Being a glutton for verbal abuse I agreed to participate in the Five Questions meme being spread by Tgirsch from Lean Left. His questions are:
1. You are adamantly opposed to allowing Terry Schiavo to die (you refer to it as “killing her” as opposed to “allowing her to die"), and characterize even the earliest-term abortions as “murder,” and yet you seem to have no trouble at all with thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians – including children – being killed while trying to get at a few bad guys; nor do you seem to have any problem with executions. How do you reconcile this, both personally and Biblically?
2. Do you feel that more higher-ups should have been held at least partially accountable in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? If so, who? And if not, why not?
3. Rank in order of suckitude, from bad to worst: Thomas Kinkade, Pablo Picasso, Terry Redlin, Norman Rockwell, Andy Warhol
4. If it could be demonstrated that comprehensive sex education and actively encouraging contraceptive use measurably decreased the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions, would you throw your support behind these options? (Put another way, what’s more important to you: cutting the number of abortions, or cutting sexual activity?)
5. Where do I go for the best BBQ in Texas?
I’m relieved to see that he didn’t ask anything controversial…
1. You are adamantly opposed to allowing Terry Schiavo to die (you refer to it as “killing her” as opposed to “allowing her to die"), and characterize even the earliest-term abortions as “murder,” and yet you seem to have no trouble at all with thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians – including children – being killed while trying to get at a few bad guys; nor do you seem to have any problem with executions. How do you reconcile this, both personally and Biblically?
Perhaps if he had used a shoehorn, Tgirsch could have packed in a few more loaded questions. I’ll try to address each point (if I can keep up with them all):
a. “Allowing her to die” is simply a sanitized euphemism for “killing her.” Shiavo was receiving nutrition through a tube in her stomach because of an inability to swallow. Removing the tube is not simply “allowing” her to die but ensuring that she will die. Even if one chooses to play semantic games, the fact of the matter is that removing her source of nutrition and food is “killing her.”
b. I am not opposed to removing nutrition and hydration in all circumstances. If she was in a terminal end-of-life stage and had made her wishes clear, then I would have no problem with removing the tube in order not to prolong the dying process. But Shiavo is not terminal and there is dispute whether she is in a PVS state or whether she is minimally consciousness. The fact that so many people are unconcerned that a woman with some degree of consciousness may be undergoing a slow and painful death is simply chilling.
c. Though it would be technically correct, I’m not sure I ever referred to an abortion as murder. The term “murder”, however, implies awareness that an actual human person is being killed. In my opinion, most abortions are committed by people who have somehow convinced themselves that their decision by convincing themselves that abortion is not actually killing a “person.” To my knowledge, our language doesn’t have a specific term for this particular rationalization but I would classify it as a moral equivalent of temporary insanity.
d. Saying I have “no trouble at all with thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians – including children – being killed” is really just in bad taste. I know Tgirsh doesn’t believe I actually just shrug off such horrors so I’m surprised that he would use such unnecessarily inflammatory language.
It also implies that these innocent people were living in a state of complete safety and security until the big bad U.S. invaded their country. Ignoring the rape rooms and mass graves in order to take cheap shots for partisan purposes is deeply disturbing. There really isn’t a need to respond to this silly part of the question.
I’ve expressed my opinion on just warfare in the past and Tgirsh is being particularly selective in his use of examples. I’m sure that he finds a way to rationalize the killing of “innocent Japanese civilians” or little German children as the U.S. attempted to get a “few bad guys” for a war that he probably would have supported.
e. I’m not sure how the death penalty is lumped in with removing life support, abortion, and the unintentional killing of civilians. Surely it doesn’t need to be spelled out how a convicted serial murderer on death row is different than a woman in a hospital bed in Florida (hint: one of them is innocent).
But the reason that I’m in favor of the death penalty (at least in theory) is because it is required in order to be consistently pro-life. I’m not sure how life can truly be valued if it can be taken away without having to pay an equally severe penalty. I will admit, though, that I’m beginning to have doubts about whether the death penalty can be carried out in America in a just manner. Too many innocent men are executed while the guilty linger on death row for decades. But the problems with our justice system do not change the fact that the death penalty is just.
2. Do you feel that more higher-ups should have been held at least partially accountable in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? If so, who? And if not, why not?
Let me be as precise as possible in my answer: I think that every person involved in the scandal should be held as accountable as they were culpable. One of the stupidest traditions in the military is when military commanders are held accountable for incidents in which they had no direct oversight, involvement, or means to prevent. There are numerous stories of Navy Captains and Admirals losing their commands because a sailor who was steering the ship made an error and crashed into a pier or another boat. Relieving them of their commands never prevented a single accident. In fact, it probably caused a net loss in leadership because otherwise excellent commanders had to pay the price for an unpreventable blunder.
The same principle holds true with Abu Ghraib. The soldiers who were involved in the torture should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The commanders who allowed such lax standards in which such abuse was made possible should also be relieved. All other leaders should be held accountable in direct proportion to their level of culpability. That is what justice means. To propose subverting justice in order to punish political foes would be despicable.
(By the way, whatever happened to those damning videotapes of torture that Seymour Hersch claimed were about to topple the Bush Administration?)
3. Rank in order of suckitude, from bad to worst: Thomas Kinkade, Pablo Picasso, Terry Redlin, Norman Rockwell, Andy Warhol
From bad to worst: Andy Warhol, Terry Redlin, Norman Rockwell, Thomas Kinkade, Pablo Picasso.
The rankings are based on squandered ability. Warhol had absolutely no talent as an artist (though as a self-promoter he was a genius) so he can’t be considered that bad. Rockwell is “middlin’” which is why he is in the middle. Kinkade and Picasso, however are examples of a potentially great and a near great artist who allowed money, fame, and ego to subvert their abilities to produce genuine art in favor of producing mere product.
4. If it could be demonstrated that comprehensive sex education and actively encouraging contraceptive use measurably decreased the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions, would you throw your support behind these options? (Put another way, what’s more important to you: cutting the number of abortions, or cutting sexual activity?)
In other words, do the ends justify the means? I don’t think they do nor do I think many people are truly that Machiavellian. After all, sterilization would also measurably decrease the number of teen pregnancies and abortions. The problem with “comprehensive” (i.e., nonjudgemental) sex education and the encouragement of contraceptives is that it treats teenagers as if they were simply statistics. If the overall reduction in social ills is reduced then it was worth the individual cost, right?
I certainly don’t see it that way. Teens look to adults for guidance on how they should live. But much, if not most, of the time they will simply ignore what they are told. That doesn’t mean we should stop telling them the truth or give up on encouraging virtuous behavior. We should treat them as morally accountable persons.
The primary reason I don’t take a utilitarian approach to reducing sexual activity is because it ignores the effects on the individual level. I truly believe – and have seen it confirmed hundreds of times – that teens who have sex outside a lifelong monogamous relationship are bound to have some degree of emotional, physical, and psychological damage. That is why I can’t support such unethical policies. What’s important to me is the person, not just the negative consequences of bad choices.
5. Where do I go for the best BBQ in Texas?
To even ask such a question is to misunderstand the essential nature of Texas BBQ. There are certain foods in which the qualifier “best” can be attached. (For example, I’ve dedicated my life to the search for the elusive holy grail of Texas foodstuffs: the "best" chicken fried steak.) BBQ, though, is not just a type of food; it’s a Platonic category. When BBQ leaves the realm of the universal it takes various forms, from the divinely inspired chopped beef brisket to the demonic slathering of sauce on cutlets of swine. There can be no “best” BBQ, therefore, because the alignment of perfect elements is not possible. Not even in the Lone Star State.
The question also fails to address the ontological point. To simply be in Texas and be eating BBQ is to enter what the Sautrantikas school of Buddhism considers nirvana: the ability to transcend the lower states of knowledge -- unhappiness, satisfaction, indigestion –- but without their complete disappearance. In other words, being blessed by our Creator with the ability to consume a plate of BBQ while sojourning in the Promised Land of Texas isn’t exactly heaven (after all, the celestial sphere won’t reach 104 degrees in August) but it's as close as we can get in this earthly existence.
1
While I agree with most of your thoughts in answering the "five questions", I take issue with two things.
The lesser of the two first: you seem to have rather ducked the BBQ issue altogether, not wanting to commit to a suggestion of "the best". You seem to be saying, "It's all good" and "All dogs go to heaven" or something akin to that, but in barbecue-speak.
I also have problems with your construct that the death penalty is just. I would assume, at least from a purely Christian perspective, that the question of guilt or innocence (or muderers versus fetuses) is not really within our realm of jurisdiction to make a distinction, God being the judge. Surely the murderer, when he dies eventually, will stand before God and get his just reward.
Yes punishment on earth is due, when caught, but one cannot, really, make a New Testament argument for the death penalty at all (and we, as Christians, while often confused and dipping into Judaism, ought, in the least, to acknowledge that there are things in the New Testatment that are profoundly different-due to Christ; mainly things that render practices in the Old Testament invalid).
One of the things that can make a pro-life position profoundly full of wisdom is our acknowledgement that we cannot know or judge the potential of a life. That fetus who is killed may go on to save millions of lives (or more profoundly, lead millions to Christ). In like manner, that murderer may, if he lives, go on to live a life that outshines many of his misdeeds. Likely not, but we do not devine the future. Only God does.
But the minute we seek to define who is worthy of life, we are in fact way off the point and headed down paths that cannot intellectually be defended, and walking in the footsteps of those against life.
Life is life is life.
(Not to mention that, as Christians, we would presumably want a sinner to have as much conscious life as possible in order to have the chance to actually turn from his ways or seek repentance, no?)
2
i completely agree wizard. chrisitans who support the death penalty never cease to amaze me. they rely almost entirely on old testament scripture to support their position. in fact most of the new testament teaching actually makes it very difficult to justify the death penalty - turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc. in matt. 26:52 jesus instructs peter to put back his sword when trying to defend jesus. then he goes on to say that all who live by the sword shall die by the sword. in romans 12 paul says do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good. if your enemy is hungry, feed him, etc. i just can't make the death penalty fit into this philosophy. and i have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for what jesus meant when he said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." if that isn't a clear statement against humans trying to be just by carrying out the death penalty, then i don't know what is. we are not even close to being capable of carrying out justice as we are so flawed and short-sighted. it's really quite arrogant for us to believe that we can. i think God is perfectly capable of perfect justice. and in the new testament he seems to ask us to leave it to him.
posted on 03.25.2005 7:41 AM3
Joe:
Perhaps if he had used a shoehorn, Tgirsch could have packed in a few more loaded questions.Hey, three meaty ones and two softballs is hardly "packing them in." What amazes me is that you ducked one of the softballs (the BBQ question).
The thrust of question #1 was essentially "when, in your estimation, is it okay to kill a human being." That's why war, execution, and euthanasia are all mentioned. Self-defense is omitted because few reasonable people would disagree on that one. It seems as though you believe that the only other times it's acceptable to kill someone are executions for the crime of murder (other capital crimes like treason don't fit the life-for-life justification you gave) and as collateral damage in a "just war" (itself a highly subjective term). Does that about sum it up?
(And you're right, my "no problem" wording was probably excessively harsh.)
For question 2, it seems that you and I have a different reckoning of what "accountability" should mean. Outside of the military (in which I've never served), I've never had a job in which I was not held at least partially responsible for things that go wrong "on my watch" -- even those things for which I am not directly responsible.
Admittedly the coverage has died down quite a bit, but I'm not aware of anyone who was "relieved" as a result of your second category.
To propose subverting justice in order to punish political foes would be despicable.For what it's worth, I have not now, nor have I ever, proposed any such thing.
On to question 3 (or, in your list, the second question #2): Nothing controversial here. Moving along to Q4 (or "Q3" as you have it above):
The problem with “comprehensive” (i.e., nonjudgemental)*TWEET* Bait-and-switch. Five yards, loss of down. "Comprehensive" sex education need not be "nonjudgmental" sex education. It's merely not "abstienence-only" education. Abstinence until marriage can still be strongly encouraged and emphasized, even in a comprehensive course, and no one I know has a problem with that.
Your answer to the last question, the BBQ question, truly disappoints me. So let me rephrase the question. Suppose you're in Texas and you've really got a hankering for Texas BBQ. You only have time for one meal, but you have time to go pretty much anywhere to get it. Where do you go?
posted on 03.25.2005 7:55 AM4
Oh a couple of things I forgot to mention:
“Allowing her to die” is simply a sanitized euphemism for “killing her.” Shiavo was receiving nutrition through a tube in her stomach because of an inability to swallow. Removing the tube is not simply “allowing” her to die but ensuring that she will die. Even if one chooses to play semantic games, the fact of the matter is that removing her source of nutrition and food is “killing her.”
- We're all ensured death, at least the kind that Terri Schiavo faces
- This is why the question was worded the way it was: that you would equivocate removing artificial life support from someone who has effectively been brain dead for a decade, with shooting someone in the head, is mystifying to me.
I’ve expressed my opinion on just warfare in the past and Tgirsh is being particularly selective in his use of examples. I’m sure that he finds a way to rationalize the killing of “innocent Japanese civilians” or little German children as the U.S. attempted to get a “few bad guys” for a war that he probably would have supported.Perhaps true, but then I don't tout myself as being "pro-life" in the Christian sense. You and I really aren't so different on this. We both acknowledge that there are circumstances under which innocent lives must be lost for the greater good. We simply disagree on what those circumstances are.
As to the death penalty, I agree with you about the inability to justly execute it (bad pun not intended), but I disagree that it ever constitutes justice. Life-for-life isn't justice, it's revenge.
But your attitude on this exposes a problem with Biblical literalism: To the Biblical literalist, Jesus in John 8 is strictly talking to those assembled at the time; there is no lesson there for us, apparently. Similary, in Matt 26, Jesus must only be referring to (Simon) Peter (although it doesn't say in Matt 26 who drew the sword -- we infer that from John 18).
Growing up, I was taught that Jesus wasn't limiting those lessons strictly to those people and times, but that those lessons were also intended for us. You either disagree, or take something wildly different from those lessons than I do.
posted on 03.25.2005 8:07 AM5
Last note: You are now required to ask five questions of each of five other bloggers. And yes, you're allowed to hit me back with five (although this doesn't obligate me to ask quiz five more bloggers).
posted on 03.25.2005 8:10 AM6
"(Not to mention that, as Christians, we would presumably want a sinner to have as much conscious life as possible in order to have the chance to actually turn from his ways or seek repentance, no?)"
Answer is no, if you believe it is God alone that saves a man, by regenerating him, and raising him to new life. (Monergism)
Answer is yes, if you believe that man works together with God for his own salvation and "gets saved" by an act of his own. (Synergism)
8
a few comments:
Q1) I'm really on the fence over Schiavo but I do know that (regarding the death penalty) Christ as talking to individuals, which does not relieve the government of its responsibility to protect society.
Q2) Abu Graib; people should be held responsible as far up as the responsibility goes, no more. Should a CEO of a company be held responsible for the employee that steals from it? No, they get rid of (and prosecute) the employee.
Q3) anybody's choice
Q4) I work in an inner city public school and the encouragement and use of contraceptives, while it might reduce pregnancies, will do nothing for the number of STD's - especially oral. It will also do nothing for the growing number of coerced first sexual experiences. Another problem in the school where I work is upper class girls that are threatening freshman girls (virgins) to have sex. Until we offer a *LOT* of support for those young ones to stand firm, this will be a growing problem.
Q5) mine. ;-)
posted on 03.25.2005 9:45 AM9
"Suppose you're in Texas and you've really got a hankering for Texas BBQ. You only have time for one meal, but you have time to go pretty much anywhere to get it. Where do you go?"
Going across Texas to find the best BBQ isn't exactly like going across town. If you only have time for one meal, you don't have time to go all across Texas to find what you're looking for. It's a shorter drive from El Paso to L.A. than from El Paso to Texarkana.
10
Being new to posting on this blog I hope you will all permit me to comment on Tgirsch’s first question:
__________________________________________
“You are adamantly opposed to allowing Terri Schiavo to die (you refer to it as “killing her” as opposed to “allowing her to die"), and characterize even the earliest-term abortions as “murder,” and yet you seem to have no trouble at all with thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians – including children – being killed while trying to get at a few bad guys; nor do you seem to have any problem with executions. How do you reconcile this, both personally and Biblically?”
_______________________________________
What is the reason for asking this question? To show that Joe, and the rest of the politically conservative evangelical Christians are entirely inconsistent on “when it’s ok to kill people?” Let’s assume Tgirsch is right (he’s not) but let’s just assume he is for the sake of argument. That would, in no way, make killing Terri Shiavo or unborn children any less of a miscarriage of justice. This question amounts to correlating two unrelated issue in order to bait Joe.
Tgirsch appears to be hoping to trap Joe so he can respond with something akin to…
“See, I told you, you Bush lovin,’ BBQ eatin’, Jesus lovin’, no good politically conservatives, you are all inconsistent, Ha!”
Now let’s assume that Tgirsch is right and Joe is being inconsistent. If Tgirsch were Joe how would he resolve the inconsistency?
A) Tgirsch is wrong on Terri Shiavo and abortion, Terri is being deprived of her life unjustly and innocent children are being slaughtered. Joe should re-adjust his opinion on the war in Iraq and Tgirsch should change his stance on Terri Shiavo and abortion.
B) Joe should continue to support the war in Iraq but he should re-adjust his opinion on abortion and Terri Shiavo. Tgirsch should recant his repudiation of the war.
C) Joe should deal with these issues on their own merits and acknowledge that the complexity of each makes any comparison tenuous and Tgirsch should admit that his first question failed to take into account the complexity of these issues.
Tgirsch can’t claim to exploit a perceived inconsistency in Joe’s political stances without admitting the inconsistencies of his own.
11
Just because I live a place where my life is in danger constantly from whatever elements or persons may be there to cause the danger does not mean that when the US comes along and announces that they are there to get the bad out of my life that it is then acceptable for the US to kill me. What weak excuse for someone who claims to be pro-life to give in justification of their not protesting the killing on many innocent Iraqis and make mistake that is just what you di, make an excuse for your lack of Christianity in this matter.
"But the reason that I’m in favor of the death penalty (at least in theory)"....
"I will admit, though, that I’m beginning to have doubts about whether the death penalty can be carried out in America in a just manner. Too many innocent men are executed while the guilty linger on death row for decades. But the problems with our justice system do not change the fact that the death penalty is just".
What a huge contradiction this statement is to your belief that you are pro-life. You have in effect agreed that it is OK with you that innocent persons are put to death, just a little problem with the process. Tell that to the dead guy. Could you be anymore of a hypocrit?
posted on 03.25.2005 11:49 AM12
Lord, people, use some imagination. I understand: Texas is a big state. Imagine you have a teleporter that will put you anywhere in the state of Texas instantaneously, and you can only use it to go to a BBQ joint, and you can only use it for one round-trip, and you can only get one meal. Where do you go, and what do you get?
I can't believe how much people are parsing this one! :)
Now on to specifics:
Ellen:
...which does not relieve the government of its responsibility to protect society.Which raises the question of whether executing people actually does protect society. Surely lifelong incarceration accomplishes the same objective -- the killer can't kill again (except for maybe a cellmate, who would himself be another killer).
I never understood John 8 to be a "limited time offer."
Should a CEO of a company be held responsible for the employee that steals from it?But suppose the CEO (or another high-level executive) approved memos that said "stealing isn't really all bad." Does that change the equation?
As to the STD stuff, yet another reason why the education should be comprehensive. "Outercourse" comes with its own set of problems and is no panacea. People (especially teens) need to understand this.
BKeldsen:
Take a pill. For one thing, Joe can "return the favor" and ask me similarly loaded questions. For another, of course I'm trying to underscore inconsistencies; but it's not to show that Joe is somehow bad or that I'm somehow better than he is -- it's to undercut the "holier than thou" attitude he often takes concerning such issues. I know about the plank in my eye, I just want to make sure he knows about his. :)
Option C is closest to correct, by the way, with Option B being second.
posted on 03.25.2005 12:07 PM13
MaxCat:
You have in effect agreed that it is OK with you that innocent persons are put to death, just a little problem with the process.Let's be fair, here. I don't get that out of Joe's argument at all. I think what he's arguing is that the death penalty is just if you can guarantee that you never execute someone innocent. And I think he's arguing that only someone who takes a life should be considered for execution (e.g., rape or treason wouldn't be capital), but I'm not sure about that.
Nothing in his argument says that it's okay to execute innocent people under the death penalty statute. From what I've seen "collateral damage" is the only "acceptable" time for killing innocents, and only then when it's deemed "necessary." ("Scare quotes" used because those terms are all highly subjective).
posted on 03.25.2005 12:11 PM14
Complacency to innocent people dieing is not an excuse or a reason to allow it and that in effect is what is being put forth here. No amount of argument will stay the fact that we put innocent people to death and we kill innocent civilians in Iraq. It is wrong, wrong, wrong and if you are pro-life then there is no room for any compromise.
If I am pro-life then I am against these actions, no if's and's or but's about it, period. Stop these actions first and foremost and then and only then can we discuss the possibilty of a remedy or alterantive.
15
Question 1 (a) I don't believe it has been proven that Terri can not swallow, in fact I have heard her brother, a nurse and a doctor say that she can swallow, but was not allowed to by her husband.
(c)- murder is the unauthorized killing of a human. Current law states that abortion is murder. Case law says that abortion is the right of the female (I refuse to call someone who would do this a mother), but case law does not and can not AUTHORIZE taking a life.
You can easily square Biblical teaching with anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. God directed Moses to kill murderers and both David and Job wrote about God knowing them before they were born - i.e.- individual life - abortion casues that life to cease so, that is murder.
posted on 03.25.2005 1:08 PM16
The best BBQ in Texas, by the way, is probably the Salt Lick outside of Austin.
The variousbranches of the COunty Line are pretty good too, and a bit less out of the way:
http://www.countyline.com/index.asp
Just FYI!
posted on 03.25.2005 1:11 PM17
MaxCat -
Sometimes bad things happen to a few innocent people to protect and save many many more.
Some innocent people died in Iraq, but they ended up with
1. No homicidal dictator
2. No homicidal dictator's kids
3. No more rape rooms
4. No more mass graves
5. No more people put in shredders
6. Democracy and Elections
7. A new start
8. Ultimately, liberty
Thousands were unintentionally killed so that millions could live and live in freedom.
And before you quibble with my use of the word unintentional, you'll have to find some proof that civilians were specifically and intentionally targetted for death. Unfortunately it is a case of "wrong place, wrong time", but we have to be reasonable and admit that nobody said "Hey, let's blow up these civilians". It didn't happen and you don't have any evidence that it did.
Contrast this with the death penalty which kills specific and proven evil people. Every once in awhile a mistake is made, but the system is still worth keeping. The whole "it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to die" is psuedo-ethical nonsense. Every single person that is executed is done so in good faith with due process. And it's a mistake to assume that the only reason for capital punishment is crime prevention. It serves several functions:
1. Dead men can't commit crimes (of course)
2. Justice for the victim (it is restitution for a grievous wrong)
3. Justice for the victim's family (the living deserve payment as well)
4. Justice for the citizen's of the US (taking the life of an innocent person is a crime against society as a whole)
5. Deterrent to others (people don't want to die)
6. Enforcing a culture of respect for innocent life (as a society, we say that if you kill and innocent, you don't deserve to live yourself.)
If you think my point 6 contradicts what I said about it being okay that mistakes are sometimes made, you'd be wrong. Point 6 is emphasized in how hard it is to execute. Criminals get many many appeals and many chances to prove their innocence. The fact that it takes as much as 20 years to execute someone is a testament to our respect for innocence.
18
By the way, the Salt Lick is outstanding. I used to live in Austin and I love that place.
posted on 03.25.2005 1:35 PM19
tgirsch,
If you are in Texas and have the time to stop only once for BBQ, my suggestion is that you hop a plane, fly back to Georgia, and about 23 minutes north of Columbus on the Alabama border there is a little BBQ shack near Piney Grove Baptist Church off I-185 N Exit 18 where you can get a hellacious concoction known as a "dumpster dog". It is half a pound of Georgia shredded BBQ on top of two hot dogs chopped up and mixed with an equal helping of chili, onion, crackers, and your choice of additional condiments. It will change your life my friend. Change your life...
(no offense Texans, but anyone from a state where the residents don't have a strong opinion about their favorite BBQ place is a place without good BBQ--so there:))
posted on 03.25.2005 1:58 PM20
Joe,
1a) In Terri's case, there is some evidence (numerous statements from caregivers who have worked with Terri) that she is quite capable of swallowing. Judge Greer has specifically ruled against allowing a swallowing test or even attempting to give her food and water orally.That's very much like smothering someone who was just removed from a ventilator just because they're still breathing, even if it is with difficulty.
1d) Claiming that we should not have invaded Iraq because some innocents will get caught in the crossfire is like saying we shouldn't battle cancer because healthy cells will be destroyed in the process. In both cases we cannot avoid doing some damage because it's simply not possible. But that is a poor excuse for allowing a patient to die when they could have been saved.
I grieve over innocents who are killed. I grieve over our soldiers who are killed in battle. I even occasionally grieve over terrorists who have died in their separation from God. But when I see results such as the end of wholesale rape, torture and murder by Saddam's regime; when I see things like the election taking place, I can say that it was all worth it. The patient (Iraq) is not out of the woods yet, but there is darn good reason to hope!
1e) Some have said they don't understand how a Christian can support the death penalty. I think it's best to allow the Bible to speak for itself:
“Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”(Deut. 19:21, NASB)
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”(Ex. 21:22-25, NASB)
These two passages are from the laws which the civilian government is bound to uphold. So what did Jesus say about the law?
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”posted on 03.25.2005 2:04 PM(Matt. 5:17-19, NASB)
21
Ed "What the" Heckman
You for get about this section of Matt. 5:
5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
But that said, inconsistencies abound. It's all to common to find one verse saying one thing, and a different verse, often from the same author, contradicting the first. Between authors, forget about it. It's almost like "He Said, She Said".
posted on 03.25.2005 2:50 PM22
Tgirsch:
____________________________
BKeldsen:
Take a pill. For one thing, Joe can "return the favor" and ask me similarly loaded questions.
_________________________________________
Yes, I am sure the exchange of loaded statements fosters wonderfully meaningful dialog. ;)
__________________________________________
For another, of course I'm trying to underscore inconsistencies; but it's not to show that Joe is somehow bad or that I'm somehow better than he is -- it's to undercut the "holier than thou" attitude he often takes concerning such issues. I know about the plank in my eye, I just want to make sure he knows about his. :)
________________________________________
You say that you know the plank in your eye.
What is the plank in your eye? That you are in error for renouncing the war in Iraq or that you support a judiciary that is starving a woman to death? ;)
Incidentally, the Guy who popularized the whole “plank in your eye” metaphor said “take the plank out of your own eye” Not, “Hey, lets everyone acknowledge the planks in our eyes and then go about the business of pointing out the specs in our brother’s eye.”
Finally, if we are bandying about scriptural allusions, perhaps this one is pertinent.
--------------------------------------------------
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink….
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty…, and did not help you?’
45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ (From Matthew 25:44ff)
__________________________________________
Tgirsch, if you are right, then reinserting her feeding tube would only allow us the time to see that you are right. There would be plenty of time for hearings and arguments and for Hugh Hewitt and Al Franken to battle this out. If you are right, then God could help us all to see that you are right.
But if we right, if we are depriving a woman of her right to life without the due process of law, if we executing an innocent woman via the excruciating process of dehydration, then the oft mentioned line in the declaration of independence that we are “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are life…..” has been trampled under by judicial tyranny, its meaning has been lost and it is nothing more than a relic in a museum.
Tgirsch, if you are right, then God help us to see that you are right.
Tgirsch, if we are right, we are murdering an innocent woman, if we are right, God help us all.
bk
23
To begin with: about the innocents killed in Iraq and your so-called-justifications. They are your opinions, the justifications that is. "We the People" were lied into the Iraqi war and then we are thrown weak justifications only coming after the reason we were given were exposed as lies. For you to then take those reasons and use those weak made up reasons to justify what we did and are doing in Iraq is a sham. Grasping at straws. If you can't base your argument on real facts then it becomes even weaker. To use your argument we should be in many more countries fighting endless wars. Wake up, we are in Iraq for control, power, and oil. We are no different than the regime we replaced except our government is hiding behind a curtain of supposed democracy. Yes we are the wizard running the show but don't look behind that curtain because you may see the truth.
Try justifing the dead innocent Iraqis by using the reasons we are truly in Iraq as a base for your argument.
If I take a gun and start to shoot ramdamly in a circle with the good intent of killing only bad guys and murderers and I kill some innocent people also, well do you suppose I will be "not guilty" of murder?? Gee my intentions were good??? I was just trying to make things better for everyone who had to suffer at the hands of those bad guys. Give me a break, will ya!
My point about the death penalty is not as you seem to be trying to suggest that I would let 100 men go free in order to save 1 innocent man. I don't believe I ever alluded to anything like that. Guilty men should pay with their life, in prison. No doubt about it. That is what we need to fix. If I value life then I am not ready to assume the reigns of God and pass judgment on any man and then preside over his being put to death. There is no partially in favor of pro-life.
The abortion issue is another very difficult issue. Abortion is bad but how do we fix the problem? It seems to me that way to many anti-abortion people are only concerned with stopping abortion and spend the vast majority of their time protesting abortion and not near enough time lining up to take care of and raise the many children that would be born if abortion were outlawed.
Its one thing to say you are against abortion but quite another to come up with a solution to all the extra care and money it will take to raise the children that your anti-abortion law will help bring into this world.
Again, let me see the system set-up and put in place to take care of all the unwanted children that outlawing abortion will bring about and then I'll vote to stop abortions. First things first. Do you suppose if all the anti-abortion people would have spent the last 20 years setting such a system up that they would now have a much stronger case to bring about the end of unnesessary abortions?
24
I think the whole meme is in bad taste. The whole equating conservatives with southern white rednecks who eat ribs and drink beer by day and burn crosses by night is getting really, really old and boring. Further, the suggestion that we "have no problem with thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians... being killed", including children, as if they are less innocent than innocent, is also boring and very simple-minded.
I pretty certain that Joe's response will NOT change anyone's attitude on the Left or the Right. Maybe a few folks in between. But people on the Right already know its not true and people on the Left who repeat this meme don't seem to care that its not true.
posted on 03.25.2005 3:21 PM25
sorry for all the misspelled. I's jus an unedgicated kountry boy.
posted on 03.25.2005 3:25 PM26
In the verses, Matthew 5:38-44, Jesus is speaking about the personal/individual realm of life, not what the responsibility of government is. Here are some Scriptures to consider in this debate: Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 11:12-14. And as pointed out above in Ed "What the" Heckman's post, Jesus said in Matthew 5:16 & 17, He came to fulfill, not abolish the Law or the Prophets (i.e. the Old Testament Scriptures).
posted on 03.25.2005 3:45 PM27
Maxcat - Some of the things you wrote I find a bit erroneous.
"To begin with: about the innocents killed in Iraq and your so-called-justifications. They are your opinions, the justifications that is."
I hope you don't actually think that merely asserting Phil's justifications as "opinions" entails they are false.
"If I take a gun and start to shoot ramdamly in a circle with the good intent of killing only bad guys and murderers and I kill some innocent people also, well do you suppose I will be "not guilty" of murder??"
Your analogy fails due to severe dissimilarities with the war on Iraq. These include: a) What occurs within a culture/society (your analogy) as opposed to what occurs between cultures/societies (war in Iraq). b) The rights of individuals or civilians (your analogy) as opposed to the rights of a government (war in Iraq). c) The guilty men were not presently raping, murdering, oppressing the innocent men (your analogy) as opposed to Hussain's dictatorship who was (war in Iraq). I'll stop here but could keep going.
"Guilty men should pay with their life, in prison..."
Oh really ... have you ever had a friend that was murdered? I did, at age 17. And somehow, giving the gangbanger who killed my (teenage) friend life in prison just doesn't quite seem just according to my intuitions. This is not to say that the death penalty is just, but I think it does show that we need to do a better job of developing criteria to determine what a just punishment is since our intuitions and subjective feelings will obviously differ.
"If I value life then I am not ready to assume the reigns of God and pass judgment on any man and then preside over his being put to death."
I am so tired of hearing this. Being pro-death-penalty doesn't mean that I have assumed God's reign to pass judgment on any man. Rather, it means that I find logical, philosophical, and theological grounds to claim that in God's eyes, there are times when it is appropriate for the state (not the individual) to punish the guilty by having him/her sentenced to death. It is getting old hearing the anti-death-penalty proponents copping out and saying that we are assuming God's reign. We are only making a claim about reality that we find to be true. The anti-death-penalty proponent does the same thing by stating that in God's eyes, there should not be a death penalty. Afterall, who are they to assume God's reign by claiming how He sees the world? The bottom line is either try to refute the claims we make or accept them, but quit making bald face assertions that we are assuming God's reign.
posted on 03.25.2005 4:33 PM28
"it means that I find logical, philosophical, and theological grounds to claim that in God's eyes, there are times when it is appropriate for the state (not the individual) to punish the guilty by having him/her sentenced to death".
So as long as I say that I find it logical......................that in God's eye", then it's Ok for me to put a man to death? Now that's using semantics to dance around the subject? Sorry if I characterized it by using words that you didn't like but in the end the results are the same no matter how you paraphrase it.
My analogy is just fine. It breaks what has happened in Iraq down to it's simplest form. Just because we are a big bad government you are telling me that make some sort of a difference?
I have just within the last 2 months we lost a 1st cousin at the hands of three murders, so get off your high horse and try and stick to the subject instead of claiming some self righteous position because of your loss.
You seem to have assumed that I am anti-death penalty??? I am anti-putting-an-innocent-person-to-death-penalty. Since there seems to be a problem with this in this country then by that understanding I am anti death penalty. Since there's no way to take back a death that was administered wrong, well let's just say Houston we have a problem! Therefore there is only way sure way to guarantee that we don't make that kind of mistake and that is to not put people to death and until we have a way to make absolutely sure of a persons guilt then we will continue to have anti death penalty forces in this country. A very difficult situation indeed.
I would like nothing more than to see the murderers of our cousin put to death but that will not bring back our cousin so instead I am having solace in the hope that they will never again be free to walk in this great country of ours. I know the prison is a cake walk scenario but if you have every been locked up you would know that it a far cry from being a free man. Of course my perfect prison for murderers would not be a thing of beauty. Isolation and despair, a real living hell for these low life, but with great health care and a well balanced terrible tasting diet to make sure that they got the full benefit of what the price is for what they did. Just because I am anti putting the wrong person to death penalty doesn't mean I am a wuz when it comes to punishing the guilty.
29
I liked Tgirsch questions. Although, I was not asked I'll answer them as the most conservative commentater here.
1. "You are adamantly opposed to allowing Terry Schiavo to die..."
Ten yard plenalty for distorting the facts. I am opposed to knownly depriving her of water and food for the sole purpose of having her die or deprive her of life. Tgirsch, I suggest you use a dictionary before you post. Apparently you unfamiliar with meaning of the word "kill"
Quote: Main Entry: kill
Pronunciation: 'kil
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, perhaps from (assumed) Old English cyllan; akin to Old English cwellan to kill -- more at QUELL
transitive senses
1 a : to deprive of life
2 a : to put an end to
Both things are undeniably the situation. There nothing about the word "allow" that is proper in this context.
Quote:5 a : PERMIT b : to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent
Not giving someone something they need is not neglecting to restain anything. Stop abusing the English language.
Quote: and characterize even the earliest-term abortions as “murder,”
Murder in the moral sense of the generally unjustified taking of innocent human life.
Quote: yet you seem to have no trouble at all with thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians – including children – being killed while trying to get at a few bad guys
1.What do you mean "few"? Read the news idiot. http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/032305/escape.html
I guess 6000 people are just a "few." The only problem here is your refusal to face the fact that America actually has many enemies in Iraq and elsewhere and all war must be fought agressively on many fronts.
2. "No trouble" All war is trouble and troublesome and the living of life is "trouble" and "troublesome." Mature adult people do what must be done regardless of how much trouble it is. If we were to freeze up and never do anything that "troubles" us then we would still living in caves and banging our heads agains rocks wondering if they were eidible.
Quote: nor do you seem to have any problem with executions.
Why should I? Da Burden of evidence is own yous to shows there's a problem.
Quote: How do you reconcile this, both personally and Biblically?
