Terry Schiavo's parents weren't exactly strangers...were they?
it. People die everyday. People have been living in comas for years. People are taken off of life support every day. None of this is new. Perhaps my apathy level has increased over the last year but excuse me if I don't really care about a recent media cluster .
After all, some woman in Georgia spazzed out about her wedding and the took a bus. That's really what should preoccupy our time now.
Terry Schiavo's parents weren't exactly strangers...were they?
But, not me.
I believe there is just one moral absolute and, our founding fathers expressed that moral absolute fairly succinctly. It is that all human beings are endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (translated, fruits of their labor - or - property.) Period. All morality -- moral rights and moral wrongs -- are derived from our adherence to or deviance from that single moral absolute.
We all have the right to life. The right to continue living so long as we choose...without any intervention or assault from anyone else. Now, the argument arises when we define choice.
For instance, the death penalty and why it comports with my belief it is morally correct. If a person commits a crime for which they can receive the death penalty they have done so intentionally and with the knowledge their CHOICE to commit that crime carries the consequence of death.
Now, abortion. My argument opposing abortion does not center around the choice of the mother -- it is born of an uncertainty over when a fetus becomes a human being deserving of respect for their right to life. Since neither science, religion, government, nor anyone else can definitively tell me when that transformation occurs, I'm opposed to abortion. And, I'll remain so until there is certainty we are not killing a human being that did not CHOOSE to die.
The arguments for maintaining a person's liberty and property are similar.
Let the debate begin! War? Due Process? Smoking ordinances? They can all be discussed from the perspective of this moral absolute.
No, you don't. Besides, I'm not even sure you're the same scott I admired the writing and logic of when I first started reading this forum. You sound more and more like the other irrational Bush-haters every day.
And, frankly, given the ACTUAL economic health of this country (as opposed to the forwarded doom and gloom of the Left), of which I'm certain you're aware, I'm more convinced you're a pod person taken over by body snatchers.
As for my comment on Islam. It doesn't comport to my understanding of the above moral absolute and, therefore, I stand by my opinion. It is a religion of hate and violence -- not only in practice but doctrinally. Yes, there have been hateful and violent Christians but, I would argue, that is counter to their beliefs not in comformity with them.
And they weren't exactly her guardians either, were they?
What part of "I-know-what-happened-was-within-the-bounds-of-the-law-but, I disagree" don't you understand?
I'm not claiming Terri Schiavo's parents had a legal right to their demands and desires but that Terri Schiavo's cheating (and, yes, technically he's an adulterer) husband had a moral obligation to defer to the choice of life, absent any clear evidence that Terri Schiavo chose death.
Quit arguing the legal case. It's apparent the Florida courts agreed with the flimsy evidence offered by Michael Schiavo that Terri said something in conversation -- that, by the way, took him 7 years to recall -- over 15 years ago...fine, they can live with their conscience. It's also equally clear to me that Florida law recognizes Michael Schiavo as the legal guardian. I hereby and, in perpetuity, stipulate those two facts. Quit beating the forum up with 'em...it serves no purpose and, besides, it won't change the outcome...she's dead, you won. Hurrah!
I'm arguing morality; and, no, I do not believe morality is relative...
So it's not morally right for her husband, her legal guardian, the person he says she confided in, to carry out her wishes? You have no idea how morality can be applied to someone in a situation as this. Why should your moral values be applied in this situation?
I'm saying it would have been nice if he weren't the only witness to her statement and, further, that he would have recalled the conversation before 7 years had elapsed.
Yeah, I'm thinking the moral conscience of everyone else -- not related to the case -- should be dictated by what we don't know;
We don't know if he's telling the truth. There were no other witnesses to her statement and, to our knowledge, she didn't make this desire known to anyone else at any other time.
And, what we do know;
We know he's abandoned all other aspects of his marital contract in that he has, while still married to Terri Schiavo, entered into a committed relationship with another woman and had children.
I think this brings his motives for wanting Terri Schiavo dead in to question. It certainly called into question his veracity.
I mean, if it was so easy to move on in every other aspect of his life, why not give custodial care over to Terri's parents and move on completely? There's something about the whole thing that doesn't add up and, therefore, I arrived at my opinion on the matter. And, my opinion hasn't changed.
First, of all, they aren't my moral values and I think I just did apply what I understand of morality to the issue. Hey, it's my opinion and I'm en led to it. Further, I think I have supported that position well...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)