason, and if a woman were to abort that fetus, that fetus would burn in hell eternally. That's some kind and benevolent God we got working there.
But the real punchline is the exception for the health of the mother. This makes no sense at all, really. If we're talking about "everything happens for a reason", then why doesn't that apply to the health of the mother as well? Why isn't it the case that that scenario is happening for some holy purpose as well? Go ahead, tell a woman she can't have an abortion because if she dies, that was clearly God's will in action.
Apparently, the difference is it's political. But will God accept that people like Rino are defying His mother-killing will for mere political points? I wouldn't stand too close - lightning could strike him at any moment.
Brab, I think what needs to happen from the 'pro-choice' side is to start asking of the anti crowd, "Just exactly what is it you're proposing?" It's essentially servitude of women to a shocking degree.
Right now the 'right' is swaying public opinion with the emotions brought on by recognizing the humanity of a fetus. People look, say yikes, I'm not for killing those! But then they don't look all the way into what granting equal protection under the law to a fetus would entail. I say, let's do that. Because people should be scared.
I agree, that's an excellent way of addressing it.
You CALLING a fetus a person doesnt MAKE it a person. No finding of FACT has been made there. YOUR OPINIONS are not a solid basis for LAW. My OPINION is that ignorant people ought not to vote but I am not trying to make that a LAW.
There is more and more scientific evidence all the time that a fetus is indeed a human being. A fetus' heart starts beating after 3 weeks, and it's growing the entire time. It's a living being. It doesn't become any more "alive" when it comes out of the womb.
Not really. We dont even know what life IS. For instance we know things are alive at the cellular level but not the molecular level. We dont know why. We arent even doing basic research to find out as we dont know what to look for. Also that blurs a disctinction. My THUMB is alive. IT has a pulse. That doesnt mean it is a SEPERATE life. Nor do we know when a fetus becomes a SEPERATE LIFE or relflects the life of the mother.
My OPINION is that ignorant people ought not to vote but I am not trying to make that a LAW.
-Snoop
I wish for that law every day...
That is a major propaganda tactic. Using empty meaningless but emotionally charged rhetoric in place of thoughtful dialogue. Its like saying I support people and happyness. Who doesnt? What is the set of people opposed to life or happyness?
Retired,
This got a lot of us talking to our families when we saw one more avenue these characters were willing to invade our lives.
My DNRs are signed and filed away as a result of that fiasco. I trust my husband and I trust my family (for the most part), but not only do I not want to see some distant relative suddenly have an opinion regarding my "welfare," but I also don't think that this very painful and difficult decision should be put on the shoulders of those I love. No matter how sure you may be that the person wants to pass forward, I'd think there would always be a "what if" going on.
"that very private decision"
That's how Michael Schiavo described it when I saw him interviewed by Keith Olbermann. He said it was not his decision to make this agonizing situation public and political, it was that of Terry's family.
I respect that Terry's family wanted to have a say in this decision, but taking it public so that the right can use it as political baseball bat is nothing less than shameful.
Pete,
I disagree. I felt the shameful part was the government sanctioned starving of an innocent person to death.
I cannot find any fault with the parents who obviously loved her to do everything they could to try to save their daughter's life.
On the other hand, I found the philandering husband to be completely untrustworthy and his desire to kill his wife to be despicable.
I hope my people love me enough to not let me be used in a cynical manner and exploited. I hope my husband doesn't try to keep me alive when it's clear I'm not there anymore. I hope that he'll let me pass onto the next phase as is supposed to happen and not keep me in a hellish limbo. I hope that maybe any parts of me that can be salvaged to let someone else see or perhaps if I have an organ that's desperately needed, then it can be harvested. If I am a vegetable, I would not want to live. I wouldn't want resources spent on me and time and emotional energy be spent in vain. And I hope my husband finds another love and lives life to it's fullest.
JJ, maybe mention that to your folks too ok? Don't want AA here slammin yer hubby in a few years for being a killer.
PS can I have your kneecaps? I mean God forbid and all, it's just that one of mine is still tricky from an old football thing and oh of course it will never come to that and all, I'm just sayin. You could have any of my parts if they need to pull the plug on me too ya know. If we're already in the garage, there's no reason not to turn the key off.
Sundog, I am very fond of my brain and my independence. I would never want to be kept alive for someone else's gratification/needs. That's not how I define love. If I am braindead, that's dead IMO. I don't think you want my kneecaps though. I never had an old football injury, but I have moved my fair share of furniture being an interior designer. See, I don't like to wait for help much to the chagrin of people I know that can't figure out how somebody 5'2" can move large pieces of furniture.
Sundog & JJ, I find it interesting that those who "know" that Paradise is waiting after this life seem to be the most terrified of moving on when it's time.
Also interesting is that those who are presently furthest from that vegetative mental state understand the "quality of life" aspect of it.
Those who are closer to that state in their normal lives seem more desperate to be kept alive even after cessation of brain activity.I guess if the change isn't that drastic, the quality oof life angle is more subtle... ;0)
HBL, one might not even know the difference, eh? He, he.
HBL,
Your experience is a lot different than mine. Many of those I have known who do believe in life after death are looking forward to that time. Although I plan on living to 100, I do look forward to being reunited with my loved ones.
There is a theological idea held in my religion, I do believe called redemptive suffering. For purposes of our discusion, it says that even those who have a poor quality of life have great value to themselves and to others.
I do hope Julia's wishes are followed while at the same time hoping they never have to be. It becomes a slippery slope as to what determines where the quality of life begins and when it is okay for another to terminate one's life because of an arbitrary point.
There is NO slippery slope since the decision was HERS all along
I thought it was sad the way her parents wanted to keep her around. What did they want to do prop her up at the head of the table like Grampa in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre? How goulish can you get?
If someone tried to keep me alive in that state I SWEAR I would find my way from the other side and haunt their damn dreams
"the government sanctioned starving of an innocent person to death"
So the government sanctioned it....
Meaning you'd rather have the government take the decision away from the people, and make the decision as to whether or not a blind, brain dead person lives or dies.
Yet at the same time...
There's the right's desire to get the government out of peoples' lives, reduce the size and reach of government, "government is bad", "government can't help people", etc.
Did Ronald Reagan actually mean "I'm from the government and I'm here to make this agonizing decision for you?"
And of course your frame is COMPLETELY FALSE. HER RIGHT to die rather than be kept alive on life support was upheld. HER RIGHTS UPHELD. I find YOU completely untrustworthy for your propagandistic take on this matter. If I were in a PVS for more than a decade I would WANT my wife to go on with her life. I would NOT consider her a philanderer for doing so. Just because MY actual life stopped would not obligate HER to stop her life. There certainly is NO QUESTION the law was followed right down the line on this issue. Floridas constitution was upheld. TERRIs rights were upheld. YOU twisting it so shamelessly is pathetic
"On the other hand, I found the philandering husband to be completely untrustworthy and his desire to kill his wife to be despicable."
In the several years spent and thousands upon thousands of posts I've read here, this may be the single most revolting sentence I have read.
This went on for fifteen years. Not months. Years. He didn't jump on the opportunity of her accident to dump her in the hospital and go screw around with other women. He didn't meet Jodi until 1995. How many years would you visit a vegetable, hoping against hope that there would be some miracle, before you felt the need for actual physical companionship? Especially bearing in mind that you had lost the woman you loved, but yet she was still breathing? She was in a nursing home at this point, beyond the hospital stage. Can you make any effort to understand the pain of this situation? Apparently you think you're some super-human who wouldn't possibly need that support, and can't comprehend how us mere mortals need that human touch.
Do you have any concept of what others go through, of empathy? Do you think about this at all? Or are you this committed to brainless moral absolutism that you can't understand the difference between vibrant, active life and a mere blip...blip..blip on a pulse monitor? Is it really a sin in your mind for someone to make some effort to move past such a tragedy, to live one's own life instead of vainly sacrificing it on the altar of the past? Who is this supposed to be good for?
If you really want to get moral about it, and it seems that you do, not only is it wrong for Michael to try to end this drawn-out ordeal, but he can't date in the meantime. He has to wait until she dies of old age, otherwise it's adultery and murder. What a perfect example of how moral absolutism doesn't make a scintilla of sense when displayed in the light of reality. A moment of independent thought shows the raging idiocy of the viewpoint.
(continued)The selfishness boggles the mind. Because of your inability to look past your narrow moral viewpoint, your mindless commitment to life in any hollow form, you would condemn a loving husband to a monk's existence for however many decades. What compassion! What understanding!
If you were in Terri's position, would you want your wife to live like that? Or would you want her to find a way to move on and be happy, at some point? Give it some thought. Either you're a selfish, heartless bastard, or your brain will begin to comprehend and identify with what Michael did. You tell me.
As for his desire to kill his wife, give me a damn break. By whose sick, twisted definition is that "life"? That is nothing more than a shell of a person. A mere breathing body is not what makes a person, it is a person's brain. You have no personality, no thoughts, no dreams without higher brain functioning. There is...above all...no hope for anything better, anything more than this.
This is not "life"! This is not dignity. How many years to you cling to this before you want it to just be over, for God's sake. Fifteen years? Thirty? Fifty? Tell me you would want to keep your wife in such a state for that long, without ever wanting to just end it, and end it with some sense of dignity, at long last! Tell me that. Tell me that after thirty or forty years you wouldn't start to think about ending it, morals be damned. Tell me you wouldn't begin to understand Michael's "despicable" desire. I won't believe it until I see it. And if after that long you think you might want to finally end it, you can kindly tell all of us what the acceptable time limit is...and exactly why that doesn't open things up to a slippery slope where people will want to pull the plug on vegetables after the unbelievably short time period of eight freakin' years with no progress and no hope!
Try putting yourself in someone else's position instead of clinging to your spoon-fed moral BS. Try thinking for yourself, just once, just a little. Your inability to do so has reached epically disgusting proportions.
I would say that I'm sorry for the rant, but I'm not. You deserve every bit of the scorn you get for that post, and much more.Outfreakingstanding post Brab. Well done
Thank you kindly. I meant every damn word, obviously.
I couldn't sleep, so I put a little creative writing exercise in a new post, you might like that as well.
Brab, thank you. I can't say it enough.
I had to chime in, too. Well done again, Brab.
I know this is from Wikipedia (if anything is false, say so, but it jibes with my recollection of the saga), but here's some more about that cruel bastard of a husband (all bold mine);
September 1, 1990: Terri is taken home, to Vina del Mar, for 100 days with Michael at the Schindlers; Michael takes nursing classes.
1991:Michael begins studying nursing at St. Petersburg Community College to better care for his wife. He eventually becomes a respiratory therapist and an emergency room nurse.
1991:The Schindlers (Terri's parents) actively encourage Michael to "get on with his life" and date.
(that dirty philanderer!)
1994:Guardian ad litem John H. Pecarek submits his report which states that Michael Schiavo acted appropriately and attentively toward Terri Schiavo.
1994:The administration of one nursing home attempts, unsuccessfully, to get a restraining order against Michael because he was demanding more attention for his wife at the expense of other patients' care.
(selfish, untrustworthy cad!)
1994:Michael accepts the diagnosis that Terri is in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. In consultation with Terri's physician, Schiavo halts most therapy for his wife.
(only four years it took him to accept this? If he was trustworthy and loyal he never would have accepted it!)
Yes, that cinches it. Clearly Michael never cared at all for his wife, and was just chomping at the bit to kill her so he could feel less guilty about his selfish, hedonistic pursuit of sexual pleasure.
That's sarcasm, by the way.
Thank you MMFA for changing the picture.
I want to second that thank you. Much better picture choice. (-:
The entire Terri Schaivo issue is simply a picture of hypocrisy from right wing evangelical Republicans.
Republicans right wing evangelicals say that marriage is between one man and one woman. When you say your vows you promise to love , honor and cherish forsaking ALL others yet Republican right wing evangelicals find an exception for Michael Schaivo. There is no sanctity of marriage for him, her parents should decide. The Schaivo's marriage is now one man, one woman and her parents. Her husband should not be the one to make decisions regarding her life. The reason given by those Republican right wing evangelicals? Not the truth. The truth would be that he didn't decide to do what THEY wanted him to do. When going against their wishes the sanctity of marriage becomes moot.
Then you have your good old Dr. Frist, using his medical degree to diagnose a patient without ever having seen her. How many people would trust a doctor's diagnosis that had never seen them as a patient? Not many.
Then we have Junior, who can find the time to come back to Washington from his vacation in Texas to sign a bill, created for ONE person to "preserve life". With the Republicans controlling congress they created "Terri's bill". Has anyone ever heard of a bill created for one ONE AMERICAN? I guess "some lives" are more important to preserve than others. Junior couldn't take a break from his fundraising to preserve the lives of the Katrina victims or at least show he gave a damn. Hell he had to see on a DVD.
