Say Anything Blog

Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.

This is insane. Why would you “leave a severely disabled child to die” by denying medical treatment? You’re merely prolonging his suffering to escape moral culpability. If you don’t want the child to live, give him a shot so he can die quickly and peacefully. This is what I’ve been advocating the whole time, since I could see where our “human life is precious” ethic was leading--the Terri Schiavo situation was the worst (let’s starve her slowly to death over 9 days rather than peacefully and painlessly end her life).

Given a choice between denying medical treatment to the desperately ill child (which leads to a slow and painful death) or giving him a painless and lethal injection, who in their right mind would opt for the first option? Who--beyond sadists, mind you--would want to increase the child’s pain, drawing out its death for no purpose whatsoever, save to eschew personal responsibility in the face of religious dogma?

Also, Rob, I should also point out that doctors do these type of things (deny medical treatment for the “desperately ill") all the time, and that the only reason this is “news” is because it’s a religious figure advocating it.

I don’t think I want to live in a society where we give up rather than do all we can to preserve innocent life.

Would you support a law forcing all Americans who make over $50,000 a year to adopt a child from sub-Saharan Africa? Fewer children would die. Sure, it’d be an “extraordinary circumstance” for all those families, but… hey, at least you’d want to live in that society (and not the one we live in now), right?

We make decisions all the time that result in the deaths of innocents. I think your outrage is misplaced.

You righty leaners would have all ill people who cannot afford treatment die. What’s the big bleeding heart issue here? No money, severly ill… let ‘em die right. Better that than I pay for their care. This IS the logic you guys use right?
ALSO
Since when is England part of our society?

---

Plus, what does it say about our society when we quit trying to save lives in extraordinary circumstances?  I don’t think I want to live in a society where we give up rather than do all we can to preserve innocent life.

This question is out of curiosity and not meant to be snide or anything: You frequently advocate that we must do all that we can to save precious lives. However, you also advocate that the government should not pay for medical expenses. So, hypothetically, would you have been opposed to lettting Terri Schiavo die if her family could not afford her medical expenses?

Andrew,

This question is out of curiosity and not meant to be snide or anything:

Shouldn’t Terri Schiavo have been entitled to the same free medical services that are commonly made available to virtually every illegal Mexican currently in the US?

I do take it as a positive sign that even religious leaders are recognizing the point that’s been obvious to others for a long time: that human life is not in any way “sacred.” I just wish they could combine this with some commonsense aversion to suffering and pave the way to legalized painless infanticide.

I guess what bothers me is the definition of “severely disabled.” Are we talking strictly terminal cases here?  Like cancer or other diseases?  Because if we are then that’s a different situation.

But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about.  What we’re talking about is killing children who are disabled.  Children like Downs syndrome patients or kids with other disabilities.

I don’t think it’s moral to leave them to die, and I believe that if we start saying that it is moral we put ourselves on a slipper slope which leads to a place we don’t want to go.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And if you get your way, Dave, we’ll soon have parents killing off their children because they’re deaf or have oddly shaped limbs.

That isn’t a place we should go.  Human life is sacred, and if it isn’t then you won’t object to me murdering you for no other reason then because you annoy me.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The bishop’s submission continued: “There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the ‘rule’ that life should inevitably be preserved. Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this.”

Thank you, Bishop.

And if you get your way, Dave, we’ll soon have parents killing off their children because they’re deaf or have oddly shaped limbs.

If they painlessly end those children’s lives and replace them with normal children, nothing is lost. No interests are usurped.

Rob:

Human life is sacred,

Far from it.

and if it isn’t then you won’t object to me murdering you for no other reason then because you annoy me.

What’s more important than my being a human is my being a person. That I have rationality, self-consciousness, the ability to see myself existing over time, interests and aversions....that’s what’s sacred. Not my DNA.

rob
you guys ignored me. please comment on the morality of letting someone who can’t afford to pay their bills die. you guys don’t think you should have to pay for someone else’s medical expenses right? so what if they are going to die? does that change it?
let’s at least be consistant if we are dissing on the brits.

---

Rob:

And if you get your way, Dave, we’ll soon have parents killing off their children because they’re deaf or have oddly shaped limbs.

I wrote:

If they painlessly end those children’s lives and replace them with normal children, nothing is lost. No interests are usurped.

I should add that the births of the normal, undisabled children would make their parents happier. I think denying people happiness is a bad thing. Rob (and Marx, for that matter) apparently think it’s a good thing.

Andrew
you are talking to fake consevatives who look at the Shaivo ordeal as being perfectly fine. they see no personal-state-federal conflict there. they are actually christian fascists.

---

Sparkie: Here’s how it works: If you restrict the price, you suppress supply, resulting in long waiting periods for care and generally bad service.
If you restrict the supply, you raise the price. If you separate the purchaser from the service(insurance) you get rising prices.  If you restrict both price and supply(Hillarycare), you have to shift the cost to those who don’t use the healthcare, resulting in injustice, while at the same time ensuring high costs and poor service.
No one is supporting your ridiculous contention of letting people die.  It’s really a matter of who gets stuck with the bill, and the consequences of that choice.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Whoops!  Wrong thread.  Thought this was the healthcare thread.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert108,

That’s okay.  Sparkie thought it was Pilgrim’s music thread.

Bat: I still stand by what I wrote; it’s just irrelevant to this thread.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Shouldn’t Terri Schiavo have been entitled to the same free medical services that are commonly made available to virtually every illegal Mexican currently in the US?

Of course, but the question was meant to be a hypothetical scenario where citizens aren’t entitled to government medical aide. I just sort of saw a conflict of ideology and wanted Rob, and others, to clarify his view.

The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

This stand is much more about socialist thinking than it is about “Christianity”.  Organized religion is the politics of spirituality.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

you are talking to fake consevatives who look at the Shaivo ordeal as being perfectly fine. they see no personal-state-federal conflict there. they are actually christian fascists.

Perhaps some are, but I think it is very unfair to characterize Rob, and many others that frequent this site, as “christian fascists” or “fake conservatives”. Rob has never been one to advocate legislating his moral views. In cases of abortion, he’s not looking at it from a moral standpoint but rather a legal view (i.e. abortion is a usurption of the fetus’ and states’ rights).

rob was fine with the Shaivo ordeal. I have argued with him about it before and he explained its legality to me. that is what leads me to the conclusion that he is either a sheeple or a fake conservative, by which i mean he thinks the fed is important because they need to swoop in and enforce christian based moral codes.

---

he’s not looking at it from a moral standpoint but rather a legal view (i.e. abortion is a usurption of the fetus’ and states’ rights).

The fact that fetuses don’t have rights in the Constitution notwithstanding.

Andrew,

Don’t bother.  When it gets to the point where a simple greeting of, “God Bless,” is justification for labeling someone a “Christian Fascist” then clearly your time and effort are much better spent on those who share your serious search for intelligent discourse.

Sparkie’s debating skills are so weak that he has to depend on nitpicking the arguments of others, rather than making his own arguments.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

r108. you are one to talk.
bat. when you say ‘god bless’ to gene about a christian based justification of the genocide of islamic people i will tend to think ill of that.

we all know people who would let others die for lack of money should shut the fuck up about letting retarded babies die from natural causes. none of you are stupid.

---

Sparkie: You are right.  I left out your name-calling and insulting skills. My bad.

we all know people who would let others die for lack of money should shut the fuck up about letting retarded babies die from natural causes. none of you are stupid.

The only people who I know who would let people die for lack of money are the ravers on this blog from the left, like Dave.
Even so, there is no equivalence between adults who have choices and helpless children.  Duh.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

The only “genocide of Islamic people” I know of is being done by other Islamic people.(Sunni/Shia, Darfur)

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I thought Darfur was a Christian/Islamic problem. Also - maybe you missed it but Gene had a post the other day in which he called for the extermination of Islam on the basis that his God was the only right God. That was the genocide I was referring to. Not an actual genocide, but one that exists in the bloodthirsty, Christian mind of Gene.

---

also note: in the two responces that folowed my first one on this thread rob had a chance to debunk the accusation that he’s being a hypocrite. he didn’t. what does anyone care about british babies anyway? haven’t you seen mr. bean? how many more of those do we need running around? retarded ones at that?

---

Sparkie: Your contention that everyone must answer everything you write is flawed.
The only Christian/Islamic genocide going on in the world today is being perpetrated by the Islamic on the Christians.  I doubt that Gene called for exterminating anyone; this is just another example of your “devil’s advocate” insincerity and hyperbole.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Sparkie: Your contention that everyone must answer everything you write is flawed.

thanks but i didnt contend that. i merely said rob let the hypocrite accusation stand because he had nothing substantive to say to rebut it.

The only Christian/Islamic genocide going on in the world today is being perpetrated by the Islamic on the Christians.

Great. So what? That justifies a reverse genocide?

I doubt that Gene called for exterminating anyone; this is just another example of your “devil’s advocate” insincerity and hyperbole.

well since you know everything this is gonna be difficult but why dont you start by reading what gene wrote about killing the islamics. you doubt is unfounded.

---

Sparkie: Your contention that everyone must answer everything you write is flawed.

thanks but i didnt contend that. i merely said rob let the hypocrite accusation stand because he had nothing substantive to say to rebut it.

Knowing Rob, he probably just didn’t want to waste his time.

The only Christian/Islamic genocide going on in the world today is being perpetrated by the Islamic on the Christians.

Great. So what? That justifies a reverse genocide?

I didn’t justify anything; you made a false statement and I refuted it.  BTW, it’s just “genocide”, not “reverse genocide”.  That would be bringing a genetic group back from the dead.

I doubt that Gene called for exterminating anyone; this is just another example of your “devil’s advocate” insincerity and hyperbole.

well since you know everything this is gonna be difficult but why dont you start by reading what gene wrote about killing the islamics. you doubt is unfounded.

Why don’t you cut and paste his statement(in full) and let us decide whether he actually called for “extermination”, or if that is just your self-serving “interpretation” of what he wrote.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

The only people who I know who would let people die for lack of money are the ravers on this blog from the left, like Dave.

You’d better live on the street, and I hope this computer you’re accessing is at a library. Otherwise, you’re letting sub-Saharan Africans die for their lack of money too. You leftist!

Whether the problem in Darfur is an “Islamic/Christian thing” or not (pathetic over-simplification) is quite beside the point.  After all, I don’t recall any sort of serious dicta that the US should come to the aid of any innocent victims EXCEPT Christians.  Besides, having saved (well, sort of...) the Muslims of the former Yugoslavia from the ethnic cleansing ravages of Slobodan Milosovic, isn’t only fair that we should now find some Christians to save from their Muslim ravagers?  Don’t leftards, even the gadflies like Sparkie, like fairness anymore?

Sparkie,

Incidentally, my greeting to Gene was “God bless.” You may well be offended by the liturgically and grammatically correct capitalization, but if you are going to quote me, please do so correctly… without your juvenile editing.

Fairness is such a lefty meme. Jeez.

---

Jeez.

Sparkie,

That’s it???  Not even an exclamation point just for emphasis?

I’m not exactly heartbroken, but I am sorely disappointed.  By your normal standards that simple “Jeez” is a pretty pathetic rejoinder.

Perhaps a nap or some other self-indulgence will refresh you.

Dave: Once again, you show your inability to make a simple logical conclusion.

Otherwise, you’re letting sub-Saharan Africans die for their lack of money too.

They are dying from a combination of socialism, monarchism and totalitarianism, none of which is my responsibility.  If you feel responsible, go over there and save them from the choices they made, and continue to make.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108:

They are dying from a combination of socialism, monarchism and totalitarianism, none of which is my responsibility.

But earlier you wrote:

The only people who I know who would let people die for lack of money are the ravers on this blog from the left, like Dave.

Well? If someone’s lack of money is not my responsibility (like, I didn’t rob them), then why should I care? We’re both “letting people die for lack of money.” But it’s okay for both of it since “none of (it) is (our) responsibility.” So what’s the problem? How is your letting Sudanese babies die and my letting Brit babies die any different, since neither death is our responsibility?

Dave: I don’t agree with you that the people in Darfur are “dying from a lack of money”.  Get it?
I’m not “letting anybody die”; they made their choices of an economic and political system, and are now dying from their choice.  I never said it was OK, so you made that up.  You apparently think it’s OK, though.
The difference is that you advocate death, and I don’t.(except for terrorists)
I don’t advocate putting innocent children to death, for any reason.  You do, with the convenient rationalization that it can be “painless”.  Your warped philosophy are painful to me.  Do you care about that?

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I don’t advocate putting innocent children to death, for any reason.

A Sudanese child was just born. Why don’t you adopt him? His odds of surviving would skyrocket. Though, I suppose, he did “choose” to be born on the wrong side during a genocide, so I guess it’s his fault…

Dave: Like a typical leftie, you want someone else to carry your water.  If it is your belief that we ought to adopt those children, do it.  Otherwise, you are a dishonest hypocrite.  I’m not bound by your values.  That would be totalitarian.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I’m not bound by your values.  That would be totalitarian.

Buy by your non-totalitarian values, I am bound to make sure people don’t “die for lack of money”...despite the fact that you’ve just justified why you are allowed to let people die for lack of money (as long as it’s their choice). Interesting. It’s sorta like a double-standard. Wait! It is a double-standard!!!

Dave: Your thinking is muddier than usual today.

I’m not bound by your values.  That would be totalitarian.

Buy by your non-totalitarian values, I am bound to make sure people don’t “die for lack of money”

I never said you were bound to make sure of anything...I just called you on your hypocrisy for wanting me to do your work for you.  I clearly stated that.

...despite the fact that you’ve just justified why you are allowed to let people die
I never justified, nor “allowed” people to die.  I don’t have that power or authority.

for lack of money (as long as it’s their choice).

Despite the fact that I said they didn’t die for “lack of money”; they died because of socialist totalitarianism.  It was their choice not to overthrow their oppressors.  Get it?

Interesting. It’s sorta like a double-standard. Wait! It is a double-standard!!!

That would be you...as usual.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Rob:

I get that this guy isn’t advocating infanticide

You’re right; he’s advocating something far, far worse than infanticide.