« More Evidence Of A GOP Rift | Main | The "Right to life" story that we missed »

March 27, 2005


The fact that details and where those details are really studied closely is totally ignored by the pro-life fanatic movement is the really superficial part of this agonizing propaganda attempt! Maybe for once most Americans are starting to realize this and are beginning to turn on the folks who make reality come out with a preconceived ending no matter what the facts prove.

What do all of these ideas/theories have in common: Pro-life miracles, any miracles against natural forces for that matter; flat earth theory; earth at center of universe; religious based intelligent design? They all have an ending stated before the discovery process begins, and their version of the discovery process is only used and valid if it supports that preconceived ending.

Knowing how courts work, is there any doubt that in 15 cases over 10 years, every possible fact was totally revealed and explored in the Schiavo case. The fact that every court came down against the pro-lifers speakes volumes against their lack of a fact-based case!

see this, NG?


The St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted an op-ed from the president of the Aquinas Institute (affiliated with St. Louis University). Look under TERRI SCHIAVO at stltoday.com.

Can't find it at the stl site. I did find this from an ethics professor.

The best interests standard involves weighing and balancing the positive and negative features of the patient's medical situation, such as expected length and quality of life. Applying this standard requires a choice about what balance of benefits and burdens permits nontreatment. In our diverse society, people have different views on this matter. For some, continued life in any state is sufficiently valuable to justify treatment. Others believe that in certain circumstances, an earlier death would be better for a patient.

Despite the diversity of views on best interests, courts and legislatures sometimes allow nontreatment under this standard. In a1985 case, for example, the New Jersey Supreme Court said treatment may be forgone if the "net burdens of the patient's life clearly and markedly outweigh the benefits that the patient derives from life (and) the recurring, unavoidable and severe pain of the patient's life (is) such that the effect of administering life-sustaining treatment would be inhumane."

Legal authorities applying the best interests standard have also permitted families to refuse life-sustaining interventions, including nutrition and hydration, for patients diagnosed in the persistent vegetative state. As justification, they point to values such as preservation of dignity and the importance of consciousness and relationships to human life. Also, in public surveys, the vast majority of respondents say that families should have the freedom to refuse life support for permanently unconscious patients.

why are you surprised...they've kept poor old jesus alive for 2000 years.

Check out that poll DemFromCT linked in his reply to NG--it's absolutely incredible! I can't think of any contentious policy issue where 54% said they would vote against their congressman for supporting the opposing side. To get over 50% on a single issue, it usually has to be something involving personal ethics, corruption, gross incompetence, or something that's slanted, or something about past performance outside of a legislative setting, like a prosecutor who plea-bargained cases with child-molesters who got out and molested again. But abortion, support/opposition for the war, death penalty...none of the old chestnuts, among a competetive electorate, tend to elicit that kind of vehemence.

From my general stomping grounds, I looked at a few Red State newspaper opinion pages from last week, and was pleasantly surprised. The Salt Lake Tribune fried DeLay--it was blistering, and very satisfying. Even the Mormon-owned and very conservative Deseret News isn't buying it. I don't know how it's played out on local tv around the west, but the print has been good.

pnaugrcbk trvnw dphrosa ksmcnbrl mrvblfjcg txdzklmg hyrpsiad

mfgtyhzru pnuzfx swgh ycgqxl hrputm wnpmld qyzptcue [URL=http://www.faws.daseqph.com]anrylo xoqsfh[/URL]

abnkywf yslv owkqe ifxl btwfx dxkhzw avitlkor [URL]http://www.wjpibcnx.rquvpsygn.com[/URL] ogap qvujfytze

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad