"Life" for conservatives ?

[Rashak Mani]

So the definition of "Life" for conservatives be it american or Vatican seems to be:

- Keeping people who have become vegetables alive
- Women should have unwanted babies
- People who are suffering horribly should continue to do so with no choice
- Fetuses without brains that will die should still be carried to the dire end (Brazil)
- Sex is good unless your a teenager, unmarried, protected against pregnancy or gay.
- Criminals somehow have no right to life even if a vegetative bulimic does (USA)
- Stem Cells can save life and improve it... but no can do... its Gods prerrogative.

I understand that no one relishes the thought of losing family members... but neither can I understand people who seem to define life through such miserable concepts. Where does quality of life and living begin for these people ? If life were so sacred how come they support wars so readily ? If God is the one to determine life or death how come these people support guns and wars ? Where does dignity come in too ?

Why this sudden "life is sacred" beyond reason gains so much strength ? People die everyday and in many preventable ways. Why this sudden "call to arms" over a bulimic chick ? What is wrong with living quality lives and ending in a dignified death ?

[Evil Captor]

Um, it requires independent thinking and carefully considered value judgements?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The Vatican believes criminals have a right to life.

Daniel

[Rashak Mani]

The Vatican believes criminals have a right to life.

Yep I put a (USA) tag on that line... but this is now... in the past they were quite content in burning witches and executing heretics.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Yeah, and Brazil supported slavery in the past. Me, I think the whole Sins of the Fathers schtick is for the birds.

Daniel

[CurtC]

I think it's more accurate to say that the pro-life people believe that life is precious above all else, and that God puts a "spirit" or "soul" into his (human) creations that we should not take away from anyone. Of course, there's the death penalty exception.

It seems to me to be backwards, though. If I believed that there was a soul which survived death, and my child's soul was stuck in a non-functional body waiting only on death for eternal paradise, I'd want to speed that process along.

[cmkeller]

Gee, Rashak, do you really consider it inconsistent to believe in killing someone convicted by jury of a heinous crime, and not killing anyone who wasn't?

There's nothing wrong with living a life of quality...as long as no one innocent has to die in order for that to happen. As for dignified death, different people have different definitions of "dignity."

[John Mace]

Look, if TS had left a written, living will, this whole thing would be a footnote.

The vast marority of Americans (conservative or otherwise) are OK with someone deciding when their own life should end. But many people have a problem with someone else making that decision. Is that so hard to see? In TS's case, the court decided she would have wanted to die. But her blood relatives disagree-- they say she would not have. The truth is, none of us actually knows what she wanted.

I won't get into any of the other false dichotomies in your OP. Questions about when life begins and end are extremely complex. Your attempt to ridiicule those who honestly wrestle with these problems is more suited to the Pit than to GD.

BTW, even in TS's case, are you aware that something like 80% of Americans think she should be allowed to die? That includes a hell of a lot of conservatives, even the religious types. You need to narrow down your brush quite a bit.

[BobLibDem]

I don't see this as a liberal vs. conservative issue. One doesn't get much more liberal than Jesse Jackson, who is squarely in the parents' corner. This issue transcends politics and gets right to basic questions about when life ends and when it is morally correct to withhold medical care and how do parental and spousal rights stack up and is it ever correct to withhold food and water from a human. Each of us has our own take on the matter and a lot of us feel quite strongly about it. But we're not falling neatly into liberal vs. conservative camps here.

What I'm seeing is a lot of shameful grandstanding and politicking. Some are using this to shore up their base with the right to life faction. Some are using it as a way to get back in the public eye, as in Randall Terry. Some are sensationalizing it to try to boost their "on the edge" appeal, as witnessed by Scarborough County's graphics showing "Fed By the Government" over some noted criminals faces and "Denied Food by the Government" over Terri's face. A lot of people are genuinely concerned about the gravity of the issues raised here, but common sense and rational discourse seem to be in short supply.

[uglybeech]

Gee, Rashak, do you really consider it inconsistent to believe in killing someone convicted by jury of a heinous crime, and not killing anyone who wasn't?

There's absolutely something wrong with someone's ethical priorities when they would spare no effort to keep the permanently unconscious alive, but not think twice about killing a thinking, feeling, awake and aware human being - I don't care what their state of sin is. There's something very wrong with people who value a pair of cells above a parkinson's victim.

[John Mace]

What I'm seeing is a lot of shameful grandstanding and politicking. Some are using this to shore up their base with the right to life faction. Some are using it as a way to get back in the public eye, as in Randall Terry. Some are sensationalizing it to try to boost their "on the edge" appeal, as witnessed by Scarborough County's graphics showing "Fed By the Government" over some noted criminals faces and "Denied Food by the Government" over Terri's face. A lot of people are genuinely concerned about the gravity of the issues raised here, but common sense and rational discourse seem to be in short supply.

Amen! The signal to noise ratio in this debate is disgustingly low.

[dropzone]

Both sides are providing plenty of signal but it's being dismissed as noise by the other. Of course, in the Schindlers' case it's pretty much ALL noise.

[OtakuLoki]

There's absolutely something wrong with someone's ethical priorities when they would spare no effort to keep the permanently unconscious alive, but not think twice about killing a thinking, feeling, awake and aware human being - I don't care what their state of sin is. There's something very wrong with people who value a pair of cells above a parkinson's victim.
I think you've made a false comparison, here. The debate over stem cell research (Which is what I understand you to be alluding to with your last comparison.) is not a matter of valuing two cells over someone with Parkinson's, rather placing equal value upon two human beings. I don't quite agree with that definition, but I also have trouble with the current general legal defition of it's just a bunch of tissue until it's born, too.

Given that stem cell research has great potential, but no genuine successes, I am reluctant to allow the use of fetal tissue for research. If (or when, if you like) the successes happen, then I am willing to review my judgement.

[Loopydude]

I love how conservatives (both those who can and cannot admit it) attempt to cast this debate as some cosmicaly deep ethical quandry, when it's nothing more than a case of political pandering that has mushroomed into gross governmental interference in personal choices, and a hideously cynical game of political football, where ill-informed legislatorss feel emboldened to cast judgement on the oppinions trained medical professionals who have spent years on the case.

There's nothing serious or noble about this. If the noise ratio is high, it's precisely because there's little else to it. It would be an absurdly simple issue if some of the ideology whores of this nation hadn't conflated it with far more reaching objectives.

[swh2004]

- Keeping people who have become vegetables alive

40 years ago my 23 year old aunt got into a car wreck with her husband. The car landed in a ditch and went unnoticed for 38 hours. Her husband died and she was found with dozens of broken bones, including a fractured skull, severe loss of blood, and in a coma. She had sever brain damage and for 4 months stayed in that coma and for 6 years for all intents and purposes was cosidered a vegetable. For the 30 plus years I have known her she has had the intellectual ability of a 4 year old. She is bed ridden, blind, and all of her limbs and feet and hands are drawn up. My grandmother, who had 6 children living with her at the time, a 3rd grade education, and alchoholic husband who went from job to job that required her to work, went through 9 months of physical therapy and nurse training so she could bring her comatose daughter home. Today she knows her whole family and usually says their entire names when asked to guess who is talking to her. SHe readily says she loves you unless she is mad and then she says she hates you and screams at you to get out. She misses her Father and brother and sister who died, and if asked if she wwants to be with them in heaven she says of course, but not yet because she doesn't want to leave her mom.

And you tell me there are non-"conservatives" out there who want her dead?


- Women should have unwanted babies

Pregnant women have a responsibility to an innocent and helpless child for 9 months. Women should not get pregnant who do not want their babies. It is not that childs fault the mother was not ready or any other reason you want to take the life from it.

- People who are suffering horribly should continue to do so with no choice

:confused: cite?


- Sex is good unless your a teenager, unmarried, protected against pregnancy or gay.

Sex has consequences. Just because "conservatives" do not wish to abrogate that responsibility by killing the innocent, or wish to burden themselves with their childrens emotional distress because you think sex is good no matter what doesn't make them the bad guy.


- Criminals somehow have no right to life even if a vegetative bulimic does (USA)

99% of criminals have a right to life. It's the small percentage who commit the most attrocious of acts angainst others that don't have that right.


- Stem Cells can save life and improve it... but no can do... its Gods prerrogative.

Cite? From what I understand is the research is unproven.

[cmkeller]

BobLibDem:

One doesn't get much more liberal than Jesse Jackson, who is squarely in the parents' corner.

Actually, Jesse Jackson was quite the right-to-lifer before he decided to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984.

[UncleBeer]

So the definition of "Life" for conservatives be it american or Vatican seems to be:
Perhaps you should give us your defintion of "conservative," before this conversation gets too far along. Considering that I'm quite content calling myself a conservative, I'm more than a little offended that you are, by extension, attributing those definitions of life to myself. I'm not sure I subscribe to any of them.

More questions:

Where does quality of life and living begin for these people?
Just who are "these people?"

If life were so sacred how come they support wars so readily?
Again, who is "they?" And if you mean "conservatives," I suppose it'd be appropriate to point out that liberals—even self-defined liberals, we don't have to paste that label on them ourselves—have supported any number of wars quite readily over the years, too.

If God is the one to determine life or death how come these people support guns and wars?
Again, "these people" are . . . whom? And what do guns, specifically, have to do with death? Are you not aware that humans were killing other humans in more than sufficient numbers long before the invention of guns and gunpowder?

Finally, why is the label "conservative" such a terrible epithet to you? And given that it is, doesn't this pathetic excuse for a debate really belong over in the Pit with the rest of the feeble partisan bleating?

What I'm seeing is a lot of shameful grandstanding and politicking.
Much of it right in this thread, with the greatest concentration being up there in the OP.

[Rashak Mani]

Given that stem cell research has great potential, but no genuine successes, I am reluctant to allow the use of fetal tissue for research. If (or when, if you like) the successes happen, then I am willing to review my judgement.
Why oppose it though ? If its promising lets try it out ? A lot of conservatives just stamped their foot and said it was wrong ... and then those embryos and other stuff go to the garbage instead of helping science.

