AmericanPapist Comments
I'm not defending Senator Obama's position here, but it is interesting that Terri's food and nutrition was being provided by one of those "wasteful, socialistic, government spending programs" conservatives hate so much.
As Stalin said "one man's death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."
From ABC News polling data:
"The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.
That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more -- 70 percent -- call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.
This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they've spoken with friends or family members about what they'd want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive."
This above poll was accused of being a "push" poll, so I've added a few other polls:
"Fifty-six percent (56%) of the 909 Gallup respondents said the tube should be removed, 31% said it should not be removed and 13% had no opinion. Support for removing the tube is five points less than on the ABC poll, though the difference is not quite statistically significant."
AND
"Fifty nine percent (59%) of Fox's [News] sample of 900 registered voters would remove the feeding tube, 24% would keep it inserted and 17% were unsure. Note that the 35-point margin of support for removing Schiavo's feeding tube is the same as on the ABC survey."
Thus, it would seem Obama has the numbers on his side in that the consensus says the federal government was wrong to intervene.
Sadly, I think Nathan is right on the politics.
Katherine,
Arguments over the size, breadth, and roles of government will always be with us -- and rightly so since these present many prudential questions. But the unmitigated glee with which Obama and his supporters can crush the heads of babies and unplug the life support for the infirm should be chilling to anyone with an ounce of decency. You have done much good in your life, Katherine, no doubt. But your allegiance to the Democratic party and its ubiquitous lens of class warfare, I fear, makes you lose both perspective and proportion on issues that are both clearer and weightier.
The propaganda of death has been very effective. Healthy people have been conditioned to think of life under debilitating conditions as worse than death, and they have no idea how likely they are to feel very differently if/when they actually find themselves in such a circumstance.
Katherine: Contra Stalin (!), I think many people recognize that the STATISTICS around, e.g., abortion are a horror as well as a tragedy; nor it is not Terri Schiavo's particularity that drives the conviction of many that you can't starve someone to death because they can't feed themselves.
I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation of Sen Obama's position - he approached it simply form a constitutional framework and actually fit in with the more traditionally conservative crowd that over-involving government in an issue that should have been decided by the family was "crossing the bounds of constitutionality" - he even said as much, saying that as a professor of constitutional law it was an overreach of the government. (What was your dear Dr. Paul's position?)
Don't make me say "Shame on you Thomas Peters" as I would be very disturbed by having to xerox Mrs. Clinton's statements.
As to the information Nathan quoted - what really is the church's stance, from the Vatican not the American understanding, on artificially sustaining life - and if the church is infavour of sustaining life by any means necessary, such as a machine, why then is She against InVitro Fertilization which is using machinary to sustain life by aiding in creating it?
You watch: Obama is going to blow it. He's going to prove (instead of hide) himself as the most liberal Democrat in history to run (yes, more liberal than McGovern) BEFORE he gets the party nomination and the machine HAS to support him, which in turn means that the more electable, and virtually as dangerous, Hilary CLINTON will get the nod.
Only against these would a McCain stand a chance.
I think I got two responses but no answers to my question.
But let's take the proposition:
"nor it is not Terri Schiavo's particularity that drives the conviction of many that you can't starve someone to death because they can't feed themselves".
No one was stopping Terri Schiavo from getting up and getting a ham sandwich for herself. So in the active sense, we can only say she was BEING starved (as opposed to was starving) by first asserting that she (and others) who do not have the ability to feed themselves have the right to food and nutrition from society.
I TAKE THAT BACK. The better, more Catholic, way of phrasing it would be not she has the right, but society has the obligation to feed her.
So, as someone who believed in Terri's cause, I also think I am obligated to affirm the underlying philosophy - that we have a social obligation to feed those who cannot provide for themselves.
So I am still left withmy question of how can one support Terri's cause and be an economic conservative?
The fact that Sen. Obama approached the topic from a "Constitutional framework" does nothing to mitigate the error of his position, but rather proves the strange nature of the Constitutional theory to which he subscribes. It is suggested from Obama's words that he believes the Federal government has no immediate role in setting standards or enforcing laws pertaining to the protection of human life. The notion that this theory is somehow a strict intepretation of constituional framework- and so comparable to a conservative position- is patently false. As the Framers believed, the powers of the Federal government were to be narrow, but if they existed anywhere, they included the powers to levy taxes, provide for the common defense, and especially to protect the life and property of its citizens. Saying that Obama is being a "strict constructionist" by dismissing Congress's authority in issues of euthanasia and life, would be like saying a politician is a "strict constructionist" in reducing the size of government by eliminating the U.S. armed forces. In essence, all that Sen. Obama has proved is that he is a proud champion of the Democratic Party and the culture of death.
The primary obligation of government is the protection of innocent human life. That's why we have law enforcement, and courts, and a military.
True, government has other functions and obligations, but protecting innocent human beings is the prime one.
Let's assume that government at the state or local level is failing at that mission or, worse, is actively pursuing the death of an innocent person.
What constitutional principle prevents the federal government from being utilized as an instrument to review the actions of the state or local officials in that context?
It is done all the time in habeas corpus cases on behalf of convicted (i.e., not innocent) criminals.
If Sen. Obama is concerned that his biggest mistake was that he didn't stand in the way of a measure that might have given this poor woman a bit of protection . . .
Katherine,
Economic conservatives understand that government is neither the only manifestation of society nor the only instrument of society. And there is no way that government can accept an obligation without creating a corresponding right, and the creation of unrealistic rights can have terrible social consequences. This stands in contradistinction to the role and practices of private charities.
Finally, the notion that economic conservatives don't care about the poor is belied by the emperical evidence. For a recent discussion of this I commend to you the book "Who Really Cares" by highly respected social scientist Arthur C Brooks, who by the way is not remotely a conservative.
Finally, Katherine, I guess I should respond more precisely to your question. You will recall that a number of private charities and benefactors offered to take full financial responsiblity for Terri's care. Accordingly, the issue cannot fairly be reduced to one of economics.
"Finally, Katherine, I guess I should respond more precisely to your question. You will recall that a number of private charities and benefactors offered to take full financial responsiblity for Terri's care. Accordingly, the issue cannot fairly be reduced to one of economics."
Thank you, Mike, that is an intelligent and informative answer. But it leads to the next question -- after extentsive national publicity, these charities came forward for this single case. But in another case, where the publicity is not as high or the charities do not come forward (setting aside some of the charities that did come forward received most of their funding from the government), are we obligated to provide public assistance? Or can we just let her starve?
The position of the Church is that food and water, and comfort care and simple caring must be provided to those who are disabled. That is what she was. She could have been fed with a spoon, but the dear hubby didn't want her fed that way. So he ordered her fed through the tube. It is wrong to starve someone to death and not allow her to be fed. Her parents wanted to take care of her and feed her, but were kept by the police from doing so, up to the very last breath! It was so barbaric, reprehensible and an injustice!
For Obama to bring Terry Schiavo up, means in my mind, he has brought about the demise of his candidacy. The Democrats should save their money,and instead give it to the poor and not nominate anyone for president. Put their money where there mouth is. Maybe after actually working with the poor, they might learn a little humility and begin to learn wisdom!
In vitro fertilization is immoral in many ways. First of all, with whom would you feel safer, your Mom or a cold Petri dish with some mercenary technicians who occasionally poke you? Everyone knows that a child needs to be safe and warm in the special shelter provided by his mother. She knows how to look after him perfectly and she does it with love. Also, other brothers and sisters are conceived at the same time, but they are killed. Now how would that make you feel to know that your parents picked you out to live and let your siblings die?
And every child has a right to be conceived in the marital embrace, out of love, not as a result of a paid technician's manipulations. Love can't be bought and a child has to have love to thrive.
But in another case, where the publicity is not as high or the charities do not come forward (setting aside some of the charities that did come forward received most of their funding from the government), are we obligated to provide public assistance? Or can we just let her starve?
I don't see the dichotomy as if the choice is turn the national economy into a socialist quadroplegic OR let people starve. I doubt even Castro thinks this is how wealth works.
"I don't see the dichotomy..."
I know. That's the problem.
I know. That's the problem.
Care to elaborate?
We have a daughter in heaven, Claire. She had a feeding tube - and you know what that isn't a major medical device. If you can pour cream into your coffee or milk on your cereal, you can feed a person with feeding tube.
You can even use a turkey baster to substitute for the the usual "cath tip syringe" a large syringe with a tip like a turkey baster.
We would love it if Claire hadn't died, but she was a wonderful daughter for seven years. True she was potty trained and could walk and talk. Even though, I know that Terri's parents are suffering the needless killing of their daughter.
It is illegal to kill a pet by starvation and dehydration - but a handicapped human - no sweat.
Perhaps Mr. Obama might get to die that some day too. He wouldn't like it.
It is illegal to kill a pet by starvation and dehydration - but a handicapped human - no sweat.
Good point. I had not thought of that.
Mr. Obama should thank his lucky stars that his mom chose life when she was expecting him!
I was out of the country during the Schiavo case, so I don't have an experience of the matter as it was reported in the press. -- I was trying (successfully as it turned out) to keep from getting shot.-- I have, however, seen several cases up close in which families have been torn apart by the issue of extraordinary means taken to keep their relative alive by artificial means. It is a wrenching experience and one that does not admit of an easy solution. I read various "moral theological" opinions from Pope Pius XII on. It seems to me that medical science has outpaced moral theology. I personally have a "living will" and have informed my family that if I am unable, after extreme means have been taken to keep me alive on my own, then they are to let me die in peace. I would like to have a priest help them make this decision, but find a priest these days who is around. I do not, in any event, want my life discussed on the floor of the US House or Senate, nor do I want the press to make of my death a vehicle for political expediency.
Here is the FAQ from the Terri Schiavo foundation: http://www.terrisfight.org/pages....php?
page_id=32
Pray for all those involved.
Crumbunist forgot to add: "Ah has spokun!"
Why have all my comments been deleted?
Thomas, if you're going to delete the comments I was responding to, you should delete my responses, too, or I'm going to look ridiculous...and I don't need any help with that.
Commenting by HaloScan
