[Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo

[ouroboros rex]

C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>I do realize that a good bit of your objections are in the spirit of the
>day,
>

  Only the p.s.

> but anyway--
>
>The only way we know of "her wishes" was by late and contested testimony
>from husband and friends about her casual remarks.
>

  Contested by liars, fanatics, murder abettors, and paid shills, in my 
honest opinion.  I count their objections at a fig, to cop a phrase.

> As the
>disability-rights lawyer Harriet McBryde Johnson said (before the court
>decision was carried out),
>
>"--This is not a case about a patient's right to refuse treatment. I don't
>see eating and drinking as 'treatment,' but even if they are, everyone
>agrees that Ms. Schiavo is presently incapable of articulating a decision
>to refuse treatment. The question is who should make the decision for her,
>and whether that substitute decision-maker should be authorized to kill
>her by starvation and dehydration...
>

  Right.  This is basically bullshit, since she _was_ capable, and she 
did so then.  It takes advantage of her current state of helplessness to 
remove her volition, in a highly cruel and cynical manner which is 
continued below.

>
>"--There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and
>expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became
>incapacitated;
>

  This is basically a lie - see above.

> certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance
>directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and
>conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe
>disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived
>fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to
>be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very
>different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can't
>justify her death as her preference. She has no preference."
>

  This is a false dichotomy, and void.  By dismissing her wishes because 
we can't presently verify them (could there be a more pathetic 
argument?  That's the point!), it can be used to put any one of us into 
an endless living hell, whether we left written directives in the past 
or not.  This is probably the scariest thing yet about this case.  I 
don't know who this lady is, but she's apparently a real piece of work.

>
>I see no reason to believe your arbitrary judgment that personhood begins
>in the fifth or sixth month.
>

  I've seen tons.  I doubt there'll be a change of heart on either side 
here.

>  There was dispute about Schiavo's brain
>activity, but there was no MRI, no PET scan, and two of the five
>neurologists who testified at the trial did not agree with the diagnosis
>of PVS.
>
  Where did they come from?  They were hired by the parents.  Regarding 
the tests - how many doctors, total, have weighed in on this case?  How 
many other tests?

>
>The filibuster is an undemocratic maneuver, rightly deplored when it was
>used to prevent civil rights legislation.  I think it should be used to
>stop unsuitable nominees, but it's a counsel of despair, a testimony of
>the inability of liberals to make their case at large (or rather to have
>one sufficiently different from that of their opponents to be worth
>making).
>
  When you are up against a large conspiracy that enforces rigid 
adherence in your opponents through threats, regardless of their 
individual beliefs, this is a null argument.

>
>"Concentration of power at the top at the expense of the populace" is
>exactly what some self-styled liberals are calling for these days, because
>they see that populace as (you might say)  "...right wing nutters ... an
>army of useful idiots ... [who will] put all of us under religious control
>for decades ... [by an] organized main-force denial of rights ... [from]
>nationally organized religiowack constituents," etc.
>

  Only about 10% of them, I'd say.  I've shown you abundant proof that 
they intend to use the centralized power of the federal government to 
remove our control over our individual fates.  What's so difficult?  The 
end result will be that when an individual's directive is followed, the 
cops will show up.  Why don't you get which side is the government and 
which the individual?  I think you do get it.

>
>And your "joke" reminds us that the same corporate state (with a
>"concentration of power at the top at the expense of the populace") that
>enforced Schaivo's death by dehydration, tortures people in prisons around
>the world. --CGE
>

  True dat.  The difference we're discussing is in their desires.  -cmb

>
>
>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>I'm a bit concerned that this arrives on April 1, but nevertheless here
>>>are some comments:
>>>
>>>[1] The government also prohibited anyone from bringing her food and
>>>water.  She wasn't dying until then.
>>>      
>>>
>>  Would the government have done so without guidance found in her last
>>wishes?  No.  The government enforced her wishes.  Basically, she
>>'pulled the trigger' herself.  Her husband enforced her will, and the
>>government enforced his. - as required by long standing precedent.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>[2] The government that M. L. King called the greatest purveyor of
>>>violence in the world regularly ends human lives with impunity.  I was
>>>specifically referring to abortion.
>>>      
>>>
>>  If I apply the same test you're using, human life, then every
>>hangnail I pull is an abortion.  Any hangnail probably contains at
>>least a hundred living cells, each with my unique blueprint, and each
>>designed by the Creator with the potential of developing into a lil'
>>mini-me in the right environment.  The real question in both cases is
>>personhood.  Until the fifth or sixth month, there's just nobody home.  
>>Same for a flat EEG.  The porch light is out.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>[3] The undemocratic device that some liberals seem to be putting their
>>>hopes in, is the filibuster.
>>>      
>>>
>>  Ah.  Guilty as charged.  A bullet can be stopped by a Bible or a hip
>>flask.  It's not necessarily an elegant process either way.  Do you
>>believe that packing the courts with religiowacks based on rigid
>>litmus tests is the will of the people?  I would say that 'nonviolent,
>>carefully designed, and already happening without incident for
>>decades' is a pretty good description of a safe way to prevent it.  
>>That's why the filibuster specifically is under attack.  We know it's
>>a dishonorable attack by the fact that it wasn't brought by these same
>>'constitutional scholars' back when 3 times as many of Clinton's
>>judges were being held out.
>>
>>  BTW - I'm pretty sure segregationists also used the wheel and the lever.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>[4] I don't think you're attending to what Jefferson meant by
>>>"aristocrats," if you can't find five (and you only need four more). --CGE
>>>      
>>>
>>  Me?  I simply assume Jefferson meant what you say he said.  You'll
>>go a lot further before you find liberals desiring concentration of
>>power at the top at the expense of the populace.  Mischaracterization
>>of my position to match yours won't help.  The override of an innocent
>>person's wishes for their physical body, their very corpus, by state
>>intervention is exactly what you're advocating - and fits exactly what
>>he describes.  (IIRC, you'll be hard pressed to find a single instance
>>in his career to make us think he'd stand for it.  I'm thinking that's
>>about all there is to that.)  -cmb
>>
>>(p.s.  'Food' for thought - if it's OK for the government to jam food
>>down someone's throat, why isn't it OK to jam a light stick up their
>>butt?
>>
>> OK, April fools'...   =D)
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>