Religion mucking up science again: If Galileo can't prove beforehand that the solar system is heliocentric its not useful and therefore not worthy of researching ? (not a rant at you... just religious bigotry)

[sleestak]

I love how conservatives (both those who can and cannot admit it) attempt to cast this debate as some cosmicaly deep ethical quandry, when it's nothing more than a case of political pandering that has mushroomed into gross governmental interference in personal choices, and a hideously cynical game of political football, where ill-informed legislatorss feel emboldened to cast judgement on the oppinions trained medical professionals who have spent years on the case.

There's nothing serious or noble about this. If the noise ratio is high, it's precisely because there's little else to it. It would be an absurdly simple issue if some of the ideology whores of this nation hadn't conflated it with far more reaching objectives.

Yeah, Jesse Jackson, that conservative SOB, is down in Florida right now doing alot of pandering.

This isn't just a conservative issue as other have pointed out. I'm conservative and I am very upset about the politicians actions in this case. I've emailed everyone I can think of voicing my displeasure with their actions.

Slee

[Rashak Mani]

Perhaps you should give us your defintion of "conservative," before this conversation gets too far along. Considering that I'm quite content calling myself a conservative, I'm more than a little offended that you are, by extension, attributing those definitions of life to myself. I'm not sure I subscribe to any of them.
Well maybe you should be pissed off at politicians hijacking the conservative "label" ? Obviously your definition of conservative isn't the same as mine or someone elses... so why ask for a definition at all?

[Loopydude]

Yeah, Jesse Jackson, that conservative SOB, is down in Florida right now doing alot of pandering.

Uh, yeah, and Jesse Jackson is, like, the only person weighing in on this issue of any political importance.

Nice filter, sport.

[BobLibDem]

BobLibDem:Actually, Jesse Jackson was quite the right-to-lifer before he decided to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984.

News to me, thanks for the revelation. I guess that goes to show that one can be a one side of the liberal/conservative fence on matters of morality (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc.) and be on the other side of the fence on economic issues like miniumum wage, unionization, affirmative action, etc.

[Malodorous]

Yeah, Jesse Jackson, that conservative SOB, is down in Florida right now doing alot of pandering.

This isn't just a conservative issue as other have pointed out. I'm conservative and I am very upset about the politicians actions in this case. I've emailed everyone I can think of voicing my displeasure with their actions.

Heh. From here (http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/schiavo_/2005/03/allstar_team.php)

I see Nat Hentoff and Jesse Jackson have joined the feed-Terri forces, which already included Ralph Nader, Randall Terry, Rush Limbaugh, Bo Gritz, Sean Hannity, and James Dobson. Now if we can just get Alexander Cockburn and Al Sharpton to join in, we'll have a left-right coalition embodying the very cream of the nation's loudmouth dimwitted self-promoting busybodies.

[Loopydude]

And possibly that folks will say any damn thing to get elected.

[OtakuLoki]

Why oppose it though ? If its promising lets try it out ? A lot of conservatives just stamped their foot and said it was wrong ... and then those embryos and other stuff go to the garbage instead of helping science.

Religion mucking up science again: If Galileo can't prove beforehand that the solar system is heliocentric its not useful and therefore not worthy of researching ? (not a rant at you... just religious bigotry)
I can only offer my reasoning here, not necessarily anyone else's. I am reluctant to allow harvesting of aborted fetuses (feti?) for fear of creating a market for abortion. On the other hand, I do see your point about the waste of just disposing of the tissues taken during abortions too - it should be too precious to be just destroyed. At the moment, without successes using stem cells in other mammals I'm going to remain reluctant to see the use of human tissue.

Show me any viable therapy in other mammals with stem cells and a lot of my reluctance will be outweighed by genuine benefits from the techniques. Until then, however, I remain, as I said, reluctant.

BTW, I'd like to point out that Galileo is a bit of an improper example (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5665528&postcount=75) for mindless censoring by religion of someone who had his ducks in a row.

[Rashak Mani]

This isn't just a conservative issue as other have pointed out. I'm conservative and I am very upset about the politicians actions in this case. I've emailed everyone I can think of voicing my displeasure with their actions.

Its so openly and obviously political and opportunistic I wonder what kind of people don't notice !! Religious circus...

[Loopydude]

Show me any viable therapy in other mammals with stem cells and a lot of my reluctance will be outweighed by genuine benefits from the techniques. Until then, however, I remain, as I said, reluctant.


As mice are not men, so long as research on human ES cells is so severely restricted, these doubts will remain comfortably in place for conservatives to cite in their "principled" objections. It's tough to provide good evidence when the means of doing so is denied. I wouldn't be surprised that even the strongest evidence in model organisms is shrugged off as "irrelevant" by conservatives, due to the very fact such surrogate endpoints would not be adequate by themselves for clincal applications. These reservations become highly suspect when the doubts that inform them are made permanent by design.

[Rashak Mani]

BTW, I'd like to point out that Galileo is a bit of an improper example (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5665528&postcount=75) for mindless censoring by religion of someone who had his ducks in a row.
Thanks for the link... didn't know that. So Galileu is another example of politics using religion, not religion vs science !! Even more appropiate for the thread then. :D

[manhattan]

Its so openly and obviously political and opportunistic...Actually you and others who say this are precisely wrong on this point. The persons who want to keep Ms. Schiavo from starving to death are not pandering and are not being opportunists. They can read the polls, too. I believe they are incorrect, but I am convinced that they are acting with good faith from deeply held principles with full knowledge that they will pay a political cost for doing so. That applies to them whatever side of the policital fence they might be on (though I might be convinced to make an exception for Rev. Jackson).

[Debaser]

You need to narrow down your brush quite a bit.

Agreed.

I'm a conservative. At least, I certainly am by the liberal standards here on the SDMB.

Let's look at your list:

- Keeping people who have become vegetables alive

I support the decision by Terri's husband to end her life. He's the spouse, it's his job to decide what her wishes were and act upon them.

- Women should have unwanted babies

I'm pro-choice.

- People who are suffering horribly should continue to do so with no choice

I'm all for assisted suicide. If you decide to end your life to avoid suffering then you should be able to.

- Fetuses without brains that will die should still be carried to the dire end (Brazil)

I'm not familiar with this, but I'll give you my gut reaction: No brain? If the parents are willing to let the child die, I'd say let them.

- Sex is good unless your a teenager, unmarried, protected against pregnancy or gay.

Sex is good.

Sex is not so good if you are a teenager, or if you are unmarried. Certainly we can all agree that STD's and unwed mothers are a bad thing?

Protected sex is fine with me. We should (and do) encourage people to protect themselves.

I've got no problem with gay sex as long as it's with consenting adults.

- Criminals somehow have no right to life even if a vegetative bulimic does (USA)

Criminals who commit certain types of heinous crimes lose the right to life. I'm actually opposed to this, but only because it gives too much power to the government, not because I feel sorry for the criminals.

- Stem Cells can save life and improve it... but no can do... its Gods prerrogative.

I say use them.

So, I'm a conservative, and I only partially agree with one of your seven statements. I'd say you better be more careful with that brush.

[Loopydude]

They can read the polls, too. I believe they are incorrect, but I am convinced that they are acting with good faith from deeply held principles with full knowledge that they will pay a political cost for doing so.

You seem to be ignoring the political costs that would be incurred among a core constituency that was arguably responsible for many Republican victories, from the Pres. on down, should the purported "Culture of Life" advocates have chosen to ignore this case, at least not too long ago. There is such thing as payback in this spending of political capital. Given how rapidly the poll ratings have headed groundward, I'm not surprised some of the most powerful players have been oddly silent.

I can't begin to fathom the motivation of some of the left-wingers involved in this case, except almost pure attention-whoring. In that regard, seeing the Naders and the Jacksons come out of the woodwork is not entirely surprising, if, prima fascia, somewhat paradoxical.

[OtakuLoki]

As mice are not men, so long as research on human ES cells is so severely restricted, these doubts will remain comfortably in place for conservatives to cite in their "principled" objections. It's tough to provide good evidence when the means of doing so is denied. I wouldn't be surprised that even the strongest evidence in model organisms is shrugged off as "irrelevant" by conservatives, due to the very fact such surrogate endpoints would not be adequate by themselves for clincal applications. These reservations become highly suspect when the doubts that inform them are made permanent by design.


Did you mean to accuse me of lying, Loopydude?

I've stated what I view as a minimum before I'll change my reluctance to allow Federal funding for research use of human ES cells. Meet this minimum and I'll change my position on human ES cell research. Until that happens, however, I don't see any benefit to supporting human ES research, and have yet to see anything other than pie-in-the-sky discussions of the 'promise' of ES research. If it is so promising, why is it such a hurdle to ask that it be proven to work in other species first? And if it's so difficult that you view it as unlikely to work with mice, or cows, or sheep, what makes you believe that it will ever work with humans?

I'm well aware that mice are not men, but until a technique is shown to work in other mammals, what proof do you have that any amount of use of ES cells will have any practical benefit? A great deal of the promise for ES cell research has been made by making extrapolations of what ES cells do in a developing fetus, until there is some technique that can reliably mimic that outside of a developing fetus why should anyone be swayed by what might be developed from the raw materials?

Secondly, let's be honest here: The current 'ban' on human ES cell research is nothing of the sort. It's simply a ban on Federal funding for the topic. There are projects outside the US being done using ES cells (Without all that much success, yet, BTW.) and inside the US without Federal funding. No decision by the Feds will stop research that looks profitable. (Which I believe ES cell research would be if it can be made to work as promised.) At the moment I view the majority of the people who are boosting the potential of ES cell research in the public's mind as snake oil salesmen - They may not be lying, but they aren't exactly giving out reasonable scenarios, either.



Rashak Man, I never said that Galileo wasn't an appropriate example for this situation, just not quite the way you had been saying. ;)

[XT]

It also seems to me as if you are trying to demonize the 'conservatives' side...or at least paint with an overly broad brush. There are plenty of 'conservatives' who would not agree with your definitions of their supposed positions (especially on the TS issue), and there are 'liberals' who more closely resemble the position you are trying to paint 'conservatives' into.

Case in point from my own family. My dad is about as 'conservative' as it gets. He thinks that TS should be allowed to die, and goes further asking why she can't simply be given a lethal injection of some kind to make it easier on the family. My sister, again about as 'liberal' as one could get thinks that TS should be allowed to live because her 'soul' or 'life force' is still there and she could recover.

For my own positions, pretty much what Debaser said.

-XT

[Loopydude]

Did you mean to accuse me of lying, Loopydude?


You're either lying or willfully ignorant. If you can't understand what a chilling effect on the entire industry a ban on public research that limits us to the study of extant lines that are hopelessly contaminated with feder cell DNA has, there's little point in arguing the funding aspects. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for private interests to pick up all of the slack.

As for results, they are being provided apace, and yet are consistently ignored by conservatives. Like I said, many of the proof-of-principle work in animals has been done, and we might be ready for Phase-I trials soon if there were widespread access to good lines. Lack of such due to complicated IP issues does not benefit the field at all.

Evidence? I'm not going to spend all day giving yet another list of cites people who choose to ignore them. I'm tired of waging battles of info attrition against people who don't give a shit anyway. Here's one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15630449), from a highly reputable journal, in an extremely robust primate model. It's just a recent example of some of the most promising data being generated that suggests the great potential promise of ESCs for neurlogical disorders (from out of Japan, interestingly). Other such promising data is being generated for cardiac disease, endocrine disorders, spinal cord repair. The July 10th issue of the Lancet is full of commentary on the current state of ESC and adult stem cell research, and speaks volums about the immediate need for public support, advocacy on the part of scientists, and realistic perspective. Ignoring the advances that have been made, and characterizing all of them as "overblown" tends to reveal how implacable the critics really are. I've lost all confidence opponents make good-faith arguments based on considerations like potential efficacy. They appear to magnify any and all reasonable doubt out of proportion to keep the field in a permantent holding pattern, if possible.

Fortunately, there is some industry money, and plenty of research going on overseas. Unfortunately, America seems bent on ceding its preeminant role as the unparalleled mecca of cutting-edge biomedical research. These days our esteemed leaders seem more interested in pouring money into bioterror efforts on the outside chance somebody does the virtually impossible. Sort of like our missile shield. We're fond of boondoggles these days.

[OtakuLoki]

Make up your mind, please.

First you say this:


You're either lying or willfully ignorant. If you can't understand what a chilling effect on the entire industry a ban on public research that limits us to the study of extant lines that are hopelessly contaminated with feder cell DNA has, there's little point in arguing the funding aspects. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for private interests to pick up all of the slack.

Then you say this:

Fortunately, there is some industry money, and plenty of research going on overseas.


Which do you mean to be true? Hmm?





Your cite is interesting, and does offer more progress than I'd been aware had been achieved. (And, as a chem tech, I admit I understood approximately 10% of what I'd read.) It does back up the claims of support for PD therapies being near breakthrough. I'm still uncomfortable with ES harvesting - but this is far more progress than I'd been aware had been made.

[Loopydude]

Make up your mind, please.

Which do you mean to be true? Hmm?


What's so fucking difficult to understand? Some is better than none, but a lot more would be closer to enough. As I wrote in my post, and would have been immediately apprehended if you weren't fixated on spurious contradictions, industry can't pick up the slack for such an enormous effort, and the fact all the big money and effort needed may be applied overseas is not exactly something Americans who care out our preeminance in biomedical science ought to be jumping for joy about.

I've had enough of this garbage.

[UncleBeer]

Well maybe you should be pissed off at politicians hijacking the conservative "label" ?
I am. But mostly right now I'm pissed at you for perpetuating their smarmy idiocy. And even moreso at you for using "conservative" as a libelous slur - no matter the beliefs of whomever applies the label to themself. While certain members of the body politic may have hijacked the label conservative for their own misuse, I only see the guys residing on the left side of the aisle connoting the term with negative attributes.

Again, I would ask, since you quite obviously hold the label "conservative" to have derogatory meanings, didn't you place this thread in the Pit? Your OP is nothing more than a tranparently disguised rant.

Obviously your definition of conservative isn't the same as mine or someone elses . . .
Well, I'm just trying to understand exacly which people you're claiming hold the meanings you've given of "life." My overall impression is that you've arrived at your thesis exactly back-ass-wards. You oppose all of the things in your list; you hate "conservatives" (even though at the moment you are refusing to define explicitly just what a conservative might be to you even though the term would appear to have a vastly different meaning from the way it's defined by the self-described conservatives who have appeared here); therefore, anyone holding the views you oppose, must, by definition, be a conservative and an enemy to be hated and shouted down with libelous terms.

In which case, as I've said twice, and will repeat for a third time, this thread is nothing more than a rant and better suited for the Pit. Because it certainly ain't a call for a reasonable debate.

[manhattan]

You seem to be ignoring the political costs that would be incurred among a core constituency that was arguably responsible for many Republican victories, from the Pres. on down, should the purported "Culture of Life" advocates have chosen to ignore this case, at least not too long ago. There is such thing as payback in this spending of political capital. Given how rapidly the poll ratings have headed groundward, I'm not surprised some of the most powerful players have been oddly silent.

I can't begin to fathom the motivation of some of the left-wingers involved in this case, except almost pure attention-whoring. In that regard, seeing the Naders and the Jacksons come out of the woodwork is not entirely surprising, if, prima fascia, somewhat paradoxical.I'm ignoring nothing. You are ignoring that some people in the world have actual principles and sometimes even act according to them. The reason people get core constituencies in the first place is shared values. That's all I'm saying here. Bush and the Republicans in Congress didn't champion that dumb bill because they were pandering to a core constituency; they have that particular core constituency because honestly and in good faith they believe in the causes of the constituents.

The left wingers who came down on the side of Ms. Schiavo's parents or otherwise concluded she should not be starved have similar motives. Their core constituencies are built from different cores and they disagree on this one, is all. Senator Harkin doesn't need any publicity, he needs to sleep at night. Plenty of people read Hentoff; he's just pro-life.

[elfkin477]

I'm with Debaser here. I'd like to take a look at this list too. I consider myself a moderate conservative.

- Keeping people who have become vegetables alive
Nope, I think brain dead people's families ought to be asked if they'd like for them to be organ donors, and if not after a reasonable time with no improvement (say a year or two max) the plug should be pulled. Comatose people, who do have brain activity, on the other hand should be maintained in hopes that they regain consciousness.


- Women should have unwanted babies
Women shouldn't have unwanted pregnancies, with healthy fetuses. With modern birth control we oughtn't have most of the unwanted pregnancies that we do. If one happens anyway, I'd far rather see the child carried to term and put up for adoption. And in the worse case senario - the kid is never adopted? A bad childhood is better than none at all, and many people turn their lives around as adults. Living children have a hope of a better life, and aborted ones do not. (I don't believe in reincarnation FTR)


- People who are suffering horribly should continue to do so with no choice
People who are terminally ill ought to be allowed assisted suicide once their pain is no longer manageable. I don't think suicide is a great choice in most cases, but suffering hopelessly is even worse. I'd like to think that God forgives those who can no longer bear pain.


- Fetuses without brains that will die should still be carried to the dire end (Brazil)
This ought to be the parents' choice. I know someone who didn't carry such a baby to term, and I think she made the best choice for her. One caveat I have with abortion is that if the child isn't going to live anyway, I don't really object to termination of the pregnancy. But if the parents wanted their brainless baby to be born, that's fine too.

- Sex is good unless your a teenager, unmarried, protected against pregnancy or gay.
Birth control very good - far far better to prevent a pregnancy than end one. Gay sex okay, preferably in committed relationships. Unmarried sex okay if you're an adult, but again committed relationships are better. Teens ought to be allowed to mature to the point that they'll have the wherewithall to protect themselves against disease and unwanted pregnancy before having sex - this point varies person to person.


- Criminals somehow have no right to life even if a vegetative bulimic does (USA)
People with souls should be alive, and those without shouldn't. Neither TS nor mass murders demonstrate possession of a soul or human sensibilities. I object to neither shuffling off this mortal coil.

- Stem Cells can save life and improve it... but no can do... its Gods prerrogative.
Theraputic value has been demonstrated with the use of both adult and umbilical stem cells. Embryonic stem cell value is still theoretical. Let's exhaust the use of the two former before delving into the moral ambiguity of the third. ASFAIK the only reason that embryonic stem cells are preferred over umbilical is that it's easier to create a supply of the former via maintaining cell lines, but why not routinely ask mothers-to-be for the use of their umbilical cord blood at certain research hospitals? Even if 50% say no for some reason or other, that's still a lot of stem cells that could be collected in a way that harms no one.

[uglybeech]

I think you've made a false comparison, here. The debate over stem cell research (Which is what I understand you to be alluding to with your last comparison.) is not a matter of valuing two cells over someone with Parkinson's, rather placing equal value upon two human beings.All right, then let me restate my objection: There's something very wrong with people who values a pair of cells and a parkinson's victim equally.
I don't quite agree with that definition, but I also have trouble with the current general legal defition of it's just a bunch of tissue until it's born, too.
Not at birth maybe but at this stage (http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k4/images/BlastocystFinal.jpg) calling it a bunch of tissue would be a compliment. It's not even that. It's a bunch of cells.

By the way you're "I'll wait till I see some successes" is just a hedge. Either it's wrong to kill one of these blobs of cells or it's not. And there's no logical merit that I can fathom in discounting probable benefits and only considering certain benefits. Almost all ethical calculations (particularly in the medical field) deal with probable benefits. There's very little certainty in medicine as in life.