We know from Republicans right wing evangelicals who they think should decide to preserve life/lives but I wonder what determines which life/lives to preserve?
This is not a face off between anything. It's Republican right wing evangelicals dictating who's life is important. It's Republican right wing evangelicals trying to make a decision not because they should be involved but because their base, those so called "Christians" told them to use their power to do what they wanted. Republicans of course so drunk on power ran out and did just that to keep the $$ coming in.
Hi Pearlene, even my Mom who is a die hard Republican doesn't want to be kept alive like that. She has said it time and again. She is very independent and can't stand the thought. The vast majority of people, except the fundies were really turned off by this episode of Gov'mint interference.
Sheesh, now RH has derailed the thread with abortion again. That's so ti-red.
Actually JJ, I'm not sure if he derailed it so much as revealed it. That's who these people are and that's the main goal of the movement that went after Terri. They're trying to set legal precedents in different ways to codify their view of 'the sanctity of life' so that eventually the weight of law (and patsy Justices) will overturn Row v Wade. Then they'll usher in a glorious new day when women are cattle. Wonderful folks.
Nicely done, PEARLENE.
So much for the Republicans and their "sanctity of marriage" and their love of "states rights".
These are two of the most basic conservative issues, yet they were tripping over each other to disregard the wishes of the only person who had the law on his side, Mr. Schiavo.
And when the State of Florida upheld the "sanctity of marriage" the cons could not accept the states ruling.
I've been through this with my wife of 26 years. My children and I honored her wishes while some in my wife's family would not accept our decision at the time.
Thankfully, they've come to understand that we acted out of love, not our own selfish interests.
Worrier,
While we don't know each other, I am glad you have found peace and comfort with such a decision. I would not wish the decision you had to make on anyone and I admire you for sharing your experience with us.
Take care of yourself and your family.
I echo fried in my sentiments toward you and your family. My deepest condolences.
My father made a similar decision regarding my mother after she had a stroke while being operated. Unfortunately my mother could still think but could not breathe on her own. It is heartwrenching to be in that situation.
God bless your family.
Thank you Fried and AA.
King, my sincere condolences.
I had a friend who was happily married during the Schavio case. Her husband agreed with Michael and she did not. Unfortunately less than a year later she found her husband on life support due to a massive stroke. Although she did not agree with his position regarding life support she honored his wishes and allowed him to pass in peace.
It's a life altering experience which leave no one able to judge the actions of someone else.
Thanks Pearlene.
I consider myself one of the luckiest people who've ever lived. After I lost my wife, I found my new love who also lost her spouse. We been blessed because we've found for a second time what most people never find once.
And my new wife is a hospice nurse so we are both aware of each others wishes and have put it all in writing.
Pearlene wrote: "When you say your vows you promise to love , honor and cherish forsaking ALL others yet Republican right wing evangelicals find an exception for Michael Schaivo."
Do you not realize that Mr. Schaivo was living with another woman for many years while Mrs. Schaivo was alive? It is obvious he did not believe in them.
Was it intentional that you left out "in sickness and in health"?
I think the facts betrayed your argument. It is obvious that Mr. Schaivo did not live up to his end of the marriage contract.
ps. Do you not know that Mr. Schaivo only came up with the implausible "she told us she never wanted to be kept alive" till (if my memory serves me,) about seven years after she became ill and only after he won his malpractice suit for over a million bucks. His only corroborating witnesses were his relatives.
Yeah that Michael Schaivo was a real dedicated husband.
This is baloney. He was a dedicated husband, and he stood up, against great odds, to support what his wife wanted.
Here are a lot of details. You got almost everything wrong, and I bet you've been schooled on this before, so I'm not going to go into the details here. You're not telling the truth about Terri Schiavo or her husband Michael.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Do you not realize that Mr. Schaivo was living with another woman for many years while Mrs. Schaivo was alive? It is obvious he did not believe in them.
AA, Michael did not meet the “other woman” until 1995, 5 years AFTER Terri collapsed. Maybe you feel that you are able to judge whether Michael should have some type of life after 5 years but I will not place myself in a position to JUDGE. When I walk in his shoes, I'll feel free to judge, until then, no.
Was it intentional that you left out "in sickness and in health"?
Not intentional at all. Upon her collapse in 1990 she remained in and out of medical facilities during that time Michael in 1991 starting training to become a nurse. You think that Michael became a nurse to the money? He took his wife to San Francisco for speech and occupational therapy, he placed in a rehabilitation center where he spent time working with her.
Do you not know that Mr. Schaivo only came up with the implausible "she told us she never wanted to be kept alive" till (if my memory serves me,) about seven years after she became ill and only after he won his malpractice suit for over a million bucks. His only corroborating witnesses were his relatives.
You know that money that you claim he was sooo bent on receiving. The court granted after the appeal $700,000. to Terri and $300,000. to Michael. Terri’s portion was held in a trust administered by a third party, not Michael.
I Imagine that their have been several conversations between you and your wife that you didn’t feel you had to make everyone in your family aware of. That’s one of the most special things about marriage, you have one person in the world who knows you better than anyone (forsaking all others). The things that my husband and I discussed were never meant for anyone to hear but us and NEVER in our wildest dreams did we think that we would have the need to have a "corroborating witnesses" to the things we discussed regarding our wishes.
When Terri's body was autopsy she had extensive injuries to her brain. Her brain weighed 615g, 1/2 the weight of a normal brain for a woman her height and weight. She had extensive damage to nearly all brain regions.
It was not up to the Republican right wing evangelicals, Congress, Junior nor yourself to decide this woman's life, it was the man she married, her husband.
Yes he WAS. I would want my wife to do EXACTLY as Micheal did. I would not want her to keep her life on hold were I unable to be any real part of her life. I WOULD want her to do what it took to assure MY wishes were carried out which like Terris I have told her but not written down. She KNOWS I would NEVER want to be kept alive in a like condition. That doesnt mean I would deny her companionship with another man for MORE THAN A DECADE to DO that for me. Isnt it easy to appoint yourself a pious moralizing judge in a situation YOU are not in?
I've read post after post from conservatives about the importance of protecting human life and to them zygotes, embryos, and fetuses fall into the category of innocent human life. I just don't understand why they don't have the same compassion for the innocent real live born human children that are living in dire circumstances and painfully conscious of their surroundings. It's ironic many of these children are exposed to extremely deprived existences that sometimes leads them to lives of habitual criminality and if they do commit the ultimate crime of murder these same people who fought tooth and nail for them to be born will fight tooth and nail to kill them; and they are the same people that will fight tooth and nail against using any of their tax dollars to pay for mentoring programs and crime intervention programs aimed at helping innocent children living in poor depressed communities. I just don’t get it.
Lynn,
Great post! I think I would call the position "pro-fetus" rather than "pro-life." It does seem that many of these people, not all, but many, believe that a child has the right to be born, but once they are out of the womb, they are on their own.
It does not make sense to me, but I don't want to speak for them.
Lynn, once the child is born it becomes "personal responsibility" issue.They are not too concerned about "the children".
Don't raise my taxes to pay for "those kids". Don't raise my taxes for school lunch for the poor. Don't raise my taxes for after school programs for inter city kids. Don't raise my taxes for health care for children without insurance.
After the children are born, My Taxes, My Taxes My Taxes. Short version ME, ME, ME, ME, ME.
Lynn,
I think you are mistaken in your categorization. I doubt anyone wants children to be brought up deprived situations. I'd like you to point out where anyone has said so. To make that assertion does not help the discussion.
It would also be interesting to get beyond the hyperbole and for you to define what you mean by deprived.
There can be people of good will who disagree on how tax dollars are spent. I imagine there are many who disagree with the spending on the war in Iraq. Does that mean they don't care about the soldiers?
First of all I'm shocked you addressed me directly as you usually don't engage me in discussion, so I assume that you took special exception to what I said. Well anyway, all the programs that are designed to intervene and offset the effects on a child reared in the dysfunctional ferment that is the deprived community is usually met with complete resistance by conservative politicians and there supporters. You can't have it both ways. Now I agree that people should be responsible and plan for the children that are brought into this world, but you and I know that isn't always the case, and innocents don’t get to pick their parents and they get stuck in awful circumstances. I believe that the larger community should step in and provide assistance so that these children aren't completely lost to an extreme environment. In other words AA actions speak louder than words. IMO to disrupt this perpetual out-of wed-lock poverty ridden existence you have to get these kids while they are still kids and show them that there is a better way to live. You can’t do it by coming into their communities and telling them what horrible human beings the people that are raising them are, but there has to be a persistent presence to set the example of the responsible living that they may never see otherwise. It takes financial and human resources to do that AA. Now Tommy always says we can’t fix all of society’s ills but to advocate that children be born and not to advocate providing a safe environment for these children when their parents refuse to or are incapable of doing so is IMO is inconsistence with the profession to care about all innocent life. If you really care you have to care about the quality of life that the innocent have as well.
(Scene:a classroom, daytime. A middle-aged storyteller sits in front of a group of children, with a book on his lap. The children face upstage)
Storyteller:Today, boys and girls, we're going to hear a story, and as always, find the moral. We like finding the moral, don't we?
(The children nod)
Storyteller:Great! Now, today's story is "The Monkey's Paw" by W. W. Jacobs. This is a favorite of mine, I think you'll like it. Have any of you heard this story before?
(The children shake their heads)
Storyteller:Good! (begins to read, looks up at the children from time to time) Now, the way the story goes, the White family is visited by an old friend who was in India, Sergeant Morris. He brings with him a monkey's paw, which he says is good for three wishes. BUT, he says...while the wishes come true, they come at a terrible price! He throws the monkey's paw into the fire, but John, the father, grabs the paw from the fire to save it. Sergeant Morris tells him he's better to let it burn, but John doesn't listen.
Later that evening, Herbert, the son, tells his father he should wish for twenty-five thousand dollars! So John does exactly that. Herbert goes off to his night job at the local dam, while his parents go to bed, dreaming of the riches to come.
The next morning, the Whites are awoken with terrible news;Herbert is dead!
(the children gasp)
Storyteller:Yes! Killed in a horrible accident at the dam...but there is some good news at least. Because of Herbert's work insurance, the family gets twenty-five thousand dollars!
So the Whites bury their beloved son, and get their wished-for money. But Mrs. White becomes distraught over the days, and wants her son back. She pleads with her husband to use one of the remaining two wishes to bring him back, and so he does exactly that.
Soon afterwards, they hear a sound coming from the front walk. Clomp...shhhhhhhhkkkk...Clomp....shhhhhkkkkk...like someone dragging one leg slowwwwly behind him. Up the front walk...closer and closer to the door...and then...KNOCK...KNOCK...KNOCK...KNOCK...a slow, steady pounding at the front door.
Mrs. White, eager to see her son again, runs to the front door, but has trouble with the latch. John realizes, to his horror...that his son is back...but he is just how he was as he died! Quickly, John picks up the monkey's paw, and uses its last precious wish...to wish his son to be back in his grave in peace.
(looks around at the children)
Now, children, what is the moral of the story?
(long beat)
Hmmm, nobody knows? Funny, you know I don't get the moral either.
(remembering)
Oh! That's because I forgot to put on my magical moral absolutist glasses!
(mimes pulling glasses out of his pocket, and putting them on, scrunching up his nose and squinting as he looks back at the book)
Oh this makes much more sense now! You see, children, Mr. Jacobs made a mistake here. A very, very big mistake. Because Herbert was alive! He may have been a mangled, somewhat smelly zombie, but he breathed and blinked and had a beating heart and all of that. That is life! And once you have life, nothing else matters! So he couldn't have wished him back into the grave! That is wrong!
(takes an imaginary pencil out of his pocket and erases part of the pages)
Let's get rid of this part here...
(turns the pencil around to "write")
And let's make it so they welcome their living son back with open arms, and let's say they wish for...well, to gain a closer relationship to Jesus, and the price is...losing the twenty-five thousand dollars playing Bingo. There! That works much better!
(puts the imaginary pencil and glasses back in his pocket, making a show of rubbing his eyes to adjust his vision)
And they all lived happily ever after. So now, children, what is the moral of the story?
(The children stand in unison and face the audience, their eyes wide and unblinking)
Children:(in unison, monotone) Life is alllwaaays gooooooood. Death is alllwaaaaays baaaaaaad.
Storyteller:That's right, children! Very good!
(Curtain)
Thats excellent. I remember that story. In high scool the drama class did the play.
Very nice, Brab. I wish my occasional bouts of insomnia produced anything as entertaining.
Thanks, and to everyone who commented on my other posts as well. Much appreciated!
The "culture of life" crowd is the same one that enthusiastically supports soldiers accused of murder in Iraq.