Watch[ed] me die [and liked it]
UPDATE, 12/15, 7a: From The Sunday Times, December 14:
Public opinion has moved sharply in favour of assisted suicide, according to a poll for The Sunday Times. The YouGov survey of more than 2,000 people shows that most would consider euthanasia for themselves and think that relatives who help with assisted suicides at foreign clinics should not be prosecuted.
The poll followed the broadcast last week by Sky TV of the assisted suicide of Craig Ewert, who was suffering from motor neurone disease. By two to one (61% to 27%), people said it was right to screen it….
It also revealed strong support for a change in the law on assisted suicide to give immunity from prosecution to those who help a relative or friend with an incurable condition to die. More than two-thirds (69%) think the law should be changed.
Most strikingly, by four to one (61% to 15%), people said they would consider assisted suicide for themselves if suffering from a terminal disease….
[HT: reader Susie A.]
_______________
On the heels of a MT judge forcing assisted suicide on her state… and on the heels of a 19-year-old committing suicide on the Internet after being goaded by commenters… and on the heels of Obama picking pro-euthanasia attorney Thomas Perrilli (who represented Michael Schiavo) for his transition team… comes this from The Sun…
These shocking pictures reveal the moment a man kills himself at a suicide clinic in Switzerland….
The chilling scenes show Craig Ewert, 59, who had motor neurone disease, setting a timer to switch off his ventilator before drinking lethal sedatives.
And it will all be broadcast on British TV tomorrow night.
Mr Ewert’s assisted suicide at the Swiss Dignitas clinic, was filmed for a documentary called Right To Die – The Suicide Tourist, to be shown on Sky Real Lives channel on Wednesday night….
I don’t how anyone can deny our world’s growing preoccupation with death at the other end of abortion – euthanasia and assisted suicide. More photos on page 2.
[HT: reader Susie A.]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
this is appalling…What is this world coming to? someone can choose to take their own life and get their 10 minutes of fame at the same time? WOW! that is just disgusting!
Interesting use of the word “forcing” in your first sentence Jill.
Sad to see anyone die. Sad that in this country we treat our terminally ill dogs better than our terminally ill people who are ready to leave us with dignity.
Even just seeing these pictures tear away at my heart…
Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins.
Compassion and empathy were some of the best qualities of Jesus. If only we could be Craig Ewert in those final moments leading up to his decision. I am anxious to see this documentary in an attempt to grasp and understand his decision even if it is just a minute slice of objective understanding. I would never dream of condemning his conscious action. Instead my meditations, thoughts and prayers for peace and rest are with his family and the world.
Hi Bobby. What about this do you see as “our sins.”
Hey Hal. Just in general; the fact that this is what we as a people condone. The fact that we have all become so desensitized that someone killing themselves can be recorded and watched by other people.
I condone the suicide, but not the broadcast of it on tv.
Ditto what Bobby said: Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins.
I’ve spent much of my career working with people who failed in their attempts to commit suicide. I think I’ve seen it all when it comes to suicide, whether it’s failed suicide or completed suicide, and the family aftermath that goes with it.
I have yet to see a euthanasia documentary that does justice to the decision-making process that people tend to go through in deciding whether or not to end their life. Hopefully this documentary won’t glamorize suicide.
the word “forced” was used because the people of the state did not make this choice – a judge did.
This is an abuse of the judiciary.
I think this whole thing re:Ewert is appalling but predictable.
We have rebelled against God and his laws in all other areas of life, including accepting the gift of new life so it’s not surprising we would thumb our nose at God and exercise our “choice” for death at the other end of the spectrum.
Interestingly, “choice” ends after death.
“I …[do]…not [condone] the broadcast of it on tv.”
Yeah, that is more what I was getting at. While I do not condone assisted suicide, showing it on TV goes a step further, as you even see that it might not be a good idea.
Why is it acceptable, even applauded, to put a dog or cat down when it is suffering, yet people are prohibited from ending the suffering of other people in a similar manner?
Cats and Dogs do NOT have souls. They can’t obtain eternal happiness in Heaven.
Humans have a purpose in life. Speeding up a death is WRONG, 100% wrong.
There’s a difference between dying when its time for your life to end on Earth and speeding up a death because someone is terminally ill.
LizFromNebraska,
“Speeding up a death is WRONG, 100% wrong.”
Why? What purpose is served by needlessly prolonging the agony of someone whose death is imminent and who wants to die?
Why does having a soul (if you believe that humans do) matter in the slightest?
Why are people obsessed with speeding up death? Why do they think it will help someone to die sooner?
Here’s a good example:
Haleigh Poutre: Instead of being killed by euthanasia, she’s getting rehabilitation and therapy. While she may never be able to 100% care for herself, at least she didn’t die.
“Wants” to die? They probably have been tricked into thinking they are a BURDEN on their family and that they’d be better off not burdening the family with medical bills and such?
Speeding up a death is JUST plain WRONG.
In Oregon a woman was refused payment for her cancer drug / treatment, but they offered to PAY FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE!
LizFromNebraska,
“Speeding up a death is WRONG, 100% wrong.”
Why? What purpose is served by needlessly prolonging the agony of someone whose death is imminent and who wants to die?
Why does having a soul (if you believe that humans do) matter in the slightest?
Posted by: Enigma at December 9, 2008 4:06 PM
Because suffering is redemptive. It not only helps our own souls but teaches others about offering our own suffering for others. Not that you understand it, but that’s why.
Thanks Kristen.
ok Kirsten you beat me to it! Exactly – it depends upon your world view. If you don’t believe in God and an afterlife, then I agree there would likely be NO positive spin on suffering in this life.
However, if you believe in God and you believe that you can use your suffering for purification, either your own or for others, then suffering has immense value.
Hal – you not only believe and condone suicide you also condone the murder of children by their parents too. Not only is this very sad, it’s very depraved.
Liz and Patricia,
Ever since I’ve done a little studying about Purgatory I’m a big fan of offering up my suffering for the souls there. I can only hope someone will do the same for me in the future, but it’s looking less and less likely with the state of the world.
Kirsten: Hey, I will remember you!! :-D
Hopefully you will live such a good life Kirsten, you won’t have to go there – just straight to the pearly gates.
I’ve even bargained with God to make me sick and spare remaining children from illness. He’s taken me up on it a couple of times (!!!!).
I’m hoping they will return the favour for me someday!!
Enigma,
I oppose Euthanasia because it’s opening a can of worms. It can lead to these problems in Oregon we see with insurance coverage, and offering an option like euthanasia tells that person that they aren’t worth keeping alive. They might feel that they should do it, even if they don’t want to. They might feel depression, and we are curing it by handing them a proverbial gun.
I read an appalling essay the other day that said that people sometimes have a duty to die, if they get old or require expensive treatment, for example.
But where does that end? We invest a lot of money in children, but we can’t do the same for our elderly? When is it okay for a mother to say to her child, we think it’s time for you to kill yourself?
Our obsession with independence goes a bit too far, sometimes. Just because you are more limited doesn’t mean life is less worth living.
In terms of suffering, nothing wrong with giving people whatever pain meds they need, even if that shortens their lifespan, and the Catholic church says it’s okay, as well.
This is just plain disgusting. Even I, an agnostic do not condone or urge tolerance of putting such a spectacle as this on public TV. While I do not have a religious objection to someone ending their own life when they are close to a natural death, putting this on the public airwaves says something really disgusting and perverted about the Brits.
“Snuff flicks” used to be an underground rage, now I suppose it will be all the rage to watch people off themselves. Disgusting beyond words.
Is this guy different than the one that inspired El Mar Adentro?
In terms of suffering, nothing wrong with giving people whatever pain meds they need, even if that shortens their lifespan, and the Catholic church says it’s okay, as well.
Posted by: prettyinpink at December 9, 2008 4:59 PM
as long as the primary purpose is to alleviate pain and not kill the person…
Well yeah with the RCC intent is a lot of it.
PIP: yup, intent is very important! :-D
When the general public hears the debate regarding euthanasia they think: “Poor people that are going to die! They suffer so much! We should end their suffering so that they can die peacefully!”
Problem is that the public are greatly uninformed regarding hospice care and end of life issues OTHER than euthanasia. There are numerous techniques in which to allow a peaceful death without it being assisted suicide. Prettinpink already mentioned the Catholic position on the matter.
The practice of euthanasia is never acceptable since there are already humane provisions in place to allow people to die peacefully with intervention (i.e. palliative care) while maintaining nature’s course for death.
Euthanasia is direct killing which is always an intrinsic evil.
“If you don’t believe in God and an afterlife, then I agree there would likely be NO positive spin on suffering in this life.”
You say I’m depraved, but describe my position pretty well.
segamon: you are absolutely correct.
I remember years ago working a prolife booth with a German woman who was a teen during the 1930’s. She told me that in the years before WWII and the mass exterminations, to prepare the public for euthanizing the mentally ill and the handicapped, “hard cases” were shown to the German public. They appeared in newspapers, magazines and in the literature of the time. The emphasis was on how much these people were suffering and how hard it was for the families to watch this suffering.
Of course, today with much more effective pharmaceuticals, we can alleviate much of the pain from illnesses and we have a different attitude towards the physically challenged who are no longer institutionalized.
so we don’t have a case – this is just part of our culture of death – pure and simple.
You say I’m depraved, but describe my position pretty well.
Posted by: Hal at December 9, 2008 5:40 PM
only because I have known alot of rather depraved people in my life and they are pretty darn easy to spot.
(hint: killing two children and advocating suicide are big indicators!!!)
Kristen,
Because suffering is redemptive. It not only helps our own souls but teaches others about offering our own suffering for others. Not that you understand it, but that’s why.
Nonsense. If suicide is wrong because “suffering is redemptive,” why do we allow the terminally ill to have painkillers? What is the difference between allowing someone to choose to end their life, and allowing someone to drug themselves in to a coma? Either way, we are allowing them to opt out their “redemptive” suffering.
“Wants” to die? They probably have been tricked into thinking they are a BURDEN on their family and that they’d be better off not burdening the family with medical bills and such?
Bingo.
They probably have been tricked into thinking they are a BURDEN on their family and that they’d be better off not burdening the family with medical bills and such?
Bingo.
God, why do you guys always assume that everyone who makes a choice you don’t agree with must be incapable of thinking for themselves?
These people are NOT assuming anything, reality. What these people are doing is following the line of reasoning that leads to decisions.
In this case, feeling that one is a burden on their loved ones would justify suicide (this line of reasoning is also true of many suicides NOT related to physician assisted suicide).
As usual, reality has little to say that’s reality-based. The proper use of pain medication is not the same thing as inducing a coma. One can be on pain medicine and obtain relief from physical suffering but still experience other suffering that’s redemptive. You show ignorance to imply that physical pain is the only kind of pain that people with life-limiting illnesses face.
There, I doled out my troll food for the evening.
(should read “would help to justify suicide in their minds”)
it is not that suicide is wrong because suffering is redemptive.
Suicide is wrong because we believe that life is given and taken by God – it is a gift
Therefore it has always been considered wrong by Christian societies to destroy that life needlessly either through murder or suicide.
Think about that teenager from Florida. I am sure most of you heard about the teenager that went on a rampage here in Nebraska a year ago, killing 8 at a Von Maur store. He was in need of help for his mental illness, but there was little help found. He thought the solution was to kill himself, and he also killed 8 innocent bystanders in addition to injuring many others.
Need I mention Columbine? The young girl who was asked if she believed in God?
P.S. If you’re so worried about burdensome medical bills influencing people to commit suicide, then you all must be glad the Democrats are trying to enact universal health care. I know I am.
One can be on pain medicine and obtain relief from physical suffering but still experience other suffering that’s redemptive. You show ignorance to imply that physical pain is the only kind of pain that people with life-limiting illnesses face.
absolutely! we were talking about this over dinner and my 16 year old mentioned that there are other kinds of suffering besides physical. After all watching your body deteriorate for years in a gradual process would be a pretty tough thing to endure…
That’s why we need to lovingly support these people – their worth and dignity is important and still exists even though they might not think so…
made in the image of the creator!
Reality, are you kidding me? Universal Healthcare will only make things worse. The elderly and those with chronic diseases are often the first causalties of universal healthcare. Do you really think that our government won’t embrace euthenasia as a “cost cutting measure”?
segamon:
These people are NOT assuming anything, reality. What these people are doing is following the line of reasoning that leads to decisions.
Go back and read. The quote to which I was responding said that these people were “probably tricked in to believing they are a burden.” This is insulting because it implies that terminally ill patients can not think for themselves.
FUWO:
One can be on pain medicine and obtain relief from physical suffering but still experience other suffering that’s redemptive.
Sick. And who gets to decide how much suffering is enough? I never thought I’d meet someone who believes torturing the terminally ill is good for them. The “pro-life” community is just full of surprises.
Pat:
Suicide is wrong because we believe that life is given and taken by God
Then by all means, Pat, DO NOT KILL YOURSELF. Nobody wants you to go against your personal religious beliefs when it comes to your own life. But the United States is a secular nation that protects freedom of religion for everyone, and not everyone believes as you do. Christians don’t get to force non-Christians to obey the Bible in the USA.
your founding fathers were Christian reality.
My values are part of what they believed in and what many people believe in still, today.
As I said, it depends upon your world view. If you believe in a God, you are accountable for your actions, life is a gift and there is an afterlife spent hopefully with that loving God.
However, what you may be asking me to do is to go against my personal beliefs for YOU! If I were a healthcare worker, am I required to euthanize or abort? How far will you extend your freedom of belief before it impinges on mine?
Sick. And who gets to decide how much suffering is enough? I never thought I’d meet someone who believes torturing the terminally ill is good for them. The “pro-life” community is just full of surprises.
The person who is sick can determine how much they can stand. But that does not and should not include killing themselves. Studies indicate that those who want to kill themselves when terminally ill are usually very depressed. This aspect needs to be addressed and not by a little pill.
Stop misreading and attributing to prolife people intentions and beliefs not inherent in them.
You know what, Reality, perhaps Christians would stop “forcing their beliefs” on others if the secular world would stop forcing us to support wildly depraved actions. The minute our society stops supporting embryonic research, abortion, and euthenasia, gay marriage, ect. I will stop publically calling for change.
It has nothing to do with my faith, but rather the fact that our society is so convoluted that we support killing our most innocent.
So I’ll make you a deal, stop killing and I’ll quietly work for social justice. Of course, I’ll still spreadthe message of Christ, but I’m sure you’ll find it much less offensive. Until then, I will be an outspoken advocate for those who are seen as disposable.
Universal Healthcare will only make things worse. The elderly and those with chronic diseases are often the first causalties of universal healthcare.
That’s an odd claim. Don’t you know that most countries with universal health care have longer life expectancies than the US? If anything, the elderly are most helped by universal health care.
Do you really think that our government won’t embrace euthenasia as a “cost cutting measure”?
LOL, are you serious? We ALREADY HAVE government provided health care for senior citizens. It is called Medicare. We’ve had it for decades, and so far, it hasn’t embraced euthansia as a cost cutting measure.
Why would it? Medicare has little incentive to cut costs. It is not a for-profit business. If anything, the insurance companies should be the ones embracing euthanasia to cut costs, but they aren’t.
Why would universal health care change that?
I don’t think universal healthcare would make things worse.
I guess because I’m Canadian that’s why I think this way. It’s not the horrible thing that American’s make it out to be.
Perhaps those who can afford to pay do so, and those who can’t are subsidized. In this way everyone can get the care they deserve.
Yeah, we do reality and guess what, medicare/medicaid jump at any chance they get to kill someone who’s “sucking up resources.”
Come to Texas. We have a great little law that allows people to be killed w/out their consent if the hospital deems their care to be “futile.” Here’s an intersting tid-bit. Guess who gets killed under this law? People on government insurance. It seems a little mexican boy on medicaid is not worth as much as the rich kid on Aetna.
As for medicare, my grandmother would be dead if she didn’t have private insurance. Medicare refuses to cover half of her treatments and rehab. Medicare covers as little as possible. Period.
In Oregon a woman was told that her medicine would not be covered, but a suicide would be. DO you really think that such actions wont be taken across the board should assisted suicide become a societal norm?
The person who is sick can determine how much they can stand. But that does not and should not include killing themselves.
Why not? It’s a free country. It’s their life and their body so they should be able to do whatever they want with it, free from undue government interference in to their private business.
You people are so detached from any sense of love, it is depressing.
lauren,
Come to Texas. We have a great little law that allows people to be killed w/out their consent if the hospital deems their care to be “futile.” Here’s an intersting tid-bit. Guess who gets killed under this law? People on government insurance. It seems a little mexican boy on medicaid is not worth as much as the rich kid on Aetna.
You are mistaken. The Texas Futile Care law allows hospitals to disconnect life support if they convince an ethics panel that the care is futile and if the family is unable to find another facility willing to continue life support. It has nothing to do with ability to pay. Hospitals don’t want to waste limited space and resources caring for people who can not be helped or who should be in a long-term care facility, and before the Futile Care law, they did not even have to give the family 10 days notice to find another facility as they do now.
The hospital that allowed that “little Mexican boy” to die is a Catholic hospital. You really think they did it because the family was poor? Think again.
I do remember reading about a little boy dying, but was he given an OVERDOSE of drugs? Was he deliberately starved and dehydrated to DEATH?
The one I remembered was his mom said she didn’t believe in death or something.
You people are so detached from any sense of love, it is depressing.
Posted by: Bethany at December 9, 2008 7:03 PM
Bethany, we act with love.
Posted by: Hal at December 9, 2008 3:36 PM
‘I condone the suicide, but not the broadcast of it on tv.’
—————————————————–
condone: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
synonyms: see excuse
Interesting ‘choice’ of word.
It is entirely appropriate, though I am not sure that is what you meant it to be.
It is oxymoronic to ‘condone’ that which you belive to be right.
Perhaps you would have been more accurate to use the word ‘endorse’ to describe your response to another human being’s ‘death with dignity’
endorse: to approve openly ; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely
yor bro ken
ps: This is just another attempt by the intelligentsia to desensistize both granny and the the teeming masses to the concept of snuffing granny when she can no longer defend herself.
The pre-Hitler German intelligentsia called it, ‘a life not worth living’. Their calculated efforts were very effective at preparing the teeming masses for the elimination of the ‘useless eaters’.
‘How many young couples could purchase a new home for what it costs German society to provide for granny?’
You gotta be not only brave enough, but also strong enough, to defend your self in this ‘new world.’
strange kind of love, killing two of your OWN children by abortion and thinking suicide is just all fine and dandy.
Sounds like something Satan would tell people is “LOVE”
Why not? It’s a free country. It’s their life and their body so they should be able to do whatever they want with it, free from undue government interference in to their private business.
Posted by: reality at December 9, 2008 6:50 PM
ahhh, the bodily autonomy argument again!
except that this is rarely restricted to just YOUR body but eventually comes to include other’s bodies as well like those of unborn babies and the terminally ill, the mentally ill, the disabled…
Reality, I all know all about TX law. Officially, it is about doctors saying someone’s care is futile and sending someone to another hospital.
Of course, they only decide someone is futile if that person happens to be a poor mexican immiagrant. And, of course, poor people tend to have fewer options when it comes to actually finding another hospital willing to take them in.
Look,I’ve worked trying to find doctors willing to take in someone who has been deemed a “futile care case” it ain’t easy.
The law doesn’t say “we’re going to cut off care if you’re poor” but in the real world, that’s how it works.
Bethany, we act with love.
Posted by: Hal at December 9, 2008 7:15 PM
\
farfrom it hal – you act completely out of your own self-interest
Bethany,
You people are so detached from any sense of love, it is depressing.
Believing that terminally ill people deserve to suffer is “love?” Baloney.
Considering doctors are spot on when it comes to diagnoses, we should let people die when the whole world screams “FUTILE”.
Except…..doctors are NOT spot on when it comes to diagnosing conditions, and no one truly understands the human body in entirety and can make completely accurate predictions of who will die and who will not.
Doctors are not the gods they believe themselves to be. They are OFTEN wrong, especially concerning their doom and gloom predictions that your life will be crap. I’ve heard numerous personal stories of other people experiencing miraculous healings. I watched a show on tv about a man waking up after 19 years simply because his family would not give up on him. They cared for him all that time, and one day, he started coming out of it, little by little.
I’d rather set a guilty man free from our prison system than imprison an innocent man, and I have the same philosophy concerning those with serious medical issues. Especially if the family desperately wants to care for a loved one, I think we should allow people to die in their own natural way rather than murder a person who will recover. Doctors, hospitals, and “ethics panels” should NEVER have the final say over patient care. Patients and families must be the ultimate decision-makers, or else you get doctors playing God. Power corrupts. (“Ethics panels” are a load of crap anyway. Right and wrong do not exist in the abscence of God.)
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Patricia et. al……. As Hal said, we act with love. I’ll tell you about love. My dear aunt had advanced Parkinson’s and was confined to a hospital bed, could no longer speak and had to be fed through a tube because she can’t swallow. She was adamant that she did not want to live that way, worsening and die a slow and painful death. She wanted to say good-bye. So rather than allow her to take medication and go peacefully into the night, her loved ones had to standby and watch her starve to death without the feeding tube.
I understand that there are those of you that do not believe in euthanasia because it goes against you own religious beliefs. And I appreciate that there could be cases where a person’s wishes may not be clear. But if they are dying and it is clear that this is what they want, who are you to satnd in the way of that and make them suffer. That is NOT love.
lauren,
Of course, they only decide someone is futile if that person happens to be a poor mexican immiagrant.
Like I said before, you are mistaken. Austin Children’s Hospital is a Catholic hospital, and if there had been ANYTHING they could have done to save Emilio Gonzales, they would have done it regardless of ability to pay. It had absolutely nothing to do with the cost and everything to do with freeing up a hospital bed so that it could be used to save lives again. Leigh’s disease is terminal and there was nothing they could do for Emilio.
And, of course, poor people tend to have fewer options when it comes to actually finding another hospital willing to take them in.
No hospital wants to take futile cases. It doesn’t matter if they’re Donald Trump. Hospitals are for saving lives, not long-term care of dying people who can not be helped. Hospital beds and staff are already stretched thin just trying to save all the people who CAN be saved.
It has nothing to do with ability to pay. No amount of profit is worth letting saveable people DIE for lack of a hospital bed, which is exactly what would happen if hospitals were forced to provide futile care. And I can’t believe you would be so silly as to accuse a CATHOLIC hospital of putting profit before life.
Because we all know that The Sun is the most reputable high-minded journalistic organ in the UK. Seriously Jill, the sources from which you glean your information are some of the most tacky and base sites of information. Reading your site is like watching a trashy court show, except I don’t know who should be more embarrassed, you or the subjects in the tabloid articles you post.
So rather than allow her to take medication and go peacefully into the night, her loved ones had to standby and watch her starve to death without the feeding tube.
I’m not sure I understand your point V. The loving thing to do in this situation would be to medicate her rather than starve her to death. She does not have to suffer needlessly. Starving her to death is not loving her. Food and water are not extraordinary means of treatment.
Laura,
(“Ethics panels” are a load of crap anyway. Right and wrong do not exist in the abscence of God.)
It’s funny you should say that, because the hospital that allowed Emilio Gonzales to die is a Catholic hospital.
“Right and wrong do not exist in the abscence of God”
Exactly, Laura. In his book Existentialism and Human Emotion, the atheist philosopher Sartre LAMENTS the fact that so many give lip service to atheism or agnosticism yet continue to live the same way as if God did exist i.e. still teaching the existence of objective moral values. As Sartre taught, existence precedes essence, and therefore there is no such thing as human nature. Man is what he makes of himself and is free to determine his own values. Without a divine lawgiver, there can be no morally binding laws outside of ourselves that exist at all times and places.
Sartre’s existentialism is one of the greatest arguments for theism there is. He devoted his entire life to studying the logical ramifications of atheism. That was his one starting position; that there is no God. And the conclusions that are drawn are completely absurd. It is a proof via reductio ad absurdum.
Patricia, the loving thing would NOT have been to medicate her and force-feed her against her will. I already said that she did not want to live that way. She was absolutely clear that that she was ready to go. Her family was not ready for her to go, but she was. I’m going to say that again, so you understand the love and unselfishness here. Her family was not ready for her to go , but she was. The loving thing was to ALLOW HER to starve herself.
Reality, I worked on the case. I personally contacted doctors across the country trying to find a hospital. In fact, we were successful in finding a doctor willing to make the transfer, but he did not survive long enough to make the transfer. However, we were succesful in allowing him to die without the hospitals interferment.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. He was a very sick little boy, yes, but the hospital was attempting to remove him from life support because his family did not have the resources to fight back.
Again, I have actual knowledge of the case because, you know, I actually worked on it. You’re doing a wikipedia search.
The original hospital refused to make the consessions necessary to arrange for the transfer. Emilio required a tracheotomy to relieve the pressure of the ventilator and to ensure that it doesn’t slip during the transfer (causing brain damage or death). Emilio had Medicaid and Medicare to cover his expenses, but the hospital refuses to provide this, essentially imprisoning Emilio and giving him no chance to live elsewhere.
Asitis, do you know how painful it is to starve to death? It’s not loving. Of course, it’s the dehydration that kills a person.
And how does that feel?
They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.
But, you’re right, it’s completely compassionate.
Clarification re my comment @7:48pm
By “medication” I meant a euthanasia drug
Lauren, that’s my point EXACTLY. Thank you (though I do not thank you for the lack of compassion you have shown). It is inhumane. We treat out pets better. But that was the only choice she had since there was no other legal way to go.
its loving to let a person starve themselves? So, you should starve a dog or a cat when they refuse to eat? Better be careful, cause I know Jess would not be happy if you said yes.
Should we starve grandma cause “she’s going to die eventually”? Should we starve Aunt Sara because she suffered a stroke?
I see an earlier comment of mine was deleted , likely due to use of aswear word. So I’ll rewrite it …..
“Wrong and right do not exist in the absence of God”?????? That is utter nonsense (or insert appropriate offensive words here), Laura.
Patricia, the loving thing would NOT have been to medicate her and force-feed her against her will. I already said that she did not want to live that way. She was absolutely clear that that she was ready to go. Her family was not ready for her to go, but she was. I’m going to say that again, so you understand the love and unselfishness here. Her family was not ready for her to go , but she was. The loving thing was to ALLOW HER to starve herself.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 8:11 PM
it is one thing to refuse food because one cannot eat and it is quite another thing to starve oneself deliberately.
A very ill person may drink very little and take almost no food. This is NOT starvation. It is simply the body being incapable of handling food anymore.
I don’t think too many people would choose to starve themselves because as was mentioned starving oneself to death is a hideous death. So Ithink your term is probably overly dramatic and not entirely correct. A person may refuse food but usually again it is because their body is incapable of handling food anymore.
In my experience, hospitals do not “force-feed” terminally ill patients. They provide the necessary sustenance of water and soft foods if that is what is needed.
You do not make a case for assisted suicide.
Just because “there was no other legal way to go” it is justifiable to kill a human being by starvation? Yikes!
Asitis, I am not trying to show a lack of compassion, I’m saying that killing her in such a way would not be compassionate. The compassionate thing to do would be to lessen her pain. I am deeply sorry for her death, but I do not believe that someone’s suicidal wishes should be endulged.
I had a friend in highschool who was dying of bone cancer. Eventually, she was on powerful pain medicine that essentially put her in a coma. That is the way she died. She did not suffer, but her death was not hastened. There is no reason we should begin killing people.
Liz, we don’t have to starve our pets to death. We can euthanize them.
And yes, when a person is dying and it is their wish to go even if the only way they can do that is by starvation and that is what they want, it is love to allow that to happen rather than stand in their way. It is NOT love to force your beliefs upon them or keep them alive for other selfish reasons.
If your dying, there is less pain from dead nerves which convey the pain, which is then converted into the word “suffering”.
Suffering is a word used by those that want useless eaters to die sooner, then later.
If your in severe pain, you really begin to lose contact with realty.
The more you die, the less the pain.
Pain causes a change in the balance of the neurotransmitters that then cascade’s into
depression.
People in pain don’t eat.
Many people in so called pain, die from mal-nutrition, not the disease which they are diagnosed with.
Pain management is practiced effectively in the USA, and many nations.
One look at the man’s eyes reveal fear, not PAIN.
The person looking at the dead man wanted him dead. She got what she wanted. And the reason? Money.
As far as animals being euthanized, it helps cowards avoid being with the animal they said they loved one moment longer then necessary.
Like Hal, a coward, twice over.
Patricia, I’m going to say this again…. she was fed NOTHING. To have fed her anything would indeed have been “force feeding” her in that it would have been against her will. She wanted to go as quickly as possible. It was very, very sad for us who loved her that she had to endure this rather than simply take a pill, close her eyes and go in peace.
If you do not see this as a case of assisted suicide, then I think you are too selfish to look past your own religious beliefs.
Sorry, that should be “a case FOR assisted suicide”
Reality, before you get too pumped on universal health care, I encourage you to go to Germany and experience their health care system. It’s one of the longest standing universal health care systems in the world, if I’m not mistaken.
Don’t go to a military hospital with US personnel. Go to the typical hospital that the average German uses.
I guarantee that unless you have incredible pain tolerance and a willingness to abandon all the patient rights that you’re used to in the US, you’ll come home very grateful that we have the system we have here in spite of its warts. And I have no doubt that … if you’re an honest sort … you’d retract your statement about its benefits to the elderly in a heartbeat.
And yes, when a person is dying and it is their wish to go even if the only way they can do that is by starvation and that is what they want, it is love to allow that to happen rather than stand in their way. It is NOT love to force your beliefs upon them or keep them alive for other selfish reasons.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 8:35 PM
one cannot commit an evil to achieve a good. in this case it is murder or suicide to achieve a good end – the alleviation of suffering.
Lauren: I agree with your 8:32pm post. very well said.
And yes, when a person is dying and it is their wish to go even if the only way they can do that is by starvation and that is what they want, it is love to allow that to happen rather than stand in their way. It is NOT love to force your beliefs upon them or keep them alive for other selfish reasons.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 8:35 PM
What a coward. Your a tool. Steinbeck owns your mind, with Hitler being your mentor.
If you really love someone, then kill um yourself, coward. That’s what Steinbeck wrote. All in the name of what you worshipped first, the Murdering God of the bible.
Again, your Protestant envy runs wild, Asitis.
Asitis, why should you telling us about a tragic case of assisted suicide (yes, withholding food and water is assisted suicide)make us more apt to support assisted suicide.
Would it not have been more humane to allow your aunt to be given pain medication?
Backwards Sally, you are one chick that’s off her rocker. I’ll leave it at that.
Patricia, “one cannot commit an evil to achieve a good”? Well, if you are saying my aunt’s suicide was evil, then she did in fact achieve a good. She went on her own terms. She would have preferred to go more peacefully I’m sure. She would have preferred the compassion of euthanasia.
Lauren, no it woudl not have been more humane. Did you not read what I wrote? She did not want to live that way any longer. She was ready to go.
Those that allowed her to do so acting out of love, kindness, compassion and respect for her. I really don’t see how that’s so hard for you to see.
yes, at the expense of her immortal soul V.
she did not receive the palliative care she required to manage her illness.
death whether it is by abortion to alleviate an unplanned pregnancy or suicide to alleviate suffering is NEVER the answer.
It is a morally illicit to use and evil means to achieve a good. Period.
I note that since you have divested yourself of much of your Catholic morality, it is not surprising that you would support this action too.
That’s correct Patricia, divesting myself of Catholic morality allows me to do the right thing in all cases, as opposed to what the Catholic Chuch says is right.
Well Asitis,
Being a tool, that is used without knowing your a tool, is quite amusing.
Kill um yourself, coward.
Your Protestant envy still runs wild.
I’m glad you are the holder of absolute moral truth V. You must be all-wise and all-knowing. It always amazes me how cafeteria-Catholics seem to have the corner on doing right and that the Catholic church founded by Jesus Christ with it’s 2000 years of teaching and tradition is so completely wrong ALL the time.
yeah, right.
The Catholic Church isn’t wrong ALL the time, but it’s not right all the time either Pat. And it is not the holder of absolute moral truth either.
That’s correct Patricia, divesting myself of Catholic morality allows me to do the right thing in all cases, as opposed to what the Catholic Chuch says is right.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 8:58 PM
Notice the word, ALL, in the above paragraph by the envious personality of Astisis.
Proof that ALL Love can exist in Isolation.
What a typical narcissist. Filled with envy.
Asits, because it isn’t compassionate to allow someone to kill themselves. We don’t espouse the virtues of someone who allows a depressed man to jump of a bridge (or in the case of assisted suicide, actually pushes him), and nor should we celebrate someone who facilitates suicide of someone terminally ill.
Asitis, see here’s the problem in a nutshell. Most liberals don’t believe that there is an absolute moral truth. It’s all relative. This allows for any number of moral wrongs to be renamed “right for me.”
I’m not saying you do this, asitis, only that this is a very common thought process.
Giving comfort and support to someone who is dying is far more compassionate than accelerating his death.
Why is it NOT compassionate to allow someone in this situation (like my aunt or Craig Ewert) to kill themselves Lauren?
The Catholic Church isn’t wrong ALL the time, but it’s not right all the time either Pat. And it is not the holder of absolute moral truth either.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 9:08 PM
Written as a typical narcissist thinks.
What is enjoyable is how this person makes no errors in life. It comes from mounting herself once to often, and then declaring herself top dog in “in all cases”.
All cases.. what a invincible mind we have here.
The point is V, that the Church’s teachings are not something that has been made up for the hell of it. It is base on natural law and God’s law. One of God’s laws is that we do not murder and we do not kill our selves. This was a commandment NOT a suggestion.
Even on a personal level, life is precious to us all. So for a person to be seriously considering offing themselves because they are in so much pain – we need to address this mindset. Not encourage them to go and kill themselves. That is simply not loving. Love is patient, love is kind and love does no harm.
Asitis, this explains things better than I ever could.
http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/notlegal.html
No, the point is Pat that what you believe to be God’s law applies only to you and those that follow your religion (or follow the parts of your religion they want to follow anyway).
Love is kind. Love is compassionate. Love is respectful. Love is selflessness.
lauren,
Reality, I worked on the case.
SURE you did. LOL
I personally contacted doctors across the country trying to find a hospital. In fact, we were successful in finding a doctor willing to make the transfer, but he did not survive long enough to make the transfer.
If you were successful in finding a facility for transfer, what is all this bull you were shoveling about evil hospitals unplugging charity cases for profit before? You must try harder to keep your wacky conspiracy theories straight.
He was a very sick little boy, yes, but the hospital was attempting to remove him from life support because his family did not have the resources to fight back.
No resources to fight back? But you JUST said that you “worked on the case” and found a transfer facility. Which is it?
He was a dying little boy, and the hospital was removing him because there was nothing more they could do to help him.
And they were right. He did die. Too quickly even to be transferred. The time he spent in the hospital was a waste. He could’ve died for free at home.
Tell us Protestant envy,
When you were a little narcissist, beginning to worship a God that made creation a choice, when should God have put down his cross and killed himself? After the trial? Before he was crowned?
The second fall?
When he was suffering without a chance of being taken down from that suffering cross?
Ny lord, My lord, kill me now, please.
When should have Jesus asked for some compassion to end his suffering, Asitis?
Be truthful oh envious one, you never understood what Jesus was doing here on Earth.
Tell us envious one, just when would you kill yourself to retain your Isolated Love? Or are you such a coward you want another to do the dirty work for ya? Like a vet, or doktor?
None of those things appply in this case Lauren.
And I started out all this by saying that it is not always so clear-cut. Clearly there have to be safeguards. But I suggest to you and others here are primarily against it on religious grounds and would never be willing to look at ways to ensure it was only used in the appropriate cases. To you there are no appropriate cases.
Watch out… Backwards Sally is off her meds again.
asitis: there is a natural law common to all of us that tells us and that we can know and understand – we do not kill one another.
we know in our hearts ( it is something written in the heart) that to kill is NOT the way to cope with this situation.
we are different from animals.
even the earliest man recognized that there was something different between himself and the animals
we kill an animal to put it out of it’s misery.
we do not kill another human being to do this – instead we offer comfort and consolation.
only pagan societies pitched their disabled babies and left their old people to die…
And they were right. He did die. Too quickly even to be transferred. The time he spent in the hospital was a waste. He could’ve died for free at home.
Posted by: reality at December 9, 2008 9:25 PM
You really are a pos.
Every person that is brought to a hospital and then dies is a waste of money. Again, your Protestant culture surrounds you and it always comes back to preserving your Health, Wealth and Power.
Losing two outta three can break the reason to live for people such as you.
You really would be at home in the ethos of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party.
FUWO:
I guarantee that unless you have incredible pain tolerance and a willingness to abandon all the patient rights that you’re used to in the US, you’ll come home very grateful that we have the system we have here in spite of its warts. And I have no doubt that … if you’re an honest sort … you’d retract your statement about its benefits to the elderly in a heartbeat.
Germans’ life expectancy is a year longer than Americans’. OBVIOUSLY Germany’s health care system is superior, particularly for the elderly. They live a YEAR longer!
And don’t worry; my pain tolerance is plenty high thanks to the complete lack of health care I have here in the US. Actually, I think I’d be pretty happy in Germany.
Reality, do you want to see the transcripts of what was done? I have them all.
The family had no resources. The pro-life community helped them without any hope of retribution.
We found a doctor from Ohio to come review the case. If you actually read what I wrote you would have seen that the original hospital was actually making it impossible for him to be transfered unless an outside pulminologist could come to write the orders.
Emilio’s condition has a life expectancy of around 6 years, though some children have lived to be teenagers. We were able to obtain several injunctions on his behalf before locating a doctor willing to write the release.
Patricia, pitching disabled babies and leaving old people out to die, is not the same thing as assisting or allowing someone in my aunt’s or Ewert’s situation my aunt to commit suicide.
And asitis: you have had the benefit of Catholic teachings. You’ve rejected those teachings likely without even studying them
I truly suggest you read John Paul II’s encyclical “On the Christian Meaning of Suffering” and “Evangelium Vitae”. Both are very applicable here.
And I might remind you that suffering is not a Catholic condition, it is a human condition.
Up in the Northwest of the Americas there are some indigenous tribes who may still put their grannies on chunks of ice and float them out to sea in an act of kindness and compassion meant to hasten their entrance into the happy hunting ground.
(Once you get over the initial shock of the cold, hypothermia is relatively comfortable way to cease participation in the space and time realm.)
algore informs us that global warming is threatening that conveyance. Maybe the concerned family members can tie granny to a polar bear cub struggling to find his own chunk of ice.
Wait, I have a novel idea. Why don’t all the people who advocate this kind of selfless compassion dig a hole, jump in it, recyle themselves and leave it to us lame brained knuckle draggin neanderthals (Every time I type neanderthal I wonder if it is a Jewish name. My mom’s maiden name was Bloomingthol or Bloomingthal and she used to tell us we were a little bit Jewish.) to solve these moral and social issues in a manner that will result in a reduction of the loss of innocent life as opposed to an increase.
(I am only kidding about the death crowd recycling themselves. I hope they all live long and prosper greatly in every good way and die healthy and as quickly and as painlessly as they desire. I just don’t want them involving the medical community in their death decisions.)
yor bro ken
You really are a pos.
At least I don’t think terminally ill people deserve to suffer.
They might be applicable here for you, but sorry, the Christian Meaning means nothing to me Pat.
Let us intiate a pool to finance reality’s relocation to Germany, but on one condition: when she has enjoyed all she can stand, she has to pay for her return fare.
yor bro ken
Asitis, you’re right I will never see an appropriate case to use assisted suicide. Palliative care is always an option.
Lauren, you forgot to write …”even if it’s against their will” to that last sentence.
Yeah, sorry asitis, I’m not going to kill someone just because living is “against his will.”
Watch out… Backwards Sally is off her meds again.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 9:31 PM
Well using your words in quotes, and then writing I’m off my meds, might just make you end up condemning yourself. It’s your words idiot.
When do you kill yourself ? What level of pain is needed to end your progress towards Health, Wealth, and Power?
Is you march towards the three matters of worth in your life, not yet slowing down, and actually reversing slowly and eventually ending as your relative did?
Patricia,
if someone told you to read like, three books about Satanism so you could understand where they’re coming from and to change you over to see the good side of Satanism.. would you do it?
Careful with “kill someone” Lauren. That normally means ending someone’s life against their will. Not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is helping someone end their own life according to their will. “Assist in their suicide” would be more appropriate wording.
At least I don’t think terminally ill people deserve to suffer.
Posted by: reality at December 9, 2008 9:39 PM
All people are terminally ill, non Reality.
I’m going to ask you when your pain is worthless and offers no reason to you, when do you kill yourself Reality?
Or, are you a coward?
No, asitis, I’m not playing the semantics game. If you give someone a lethal injection, you’re killing them. If you withhold food and water, you’re killing them.
Sure, you’re helping them kill themselves, but that doesn’t make you any less culpable in the action.
Careful with “kill someone” Lauren. That normally means ending someone’s life against their will. Not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is helping someone end their own life according to their will. “Assist in their suicide” would be more appropriate wording.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 9:53 PM
First you must convince that person they are worthless, then they kill themselves.
Which was the job of the doktors and shrinks of Hitler, who own your mind Asitis, and from being a tool that doesn’t think.
Nail that coffin shut, your envy is obvious.
Funny, you and Bush are actually from the same pod. You converted from envy, and Bush is a natural Protestant who never met a life he could not use too.
“if someone told you to read like, three books about Satanism so you could understand where they’re coming from and to change you over to see the good side of Satanism.. would you do it? ”
I would!
Actually you ARE playing the semantics game here Lauren, by using the word “killing” to invoke a reaction attributed to the normal use of the word.
Asitis, I’m not going to get in this discussion with you. I am not redefining terms, you are.
Of course, by saying that you’re going to come back and say NU-UH YOU ARE and we will begin an infinite loop of semantics.
What we call the action isn’t important. I could call it “making gumballs” and it wouldn’t change a thing, other than to perhaps make it more socially acceptable. There are bigger fish to fry in this debate.
Actually you ARE playing the semantics game here Lauren, by using the word “killing” to invoke a reaction attributed to the normal use of the word.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 10:01 PM
Whoa, proof we have a mind puppet of Doug.
Attributed. What a tool. Using the party line words, reduces this tool to a appratchik with no ability to think a single thought outside of her attributions given her by some past educator to enforce group think.
It ALL began with envy. And ends as being a simple tool hammering nails in a coffin of those she wants dead.
lauren,
Emilio’s condition has a life expectancy of around 6 years
And yet he died very soon, just like the hospital said he would. It’s as if the doctors knew exactly what they were talking about. Imagine that.
But it remains, that this is entirely their decision to end their life end. My aunt’s decision. Ewert’s decision. Whether you agree with them or not, there is no denying that it is what they want.
Reality, he died alot later than the hospital mandated. He lived for months after the hospital deemed his care “futile.”
Posted by: Anonymous at December 9, 2008 9:59 PM
‘Bush is a natural Protestant’
————————————————–
Anonymous,
If I am not a ‘catholic’ (what is the definition of that latin word?) does that mean I am a protestant?
Are there not any other options available to me as one who believes in Jesus?
yor bro ken
kbhvac, that Anonymous was Backwards Sally. She keeps calling me a Protestant when clearly I am not. Maybe she has a different definition of Protestant.
asitis,
Maybe it is not clear to anonymous what you are or are not.
The more important question is not what, but who you are.
Do you know who you are?
yor bro ken
How fake are you?
Having to mention she travels to France in a fit of Protestant envy, Asitis must have visited Chartres Cathedral.
What lies below the Rose window, Asitis?
Around around you go with Envy, always going inward in a spiral, not knowing your suppose to walk out of the Maze.
Tell me, envy tool, what am I refering too?
Or, are you a ugly American knowing nothing about great French Architecture, and its meaning?.
But, then again, your being a bull headed tool, makes one not know what you are.
kbhvac, that Anonymous was Backwards Sally. She keeps calling me a Protestant when clearly I am not. Maybe she has a different definition of Protestant.
Posted by: asitis at December 9, 2008 10:39 PM
Sure you are. You just don’t know it.
You began as a Catholic, then found the easy path of life resides in adapting to the dominant culture. And of course with all it’s benefits and blessings bestowed upon one who accepts a culture based on nothingmore then the pursuit of happiness, which is attained by Health,Wealth and the Power the above two give you.
You gave in because it was the most easy path offered by living proof. Such as Kennedy to some podunk Catholic knowing they must give in to the dominant Protestant culture to get that slice of the pie. The list is endless.
Your Protestant envy overflows Asitis.
But, what have you gained? Well cowardice is one.
When will you kill yourself, when the pain of suffering has no meaning coward?
Please, ask what you can do for yourelf, such as suicide alone, and not what your country can do for you, coward.
Germany’s health care system is superior … Actually, I think I’d be pretty happy in Germany.
Ah, reality, you are so misguided. Whiners like you wouldn’t last a day in a German hospital. All your little talking points would fly right out the window when you realized that your universal health care wasn’t worth half the money you paid for it.
In any case, it’s good to know that you’d be happy in a country with restrictions on abortion. Good for you :-)
If I am not a ‘catholic’ (what is the definition of that latin word?) does that mean I am a protestant?
Are there not any other options available to me as one who believes in Jesus?
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at December 9, 2008 10:33 PM
You know the word means, universal.
But, one Question.
Did God create human beings as a choice?
Since God created ex nihlio, and is then in want of nothing, then humanity is not needed. Or all creation.
Now, mankind has adopted to itself a imitation of such thinking, and is marching towards self annihilation by any means possible.
Such lite weights as Asitis are tools of self destruction, but always a self destruction of another.
You notice the coward didn’t answer the questions put to her about making herself claim the ultimate authority over her laughable autonomy, Self Death.
Narcissist really do know that such love of themselves must be expressed as that final act known as suicide. They play the game out to include needing another person to really kill themselves.
One last manipulation, which makes another person suffer, their insufferable, selfish life.
To be truthful, if Asitis really did love anyone outside her isolated love, she would kill herself also when that person she loved, died.
But, you can be assured that a narcissist, such as Asitis, being the suffering one, would want to take another with her.
Afterall, abortion is easy, but suicide always wants another to notice. Or partake.
The cowards that they are.
Yep, Asitis is a fake.
Knows nothing about the Rose Window and its history ATTRIbuted to it in matters of Chartes Cathedral..
I believe we have a poser, a liar, a provocature, putting on the mask of being a so called Catholic, while really being a ignorant traveler to France.
She can’t find any info on the net, since the net is nothingmore then a reflection of herself made visible, with no more info then allowed by her toolmakers.
With the intense emotional pain I experience because of my severe depression, there are times when I feel suicide would be a compassionate act. In fact my experience with this suffering have convinced me there’s no “God”
I think that those here in favor of euthanasia are not callous, I think it is a product of sympathy and benevolence that hasn’t been thought through to its conclusions. I like how Gay-Williams puts it: “We think to ourselves [about Karen Quinlan], ‘She and her family would be better off if she were dead.’ It is an easy step from this very human response to a view that if someone would be better off dead then it must be all right to kill that person. Although I respect the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe the conclusion is wrong…it is inherently wrong, but it is also wrong judged from the standpoints of self-interest and of practical effects.”
Um, an assisted suicide topic is more popular than any other on a pro-life blog?
I swear, I saw the teeny little box on the scrollbar, indicating how long the page was, and thought “holy crap”!
I wonder why it would attract so much attention. Are we getting too close to home on what people feel is “human”, or perhaps people identify more with the death of the dependant or the suicide of the depressed?
Patricia,
if someone told you to read like, three books about Satanism so you could understand where they’re coming from and to change you over to see the good side of Satanism.. would you do it?
Posted by: Josephine at December 9, 2008 9:51 PM
yes and I have read about satanism. In fact we have the satanic bible at the ref desk.
I might also ask you Josephine if someone asked you to read the Catholic catechism to see and understand the Catholic faith (I know you say you are Catholic) would YOU do it? Probably not. I don’t think you’d want to give up your lifestyle.
What about homosexuality? I was surprised to see that was so “popular” on a pro-life blog.
Laura, I think it’s because this blog is largely populated by conservative christians, especially strict Catholics, and they can’t accept that the world is moving counter to their religious beliefs.
It’s not a matter of not wanting to give up a lifestyle Pat. It’s a matter of not believing the Catholic Church’s beliefs.
With the intense emotional pain I experience because of my severe depression, there are times when I feel suicide would be a compassionate act. In fact my experience with this suffering has convinced me there’s no “God”
Posted by: Rachael C. at December 10, 2008 12:19 AM
Rachael you should know that at times likes this God is very close to you and he does see your pain.
God manifests himself through the actions and love of others here on Earth. What you need is much love and support from others, not a way to remove yourself. God has a plan for you in this world and you matter.
I understand your terrible emotional pain – believe me I have felt exactly as you do sometimes. If you haven’t already done so, seek out a support group and build yourself a network of good friends to help you through the rough times.
God bless you Rachael.
No, asitis, I’m not playing the semantics game. If you give someone a lethal injection, you’re killing them. If you withhold food and water, you’re killing them.
Sure, you’re helping them kill themselves, but that doesn’t make you any less culpable in the action.
Posted by: lauren at December 9, 2008 9:57 PM
absolutely!
Good morning Rachael. My heart goes out to you. I have never felt so sad that I would consider giving up on life. I can only imagine how you must feel. But there are cures out there and people to help you. By speaking out here it sounds as though you are getting help or want help and that is good.
Best wishes.
Hi Rachel,
I am sorry for your pain. I take posts like yours very seriously and need to know if you are crying out for help. Are you in a safe place? Are you getting help right now?
I do know what it is like to be suicidal and made an attempt after my abortion.
Posted by: prettyinpink at December 9, 2008 4:59 PM
VERY well said Pip!
Nonsense. If suicide is wrong because “suffering is redemptive,” why do we allow the terminally ill to have painkillers? What is the difference between allowing someone to choose to end their life, and allowing someone to drug themselves in to a coma? Either way, we are allowing them to opt out their “redemptive” suffering.
Posted by: reality at December 9, 2008 5:57 PM
It’s not nonsense. See Pip’s post. And as I said if you don’t believe you don’t understand. I’m not getting into a debate about this because it’ll lead no where.
Patricia,
Thanks for remembering me! I’ll do the same for you – and everyone on this site.
As for the elderly feeling like they are a burden….
My grandmother-in-law is approaching 90. She lives 8 hours from my mother-in-law who only goes to see her every 8 weeks. Grandma has fallen multiple times and had to have the paramedics come to help her, is very near blind, and has several “mini strokes” that have now caused her to “see things” like parties happening in her living room.
Whenever I ask my MIL why she isn’t moving Grandma here she comes back with “She likes living in her house and doesn’t want to be a burden.” Now come on! It is a CRIME that she is living alone in that condition. My selfish MIL is too preoccupied with her new hubby to care for her own mother. This kind of behavior is condoned by society because the way the elderly are seen as “burdens.”
I can’t watch it any longer and have insisted that my husband and I bring Grandma to live with us so she can have proper care. I’m more than happy to do this because 1) this woman is a SAINT and 2) I can’t think of a better way to teach my children the value of the elderly and a life well lived.
God bless you, Kristen!! What a blessing to care for someone who has lived so long!
Kristen, that is wonderful that you are willing and able to do that for her, if that’s what she wants.
My husband has one sibling. He lives on one coast and we live on the other. My in-laws live smack dab in the middle and then north into Canada. I know they are concerned about 15 or 20 years when they will be old and in need of help. They have too much of a life and history where they are now to leave, but worry that they will be alone later. I worry about that too.
My own mother? She’s going to outlive us all!
Who wouldn’t want to be loved and cared for and surrounded by family before you pass away? :)
I can’t stand the thought of people dying alone.
I can’t stand the thought either Carla! Me, I’d want to be surrounded by loving family and young ‘uns.
But sometimes people don’t want to leave their own home and all the memories that go with it.
Asitis, my grandparents now live with my mother half of the year and on their own the other half. Basically, they come and stay with her when it gets to dangerous for them to be on the road at their house.
It seems to work pretty well for them.
I understand that too, Virginia. Getting my husband’s grandma to give up her car and license and move from her home to assisted living…it was so hard for her. Hard to watch. If I would have had the means I would have taken her in. I wish that we looked to the elderly in our culture as the gems that they are, and treated them as such.
That’s great Lauren. Sounds like the best of both worlds and works for them. I think people (and their employers) are going to have to be creative and compassionate as we face an increasingly aged population.
Kristen — God bless you!
As for Mr. Ewert and all those who want to watch him — God have mercy on us and on the whole world.
actually my dad seemed to have few problems adjusting to old age.
When he developed an auto-immune disease 4 years ago, he stopped driving. He was worried he might hurt someone. This was a huge thing for him to do in my mind because he was so very independent. But my father’s never be much of a person for “things” – he sold his home when he remarried at 77 and divied up the family stuff and that was it. Only thing that matter was his kids and his fishing gear…
However, one of my girlfriends whose family was quite wealthy had to watch while her mother tried to take everything with her to the nursing home – I mean everything including the dining room suite! (didn’t happen).
Having watched a number of people grow old and see how they have coped with it, I can see that it is wise to remember that we are on a journey in this life and not to get tooo attached to things…
Certainly is hard
yllas: Whoa, proof we have a mind puppet of Doug.
Heh – yeah, asitis is one more sensible person who can see that you’re just a troll. There are 6+ billion of us.
No anonymous posts, please. They will be deleted.
“yes and I have read about satanism. In fact we have the satanic bible at the ref desk.”
Patricia, are you a reference librarian?
“Like Hal, a coward, twice over.”
Posted by: yllas at December 9, 2008 8:35 PM
~~
Well, there goes my old “friend” Yllas again. Hal makes honest posts, and that just kills you, huh?
You’re so miserable that your whole focus is trying to “drag somebody else down” and make them look “bad” to somehow “elevate” yourself.
Yllas, clown around all you want, but under the religious facade you sometimes portray, there is a demented person.
I was reading Jill’s blog in June when the real you showed through, so who do you think you can BS?. I’m not claiming you are an outright pedophile, but you have a big problem with sex and adults and kids.
The moderators asked you to be coherent and stop all the foolish and childish stuff then, and they still are…
Carder said,
“Yllas has been advised to cool it but persists in juvenile internet behavior.”
*~*
ProLifeMD said,
“The adolescent frontal cortex has not yet matured for the skill of adult judgment. They cannot fully integrate emotions with sound decisions subject to self-control.”
Well truth dude,
A troll is a person that searches a message board and finds his name amongst hundreds of post, and then replies to ALL post which contain his troll name.
Your a sad case truth dude.
Come on Asitis.
When you meet that pain without cure, and your life has no more Wealth, or Health to be progressed to, when do you kill yourself or have another kill you from being a coward?
Ah, the ultimate dilemma of a person whose self love must embrace itself one last time…. to kill itself.
A simple question, to a person advertising for euthanasia should answer be able to announce her death sequence to avoid hypocrisy.
.
Ah Heather,
Stay Calm, someone will be here to help you, God is with all of us this day.
yllas: A troll is a person that searches a message board and finds his name amongst hundreds of post
No, a troll does what you do – violating all these, for example:
Posting Guidelines
Do’s
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
Be civil and considerate.
Carefully read what others wrote before responding.
Consider what is being said.
Express your thoughts carefully and clearly.
You’re responsible for what you write.
Do Not’s
Do not swear or slander others.
Do not violate another’s privacy.
Do not write inflammatory comments just to wind people up.
Do not post personal/racial or ethnic/gender-based insults or slurs.
A simple question, to a person advertising for euthanasia should answer be able to announce her death sequence to avoid hypocrisy.
.
Posted by: yllas at December 10, 2008 10:33 PM
Uh oh.
A simple question to that person that advertises
for euthanasia, and should be able to announce her death sequence to avoid the mephitic of hypocrisy.
Come on truth dude,
You actually do a search of this site that only has the word “Doug”, within the search criteria.
I wanted to see if you would appear outta the mist and sure enough, you did.
Or, you read every post looking for your vanity.
Your a sad case, dude.
yllas, sometimes I do search that way if I haven’t posted to a thread lately or seen much action in it, but I’m a pretty cheerful guy.
You see truth dude,
You reveal to much of yourself from narcissism.
Anyone can see that a person who actually searches for his name at a post board is…….
a narcissist.
It makes you cheerful.
Stay Calm, someone will be here to help you, God is with all of us this day.
Posted by: yllas at December 10, 2008 10:38 PM
*****
Yllas, if you feel that way, then when your inhibitions are down, why do you start talking about adults having sex with children?
Now Heather,
It seems your the one always writing about child sex.
Stay calm, you’ll find Hal enjoys your post, God is with us all this day.
Thank you for your kind comments. I’m under the care of my primary care physician for my depression and on medication (although the office is an hour and a half away in my home town). Although while I’m sure the comment was well-intentioned, there are no “cures” for depression, just treatments with side effects and lingering symptoms. As for a support group, I don’t have much of a support group locally since I just moved, however I have a wonderful support group online (although my access to the internet is limited by work hours). Sometimes I’m just tired of fighting this…where are my rights?
Hi Rachael. That was me that said “cures”. I’m sorry, I guess I should have said “treatments”. I don’t know if anyone can be totally cured of depression, can they? I hope you can find a good support group No side effects!, have some talk therapy and let go of whatever is causing you sadness.
Be well
Good to hear, Rachel!! My husband battles his own “stuff” in his own way and questions the role it plays in his life as well.
Oh, if it were only that simple, asistis, but in reality it’s not. Even once I find the right provider, figure out an affordable provider or figure out how to get my insurance to pay for it, it’s a long road of healing. I suggest you visit my blog and read a bit more on my experiences, mental illnesses and their treatments (scroll down) before making any more suggestions…although well-intentioned, the’re uneducated and hurtful.
Rachel you mean there aren’t free or affordable support groups and counselling available for depression through community health centers or employee assistance programs (if your work has one)? I didn’t realize that. If nothing like that is available and you can’t get yoru health insurance to cover it, that’s another problem with this country’s health care that needs fixing.
Rachael, thanks, I just read that link to your blog and saw in the post about your charity walk that you have been able to make use of community help clinics, but that there are challenges there. Sounds like a very worthy cause.
It is an abomination that in this country you can be refused health insurance because you are sick. What are you to do? I believe that is one of the issues that Obama plans on fixing ASAP.
For your sake, I hope that it is very soon. Your story puts a face to the problem.
Once again Asitis exposes her ignorance and finds herself confronted by her ignorance concerning mental matters.
What a fake.
The worst part of Asitis is what she really offers a depressed person, unable to be cured, is what this article is about.
You do advance euthanasia for suffering, do you not Asitis?
And once again, Sally is off her meds………….
Poor Asitis.
You do advance euthanasia for suffering, do you not Asitis?
Come on Asitis.
When you meet that pain without cure, and your life has no more Wealth, or Health to be progressed to, when do you kill yourself or have another kill you from being a coward?
Ah, the ultimate dilemma of a person whose self love must embrace itself one last time…. to kill itself.
When will you kill yourself, when the pain of suffering has no meaning coward?
A simple question, to a person advertising for euthanasia should answer be able to announce her death sequence to avoid hypocrisy.
Three questions which remain unanswered from that faker.
Besides being a person envious of Protestant culture, you have no idea about great French culture represented by Chartres Cathedral.
Cultural ignorance comes naturally to ya, you faker.
Which is exactly how a so called Catholic ends up at a post board exposing herself to being a tool of envy.
BTW, Protestant envy,
You should think before you post about “being off your meds”, since some people at this site are on medication for uncureable depression.
More prove of Asitis being a typical faker.
Or, are you that isolated by your self love that you fail to see the insult you direct to me, may be read by others who become mentally unstable without those medications for depression, such as Rachael.
Sally, nice try, but your meds are for stupidity, not depression.
It is an abomination that in this country you can be refused health insurance because you are sick. What are you to do? I believe that is one of the issues that Obama plans on fixing ASAP.
For your sake, I hope that it is very soon. Your story puts a face to the problem.
Posted by: asitis at December 11, 2008 6:33 PM
Here is a typical faker, faking concern for mental illness to progress her person politics of fake concern.
Here Asitis,.. Send Rachael some money. Enough money that she can get that treatment she needs.
Anything less is typical Protestant envy, losing some personal Wealth, and getting in the way of that fake compassion of this typical bourgeois.
No, make that stupidity, jealousy, rage and self-righteousness.
Do you even live in the real world like this Sally? Or is this some alter ego that comes out after watching Keith Olberman?
Sally, nice try, but your meds are for stupidity, not depression.
Posted by: asitis at December 11, 2008 10:30 PM
It matters not what you assign that insult to me as, it is your inablity to keep your low level insults being read by people who need medication for mental issues.
Get a hint, you faker.
Still no answer to questions asked this typical envious faker.
No, make that stupidity, jealousy, rage and self-righteousness.
Do you even live in the real world like this Sally? Or is this some alter ego that comes out after watching Keith Olberman?
Posted by: asitis at December 11, 2008 10:39 PM
No, it is really simple, you were asked some questions which any intellectually honest person whould answer.
It is your self rightousness which I question, and actually your stupidity which I expose by using your words, as the stupidity you offer to others.
You can’t keep your bourgeois lifestyle to yourself..
No one cares.
But, to expose your cultural arrogance offered to this board, you were asked the history of the most famous glass work in France. And failed to answer such simple questions about that artwork, which any stupid French person would know the answer too.
Your a faker and a typical outcome of Protestant envy.
Hmmmm No one carse Sally? Then why do they ask? Why do we interact? I’m beginning to wonder about you. Is this an act or is this really you? Because if it is really you, I think you have very little ability to interect with others.
And you seem to have a hard time with the fact that I have seen some of the places and sites that you may have only read about.
Just answer the questions which are quite simple to answer, unless your really can’t “interct” with others unless they share your bourgeois fakery.
Frankly, your a typical outcome of typical running dog Protestant’s, that have shaped your envy and made you a puppet of their demands on culture.
And you seem to have a hard time with the fact that I have seen some of the places and sites that you may have only read about.
Posted by: asitis at December 11, 2008 10:58 PM
Carry on, your Protestant envy is revealed once again by your words at this post board.
Not all think as you do, only when they have taken a slice of that mephitic Protestant culture in English literate nations.
You do sound like you have difficulty interacting with others Sally. Is that it? Have you no friends? Do you feel as though you are so much smarter than others and why should they be the ones that have companionship, adventures, recognition…. while you do not. Is that it?
You do sound like you have difficulty interacting with others Sally. Is that it? Have you no friends? Do you feel as though you are so much smarter than others and why should they be the ones that have companionship, adventures, recognition…. while you do not. Is that it?
Posted by: asitis at December 11, 2008 11:29 PM
Projecting again.
Answer those simple questions asked by me, the humble one who is stupid, in need of meds, and other insults of a person that can’t respond to questions asked of them.
To your questions, No.
See, how easy it is asitis.
In fact, right now, a young friend is watching me type these words to you, and is laughing while I write these words to a typical bourgeois faker. That common faker in education and other fascist dominated monopolistic institutions, that eventually scapegoat families as the root cause of dysfunction in the world.
He says, that he met your type everyday while attending your pitiful education system in all socialist dominated nations.
Now, Joey, the dinosour was important to us…….blah blah blah.
A “young friend”. Right…..
Oh wait, I get it. You never went to college did you Sally?
Just can’t answer a question can ya faker?
Your a lesson, a lesson to young people, who suffer your worthless prattle in a classroom, offering the young your monopolistic beliefs of the world.
And this projection of your’s is interesting.
A “young friend”. Right…..
Just like a typical public educator, always seeking the seduction of youth.
BTW, do you really believe that those youthful captive students, weren’t laughing at you, as all youth have done to those pedants they had to listen to ad nauseum?
Another simple question unanswered of course, by the lackey of Protestant envy.
Ahhhh… homeschooled!But not well. And then no college education. And not much development of social skills.
I don’t think this is an act afterall, folks,
Ummmmm what captive students are you referring to Sally?
And Jill begged this poser,faker, Protestant envy, to post at her board?
Unable to answer simple questions.
Who knows nothing of the most admired French glass work, which any stupid French person would be able to answer immediately.
What a joke.
Answer those questions Protestant envy.
What’s with this “Protestant envy”. You know, people don’t really talk this way. You are going to have to learn to communicate better if you want conversation.
Do you think I was/am a professor or teacher? Where did you get that idea?
Do you have career Sally? What do you do? I am having a hard time imagining.
Answer the questions which are asked of you.
You wrote you were a Catholic at one time, were you not?
Then you set yourself as the person who “allows me to do the right thing in all cases”,
Such hubris. Such fakery.
Such a person lacking social skills that thinks they are “doing the right thing in ALL cases”.
It’s your words you narcisstic simpleton.
Then when questions are asked of you, you fail to answer from being hoisted on your own petard(more French history) and knowing you will be hoisted by answering those questions.
Your unable to extract from yourself the social skills needed to anwer simple questions which are associated with the theme of this article that Stanek posted.
Another words, your a fake, a envy of Protestant culture which brought to their culture questions of human worth, and killing what is of no worth to you in preserving your own Health,Wealth, and Power derived from Protestant theology.
Btw,
Flip a dime to Rachael first. before asking others to do what you obvously won’t do yourself.
And even won’t respond to that statement concerning your fakery towards those who might be “off their meds” from some fake compassion learned at the foot of Steinbeck or other famous euthanasia solutionist that own your simple mind.
Your a typical tool.
You are the same as you were as a child, nothing changed, and no thought was needed to be nothingmore then that Protestant envy which taught you from birth. It is the culture which taught you everything you know.
What’s with this “Protestant envy”. You know, people don’t really talk this way. You are going to have to learn to communicate better if you want conversation.
Yea, people talk that way. Normally it is referred to as a WASP. You know those White Anglo Saxon Protestants that murderered their way across several continents in search of Wealth,Health, and the Power of their envy for the first two of their Trinity. Or is it all three?
Btw, it is why the French should break up and get rid of those Protestants that converted to another form of envy appeal……humanist socialist, with pure communist envy motivating them.
Which is why they surrendered to any force arrayed against them after their murderous revolution for liberty,equality and the chance to murder their fraternal brothers with no penality.
Cowardice is a virtue for the French. Or, dying for those that murdered your family might make you a tool of nationalism that gave your family a “national bath”.
Care to explain what a “national bath” is, since you traveled to the Vendee, one would hope.
Bet they laughed at ya behind your back Asitis.
Zee ugly American, soo typical knowing nothing of us then her mind allows to know.
Fall asleep in class Asitis?
Wow. Glad I went to bed. There’s a lot that can be read between your lines Sally. A recurring reference to being laughed at behind your back. It sounds as though that happened to you a lot growing up and continues today. Perhaps the cause for this originally was out of your control (kids can be cruel), but you should know you aren’t doing anything to help yourself now.
Ahhhh… homeschooled!But not well. And then no college education. And not much development of social skills.
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 12:03 AM
This has got to be the dumbest comment I have seen on this blog for a long time. If YOU, asitis, had any education you’d know that homeschooling is one of the best educations a child can have and most kids out score kids in the public school system by a wide margin. (And BTW my husband is a public school teacher so I don’t have a homeschool bias.)
PS. I know PLENTY of people who have undergraduate, and graduate degrees for that matter, that can’t find their way out of a box. Education is NO indication of intelligence, as is daily displayed on this blog.
Kristen, please don’t misunderstand me. I was not saying thatall homeschooling is inferior! I know some homeschoolers. One, a very good friend, is extremely bright, former teacher and math tutor, who does an excellent job of it. And has always had them participate in activities with other homeschoolers (“unscvhoolers” as she calls it) for socialization. As her children are reaching high school age, she is transferring them into the mainstream for good reason. I also no other parents who are homeschooling, but are in fact totally neglecting their children’s education.
My comment to yllas specifically said she was one that probably wasn’t homeschooled well, in that she never developed socialization skills.
It was not about homeschooling in general. Though, socialization is something that COULD be missing from their experience, no matter how superior the education aspects.
Oh, and I totally agre with your postcript. I know people who never had the opportunity or desire to go to college and are very bright and knowledgeable. I also know some with advanced degrees but no rational thought or common sense!
I think everyone can say that.
Poor Protestant envy.
Just can’t answer the questions put to you.
Seems you lack the most basic skills required of even a five year old child.
Stanek recruited you to post here. She gained nothing but another person who lacks the most basic skill to answer simple questions.
I also know a single mom who works three jobs and homeschools her four kids (middle school through high school). They have an inability to relate to and interact with their peers. Their mother keeps them from socializing with others- I have seen this happen. And one has to wonder how superior their education is when there parent is hardly involved due to work demands. Knowing the mother, I suspect she had a bad time of it growing up and is trying to save her children from the same. But in doing so, runs the risk of making them even more socially inept. I don’t think I’m too wrong is suggesting this. And I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that, while there are parents who homeschool for good reasons and do a very very good job of it, there are others who do not.
Sally, give it up. I am not getting in a discussion with you about who might have done what to Catholics when. I just don’t care. You need to realize that. It’s a good skill for conversation. And you seem to want conversation.
I also know a single mom who works three jobs and homeschools her four kids (middle school through high school). They have an inability to relate to and interact with their peers. Their mother keeps them from socializing with others- I have seen this happen. And one has to wonder how superior their education is when there parent is hardly involved due to work demands. Knowing the mother, I suspect she had a bad time of it growing up and is trying to save her children from the same. But in doing so, runs the risk of making them even more socially inept. I don’t think I’m too wrong is suggesting this. And I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that, while there are parents who homeschool for good reasons and do a very very good job of it, there are others who do not.
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 8:30 AM
Yea, your wrong in suggesting anything, since you can’t answer simple questions put to you. You lack the most basic social skill to answer questions put to ya Protestant envy.
Here’s a question for anyone since we are on the topic of homeschooling. Yllas, if she were to have children, might homeschool. Would that be a good thing?
I could care less for conversation.
I care about a poser, a recruit, a fake, that post puro propaganda which will be answered by me, by posting your own words and thoughts as the puro propaganda that they are.
Here’s a question for anyone since we are on the topic of homeschooling. Yllas, if she were to have children, might homeschool. Would that be a good thing?
Yes. It is none of anyone’s business how anyone chooses to school their child.
Bethany, I wasn’t saying should she be allowed to homeschool. I was saying would it be a good idea for yllas to homeschool, given what we see here from her?
Bethany, I wasn’t saying should she be allowed to homeschool. I was saying would it be a good idea for yllas to homeschool, given what we see here from her?
Here’s a question for anyone since we are on the topic of homeschooling. Yllas, if she were to have children, might homeschool. Would that be a good thing?
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 8:39 AM
No one cares Protestant envy.
Answer the questions, you recruited poster for pro abortion propaganda.
I also know a single mom who works three jobs and homeschools her four kids (middle school through high school). They have an inability to relate to and interact with their peers. Their mother keeps them from socializing with others- I have seen this happen. And one has to wonder how superior their education is when there parent is hardly involved due to work demands. Knowing the mother, I suspect she had a bad time of it growing up and is trying to save her children from the same. But in doing so, runs the risk of making them even more socially inept. I don’t think I’m too wrong is suggesting this. And I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that, while there are parents who homeschool for good reasons and do a very very good job of it, there are others who do not.
What kind of public school behavior should homeschooled children be emulating?
Many public schooled children I have been around are obsessed with looks, clothes, sex, who’s who in the celebrity world, etc…if a child is unable to relate in this way, does this make them “socially inept”? Or perhaps, just more mature?
Perhaps it is that they find it easier to relate to adults or other homeschooled children, rather than peers whose only interests are in superficial things. That doesn’t mean they aren’t “socialized”, it simply means they aren’t socialized public school style.
Most of the homeschoolers I know (my kids included), are bright, and able to relate to children and adults of all ages, and not just peers of their own age. That, in my opinion, is true “socialization”. In what real world situation do people spend every day with people their exact age?
Bethany, I wasn’t saying should she be allowed to homeschool. I was saying would it be a good idea for yllas to homeschool, given what we see here from her?
I’d say we don’t know anything about Yllas’s home life.
Bethany, I wasn’t saying should she be allowed to homeschool. I was saying would it be a good idea for yllas to homeschool, given what we see here from her?
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 8:46 AM
No one cares.
Use some of those public education social skills, and answer those questions asked of you, Recruit.
Quit deflecting as all propagandist eventually must do, to avoid answering simple questions asked of them.
Bethany, I know some kids like the ones you discribed. But I know a whole lot more that can realte to all ages, just as your children can. My own are like that.
Some people, by their nature, simply have a harder time interacting with others. Raise that person in isolation (and again, byt that I do not mean all homeschooled kids do not get good opportunities to socialize) and they might never develop the social skills required to function well in the real world.
Sally, isn’t there a holy wars chat room where you can find people who care about such things?
Bethany, I know some kids like the ones you discribed. But I know a whole lot more that can realte to all ages, just as your children can. My own are like that.
Some people, by their nature, simply have a harder time interacting with others. Raise that person in isolation (and again, byt that I do not mean all homeschooled kids do not get good opportunities to socialize) and they might never develop the social skills required to function well in the real world.
Asitis, you said it yourself: some people by their NATURE, simply have a harder time interacting with others. It has nothing to do with the school you go to. It has to do with their unique personality. It is not a flaw, but a characteristic of a unique individual.
Okay asitis, let me ask this. What is your point? Should we regulate who gets to homeschool?
I’d say we don’t know anything about Yllas’s home life.
Posted by: Bethany at December 12, 2008 8:51 AM
That’s right. I find my privacy worth more then a pro abort recruit who offers her bourgeosis travels as being of some worth to this board.
Then when asked simple questions about French architecture, as expressed in glass works, she lacks the culture, the skills, to answer a cultural question about French stain glass works, which any stupid French person would gladly answer.
What a fake.
You are right, we don’t know much about her homelife Bethany. But I am not the first to comment on her rantings here to take a stab at the question. If you want.
What’s your fascination with stained glass Sally?
Bethany, no no no! I am not suggesting at all that we regulate who gets to homeschool. I’m sorry. I can see that might be an issue. I don’t think that at all.
What I am saying, in response to comments from you and Kristen, is that while homeschooling can be a good thing, it is not always the case. It depends on the parent and it depends on the child. Just as there are good schools and bad schools and children that do better in different situations. Choice is good. I do not think that anyone should tell you, as a qualified and responsible parent, that you cannot homeschool your child.
Thanks for clearing that up, asitis…there are actually a lot of people who do believe that, so it’s hard to know.
Sure, just as there are some bad homeschooling parents, there are also bad public schools, bad teachers, etc.
You have been asked to expound on French culture, and declined to engage in some basic cultural facts about France.
What is a “national bath” poser?
What happen in the Vendee that was a overshadow to actions in the 20th century which is generally known as the Holocaust?
When one trys to engage you in history and culture of France, you go mute. You lack any understanding of the culture of France, and which suggest, you were no more then a typical ugly American at best, traveling amongst natives, insulting them as you went.
So what do you think about our yllas? Given what you do know, and realizing that is limited and based solely on the impression we get here? It would be interesting to get your opinion, as one who knows what it takes to homeschool well.
Okay, first off yllas, I grew up outside the US, where that image of the ugly american tourist (“Speak American” tshirts) is common. My interest as a tourist is in appreciating how others live, go about their daily lives. That is something that you cannot read about. You need to experience.
And secondly,I know enough about what happened in Vendee to know that your view is disputed. Go have this discussion with someone who cares.
So what do you think about our yllas? Given what you do know, and realizing that is limited and based solely on the impression we get here? It would be interesting to get your opinion, as one who knows what it takes to homeschool well.
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 9:17 AM
Nobody cares. Answer the questions put to you as a recruited pro abortion poster.
When one doesn’t answer simple questions, it emphasizes your lack of basic social skills and exposes your lack of a honest intellect.
MY lack of social skills! So you do have a sense of humor Sally!
Asitis, the impression I get from Yllas here is that he wants an answer to a question, and that he doesn’t back down till he gets the answer to a question.
Yes, there are times that I have felt he goes too far in debate and I have discouraged him (and even gotten angry with him before at times), but many times he really has some good points.
Sometimes I think that the times I don’t actually understand his points, maybe I am the one in error…maybe I simply don’t understand what he’s trying to say. Because sometimes what he has said has confused me, only for me to realize what he was trying to get across later.
And this is ONLY his style in debate- we don’t know his method of teaching Math, English, Science, and History…in fact, I think he’d probably do a pretty good job at all of those. He seems to have a really good handle on his History and Science, especially.
I think he has a different style than others and that makes him unique. But I don’t think that necessarily means that he would be a bad homeschooling father.
He? Do you know this for sure. I’m thinking yllas is Sally, backwards. In more than one way.
I’m not questioning her ability to teach the subject material. I think you are right. There is definitely a thirst for information there, though some critical thought might be lacking. But I digress.
No, my question is about the socialization aspect of school. Would that be a concern? Beacuse yllas definitely has difficulty interacting with others and that’s a very important skill. Unless your ambition is to be a hermit, I suppose.
And secondly,I know enough about what happened in Vendee to know that your view is disputed. Go have this discussion with someone who cares.
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 9:23 AM
My view? Tell us about the Vendee and its lasting effects upon French culture.
Expound you poser.
You see, you write about how you care about even Rachael, but offer not a dime foe her meds. When asked about lasting effects upon a nation from actions taken in that nation which effect France to this day, you write;”have this discussion with someone who cares”
Think about it, you have just made yourself into that ugly American by being nothingmore then a ugly child of France, that doesn’t care about France.
What a poser, a fake person who cares nothing about anything outside her orbit.
Keep digging yourself in deeper with that don’t care about mass murder in France before the 20th century.
NO, listen up Sally. I don’t care to have the debate with you. I know you are desperate for it and somehow think that you will engage me by insulting my intelligence.
Look, if you really, reallly want to tell us all what you know to be true about Vendee and its implications on today’s world by all means do so. And anyone who cares to can debate it or comment on it.
Go ahead.
Bethany.
Why did Stanek recruit this pro abort poser, named Asitis?
She lacks the social skills to answer direct questions in concert with the theme of a article that Stanek posted.
listen up Sally. I don’t care to have the debate with you. I know you are desperate for it and somehow think that you will engage me by insulting my intelligence.
Look, if you really, reallly want to tell us all what you know to be true about Vendee and its implications on today’s world by all means do so. And anyone who cares to can debate it or comment on it.
Go ahead.
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 9:39 AM
Your the idiot that just couldn’t keep your bourgeois life style to yourself.
When simple questions are asked you Asitis, you actually go off on a rant about me to avoid answering those simple questions which you know will leave your head on your own petard.
Which locates your intelligence as being dishonest and lacking the ablity to control yourself when asked simple questions by me.
A rant? From me? That’s a good one too Sally. Maybe you getting the hang of this humor thing!
Okay, look. Again, if you want to impress us all with your knowledge of French history and how you feel its important to Ewert’s desire to end his life with dignity, on his own terms, then be our guest. please. No one is holding you back. Write all you want.
But, I’m going for run now. That Pursuit of Health you are so piously against. Millions do it you know. Take care of themselves and have fun doing it. Makes the world a happy place.Nothing like lacing up your shoes and heading out the door. You should try it some time. Great way to meet people too.
And with that, I’m off. Bethany, nice chatting with you this morning. Thanks.
No, my question is about the socialization aspect of school. Would that be a concern? Beacuse yllas definitely has difficulty interacting with others and that’s a very important skill. Unless your ambition is to be a hermit, I suppose.
No, I do not think that the child always ends up with the parent’s personality traits.
If a parent has difficulty interacting in the way we are used to, doesn’t mean that the child will do the same thing, unless it something that is inherited genetically, which obviously neither public school or homeschool could ever change.
No matter who you are, or where you live, there are always going to be some people to associate with. Be it at the grocery store, the doctors office, etc. If a child wants to get to know people, they will, regardless of their parents insecurities.
It was nice talking to you too, Asitis. I’ve got to go to voice now. Ttys. Yllas, you too. Hope you both have a good afternoon.
Just answer the questions put to you and you might find your intellect might increase, you poser.
Then again, you do seem a pardigm of that typical mind that ends up beginning a family tradition of suicide as a gift of love.
Narcissism, can’t leave home without it, Asitis.
Sally, you’re never going to make friends or even get people to listen to you like that.
Over and out, babe!
Astis,
My advice is to ignore yllas. I’ve come to the conclusion that all she/he is capable of doing is launching mindless, practically incomprehensible attacks against anyone she/he talks to.
Bethany, I know there will always be opportunities to interact with other people as you mentioned. What I am thinking about more is learning how to makes friends and develop relationships with other people, outside the family. Being at school allows for this. A friend of mine, an excellent teacher, once told me that some kids have difficulty fitting in and making friends early on. They might be diiferent and just havne’t found someone they can relate to and vice versa. But quite often when they get to a harger school, typically high school, that will change for them as they are exposed to a bigger pool of kids. I’m wondering if a person like that might miss that valuable opportunity in homeschooling
….Kind of like Napolean Dymamite. Everyone needs one good friend, one good thing to happen and it all goes from there. Killer dance moves don’t hurt, either!
yllas: You reveal to much of yourself from narcissism. Anyone can see that a person who actually searches for his name at a post board is……. a narcissist.
It makes you cheerful.
yllas, that last line cracked me up.
I’m pretty busy at times and if I haven’t commented on a thread or had anybody say anything to me then I just skip over it, fairly often.
I’m wondering if a person like that might miss that valuable opportunity in homeschooling
Asitis, I was the worst case scenario you described. I was more of an outcast than Napoleon Dynamite when I actually tried to go to school.
My mom homeschooled me, and though she meant well, she was an ultra paranoid mother who sheltered me more than was actually necessary. I was not allowed to listen to the radio, watch TV, read the newspaper, the shoppers guide, I wasn’t allowed to read any books or videos that she had not previewed first, and I also was not allowed to even go outside or cross the street without her by my side. This went on even into my late teenage years, no kidding. If you want to know a sheltered person- to the highest extreme, I was that person.
Despite all of this, I was an extremely outgoing person, and that never stopped. I have always loved associating with people and being around people. Remember how I gave the example of the grocery store? That is how I met many of my good friends. In fact, it is how I met my husband (who also, coincidentally, was homeschooled- but not sheltered in the same way I was).
I’m telling you, Asitis, a person could be in public school all their life, and still become an introvert.
And a person can be homeschooled all their life, even sheltered to the highest extreme, and still become a very outgoing and happy person – and find friends.
Yes, having a friend is a great thing, and you can find that whether you are homeschooled (even sheltered as much as I was), or whether you are around people all the time.
Asitis, LOL @ your Napoleon Dynamite comment, I actually tried for a while to memorize his dance moves a while back and had about half of it down pat, but ended up having so many other things to do I never got around to finishing. One day, maybe I’ll be able to do the whole thing. No good reason, really. I just thought it’d be cool! lol
Bethany, what a way to grow up! You seem to have survived it very well. Lucky (Lucky a la Napoleon!) you are naturally outgoing.
There is a young man I see every couple weeks midday at the grocery store with an older woman. He looks to be early 20’s and she his mother. His hair is long and stringy, down to mid-thigh (I kid you not!). He has no expression and avoids eye contact. She is so somber. I don’t know what the story is, but I wonder if it could be a case like yours, only he is NOT outgoing. It’s very sad.
Let me know when you’ve learned all those sweet dance moves! Isn’t that movie great? I loved it. You’ve made me want to see it again.
Could be, you never know. But shyness isn’t always such a bad thing. My husband’s always been extremely shy. If it were up to him, it would be just us and we would live far away in a remote location. lol He likes the idea of being a hermit! :) And he was public schooled for 7 years before he started homeschooling.
He just prefers to be alone with the family than to be around other people. But he’s very friendly. He has people calling him all the time just to talk, I guess because they see him as understanding. He’s a man of few words and so he has always been a good listener. So I think being shy isn’t always such a bad thing.
If you saw him in public, you might think he was sad like that guy you mentioned…because he really doesn’t have any expression when he’s in public. He just stands there and avoids eye contact with everyone. But he’s one of the sweetest and most caring people you’ll ever meet. Just can’t judge a book by it’s cover, I guess! :)
Let me know when you’ve learned all those sweet dance moves! Isn’t that movie great? I loved it. You’ve made me want to see it again.
my husband and I are BIG fans of the movie. lol we actually just watched it the other day again. :D
If I ever do learn the dance moves, I’ll tape it and put it on youtube, so you can see it. lol!
His hair is long and stringy, down to mid-thigh (I kid you not!)
That is really long hair! Wow.
By the way, I have a “vote for pedro” shirt. And my husband has a “I’ve got nun-chuck skills” shirt. And the “liger” shirt. LOL
Yeh. Like Crystal Gayle! Or maybe you are too young for that….
Bethany, I want to thank you for sharing your story. I am always interested in hearing people’s story. (So much so that my good friends joke about it.) I find it fascinating and you learn alot about life in general. And it helps us appreciate others better. Yours is a unique story. Thank you.
Apparently Napolean is On Demand so my younger son and I are going to watch it. Maybe I’ll work on some dance moves too.
My son has a Napolean wig and a key chain that plays sound bites from the movie “You got any chapstick? My lips hurt real bad!”
haha I’ve seen that one! Too funny.
You are more than welcome…I love hearing other people’s stories too…I think that’s why I like to browse people’s blogs so much. :) Maybe I’m a little bit nosy, but I can’t help it. ;)
I do enjoy getting to know people better on this blog…also, it makes it easier to enjoy a discussion when you don’t feel like the opposing side hates your guts! :D
You are so right! I think we could avoid a lot of wars if we just sent world leaders off into the woods on camping trips to get to know each other!
Well, that’s a whole other discussion for another day. lol
It’s Patricia and Alexandra!!!!!!!
That’s meant in good fun BTW… from a tall girl who, if her feet were any longer. she’d have to wear the boxes.
It’s funny you should post that picture, Doug, because right after this conversation with asitis, I was looking in google images and found that, and sent it to my husband. I thought it was so cute!
Bethany, Google Images rules!
Jill gets the credit for turning me on to it.
“Now Heather, It seems your the one always writing about child sex.” –Posted by: yllas at December 11, 2008 1:06 PM
***
When we are talking about the real “you” Yllas then of course. Do you seriously think you can obfuscate things away and “hide.”?
Yllas, to Hal – “that boy you were trapped with on that island, and now admit, you would sod”
Yllas, to Jess – “What is the name of a person that is having sex with a parent? Mother-fu–er.”
Yllas, to Doug – “Are you having sex with your parent?”
Yllas, to Jess – “are you having sex with your parent”
Yllas, to Hal – “You like child sex”
You also said, “The age which a person has sex with another person makes that age, the age to have sex with another person.”
Maybe there’s a sad story behind this, but the “real you” is right there.
HEther.
Stay calm, someone will be here soon to help you, God is with us all this day.
Sally, nice try, but your meds are for stupidity, not depression.
LOL, no offense taken here, in fact I thought that comment was funny.
Yllas, don’t speak for me, I can speak for myself.
Asistis, (I hope I spelled that right)
Thank you :-)
BTW, some trolls, like Yllas, are better ignored and not representative of the average pro-lifer ;-)
BTW, some trolls, like Yllas, are better ignored and not representative of the average pro-lifer ;-)
Posted by: Rachael at December 15, 2008 8:19 AM
Stay calm Rachael, someone will be here soon to help you, God is with us all this day.
In the mean time, what comes first, the thought, or unconscious/unaware chemicals making a thought aware?
There might be two of you, one knowing awareness, from unaware neuro-transmitters, and one of you making neuro-transmitters aware of you.
Here’s a question foranyone since we are on the topic of homeschooling. Yllas, if she wereto have children, might homeschool. Would that be a good thing?
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 8:39 AM
No, that would be a very bad thing. I have kids, and I’d also want to know if Yllas was living in my neighborhood.
BTW, some trolls, like Yllas, are better ignored and not representative of the average pro-lifer ;-)
Posted by: Rachael at December 15, 2008 8:19 AM
Yes, since the motives of the troll are questionable, to say the least.
On the topic, it is not “love” to forbid somebody from ending their life; there can be such suffering that we’re way beyond that.
Even those among us who for now would say they’d never do it; what if our children were visibly suffering from having us endure what we were enduring?
Miriam, there are ways to reduce pain and suffering that do not involve killing.
“there are ways to reduce pain and suffering that do not involve killing.”
Not necessarily true. Pain medication doesn’t always work.
For instance, if the liver becomes unable to break down the pain medication, nothing will work.
There might be two of you, one knowing awareness, from unaware neuro-transmitters, and one of you making neuro-transmitters aware of you.
Posted by: yllas at December 15, 2008 9:01 AM
LMAO.
Wow, just wow…
Stay calm, someone will be here soon to help you, God is with us all this day.
Posted by: yllas at December 15, 2008 7:29 AM
**
We can see who needs the help…
Enigma, you’re right. I was thinking of really severe cases when the only way to kill the pain would be to be so doped-up that it’s hard to really call that “living,” if you know what I mean.
Either that or having the liver fail – at that stage what’s the point if the patient doesn’t want to continue?
This reminds me of how Margaret Sanger started with abortions. Showing how it was okay for babies to be killed, especially in the poor neighborhoods because she wanted a super race like her friend Hitler. If a person of any kind becomes a burden, just kill them! Why not?
This always goes back to people’s selfishness. Jesus said to love, love is Supernatural. It’s not in a person to love as Jesus tells us to do. Only when we rely on Him do we start to love someone, enough so, to not care whether they are being a burden, and allow them to have some type of healing, if not physically (if it being impossible), then, emotionally and spiritually (letting God be God and allowing that person to be saved through intervention).
Jesus is the Only Answer, period. He is always the solution to EVERY problem. Don’t allow Jesus into your life, then just hit the self distruct button and dispose of yourself….then allow Jesus to give that person the darkness they had been following all their lives. You get what you ask for folks! Romans 2:12-16.
It’s Patricia and Alexandra!!!!!!!
Hahahahaha asitis! I would have been the Pedro, definitely. I was clicking through and saw my name and just about spit out my tea. Figures that the person to mention me after spending a year here is someone I’ve talked to once!
Just so you know that I seriously am wee, here are some pictures I posted a couple months ago.
Me making an ugly face and wearing ugly shorts; I promise you there was a reason for both of these things. In case you need a hint, I am the one making an ugly face and wearing ugly shorts: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/say_revolution/n16315202_32470493_8590.jpg
Me standing next to a 3-year old: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/say_revolution/PIS-7.jpg
Perhaps a rockin’ moustache would make me look taller…
Glad you liked it Alexandra! Hope the tea didn’t go up yoru nose (I HATE when that happens).
And you are a wee thing! Cute as a button though.
Alexandra..
I THINK you might be as little as me! I like that about a person.
Oh my goodness, we should have a tiny person convention!
One guess which of these people is me!
“Wants” to die? They probably have been tricked into thinking they are a BURDEN on their family and that they’d be better off not burdening the family with medical bills and such?
I have said it before and I will say it again. I am not old. I am young. I am 19. I am getting married in July. I am a very, very happy person with excellent mental stability. No one is tricking me into anything, in fact I doubt anyone is thinking of my death at this moment, unless they are very hateful people…
I want to be euthanized when I am too old to take care of myself. It is not that I don’t want to burden my family: I do not want to burden myself with a life that I am not even capable of living!
There will be a point in my life where I won’t want to live anymore, and if I am not provided legal means to do it, I will just have to commit suicide in a less dignified way than they allow in this clinic.
Do I think this should be broadcast on TV?…. I don’t really have an opinion. But should this man be allowed to die as he chooses? Absolutely.
Leah, what gives your life value? Why are you worth living right now? Are you only valuable because of your youth?
Why do you assume that you couldn’t “live life” in another setting than what you are used to today, and how do you know for certain that when you are less capable of doing things that you, as a teenager, like doing…that you would not want to live? How do you know that you would feel this way?
Leah, if you were to get in an accident today, and lose your ability to use your legs, would you kill yourself?
What if today, you were injured and lost the ability to eat temporarily without a stomach tube? Would you kill yourself, being only 19, simply because you are incapable of doing what you do today, or would you consider it a challenge that you could overcome and then use your experience to help and encourage others who have been through the same?
