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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just who are “these people?”
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.
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?
Much of it right in this thread, with the greatest concentration being up there in the OP.
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)
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.
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?