|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Davo, you made some good points and exhibited independent thought up until the terrorist and Rosa Parks comparisons. In the case of the supposed "sympathy for terrorists," I'm not aware of a situation where a terrorist was being kept alive artificially and "the left" was calling for his death. If you're referring to the general concept that the left is prone to giving enemies excessive medical attention, I'd point out that throughout the 20th century POW's have been given medical treatment, both on the battlefield and off. Not to mention the Geneva Convention outlines standards for this type of conduct (whether you want to argue the GC's role regarding terrorists is a separate issue). As for Rosa Parks, frankly it'd be such a stretch to support any kind of comparison that I'm not even sure we should bother. You seem like an intelligent guy and I don't want to come across as a prick, but dang, dude, I couldn't let those two things slide 
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
In the case of the supposed "sympathy for terrorists," I'm not aware of a situation where a terrorist was being kept alive artificially and "the left" was calling for his death. If you're referring to the general concept that the left is prone to giving enemies excessive medical attention, I'd point out that throughout the 20th century POW's have been given medical treatment, both on the battlefield and off. Not to mention the Geneva Convention outlines standards for this type of conduct (whether you want to argue the GC's role regarding terrorists is a separate issue).
Originally posted by Davo:
My point was more to illustrate the left's sympathy for terrorists but lack thereof for those who cannot speak for themselves. This probably doesn't have much relevance to the Terri Schiavo case except the Schiavo case has brought out sides of the left only the giften can often see.
Originally posted by Viss1:
As for Rosa Parks, frankly it'd be such a stretch to support any kind of comparison that I'm not even sure we should bother.
The Rosa Parks comment was in reference to Kremit's assertion that all private matters should remain private and without government intervention. Rosa Parks' arrest was a personal matter whose social and political meaning captivated the nation and therefore sparked one of the more significant social movements in human history. My point was to prove that personal matters can be made political with lasting effects. Not sure that will happen with the Schiavo case, I was just trying to make a point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Rosa Parks' arrest was a personal matter whose social and political meaning captivated the nation and therefore sparked one of the more significant social movements in human history. My point was to prove that personal matters can be made political with lasting effects. Not sure that will happen with the Schiavo case, I was just trying to make a point.
???
The Rosa Parks arrest was an obvious and blatant violation of black-letter constitutional law. Requiring blacks to move to the back of a public bus in deference to White people or to give up their seats to White people is not and can never be constitutional. This was the case of a public transit authority and a municipal government and police force violating the constitutional rights of a person on the basis of race.
Now tell me what federal or constitutional right of the Schiavo parents was violated or implicated here?
Before you answer, keep in mind that a conservative US Supreme Court has found on 3 separate ocassions that no such right has ever been articulated.
What would be a more fitting analogy is if Rosa Park's parents wanted her to move to the back of the bus and Rosa Park's husband disagreed. That is not a federal dispute and would never have ended up in the federal court system.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
...
Go back and read what I said. Read it over and over until you figure out you didn't need to respond the way you did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Conservative columnist/nutjob Cal Thomas in his column today made a direct comparison between Terri Schiavo and Rosa Parks.
Invoking the name of Rosa Parks in this debate is simply insulting to Rosa Parks and to anyone with half a brain.
Anyway, where's the outrage about a law endorsed and signed by George Bush, which allows a hospital - A HOSPITAL - to make a fiscal decision to pull the plug on babies or any other person they deem to be beyond recovery? Some of you "preserve life at all cost" fanatics must feel at least a little queasy about this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Conservative columnist/nutjob Cal Thomas in his column today made a direct comparison between Terri Schiavo and Rosa Parks.
I didn't see that, and made the reference completely on my own. Kremit and all people who do not believe this is a public/political issue need to read it (here).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by Davo:
The Rosa Parks comment was in reference to Kremit's assertion that all private matters should remain private and without government intervention.
That was my comment first of all. Second, you clearly see this as a human rights issue and therefore a political one also. I do not see this as a human rights issue but rather an enforcement of a woman's wishes if she were to become as she is now. Rosa Park's clearly saw a human rights issue when she decided to fight the racist laws of her time, Terri's family does not. Even if Terri did have a living will stating that she should not be kept alive in this condition, the family would still have the same fight. This has nothing to do with the family fighting for human rights, nor does the President have any intention of defending human rights on this one. He has set this precedent
in Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
That was my comment first of all. Second, you clearly see this as a human rights issue and therefore a political one also. I do not see this as a human rights issue but rather an enforcement of a woman's wishes if she were to become as she is now. Rosa Park's clearly saw a human rights issue when she decided to fight the racist laws of her time, Terri's family does not. Even if Terri did have a living will stating that she should not be kept alive in this condition, the family would still have the same fight. This has nothing to do with the family fighting for human rights, nor does the President have any intention of defending human rights on this one. He has set this precedent in Texas.
This is a human rights issue borne through an ambiguous legal one. There would be no issue had she made her wishes clearly known (and by clearly, I mean legally). There are thousands of other cases like this that you will never hear about, because the appropriate measures were taken to ensure the person's wishes were known. This has become a case of he said/she said, and the debate was sparked from that. The debate has turned from what Terri wants to whether it's right to end someone's life under these circumstances. It's been a healthy debate that will unfortunately end when Terri dies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Kremit and all people who do not believe this is a public/political issue need to read it (here).
I understand his point. I happen to consider it excessively paranoid, alarmist, and oppressive.
IMO relating artificial life support to the civil rights movement is ridiculously over-simplistic, and, frankly, if I was Rosa Parks or anyone else who was involved with the movement I'd resent the comparison. Terri couldn't enjoy any of her "civil rights" if she wanted to (except of course for the abstract "right to life," if "life" even applies in this situation).
If Thomas' concept of "keeping everyone alive" was in effect, the civil rights of anyone who doesn't want excessive artificial life support used on them would be violated. Right now, we have the choice to be kept alive or not. Thomas advocates eliminating that choice, even for people who have a different set of beliefs in that area. What makes his beliefs so much better than mine that he should be able to eliminate my choices?
In the end, each life support decision is a personal matter. Applying a blanket requirement to it completely oversteps the boundaries of equal protection/due process/whatever other amendment or line in the Constitution one wants to invoke. The civil rights movement was a different animal because it applied to an entire group of US citizens who were living, breathing, functional members of society with an entire life ahead of them, who were able to make their own choices.
Plus, and most importantly, Thomas has the stereotypical middle-aged closet queen moustache
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Regardless of your political affiliation or your position on the issue, eveyone should read this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7290818/It's a really good article about who Terry Schiavo really was.
|
|
|
|
|
