Quotes I agree with

[jere7my]

"Each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect."

"[It is] wise to always err on the side of life."

"Great!" sez I. "Little did I know that prominent Republicans are secretly Quakers!" The former comes from Peggy Noonan, former special assistant to Reagan and speechwriter for Bush the Elder; the latter came from the lips of Bush the Younger, former Governor of Texas, who believes we should execute the retarded and the young, who has kind of a lot of blood on his hands after two years in Iraq, and who signed a still-active bill in Texas that allows hospitals to withdraw life support...if the family cannot pay for it.

There are only two questions in the Schiavo case: one, is she still a thinking being? And two, if she is, would she want to be kept alive like this? The second is not knowable, since she did not make her wishes expressly clear in a legal way—but that doesn't matter, because the answer to the first is almost certainly "No." Conservatives have been muddying the waters on this point, pointing to videotapes and producing conflicting experts, trying to make it turbid enough that reasonable people might disagree, so they can claim we should choose to "err on the side of life". They're doing the same thing to Terry Schiavo that they've done to evolutionary theory: trying to instill enough doubt in the collective consciousness to trigger our fairness tendency, to make us say, "Well, I believe I'm right, but you could be right too." But this is science, not politics. There are reliable methods we can employ to reach solid conclusions about her mental activity. That is what this national debate should be about: do we have the data? Is it solid? There might still be gray areas, but at least we would then be framing the question in terms that might leave hope for a clear answer. And once we have that answer, we can then turn to the question of whether or not a vegetative person should be kept alive once their consciousness has guttered out, if their wishes are not known—but conservatives don't want to have that debate, because they know they'll lose it. They don't have the numbers.

Bringing the "sanctity of life" into this just reveals conservative hypocrisy. Nobody who believes "each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect" seems to want to apply that to Iraqi lives; nobody who believes we should "always err on the side of life" could support the death penalty when guilt is never perfectly knowable. Life begins with consciousness, and ends when consciousness ends; that is infinitely precious, that is what there is of God in us, that is what gives Saddam Hussain and George Bush and Jay-Z the same fragile, vital flame.

Comments

[irilyth]

Sorry it makes you angry, but well said.

[miraling.livejournal.com]

agreed.

[(Anonymous)]

As you know, I have found immensely frustrating the frequency with which Our Only President mouths statements with which I believe. Not that it's frustrating to attempt to reconcile those statements with his actions, which is clearly futile; those statements about his belief system which are not outright lies are simply inoperative for one reason or another. Perhaps it's because I feel somehow tainted by those areas of supposed commonality where I actually believe what he claims to believe. Or perhaps it's because, down in my rhetorician's heart, I believe that public statements should have some sort of meaning connected with the universe commonly perceived, and the intentions of the speaker within that universe.
As for the content of your comment, it seems to me that there is a third question: what is the law governing such situations? And the law clearly is that individuals may choose to refuse medical care, even when it kills them, and that when such individuals are not able to make such choices known, it falls to their guardian to attempt to interpret those choices, possibly (as in this case) with the assistance of an impartial judge. That's the law. Which brings to mind a fourth question, I suppose: are we a nation of laws?
By the way, I don't recall who it was that pointed out that the "conservative" relativists treat this case like they treat natural selection; they dig up a few "scientists" who are willing to deny various kinds of evidence and present unlikely theories against the stunned disbelief of people who actually study the stuff, and then throw up their hands and say "we can never truly find the final answer, so you'll have to agree to disagree and change the laws to allow for our interpretation as well, or reveal your intolerance for differing opinions." And we stand, stunned, saying "um, er, but the facts ..."
Thanks,
-Vardibidian.

[andele.livejournal.com]

If it makes you feel any better, the whole country seems to be against Bush on this. That is, over two-thirds of self-identified evangelicals think Congress and the President should keep the hell out of it, as well as 70% of the general public. And for an interesting reason: they see both sides. Large majorities say both that they sympathize with the parents *and* that they sympathize with the husband.

Poor George. I bet he's sitting around thinking, "what happened to my political capital...?"

[metasilk.livejournal.com]

this is science, not politics. There are reliable methods we can employ to reach solid conclusions about her mental activity. That is what this national debate should be about: do we have the data? Is it solid? There might still be gray areas, but at least we would then be framing the question in terms that might leave hope for a clear answer.

That would be lovely, but considerind data is not how this nation approaches anything, not really. Would we, if the journalists and editorialists (pundits?) thought that scientifically? Maybe. Sitcom-thinking might still be the habit.

If we did use data as a primary basis, I suspect we'd be making different energy choices. And then, perhaps, the question of Iraqi lives would've been largely moot.

And Vardibidian has it well-put too, as usual.