And by limiting funding you're clearly reducing the probability that real suffering and dying human beings will be helped.


To all those who object to calling the OP's seven statements "conservative:"
There are plenty of 'conservatives' who would not agree with your definitions of their supposed positions (especially on the TS issue), and there are 'liberals' who more closely resemble the position you are trying to paint 'conservatives' into.

So, I'm a conservative, and I only partially agree with one of your seven statements. I'd say you better be more careful with that brush.

This isn't just a conservative issue as other have pointed out. I'm conservative and I am very upset about the politicians actions in this case. I've emailed everyone I can think of voicing my displeasure with their actions.

Yup, it does appear that you're right and the T.S. issue is not really a conservative/liberal issue. See this poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml). And in particular this quote:

There are no partisan political differences on this issue: majorities of Democrats (89 percent), Republicans (72 percent), liberals (84 percent) and conservatives (76 percent) are in agreement that the government should not be involved.
But I think the OP can be forgiven for not knowing that because of the visibility of the administration and the Republican Party on this issue. I admit it did raise my eyebrows when I read that that this was an evangelical issue. I was familiar with the Catholic Church's seamless cloth, but I didn't know that the protestant evangelicals had a dog in the end of life fight.

As for the rest of the OP's statements, well they may be parodies, but these are clearly parodies of conservative positions (abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, etc). The fact that some of you personally don't believe in some of these positions doesn't really prove anything. There are liberal positions I don't hold (e.g. I don't object to this war, I believe in welfare reform, etc). But I wouldn't call my opinions evidence that anything is or is not liberal. In fact, when my opinions do diverge from the "liberal" line you'll hear me complaining about "liberals" loudly.

[rfgdxm]

Hmm...I'm guessing you are a libertarian, who are also called classical liberals. If so, this is NOT what most people in the US consider "conservative". I'm a mild anarcho-syndicalist, and I happen to agree with all your points pretty much.

[sleestak]

Uh, yeah, and Jesse Jackson is, like, the only person weighing in on this issue of any political importance.

Nice filter, sport.

Hey, Sport, I never said he was. I pointed him out as an example of a liberal who is on the side of Shiavo parents. Here (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/sb686_vote.htm) is a full list of the democrats who voted for the Terri Schiavo Act. Jackson just happens to be the liberal getting the most air time, at least in my area, on this issue. Heck, he is getting more airtime than any politician as far as I can tell.

Trying to blame the whole Shiavo controversy on conservatives alone is just stupid. Just as lumping all conservatives together as anti-abortion, pro death penality, anti-research(stem cells) christians is wrong.

Slee

Pro-choice, athiest and conservative.

[uglybeech]

Just as lumping all conservatives together as anti-abortion, pro death penality, anti-research(stem cells) christians is wrong.

Oh come on. They're conservative positions. Just like being anti-death penalty, pro-choice etc. are liberal positions. If every time someone criticizes a conservative position your refutation is "but not all conservatives believe that so don't call it conservative," then the term conservative becomes meaningless.

As a liberal I am honest enough to criticize "liberals" as too soft on Saddam and too anti-corporate. I will criticize them in the third person because it's appropriate when I'm taking a position that is not "traditionally liberal." I don't claim that being anti-war isn't a "liberal" position just because I don't happen to agree with it.

[Rashak Mani]

Rashak Man, I never said that Galileo wasn't an appropriate example for this situation, just not quite the way you had been saying. ;)
hehe... it was quite instructive actually... thanks for the link... one never stops to learn in the SMDB !

I know Terry Schiavo (sp?) seems to be the focus of my rantish OP... but I did mention some stuff that is getting prominence elsewhere. The Pope's opposition to euthanasia and in Brazil the attempt to make illegal the abortion of brainless fetuses. (Abortion is illegal except for certain cases here)

This brainless (acephalic) babies being the most absurd... afterall maybe Terry girl might wake up one day... very very hard... but not ZERO.... but a brainless fetus is 100% guaranteed to die... and yet we've seen Catholic Bishops saying on TV here that women should bear these will be dead children to the end of their pregnancies because after all they are alive until they die !!!! Obviously the fact that "god" didn't provide them with brains seems a sure indication of the "his" wanting them dead... but fine for these men of "god".

I'm sorry but for this atheist this reads loud and clear "fuck women".

Now back to the States... if a priest comes forward to talk about keeping TS alive its clearly very different from politicians coming forward. Even if these politicians naturally have personal beliefs. Some might in fact not be opportunistic... but certainly most seem to be. Its the drawing the line on the sand and determining who is hardcore religiou and who ain't.

So to me it certainly seems like a lot of religious people (sometimes but not always also known as Conservatives) have a pretty wierd sense of what is living and dying with dignity.

[XT]

This was on Fox's (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152065,00.html) website today. Its relevant to the thread (of course, the thread appears to have died so its probably moot).

NEW YORK — By a significant margin the public views the removal of Terri Schiavo's (search) feeding tube as an act of mercy rather than an act of murder, according to the latest FOX News poll.

