The U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay what many are saying is the public murder of brain damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo,
These people have a wonderous propensity for understatement, don't they.
and in doing so set a very public legal precedent for mercy killings, eerily similar what the Nazis used to justify exterminating the Jewish people and to the language the U.N. is currently drafting for an international human rights treaty.
1) Slippery slope fallacy.
2) In Germany, the "mercy killings" were a product of the fundamental flaws, racism, evil, etc of nazism.
The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute reported February 9 that the U.N. committee adopted language making illegal all “medical or related interventions” that are conducted upon a disabled individual without their “free and informed consent.” Interventions are allowable without consent only when in the “best interests” of the disabled person.
And just what do these idiots think constitutes "best interests"?
European Union Human Rights monitor Eckart Klein said the U.N. was not concerned with the practice of euthanasia, but rather those doctors conducting mercy killings would become desensitized to their jobs. “Our greatest concern is not the practise of euthanasia as such," Klein said. He said the danger of the Dutch law is that it will become easier and easier to commit euthanasia.
Slipppery slope fallacy again. But then thats what nearly ALL fundie predictions of the end of the world (tm) are.
Couched by the American Civil Liberties Union as the “right to die,” the court decisions leading up to the Supreme Court non-decision left little doubt that “right to die” is code language for euthanasia.
Its not "code language" for anything. Do these people also thing that 'correct' is "code language" for 'right'?
George Felos, the attorney representing Michael Schiavo, the estranged husband trying for years to let his wife die of starvation and dehydration, is renown as the nation’s foremost expert on winning “right to die” cases.
So Mr. Schiavo got the best there is. Do these morons think he should have hired Johnny Cochran instead?
Felos and the ACLU tried to frame the argument as a private family decision in which neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither neither the Legislative nor the Executive branch of the government had a right to intervene.
They don't have that right. It IS a private family matter.
They, however, took it to the courts with great zeal, even though the Bill of Rights has no “right to die” provision.
The bill of rights has no "force my religion on everyone else" provision either but that doesn't stop these retards from claiming it anyway. And taking something to court has nothing to do with whether or not a right is explicitly written down somewhere.
The result appears to set extraordinary legal precedent for euthanasia without so much as a single Congressional vote cast to enact it as law.
Why SHOULD those puppets of lobyists get to decide these things?
But what happened during the week smacks of the same coup the Nazi’s perpetrated upon the German people in 1939 when Adolf Hitler enacted "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" that first focused on newborns and very young children.
Pulling the plug on a vegetable hardly amounts to forcibly killing children that don't measure up to ones arbitrary prescribed physical standards.
The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October 1939, typed on his personal stationary, enlarged "the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death." This is the same law Hitler used to justify murdering millions of Jews. Christianity, FUCK YEAH!
Guilty by association fallacy. Hitler also approved of eating and breathing. The two cases aren't even remotly comparable.
“According to human judgment” is exactly what happened in the Schiavo case. Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael, seven years after her brain-damaging heart attack, said that Terri told him she would not want to live in a vegetative state. Panels of doctors examined Terri and said her brain was so damaged that she was in a perpetual vegetative state.
The difference between this and the Nazi's is this is the HUSBAND making the decision, not some government official.
Although I haven't followed this story in much depth, is there anything besides Mr. Schiavo's word that this was truly his wife's wishes. Not that I'm questioning it. I would just like to have something more to shove down these idiots throats.
Based on Michael’s hearsay statement and old evidence and outdated technology (Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI) because the judges in the case would not allow new tests, the courts decided that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube should b/e removed. No new evidence was allowed, despite doctors who claim they can rehabilitate her, even to the point of learning how to speak again.
Let me guess. These particular optimistic doctors got their degree from the same place Kent Hovind got his?
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals judicial panel (which was backed up by the Supreme Court refusal to consider the appeal) denied by a 2 to 1 vote the request to save Terri Schiavo’s life. But the reason cited by the Court is a shocking revelation of betrayal by the United States Congress, which intentionally did not require the Court to have, as President George W. Bush said, “a presumption in favor of life.”
1) Who cares what monkey boy says. He's an idiot. And where was this "presumption in favor of life" when he was beating the war drums?
2) What Terri has isn't what any sane person would call "life". REAL death is brain death and that is precisely what her condition is. But then Fundies are more concerned with the heart than the head. As long as that ticker is still going, she's just as alive as the rest of us?
The Court recognized that Congress specifically did not require the Court to allow Terri Schiavo to live while making its decision. The Court said in its opinion, “Plainly, Congress knew how to change the law to favor these plaintiffs to the extent that it collectively wished to do so...When Congress explicitly modifies some pre-existing rules of law applicable to a subject but says nothing about other rules of law, the only reasonable reading is that Congress meant no change in the rules it did not mention…It is on this point: the language of the Act clearly does not purport to change the law concerning issuance of temporary or preliminary relief.”
And the courts are right on this point.
The Court cited as its evidence an exchange between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin where Senator Frist explained, “Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay. I would assume, however, the Federal court would grant a stay based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be alive in order for the court to make its determination.
Last I checked, she was still alive (at least by the fundy definition) and the court HAS made its decision.
The U.S. Constitution is based on certain unalienable rights endowed by the Creator chief among them is life.
Nice re-wording. Replace "
their creator" (implying the possibilty of different creators for different people) with "
the creator" to make it sound more like Genesis.
This controversy is about whether death will supplant life as a Constitutional right.
The controversy is about a HUSBAND'S right to decide what is best for his family and not let religious fanatics decide for him.
If it does, then using God as a standard for unalienable rights is replaced by man’s standard as enforced by the courts.
I challenge these morons to find ONE passage in the bible where it talks about human rights, as opposed to mindless obedience to what ever is the latest from on high.
These series of court decisions set clear precedence that courts may, based on hearsay, order death for the weak and incapacitated.
No one in the government is "ordering" anyone to die. The are ordering others to not interfer with someone from making that decision for themselves or their spouse.
The Bible mentions the words “life” or “live” some 700 times.
And it also mentions "kill the heathens/sinners/witch/blasphmer etc, etc, etc" far more.
Jesus said in John 10:10, “I have come that they may have life and that they have it more abundantly.”
And as any good fundie will tell you, he was talking about life in the
next world, not this one which the bible mentions is a time of sorrow, a veil of tears, etc.
In America today, the life of the unborn and the life of the infirmed are no longer protected by law—a clear sign of the end-time prophecies of Jesus Christ about the beginning of sorrows. Turn to Christ and know the way, the truth and the life.
Like the IRA has?
"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com
"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart
