Hypocrisy

S

spuriousmonkey

Banned
Banned
Bush passed legislation in order to safe a brain-damaged woman.

as the republicans said:
If they did not act now, one said, Mrs Schiavo's blood would be on their hands.

They have no qualms about sending people to death row of course, or killing thousands of Iraqis.

What's behind this hypocrisy? Do they just want to save a severly brain-damaged woman, because she is likely to be one of the few people that would vote for them?

link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4367201.stm
 
It's a control issue. We have no say in how we come to the world. Conservative politicians desire to remove from consideration the opinion of the woman who is bearing a child. Why on Earth would they give anyone any say in their death?

The hypocrisy that stuns me is actually the violation of the sanctity of marriage. It's good to know that if I ever walk my daughter down the aisle to give her away, I can always try to claim her back if I don't like what she tells her husband.

Certainly there is sadness for her parents, but this isn't their business anymore. If conservative politicians had a shred of decency, they would respect the sanctity of the Schaivo marriage and the decisions made within.

If saving life is a duty, as Republicans say, where's our universal healthcare?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Bush passed legislation in order to safe a brain-damaged woman.

as the republicans said:
If they did not act now, one said, Mrs Schiavo's blood would be on their hands.

They have no qualms about sending people to death row of course, or killing thousands of Iraqis.

What's behind this hypocrisy? Do they just want to save a severly brain-damaged woman, because she is likely to be one of the few people that would vote for them?

link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4367201.stm
Click to expand...

i think we have all got to face the facts that bush has no idea what he is doing. I bet there were severly brain-damaged women in Iraq and Afghanistan, but did he spare them? of course not, they are the enemy :rolleyes:
 
I agree with Tiassa, that the powers that are in-the-face demand more and more total control over the individual. THe biggie is DEATH! with death they can cntrol you. they can threaten you with it through various means--poverty, no money etc, and of course the propaganderized FEAr of it. with the religionists it's 'hell' and with the socalled secularists--though Wbush is a 'born agin christian', it is the utter end, and life is said to have no meaning. So they want you to know that death is taboo if you desire it, but they SURE can inflict it, when THEy want to!
 
It's not hypocrisy because she's not an arab.
That's like saying it's hypocrisy to eat veal instead of your own children.
Not really.

I'm not saying I agree with not-killing braindead wastes of space and harvesting their carcasses for resources, I don't, but it's not exactly hyposcrisy.

On a side note- why was the prefered method of euthanasia "starvation"? Are they sure they don't want to put some cigars out on her first? Electrocute her genitals perhaps?
Starvation... seems a little extreme.
I mean I'm for it, but I thought I'd be alone.
 
Apparently starving a person is the only option because euthanasia is inhumane.

And starving a person is not euthanasia of course.
 
She wouldn't have starved to death. She would have died of dehydration, which is not painful, from what I understand. Although even if it was, she wouldn't have known the difference.

Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen. Hooray for the U.S. Look at how compassionate the government is. You really should be proud that you saved one woman while 4 in 10 children go to school hungry, and there are more than 1.4 million homeless on the street. Proud that your government ignores the fact that it's costing millions to keep this one woman alive, when 43% of your nation goes without healthcare and the majority of bankruptcies are due to unpaid medical bills.

It is NOT the legislate branch's job to interpret the laws. That is the judicial branches job, and in this case Congress has sent a word to the entire country that the Supreme Court means nothing. They have no faith in their elected Supreme Court and that laws don't matter, because when they dont like something for one person they just rewrite the law.

This whole thing disgusts me.
 
Excellent post, Arditezza ...it's hypocricy in the worst possible light! But lest we forget, we're all guilty of it to one degree or another ...it's just that the congress went waaaay beyond what's normally deemed "political bullshit".

Good post, Arditezza,

Baron Max
 
Entropic said:
i think we have all got to face the facts that bush has no idea what he is doing.
Click to expand...

Why are you blaming President Bush? Is that just a sure sign that you don't really know what the hell is going on?

The senate and the house of reps voted overwhelmingly to approve the bill ...President Bush is just signing that bill afterward.

Baron Max
 
The husband doesn't know dung from soil and George Bush is only trying to do what's best for the family.

Chuckles. I wonder why the President hasn't set his own house in order..
 
§outh§tar said:
George Bush is only trying to do what's best for the family.
Click to expand...
What's the best for the family... and what about the woman? Is it great to let her "live" this way?
I don't care about her father or her sister! They are not in that bed (for 15 years!) dying, like a vegetable and with no chance to wake up... I would not have wait so long before asking to end her life.

About the religious part of the problem : lol...
When I think about it, it's more like : torture her in that bed during 10 more years or free her soul so that she can be happy in heaven? Bush and friends chose their way...
 
Bush isn't being hypocritical. You have to understand that it's more than her life that it's at stake. If she's allowed to die, then this allowance might give way to euthanasia. If she's allowed to die, it might be puting a fixed price at her life and a judgment that someone must have a so-called quality of life to live. It automatically undermines the value of human life. But if society can spend millions of dollars to keep her life, then she's an example of society's willingness to save life. If she is allowed to die, then it's an example its willingness to kill; no distinction is there between allowing someone who could be saved to die and killing them outright. This woman's wishes were never written in writing. We have only what the husband said, which is not a lot considering the husband often murders his wife.
 
I was shocked learn they passed a bill for this woman.

a) She's long gone. A vegetable. No good to herself or anyone.
b) The government has waaay more pressing matters to worry about.
 
She asked, while she was alive that Michael be the guardian of her. She didn't ask her parents or her sister, possibly because she knew they wouldn't let go if she was left a vegetable. She knew that he could carry out her wishes because he loved her.

In my living will, neither my husband nor my mother are guardians. My father could carry out my wishes should something like that happen to me. Now, we are disregarding Terri's wishes because her parents want to watch their daughter suffer for 15-30 more years? And what happens in 15 years when they die?
 
okinrus said:
But if society can spend millions of dollars to keep her life, then she's an example of society's willingness to save life.
Click to expand...

You mean spending millions on this one woman (vegatable?) while hundreds of thousands of chidren die each year of easily-cured diseases is a good example of society's willingness to save lives?

The big picture got lost in the media shuffle for ratings, didn't it? And in the media light, the politicians had to get their moment of moral glory. Disgusting, truly disgusting.

Baron Max
 
SG-N said:
What's the best for the family... and what about the woman? Is it great to let her "live" this way?
Click to expand...

We are not in any position of superior judgement to make that sort of call for her. The whims of her family/husband are of no resound. Imagine she was killed out of pity when inside her she had been screaming all along, "Let me live! Let me live". Or vice versa.

Our position of ignorance and her yet intact autonomy should serve as ample deterrent from taking justice into our own hands. It's almost as if people who haven't got their own lives in order know enough to decide whether someone lives or dies. The idiocy tramples the hypocrisy.
 
You mean spending millions on this one woman (vegatable?)
Click to expand...
Millions of dollars isn't that much, and you're only talking about a few hundred cases each year. Really, though, the government could spend billions here, and they'd likely do better than their invasion of Iraq.

while hundreds of thousands of chidren die each year of easily-cured diseases is a good example of society's willingness to save lives?
Click to expand...
I'd have no problem if the government chose to spend money here. All things must start with one person. If you can't treat one, then how will you treat millions?
 
Middle America's values

One of the sad things about it is the racism. Remember that Terry Schaivo is white.

Just last week, a Houston hospital removed a mechanical ventilator from a deformed five-month-old boy despite his mother's objections. A judge and the hospital bioethics committee acted under a Texas law permitting doctors to stop life support when a patient's survival is deemed hopeless.

The boy's mother tried in vain to have the ruling overturned. The baby died moments after life support was removed.

Globe and Mail
Click to expand...

The baby was not white. If Congress can presume a persistent vegetative state to be a life worth living and therefore has a duty to protect it, why not this baby? After all, children are the future.

Unless, of course, they're black and from Texas.

"Middle American elitism", also called racism.

Applause, applause.
____________________

Notes:

Freeman, Alan. "Schiavo case in hands of U.S. Congress". Globeandmail.com. March 21, 2005. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv.../20050321/SCHIAVO21E/TPInternational/Americas​
 
Last edited:
Well, quite honestly... there were other things in Sun's case that were vastly different. That his mother is borderline insane is one of them. But moreso, after 7 different consultations, all of the doctors gave the same exact prognosis. That Sun would die, and that prolonging his life not only made him suffer horribly, but was a futile effort. If any other hospital agreed to take on Sun's case, he would be transferred and life support maintained. But, there was no such offer and no hopsital agreed that he had any chance of survival. The circumstances are too different to apply the term racism when describing the two cases side by side.

Terri Schiavo will live on for years as long as the feeding tube is in place. It's more a quality of life issue, rather than a futile effort to keep someone alive that has no chance at all of life. Not to mention, that Terri isn't suffering. She doesn't feel pain, according to the experts because she's not aware of it. She's a complete vegetable, and according to the doctors, there is no hope for her coming out of this state or improving. Pulling the tube simply ends her family's suffering, not her own.
 
It is hyprocrisy on all sides.

You either are for death (abortion, death penalty, merci killing) or for life. Period. I believe life is a right and society can not remove that right from any individual. So I am against abortion, death penalty, and merci killing. Choose a side and stick to it god damnit!


btw, Am I the only one that sees the real tradjedy here? We're killing a person by starving her to death?! uhmm.. wtf?! We don't even do that to serial killers. All that crap about "removing treatment" is bull. WE ARE STARVING HER TO DEATH. Why not inject her, put her to sleep, then kill her.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top