The new poll — taken prior to Schiavo's death — finds that a 54 percent majority sees the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube as "an act of mercy" and almost a third see it as "an act of murder" (29 percent), 7 percent say "neither" and 11 percent are unsure.

Among those most likely to believe removing the feeding tube was an act of murder are blacks (50 percent), Republicans (39 percent), conservatives (38 percent) and those under age 30 (35 percent). At 67 percent, self-identified liberals are most likely to call it an act of mercy, as do clear majorities of Democrats (60 percent), men (58 percent) and independents (56 percent).

This is kind of interesting...if true:

It has been suggested by some political pundits that the decline in President George W. Bush's job approval ratings in recent polls is related to his intervention in the Schiavo case. Indeed, the latest FOX News poll also shows a 3-percentage point drop in the president's approval; however, tying that specifically to his actions on the Schiavo case is tough to do.

Anyway, enjoy.

-XT

[Rashak Mani]

Among those most likely to believe removing the feeding tube was an act of murder are blacks (50 percent), Republicans (39 percent), conservatives (38 percent) and those under age 30 (35 percent).
Thanks XT... quite interesting... who would have thought that blacks would be the highest ?

As for the 3 point drop... thats conjecture... I'd find it great if it were true of course.

[XT]

Thanks XT... quite interesting... who would have thought that blacks would be the highest ?

No worries. I bet that hispanics are also high, maybe even AS high. I know they listed them as lower, but if the reaction of many in my own family (quite a few in my family are absolutely outraged that the courts 'murdered' this woman, and there are a few that won't even speak to me because I tried to explain why this isnt' so) is any indication that poll is reporting lower numbers than the reality. I can guess how that might happen too if they called hispanic like me, as opposed to my various aunts and uncles with yards full of Mary statues and such and rosary beads throughout the house (not to bust to heavily on my own family, but there SHOULD be limits to how many Mary statues should be allowed, and what colors they should be painted...not to mention how much gloop should be allowed in the house shrine, or how many religious pictures or crosses should be put on the walls. ;) ).

I wouldn't get too excited about a 3 point drop. As with all presidents their popularity seems to fluxuate up and down quite a bit. Besides, its moot...he's a lame duck anyway, and Chaney isn't going to be running for president in this life time.

-XT

[SteveG1]

This brainless (acephalic) babies being the most absurd... afterall maybe Terry girl might wake up one day... very very hard... but not ZERO.... but a brainless fetus is 100% guaranteed to die... and yet we've seen Catholic Bishops saying on TV here that women should bear these will be dead children to the end of their pregnancies because after all they are alive until they die !!!! Obviously the fact that "god" didn't provide them with brains seems a sure indication of the "his" wanting them dead... but fine for these men of "god".

These "men of God" are spouting personal opinions, NOT the official policy.

The official policy is that disproportionately burdensome measures are not required. They, if already in place, can be removed. If the person so wishes, according to this policy, they are entitled to refuse care. So, you are allowed to "let nature take its course". The official prohibition would be against actively causing death. You can withdraw the tubes and pumps. You can not kill in any active way (deliberate overdose or poison for example).

I believe that is also the opinion of the Florida bishops.

[BrainGlutton]

Yes! Life for conservatives! Without possibility of parole! :D

[reads OP]

Oh . . . never mind . . .

[Rashak Mani]

Yes! Life for conservatives! Without possibility of parole! :D
Quite the contrary ! Great idea !! :)

[Rashak Mani]

These "men of God" are spouting personal opinions, NOT the official policy.
Well the guy was an official of the Catholic church... in Brazil aborting a will be dead anyway brainless baby is criminal to them.

[kanicbird]

- Keeping people who have become vegetables alive

We have no moral right to end an innocent human life in this situation.

- Women should have unwanted babies

What unwanted babies, there are many people willing to adopt, we can talk about this again if things change.

- People who are suffering horribly should continue to do so with no choice

We have no moral right to end an innocent human life in this situation. I would like to see strong drugs available and highly experimental procedures, if the person permits.


- Fetuses without brains that will die should still be carried to the dire end (Brazil)

We have no moral right to end an innocent human life in this situation. And BTW all people will die, well we have the whole 2nd coming coming so some might not.

- Sex is good unless your a teenager, unmarried, protected against pregnancy or gay.

A married teenager can engage in sex, so your teenager comment is a non-issue. Also though only slightly effective, the rythm method is some protection against pregnancy. The unmarried is true, it appears that God would rather you wait till marriage, I can't imagine why God might have set this rule, what benifit to humanity could this be? As for gay, if you mean happy, then most people having sex are happy, but I fear you mean another type, I chose not to comment on this as it gets some dopers hot and bothered.
- Criminals somehow have no right to life even if a vegetative bulimic does (USA)
We have no moral right to end an innocent human life in one situation. But that doesn't rule out capital punishment for a person found guilty of a horriable crime.

- Stem Cells can save life and improve it... but no can do... its Gods prerrogative.

This is going to be bantered back and forth for a long while, stay tuned.