Reconcile what? Where's the problem? You got to shows before you throws otherwise your argument just blows.
2. Do you feel that more higher-ups should have been held at least partially accountable in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? If so, who? And if not, why not?
If there good evidence to show the higher up were causally responsible then ya. But the funny thing is http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-08-18-fay-report_x.htm
there doesn't seems to be any evidence for your charges at least from those in the knows (http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7866303).
But I'm sure you next arguement will be how can you trust a man named "Church"?
4. If it could be demonstrated that comprehensive sex education and actively encouraging contraceptive use measurably decreased the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions, would you throw your support behind these options? (Put another way, what’s more important to you: cutting the number of abortions, or cutting sexual activity?)
Let's rewrite that question: If it could demonstrated that telling kids to have sex magically decreased the number of teenage pregnacies i.e. the number of teens having sex, would I support it? Answer: Right after the I eat moon cheese,endorse drunk driving as good driver safety, and label tabbacco as organic health food.
posted on 03.25.2005 5:36 PM
30
MaxCat:
"So as long as I say that I find it logical......................that in God's eye", then it's Ok for me to put a man to death?"
-No, so long as that claim matches up with reality. I am talking metaphysics, not semantics.
"Just because we are a big bad government you are telling me that make some sort of a difference?"
-The Bible seems to make a distintion between individual vs. state rights when it comes to punishing the guilty. If you don't seen that, then you won't be able to see your analogy fails.
"I have just within the last 2 months we lost a 1st cousin at the hands of three murders"
-I am sorry for your loss.
"so get off your high horse and try and stick to the subject instead of claiming some self righteous position because of your loss."
-This is really pathetic. I was making a point about how our intuitions vary regarding what punishment is suitable for murder.
"Since there seems to be a problem with this in this country ..."
-Could you provide me a list or direct me to a website that lists all the innocent people we have executed?
"I know the prison is a cake walk scenario but if you have every been locked up you would know that it a far cry from being a free man."
-What a wonderful system ... you murder a few people, then as a conquence you only lose your freedom. Lets just agree to disagree that a far better system is one where if you murder a few people, you lose your right to live as well.
posted on 03.25.2005 5:41 PM31
Scott
"Lets just agree to disagree that a far better system is one where if you murder a few people, you lose your right to live as well."
Does that "far better" system include women who terminate their pregnancies or is there a principled distinction which allows them to "only lose their freedom"?
posted on 03.25.2005 8:14 PM32
I would like to make a few added comments to my post at the top of the thread regarding how Christians should view the death penalty and square it with their views on being pro-life.
I have observed that people have made basically two justifications for the death penalty (or legalized murder):
1) That Christ was referring to personal behavior and that states (governments) are free to put to death murderers.
2) Old Testament scripture validates the taking of life for life (and surely it does).
Let's address the second point first. If we are in fact Orthodox Jews, and practicing Judaism to the best of our knowledge, then we can look to the Torah and scriptures and find justification for killing. However, and if we look closely, God was literally popping into the earth nearly first person (burning bushes, parting waters, smiting men, women and children) and he was doing this in direct communication- nearly person to person- with the Iraelites, his chosen people, via the priests (Levites? But I might be wrong). He spoke, they acted. They were the equivalent of a theocratic nation with a theocratic government (accept for when they rebelled, causing God to continually punish them).
So for a Christian to look back at Old Testament scripture to get direction on how were are to live now, is rather myopic. It is this type of misreading of the Bible that increases the numbers of unbelievers. Why? Because we sit and eat our pork fried rice(an Old Testament no no) and we allow our menstruating women IN the cities (another Old Testament no no) while using the very same Old Testament to justify our support of say, the death penalty. A certain amount of inconsistency there, right?
So how is the Christian (as opposed to the sincerely practicing Jewish individual) to take the Old Testament? Basically as object lessons of how the world and our relationship with God would be without the intermediary effect of Jesus. Without Jesus, it's a stricter, harsher world, where sin gets hit, and hit hard with a physical immediacy, every man, woman and child.
When we quote back to the Old Testament, as Christians, and suggest that "Oh, it's easy to find Biblical justification for the death penalty", we dance with foolishness, smug in our ability to render our own religion illogical. Technically, it should be much easier for an Orthodox religious Jewish person to justify the death penalty, but not quite so clear and easy for a Christian. (And Jews as a whole would certainly wrestle with the nature of when it is proper to kill).
Now, back to point one that some people have made: that Jesus was speaking to individuals, and not governments, and thus states (governments) are free to punish using the death penalty.
This point is often assumed when we see Jesus saying things like, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars". The statement seems to clearly show Jesus marking a realm of separation between personal righteousness and what can be expected of the government at large.
But if we are Christians, and are voting for politicians based on moral issues, and if we are calling our liberal counterparts "godless" or immoral (as we, and I, often do), are we not in fact saying by out actions that we are hoping for a government that reflects what Christ asks from us on a personal level?
In other words, if you are a Christian and you argue that the death penalty is fine because Christ differentiates between personal and state morality, then you really, really should have no problems voting for whatever Hillary, Gore or Bill that comes drifting down your road.
And if you have no expectations of a moral government (which is what you are saying by allowing for such a split betweeen public and state morality), then you ought to have few complaints when courts (Caesar) make rulings that allow feeding tubes to be removed.
But I tend not to agree with that extrapolation in the first place, that somehow Christ was approving of behavior on the state level that he would not recommend on a personal level. All we can cull from Christ's life and words is that to change the world, you have to START in the human heart, and probably one at a time, thus his focus on personal righteousness. Eventually the state catches up with the the population's personal morality (one thinks of issues like slavery).
I think the death penalty, and issues of war are actually the toughest issues for Christians to address, because you really do have to parse the language, ones motives, and weigh the lives. My one final point would be about Iraq... I would argue that there is a certain level of justness in that endeavor because the lives saved (from torture, future war, lack of food or medicine, etc) will ultimately outdistance the accidental deaths of civilians. Heck, if we base the justness of war on the collateral damage issues, would that not render WW2 unjust? We certainly bombed the heck out of civilian populations (Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima) and ravaged Europe in the process of freeing them from Hitler. And because of that intervention, and the removal of evil leaders, Europe prospers, and is no Africa.
(And I mention Africa only to point out a place where millions upon millions of deaths occur yearly due to the lack of anyone intervening in a just way).
Death and when it is applicable is not easy for the Christian who seeks to approach it with Biblical accuracy and consistency. If we are to be pro-life, we certainly should be consistent so that our opponents can see the logic of our arguments, and that we are not just running on emotion.
posted on 03.26.2005 11:59 AM33
The same principle holds true with Abu Ghraib. The soldiers who were involved in the torture should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The commanders who allowed such lax standards in which such abuse was made possible should also be relieved. All other leaders should be held accountable in direct proportion to their level of culpability. That is what justice means. To propose subverting justice in order to punish political foes would be despicable.
Bullsh-t, I honestly don't think you give a d-mn how many people are being tortured while your evangelical boy GeeDub is in office. Saddam's rape rooms are now belong to you.
Pentagon Will Not Try 17 G.I.'s Implicated in Prisoners' Deaths
WASHINGTON, March 25 - Despite recommendations by Army investigators, commanders have decided not to prosecute 17 American soldiers implicated in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, according to a new accounting released Friday by the Army.
Investigators had recommended that all 17 soldiers be charged in the cases, according to the accounting by the Army Criminal Investigation Command. The charges included murder, conspiracy and negligent homicide. While none of the 17 will face any prosecution, one received a letter of reprimand and another was discharged after the investigations....
Army Probe Finds Abuse at Base Near Mosul
Army Investigation Finds Systematic Abuse, Possible Torture of Iraqi Prisoners at Jail Near Mosul
WASHINGTON Mar 26, 2005 — Newly released government documents say the abuse of prisoners in Iraq by U.S. forces was more widespread than previously reported.
An officer found that detainees "were being systematically and intentionally mistreated" at a holding facility near Mosul in December 2003. The 311th Military Intelligence Battalion of the Army's 101st Airborne Division ran the lockup.
Records previously released by the Army have detailed abuses at Abu Ghraib and other sites in Iraq as well as at sites in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The documents released Friday were the first to reveal abuses at the jail in Mosul and are among the few to allege torture directly.
"There is evidence that suggests the 311th MI personnel and/or translators engaged in physical torture of the detainees," a memo from the investigator said. The January 2004 report said the prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions were violated....
posted on 03.26.2005 6:13 PM34
Septeus7: Let's rewrite that question: If it could demonstrated that telling kids to have sex magically decreased the number of teenage pregnacies i.e. the number of teens having sex, would I support it? Answer: Right after the I eat moon cheese,endorse drunk driving as good driver safety, and label tabbacco as organic health food.
-----
No, we mean actually telling them about what to do to protect themselves by recognizing that a good portion of kids will have sex whether we want them to or not (An equally decent portion won't have sex whether they take Sex Ed or not). Your argument can basically be summed up as follows: teaching kids Driver's Ed makes them safe drivers but teaching them Sex Ed will make them irresponsible hump-machines. Keep in mind both programs discuss the risks involved with the activity and best methods to avoid the risks, which will of course include abstinence, but will not just be abstinence.
35
Too many innocent men are executed while the guilty linger on death row for decades. But the problems with our justice system do not change the fact that the death penalty is just.
Try not to pass out from the shock, but yes, I agree with you that the death penalty is, in some cases a just punishment.
Over the years however, (you knew there was a however), I have come to the conclusion that I cannot no longer support the death penalty because it's value as a punishment is outweighed by the moral decay it causes. I don't think that the death penalty is good for us as a society. I began to come to this conclusion when I witnessed pro-death penalty proponents having tail-gate parties in the parking lots of prisons waiting for a sentenced criminal to be executed.
It seemed to me that if we were going to sanction the killing of individuals for the greater good that it should be done with a sober and even saddened mindset. Not one more fitting of a Super-Bowl party.
I also think that there is a cost, emotionally, mentally and spiritually, to the person who carries out the execution. It is wrong to give that burden to someone when it can be avoided, even if they have volunteered for it, because it does hurt them.
The other main reason I no longer support the death penalty is that I have come to distrust government more with each passing year. The power to execute individuals is no longer a power that I am willing to trust the State with. The exception being for national defense, at least most of the time.
posted on 03.26.2005 8:08 PM36
Larry, you asked the question:
Does that "far better" system include women who terminate their pregnancies or is there a principled distinction which allows them to "only lose their freedom"?
Due to the controversial debate as to the nature of a fetus (or unborn baby) and whether or not it has natural rights, I am in no position to claim that that a woman who had a few abortions should be put behind bars (losing her freedom) or in the electric chair (losing her life). Whereas in non-controversial cases of personhood (e.g. where that same woman kills several teenagers), I think the death penalty might very well be just.
The fact there is so much controversy regarding the personhood and the rights of an unborn baby doesn't entail that neither side is correct. (I personally think the pro-life side is correct). But the controversial nature does seem to prevent me from making the same judgment I would in non-controversial cases.
This is a very good question Larry that I want to spend more time thinking through.
Happy Easter!
37
Okay, it just came to me. Assuming the pro-life position to be true--that the unborn baby is a full human with full human rights--I think there is a distinction to be made between actively killing a person (which the abortion doctor does) and not preventing the killing of a person (which the mother does). This would lead me to think the doctor should be facing stricter legal punishments than the mother.
posted on 03.27.2005 12:53 AM38
As a native Texan, I used to think that the One True Religion here was high school football. However, that is only a seasonal allergy. Year 'round, Barbeque has to qualify as the single element that both unites and divides Texans of all ages and walks of life.
It is only barbeque that unites Methodists, Baptists, Church-of-Christers, Shriners, Rotarians, Elks, Mooses, Lions, Jaycees and Pentecostals. Yes, only barbeque attains the status of true religion. Its "churches" are found across the state, in towns big and small: in cook-offs and backyard events, in venues large and small, places both antiseptic and third-world filthy--and any range of adjectives and adverbs you wish to use.
My favorite "church" is Louie Muellers in Taylor, about 35 miles NE of Austin in Williamson County. Merely to walk through the front door of that unairconditioned house of worship is itself an act of faith--it will never be confused with an upscale eatery. But the line going out the door at lunch time is just the first indication of the devoutness of the worshippers who come for communion. Inside, the atmosphere is filled with the heady scent of woodsmoke. The walls are blackened with the soot of countless smokey fires in the barbeque pit. When you get to the front of the line, ask for "Two slices of the moist, and a hot sausage". They make their own sausage with jalepenos, and the brisket is butter-soft with that flavor of hickory holiness that true barbeque worshippers crave. The sauce is wattery, but spicey and with plenty of onion. You'll get a piece of butcher paper for a plate, and you can order a canned soda or chips to go with it. But the meat itself is worth the half hour drive East of I35, down Highway 79 past the Dell Diamond.
Yes, Barbeque is the one uniting force in Texas, but to claim that one "church" produces a "better" product than another can result in fisticuffs amongst the faithful. It is far better to spend considerable time in traveling to all the barbeque places in Texas and deciding for yourself what the "best" is. Yes, it would take years, but like all religious pilgrimages, can result in Illumination if not outright Beatification (or indigestion, take your own chances).
Chris
39
BKeldsen:
Yes, I am sure the exchange of loaded statements fosters wonderfully meaningful dialog. ;)Actually, so far it has worked pretty well for Joe and I, and despite our sometimes strong differences, I still consider him a friend. I'd like to think that sentiment is mutual.
What is the plank in your eye? That you are in error for renouncing the war in Iraq or that you support a judiciary that is starving a woman to death? ;)The "plank in my eye" is simply that I'm not perfect; for example, I hold the difficult position that innocent people must sometimes die for the greater good, and that sometimes it is in the best interests of those poeple. That's a pretty big plank. As I said before, Joe and I share that plank; we merely disagree on the circumstances.
‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’So by artificially keeping Terri Schiavo's soul trapped in a useless body, we're not just keeping her separated from God, we're keeping Jesus separated from God, too. Wow, that's deep. :)
Tgirsch, if you are right, then reinserting her feeding tube would only allow us the time to see that you are right. There would be plenty of time...How much time do we need? It's been well over a decade with no improvement. It would be quite the impressive miracle if something were to change now.
But if we right, if we are depriving a woman of her right to life without the due process of law...Without due process of law? Are you freaking kidding me? I'm not aware of anyone who has ever gotten more due process than she is. People on friggin death row would be lucky to get half the appeals this case has gotten.
Tgirsch, if we are right, we are murdering an innocent woman, if we are right, God help us all.Sorry, but she's already dead in all but the most technical sense, and has been for a decade or more. You can't "murder" anyone who's already dead.
But since you insist on the "murder" language, how many innocent Iraqis have we "murdered" over the last two years?
Mr. Ed:
My "take a pill" prescription for BK now also applies to you.
Lynne Gale:
And as pointed out above in Ed "What the" Heckman's post, Jesus said in Matthew 5:16 & 17, He came to fulfill, not abolish the Law or the Prophets (i.e. the Old Testament Scriptures).Ok, then, so when you menstruate do you leave the village? Do you avoid eating shellfish? Do you sacrifice two doves at the temple if you happen to have sex when you're menstruating? Or have you just not read Leviticus lately? Or was Jesus only joking about fulfilling that part of the law?
Septeus7:
Ten yard plenalty for distorting the facts. I am opposed to knownly depriving her of water and food for the sole purpose of having her die or deprive her of life.Who's distorting the facts? First, her condition is what deprives her of food and water; she must essentially be force-fed. Hypothetically speaking, if she didn't want to eat, she would have no way to refuse. You're not advocating keeping her alive, you're advocating imposing your will upon her.
I thought that Christians held the soul and the mind as the valuable parts, and the body was just an earthly vehicle. What would be so horribly wrong about letting her go join the savior? Apparently, you have a non-traditional Christian view, in which the BODY is what's important, soul and mind be damned.
By the way, according to your twisted semantics, doing anything that causes death is "killing." Well guess what? Every time a woman gives birth to a child (or even conceives one), she's guaranteeing that that person will die. So to all you out there who have children, you're killers! Do you see where your absurd logic leads?
Murder in the moral sense of the generally unjustified taking of innocent human life.Ah, now we introduce the "unjustified" qualifier. Yet you have in no way shown that "killing" Schiavo (finishing a job that's been 95% done for a long time) is unjustified.
I guess 6000 people are just a "few." The only problem here is your refusal to face the fact that America actually has many enemies in Iraq and elsewhere and all war must be fought agressively on many fronts.I don't care if it's six or six million. Every single innocent Iraqi civilian that was killed in getting to them was killed unjustifiably, meaning that by your just-given definition, they were murdered.
All war is trouble and troublesome and the living of life is "trouble" and "troublesome."Which is why war is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Not to go after (apparently imaginary) WMDs that nobody thought constituted an immediate threat or phantom al-Qaeda connections. My problem is not that war is difficult or problematic: of course it is. My problem is that too many on the right take it far too lightly.
Da Burden of evidence is own yous to shows there's a problem.All I have to do is show where one innocent person has been executed, and we'd fit your definition of "murder," now wouldn't we. Are you saying you're absolutely certain that we've never executed anyone innocent, and that you're absolutely certain that no one on death row is innocent?
If it could demonstrated that telling kids to have sex magically decreased the number of teenage pregnacies i.e. the number of teens having sex, would I support it?Wow, nice straw man. Did you build it yourself? posted on 03.27.2005 1:43 AM
40
Chris Vail:
Thanks for your response to the BBQ question. I understand what you're talking about: I live in Memphis, where pork BBQ is the dominant religion.
My thoughts on Memphis BBQ are thus:
For dry ribs, I recommend Corky's, although many in town will argue that Rendezvous is better -- I disagree; I think the Rendezvous' dry rub tastes like powdered ketchup.
For wet ribs, I'd go with the Germantown Commissary. You have to sauce them yourself, but the sacues are excellent, and the ribs are fall-off-the-bone tender.
But for a pulled pork sandwich (what you'll get most places in Memphis if you just ask for "barbecue"), Three Little Pigs is the hands-down winner.
posted on 03.27.2005 10:27 AM41
wow. a conservative blog with actual, logical discourse. very good, folks.
there's an angle on the schiavo case which states that we would prosecute an individual who would starve a dog, but we have here a ruling that commands the starving to death of a human. ergo, we hold dogs in higher regard than humans. this is, of course, a straw man argument. clearly, a neglectful pet owner cannot be conflated with 20+ judges and years of review. this case has been micro-scrutinized by our judicial system, over and over again, to the same conclusion. indeed, we treat our pets much better than we have treated terry schiavo. the thought of starving her to death is horrendous, but it's due to our lack of courage as a society that we can't bring ourselves to offer to her the decent, humane end by means of a lethal injection, like we would with our most beloved pets when they cease to be able to live any sort of fulfilling life.
if it can be proven by a truly independent investigation that commanders were aware of and did nothing to stop the abu ghraib and gitmo abuses, then they are indeed responsible and should be tried just the same as the troops directly involved. if this means it goes all the way to the white house or the dod, so be it. i'm highly dubious that we'll ever get a truly independent investigation, so we'll just sacrifice the grunts again. this is a story as old as history.
art fart.
always in favor of education, so long as it's reality-based. sure, ideally, we would have our kids behave responsibly and intelligently with regards to sexuality. ideally, disease would not exist and pregnancy would be something you had to want before you got it, kinda like going to the store to get a gallon of milk. there are ideals for all situations and then there's the real world experience, which generally falls far short of the ideal. or, at least, falls short enough often enough to commonly result in things like contracting disease or becoming pregnant. to deny comprehensive, factual sex ed is sort of like buying your kid a tool set but leaving out metric tools because you just don't like the idea of metric. the real world uses metric. it's just a fact.
i have no idea about texas bbq, but i make a damn good texas red chili.
posted on 03.28.2005 2:24 AM42
Wait, wait, wait...
So it's about death penalty vs life in prison for some (MaxCat, Scott Buttes--way up there)...how about this idea:
Make prison hell. If you're in for murder, there's no pumping iron, watching TV or getting mail (including porn and letters from mom!). Make it hell. Prison systems are pretty messed up when folks can look at jail as a free bed and food. Would this make it more valuable in our society to not have the death penalty?
No cruel and unusual punnishment? Well, lets amend that so murderers will receive fair and usual punnishment for their actions. I would rather die than have my freedoms taken away! You kill, you fester in a lonely cell and eat bread and water. Think about your sins until you pass on and meet your maker. (all of this after due-process, etc, right?) This is just an idea, full of flaws and not fully flushed out. More of a what do you think, than an "I think this is it--the answer to all our problems!"
Also, Scott, I'm sure that in all my years of being Christian, raised in the church, etc that God never says we, as humans, have any right to kill. If you say "eye for an eye" I'll scream.
The Ten Commandments say, "Thou shalt not kill (murder)". Vengance is mine, thus sayeth the LORD. There is nothing Christian (or moral) in passing judgement on who should die for their sins. If we live as Christian in Old Testament rules, then, as tgirsch says, we must not let women mestruate in the city, we must sacrifice...yadda yadda yadda. Jesus lived to save us from our sins--to fulfill the prophecies and take away all the things we had to do for salvation before he came. There are Commandments which Jesus never disputes. If you look at Jesus interaction with the Pharisees, he demolishes their old version of faith, and is therefore crusified. Pretty serious differences in opinion to get killed for it, eh? Matthew 22:34-40 says:
"But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they gathered themselves together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' And He said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
One can sum up the Commandments with this simple summary, provided by Jesus Himself! These are the commands we should follow, not those of the Pharisees! Read this: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/95/043095.html
I think we can get rid of what was said earlier by some. We can see what Jesus means to us, and what we should be responsible to as Christians.
However, Thank God, as Dave said in is post, there is a "conservative blog with actual, logical discourse". I'd go as far to say I'm glad there's a blog PERIOD that has maintained a conversation like this with actual, logical discourse. I linked in from No Left Turns, then democracy guy, to DailyKos, then Lean Left. Phew! What a trip!
posted on 03.28.2005 9:26 AM43
Tgirsch:
The "plank in my eye" is simply that I'm not perfect; for example, I hold the difficult position that innocent people must sometimes die for the greater good, and that sometimes it is in the best interests of those people. That's a pretty big plank. As I said before, Joe and I share that plank; we merely disagree on the circumstances.
I see, so what is the greater good that is served by Terri Shiavo’s death?
How much time do we need? It's been well over a decade with no improvement. It would be quite the impressive miracle if something were to change now.
I have a step-sister that has been mentally impaired for well over a decade, shall we get a judicial decree to kill her too?
Without due process of law? Are you freaking kidding me? I'm not aware of anyone who has ever gotten more due process than she is.I’m sorry I wasn’t aware that Terri Shiavo was even accused of a crime that would warrant the death penalty. Was she read her rights? Was she convicted by a jury of her peers? Does her crime warrant a death sentence?
The only reason that she is being sentenced to death that I am aware of is because she has severe heath impairment that prevents here from being able to get up and feed herself. But I guess it might be against the law to be handicapped in Judge Greer’s court.
People on friggin death row would be lucky to get half the appeals this case has gotten.
I think it is quite the opposite. Terri Shiavo would be lucky to have gotten half the presumption that death row inmates get prior to their death.
If new evidence is brought before a court in a mandatory death row appeal, that evidence is heard and considered. If Terri Shiavo were an inmate on death row, Judge Greer would have bent over backwards to consider new evidence that would have shed additional light on her situation. As it stands, there is the testimony of a very well respected and very well credentialed neurologist that contradicts the testimony that she is in a chronic vegetative state. Had a death row inmate been treated with the same cavalier manner that Terri Shiavo has been treated by Judge Greer and the 11th Circuit, Amnesty International and the ACLU would be all over this like white on rice in glass of milk on a paper plate in a snow storm.
The really messed up part of all of this is that the only reason Terri Shiavo is being put to death is because her husband wants her dead.
Sorry, but she's already dead in all but the most technical sense, and has been for a decade or more. You can't "murder" anyone who's already dead.
Not according to Dr. Cheshire, he submitted a report declaring that in his professional opinion, Terri Shaivo displays responsiveness that is inconsistent with PVS such as eye opening, random eye movements, brief eye contact reflexive withdrawal from a noxious stimulus, etc (see Dr. Cheshire’s report as linked from Hugh Hewitt’s blog).
If Dr. Cheshire is correct, Terri is not dead, she is very much alive.
But since you insist on the "murder" language, how many innocent Iraqis have we "murdered" over the last two years?
First, I thought you had concluded that these two issues should be evaluated very much independently of each other….?
Second, let’s assume I am flat out wrong on the war in Iraq, let’s just assume I couldn’t be more wrong on that issue.
How would that justify killing Terri Shaivo?
bk
44
I'm only going to touch on BBQ, as it's the only question which even remotely interests me...
Whoever posted that dumpster dog travesty knows nothing about barbecue. Barbecue doesn't need onions, ketchup, sauce, chili, or any other crap. Barbecue is about two things- meat and smoke. Pork barbecue is only acceptable as dry ribs, and only very rarely then. If you have to add sauce, it means the cook had no clue what he was doing. Texas barbecue is sliced beef brisquite, which should have a crisp black outside, a half inch or so of pink smoky meat, and the rest should be a fall apart tender grey.
Salt Lick is good, but commercial. A decent choice if you happen to be in Austin, but I wouldn’t travel for it. Hard Eight in Stephenville is a favorite of Ty Murray and other rodeo guys, but the meat is a bit dry. They do have free beer though. Kreuz Market in Lockhart is Mecca for many. A family split has put it in a different building than where it lived for 50 years. The old building is now operated as Smitty's Market. I can vouch for the pit masters at Kreuz knowing exactly what they're doing. Probably some of the best I've ever had.
Truthfully, the best Texas barbecue is often served out of roadside shacks, travel trailers, and backyards. You can usually smell the wood smoke before you see the sign. Some of the best I've had was from a roadside stand near lake Texoma. THE best was what my Dad woke up three times a night to watch.
So I'd either look for a random stand, or eat at Kreuz.
45
i just had to post on the bbq question--i normally don't eat meat but i will sit down at smitty's market and eat my weight in shoulder any day. (i realize this is controversial because most people like the fatty brisket) kreuz's is okay but i prefer going to smitty's because it's in the original building--all that goodness, no sides except cheese, jalapenos, avocados, onions, and pickles--no plates but butcher paper and if you sit in the old part the knives are chained to the table....and why the hell are people desecrating their bbq with sauce?
posted on 03.28.2005 12:45 PM46
First time at this blog, or any blog for that matter, but let me say this about capital punishment, which so many of you seem to be against. Apostle Paul in Rom 13:3-4 states that those in authority bear the sword to punish those who do wrong. Now, folks, the sword in Paul's day was not used for slapping someone's wrists. It was to take away their life and Paul is stating emphatically that those with this authority are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on wrongdoers. Death penalty is not just Old Testament. I hear many of you quoting Jesus with his statements of "Love your enemy." - "Turn the other cheek" and so on. But these statements are for when people insult you or for those who hate you. They are not meant to absolve murderers.
posted on 03.28.2005 2:15 PM47
BKeldsen:
I see, so what is the greater good that is served by Terri Shiavo’s death?First and foremost, closure. The family (even the ones fighting to keep the shell of her body "alive") can finally begin moving on and getting on with their lives. The hospital no longer needs to expend resources and time in what is essentially futile care, and can redirect those resources to other people who can actually be helped. The court system can get on with other cases, perhaps ones that haven't been rehashed a dozen times in as many years. And politicians can get back to ruining the country in other ways.
Thanks for the softball.
I have a step-sister that has been mentally impaired for well over a decade, shall we get a judicial decree to kill her too?Define "mentally impaired?" Terry Schiavo isn't just "impaired," her entire cerebral cortex is gone. Her mental condition has actively deteriorated over the last decade-plus.
Has your step-sister's condition deteriorated to the point where she not only has no higher brain function left, but no higher brain left at all? And was your step-sister ever in a lucid enough state that she actually told her husband and friends that she would rather die than "live" in her current condition?
If not, then you're not comparing apples to apples. But you knew that. You simply didn't care. Differences in kind and degree are completely unimportant to you, if you think you can score a cheap point.
The only reason that she is being sentenced to death that I am aware of is because she has severe heath impairment that prevents here from being able to get up and feed herself.Any "death sentence" she received, she received 15 years ago when she slipped into this condition. The only choices left since then have been "die quickly" and "die slowly." You and others like you seem to prefer the "die slowly" option, to the point of artificially extending her life as long as technologically possible.
In any case, this isn't about courts ordering her death, it's about what Schiavo herself wanted in this circumstance. Every court to ever look at this (not just Greer's) came to precisely the same conclusions about that. And that includes conservative Republican justices. This isn't about just one bad ruling.
If new evidence is brought before a court in a mandatory death row appeal, that evidence is heard and considered. If Terri Shiavo were an inmate on death row, Judge Greer would have bent over backwards to consider new evidence that would have shed additional light on her situation.You're kidding yourself if you think there's any "new evidence" that isn't simply fabricated and/or conjecture.
But again, the facts of this case don't seem to be important to you. You have your opinion of how things ought to be, and Terri's wishes and the facts be damned.
The really messed up part of all of this is that the only reason Terri Shiavo is being put to death is because her husband wants her dead.This is the perfect microcosm of your ignorance of the facts of this case. Read the friggin' FAQ!
In other words, this has nothing to do with what Michael Schiavo "wants," and in fact, he wasn't even the one who made the final decision -- that role was played by the courts.Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.
As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
Notice here that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're ignorant of the details of the case. Because the alternative is that you're deliberately lying about the details of the case to make your point. I certainly hope it's the former and not the latter, so that's the assumption I'm going to make.
Not according to Dr. CheshireDr. Cheshire's report is speculation at best, because unlike the many doctors who have certified that she's in a PVS, Dr. Cheshire has never directly examined her. Plus, Dr. Cheshire's ties to the conservative Christian Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity call his objectivity into question. The only motivation you could have for taking the second-hand observations of one doctor as more valuable than the first-hand observations of many doctors is that you simply prefer the former opinion -- not that you are more inclined to believe the former opinion.
How would that justify killing Terri Shaivo?It wouldn't. I was merely pointing out that you were being inconsistent of your use of terms, using the incendiary verbage where it helps your position, and avoiding it where it hurts. My point wasn't that the term "murder" applied equally well to the two cases, but rather that it applied equally poorly. posted on 03.28.2005 4:30 PM
48
Roger:
Your post underscores a tendency among Christians that has always bothered me: the tendency to value the worlds of the Apostle Paul more than the words of Christ Himself.
posted on 03.28.2005 4:33 PM49
Without having read all the comments about the 5 questions I would like to weigh in on one that concerns me regarding Christian consistency.
I think you bobbed and weaved on your initial response to the question about killing Iraqi civilians and didn't actually answer the question - you sort of brought up some evasive defenses, like the Iraqis lived in a dangerous zone anyway. But that doesn't address the question.
If life is sacred, it is sacred at all times and all places for all people.
If you believe we shouldn't kill because God says not to in one of the commandments, then a president of the United States, which is a secular office involved in secular activities, cannot abrogate the kill commandment, especially for 6 weeks or so like in Panama, but evenso he cannot override God's wishes for secular purposes.
I don't think Christians are consistent about this.
(Incidently, the commandment was "Thou shalt not kill," for the first 60-65 years of my life and I think for 2000 years before that. Then the conservatives finally woke up to the fact that there just might be some contradictions in their beliefs and sent their scholars back to the translation from Aramaic with instructions to discover that the word had been mis-translated all this time and should have been "murder."
Well, what a coincidence.
posted on 03.28.2005 5:02 PM50
Did Terri want to be starved to death? I think not, although it's possible. Judge Greer's decision has no evidence on this issue. He states that she did not want to be "hooked to a machine", which he interprets as rejecting Artificial Life Prolongation, which I find reasonable.
His mistake is failing to find out what Terri wanted with respect starvation. Maybe her parent's lawyer mistake, too.
What is unreasonable is that Florida Law includes the ordinary rquirements of food and water along with extraordinary machines.
Did Terri want to be starved to death? She wrote nowhere that she did, it seems no evidence was taken on this issue. So it's a horrible execution of an innocent woman, and her parents are being forced to watch.
Cruel and inhumane punishment, on an innocent woman, ordered by the Secular Fundamentalists who find her life inconvenient. Whose morals are being imposed?
posted on 03.28.2005 5:14 PM51
tgirsch: On the road to Damascus, Paul personally met with Jesus. Consequently, I feel that Paul knew Him on a personal and spiritual level. If we throw out Paul's writings, we throw out over half of the New Testament.
posted on 03.28.2005 5:33 PM52
Tom Grey: You have introduced what I call, for want of a better phrase, "retrospective criteria or standards." I've heard conservative pundits doing this for the last week; Hannity today badgering a woman caller. You say that Terri wrote nowhere that she wrote that she wanted to be starved to death. Now, if you think about it, you can always find 1,000 things to ask someone why they didn't do this after they have done, or not done in this case, a particular thing.
This is an after the fact complaint. The fact is that life flows steadily by, we make up our responses as we go along as best we can, without the ability to foresee consequences (and perhaps if Terri could have foreseen your complaint she would have written that she did want to be starved to death) or have the ability to go back and do things over, once we have seen the consequences.
What I'm urging is that you look at the structure of your argument. I say your structure is invalid because it doesn't take into account the ambiguity of most of our moments. Basically, we improvise the moments of our lives. You're essentially asking for a perfect world in which all bases are covered all the time. That's just not real.
posted on 03.28.2005 6:46 PM53
I just remembered that I have three questions that I ask Christians - and you might have seen this before. The scenario is this:
A pregnant Iraqi woman is running down a street in Baghdad when we first begin bombing and lobbing missiles. (Perhaps she couldn't believe that we'd actually do it or she just got caught out at the wrong time). A missle lands squarely on the pregnant woman and blows her and her innocent, unborn fetus to smitherenes. The three questions:
1). Is the deaths of the woman and her baby both murder?
2) Is the death of the woman collateral damage and the death of her baby murder?
3) Are both deaths collateral damage?
Obviously, if the death of the baby is collateral damage it means that taking the life of a fetus is not always murder, but depends upon the situation, i.e., it's post modern and relative.
posted on 03.28.2005 6:58 PM54
Phil Aldrich: Your comment that thousands of people were unintentionally killed is bad reality.
It's also the "We don't know," excuse.
If you fire a missile or drop a bomb you have the intention of doing damage and probably, hopefully killing the enemy. There is nothing, I say nothing unintentional about what happens. It's that you don't know what will happen and you probably won't know after the fact what happened.
But not knowing is a lot different that not having the intention.
posted on 03.28.2005 7:11 PM55
ProudLiberal:
Incidently, the commandment was "Thou shalt not kill," for the first 60-65 years of my life and I think for 2000 years before that.Actually, I've wondered about this myself, so I consulted a humanist Rabbi fluent in Hebrew, and he assures me that "murder" is indeed closer to being the correct translation. This is consistent with a reading of the Pentateuch, which lists dozens if not hundreds of circumstances under which killing (in war or execution) is A-OK.
Tom Grey:
Been eating your Hyperbol-O's in the morning? :) A feeding tube is a form of artificial life support, just like a breathing apparatus. Witholding one is every bit as much (or as little) execution as the other.
And as has been pointed out here before, "starvation" is actually a very common "natural cause" for dying in old age. My wife's grandfather recently refused a feeding tube and died in much the same way as Schiavo. Far from being a slow, painful death, it was a quiet, peaceful death. I know this first hand, because I was there.
And "Secular Fundamentalists" have nothing to do with this. Read the damned FAQ, linked above. If you care so much about the case, you could at least trouble yourself to learn the actual facts, rather than just what Fox News ("Let's ask psychic John Edward what he thinks!") tells you.
Roger:
On the road to Damascus, Paul personally met with Jesus.And yet Paul's writings frequently contradict the words of Jesus. Many people met Jesus, but Paul was the only one with the hubris to claim to speak for him. Jesus repeatedly speaks out against violence, and never to my knowledge advocates it. I'm inclined to believe this wasn't an oversight on the Savior's part. posted on 03.28.2005 10:47 PM
56
>Yes punishment on earth is due, when caught, but one cannot, really, make a New Testament argument for the death penalty at all (and we, as Christians, while often confused and dipping into Judaism, ought, in the least, to acknowledge that there are things in the New Testatment that are profoundly different-due to Christ; mainly things that render practices in the Old Testament invalid).