You know, I never want to end up in a coma, or in a wheelchair, or paralyzed. If I do wind up in any of these situations however, I value my life enough to think that my life has meaning no matter what happens to me.
Suffering is part of life, and I expect to suffer. I expect to go through things I don’t want to go through. That is life. I consider all the sufferings in this world to be challenges to overcome, and learning experiences. Not the end of my life.
Well, that’s good for you Bethany. But Leah has another opinion about how she would like to go when she is old and unable to take care of herself and doesn’t have what she considers to be a life worth living. You may think she’s too young to know this, but the poll indicates that 61% would do likewise and 69% believe the law should allow for it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…….
I think that’s tragic, Asitis. that means 61 percent of people believe that their lives are meaningless unless they are in “perfect” shape and youthful.
How sad that people value people of old age to be so worthless.
Also, Asitis, how was the poll performed? Who were the 2000 people surveyed and what were their ages?
This was a poll for the Sunday Times…not exactly something I would consider to be scientific.
Asitis, what makes your life worth living? What makes you valuable?
I think that’s tragic, Asitis. that means 61 percent of people believe that their lives are meaningless unless they are in “perfect” shape and youthful.
Posted by: Bethany at December 15, 2008 5:38 PM
Bethany, there is a huge gulf between “perfect” and a condition where some people wouldn’t want to live. No one is suggesting anyone would kill themselves because things weren’t perfect. But unbearable, then perhaps. The Oregon experience has shown relatively few people take that route, but many are comforted by the fact it would be there if they even thought they needed it.
We all expect to have some suffering in life. There are some of us, sadly, who experience such profound suffering that they may wish their life to end. I don’t have a problem with that. Who owns our life if not us?
Who owns our life if not us?
That is certainly where our differences are, Hal, and I don’t expect to change your mind on this.
I don’t believe that I own my life. You do, so I guess it makes sense that you would also believe that you should control whether you live or die.
But think about it this way, Hal. You weren’t in control of your conception. You didn’t cause yourself to come to life.
Why do you also have control over death? No one really does. Death can happen to anyone at anytime.
Can you will yourself to live if you’re going to die but don’t want to?
If not, why not…if we control our lives…if we “own” our lives? How can we own something we have so little control over?
I like how you still call legislature allowing assisted suicide “forced” when all polls show the VAST majority of Americans support it – and not only support it, but would do it themselves.
This is a sharp contrast to abortion, where a majority may support its legality, but wouldn’t have one themselves.
Passing legislature 60% or more of your voters support is not “forcing” anything on them – its democracy.
I have a friend who works in a pediatric hospice – where frequently the parents and children will BEG for an end to their suffering. Fortunately to avoid the mocking and judgment of people like you Jill, these situations can often go under the radar with overdoses of pain medications.
You and your followers may think suffering is noble – but there is nothing noble about it at all – especially not when its a child.
I hope someday a Dictatorial Theocratic nation is formed – where all of the self righteous pro life, pro-suffering, anti-gay folks can live happily ever after…and leave the majority of tolerant, pro choice Americans alone.
Then we’d all have our way, and wouldn’t that be nice.
Good evening moderators,
Not meaning to create trouble or anything, but is there a reason “yllas” is allowed to perpetually violate nearly all of your stated “rules for discussion”?
If there is some exception that has been made for this person, I think we deserve an explanation for why that is.
We should all be held to equally high standards, no?
I like how you still call legislature allowing assisted suicide “forced” when all polls show the VAST majority of Americans support it – and not only support it, but would do it themselves.
Shep, which American polls are you referring to? The American polls I’ve seen have shown just the opposite- that the majority oppose it or that it is split 50/50.
You and your followers may think suffering is noble – but there is nothing noble about it at all – especially not when its a child.
Are you saying we should have the choice to euthanize a child should the child become a burden?
Good evening moderators,
Not meaning to create trouble or anything, but is there a reason “yllas” is allowed to perpetually violate nearly all of your stated “rules for discussion”?
If there is some exception that has been made for this person, I think we deserve an explanation for why that is.
We should all be held to equally high standards, no?
Shep, we have deleted many posts that Yllas has made on many occasions…and in fact, have temporarily banned him a couple of times. Where do you see that we are treating him any differently than others?
I think we have been exceptionally fair in moderating this blog.
Bethany,
Every single post of his/hers on this thread calls someone an idiot, a fake, a poser, or degrades them in some way.
There is not one single post here from Yllas that is not negative and disparaging and rude. More importantly, the motive is not to make a point, but to be mean. Doesn’t seem very productive to me, and I certainly don’t see anyone else posting in such a way.
But hey, its your call. I’m sure you probably enjoy the drama it creates – certainly notches up the hit count for the site I’m sure – but clearly “temporary bans” aren’t having any effect, and this person is quite clearly mentally ill or trying to pretend he/she is.
pro suffering?!?!? I consider dying of dehydration to be suffering (Terri Schindler).
An Oregon woman who eventually passed away naturally was refused payment for her cancer treatment / cancer drug but they offered to PAY FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE!
That’s what we who are AGAINST assisted suicide are AGAINST!
Bethany @ 5:55pm
This makes sense to me to.
Your next comment though would suggest that your mother should get to decide when you can die? If she’s gone already I guess you get to decide for yourself. (This is in jest of course!) :)
LizfromNebraska, isn’t that sad?
I cried for the entire 14 days as I watched the news and followed Terri Schiavo who was being tortured to death by starvation, as her parents and the world watched helplessly. I couldn’t believe they did nothing to ease her pain, and wouldn’t even give her a drop of water. Then these people claim they don’t want people to suffer? Please.
Oops, I should say Terri Schindler.
Imagine if they starved a terrorist to death? The liberals would be going nuts.
Continuing my 6:56 post…I remember even asking my husband- “If they’re going to kill her anyway…why don’t they at least do it more kindly? Why don’t they overdose her with morphine? Why are they starving her to death? They wouldn’t even do this to an animal and they will do it to a woman. I wish she could stop suffering”
How tragic that these people actually believe they were relieving her suffering!
Bethany,
“I think we have been exceptionally fair in moderating this blog.”
I’m going to disagree with this statement. You have different levels of tolerance for different individuals. Though I am not challenging any past banning decisions, I would like to ask a question.
How many people have you banned who claim to be “pro-life?”
No kidding, Jasper. If waterboarding is a no-no for a TERRORIST, just imagine treating them like Terri! They’d go hysterical.
Why Enigma, I already explained that we have banned Yllas who claims to be pro-life.
Oh and we banned Heather.
How many permanent bans?
Most of our bans, pro-life and pro-abortion are temporary. The only thing that makes a permanent ban is when it goes way too far. Like SOMG making death threats, etc.
Bethany, if I recall correctly, that ‘death threat’ wasn’t made until well after you had banned SoMG, and on a different forum, nonetheless.
What about Laura and Sally? They never were remotely as lolo as yllas.
And Laura?
I think this conversation is kind of funny because just the other day I was accused of being too mean to pro-lifers.
I don’t think Sally was banned, was she? As for Laura, that was not my call. Jill has the right to ban whoever she wishes from her site.
You’re avoiding the question.
No, I wasn’t, I just hadn’t seen your question before I typed the last thing I wrote.
Btw, Bethany, I submitted a comment with a picture/link a while ago, could you approve it for me?
As far as I am aware, Sally was banned.
You still haven’t addressed the issue Erin raised about SOMG.
You do realize there is a difference in moderator and administrator/owner, correct? Jill is the owner/administrator of this blog. Carla, Bobby, Lauren, Carder, Chris, Jasper and I are moderators. We do not have the same authority as Jill, because this is not our site. We do our best to be fair, but it is Jill’s right to have whomever she wishes on this site. And in my opinion, she is extremely generous in what she allows here.
Bethany, if I recall correctly, that ‘death threat’ wasn’t made until well after you had banned SoMG, and on a different forum, nonetheless.
No, Erin…he had done it many times before under many aliases.
None of those people you listed, both pro life and pro choice, have never been as consistently negative as Yllas. Yes, a lot of those names are familiar, and are people who sometimes had productive things to say, but sometimes lost their tempers or didn’t think before they hit “post”, but as far as I’ve read, Yllas is the one who consistently and repetitively posts absolute nonsense, with no other motive than to be as nasty as humanly possible
Erin, 7:11…checking it out now.
And how do you know that the aliases were he?
Thank you Miz B!
IP addresses, same style of writing, times of posts etc.
No problem Erin! Wow you really are small…at least, comparing to the others you’re with! Cute picture!
Shep I actually do understand your concern. I’m going to have a talk with the other moderators and see what should be done.
I’m watching part of the video of Craig Ewert right now. What he says confirms what we were talking about, that he considers himself a burden to his family,
Here is his quote:
“If I don’t go through with it, my choice is essentially to suffer, and to inflict suffering on my family….”
When he said that part “inflict suffering on my family”, his eyes welled up with tears. That seems to be the part he is truly concerned with. He doesn’t look like a man who wants to die. He teared up the entire time.
I think what he truly wanted was to be relieved of his pain, NOT to be killed.
By the way, it was murder for that doctor to hand him a cup of poison. He should be in prison for doing that. He was killing a human being and it was without a doubt premeditated.
It does not matter if a person consented to dying, it is still murder no matter how you put it.
His wife, giving him a kiss and telling him she loved him after he was just given the lethal dose- that disgusted me beyond belief.
He felt that he was burden to her, and she affirmed that belief by her willingness to let him be killed.
His wife didn’t even cry. She didn’t even tear up.
From what you’re saying, Bethany, it sounds like he was convinced that he HAD to die because he’s been convinced he is a “Burden”.
Very sad indeed. Those who believe in prayer: pray for his soul, he needs it badly.
yllas isn’t important enough to ban. He/she is simply comic relief.
What, there was a Sally that was banned? I’ve been calling Yllas Backwards Sally just for fun. Could it be The Sally? I wasn’t around then so don’t know of this Sally.
I didn’t see Sally banned either, but I have suspected that Yllas might be sally’s “pro-life” alter-ego.
sure, there was a Sally. Yllas took his/her name from her because he/she was the “opposite of Sally.” If true, it’s the nicest thing you could say about Sally.
Why the heck was Sally banned?
I have to say, if Sally was permanently banned, and Yllas is still tooling around here, calling the moderation here fair is almost as ridiculous as Yllas’ posts.
It is the Lord who gives life and only He who should be able to take it.
I don’t know if Sally was banned or not. Yllas, however, cracks me up. Some have said (and I suspected at times) that she’s just a plant to make the movement look bad.
Hal, don’t you know that by questioning her validity you’re actually destroying the universe?
I’m pretty sure Sally wasn’t banned.
Sally was banned.
And RE: the post- I have a list of illnesses and conditions that if they occurred to me I would kill myself if I were able to do so. I have made it abundantly clear to my parents that if I’m ever in a long-term coma or PVS to pull the damn plug. If I miraculously live a long time- then I will off myself once I become useless and am no longer a productive member of society.
I’m not saying this because I’m “young” or “stupid”. I am very, very serious. I have put a lot of thought into this- especially The List.
Sally was never banned, as far as I know. I just checked in the Admin CP and there is no record of it, and also her last post was this:
“Published Ha! I think my kids are gonna do much better than be custodians Sally! Vince is in university studying philosophy and history with view towards law. Patrice has a 93 average in GR. 11 and is looking towards medicine. Becca has a 95 average and is a talented musician who plays violin and piano. Theresa in gr 6 has all 4+ (out of 4+) on report cards. Not sure where she’s headed yet. When Becca was tested a few years back she was beyond the 99 percentile -apparently very unusual. They were all homeschooled to some degree = Vince for 9 years. When he was in GR 9 I was told that not even the seniors (gr 12) wrote as well as he did. Yeah, I’m not concerned. Posted by: Patricia at October 27, 2008 10:08 PM ………………… So you homeschooled one of your children until the 4th grade. If homeschooling is so great why didn’t you continue?
Edit | Reply Sally JivinJ’s Life Links 10-27… Oct 28”
In fact, I was becoming really good friends with Sally off site. She was surprisingly friendly when we weren’t discussing abortion and I got to liking her a lot. Carla was becoming very close to her as well, and this was close to the time she stopped posting here.
I do not remember banning her ever, and I would be able to see the unpublished posts in the admin CP she made had she been banned.
If anyone can find a post proving otherwise, I’ll stand corrected, but I do not remember Sally ever being banned from this site.
I do see a lot of sarcasm that bothers me in yllas’ posts but to her credit; never any obscenities.
It wasn’t Sally that was banned it was her cohort in slime Texas Red.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/10/22_weeks_screen.html
October 28th, 4:03 AM
“Oh, and Sally, you’re banned. Your comment to Rowan’s mother was, as typical, below the belt. But enough.” (Jill)
Found it!
Sally lasted a little longer than Texes Red then. One thing that seems to be consistent about the people who get banned is that they are either always posting obscenities or they like to get their jollies through low-blow insults.
Wasn’t it Sally who said that if she caused a car wreck she would not feel obligated to give blood to save the life of a person she hurt in the wreck? Goes to dispostion…..
I stand corrected. She was banned after all.
It looks like Jill was in the right to ban her. Sally did take it way too far sometimes, and I’m sure her comment warranted it.
yllas does insult too much, but the insults are never obscenities. This post today from the other blogline is a perfect example. Tale out the insults and the sarcasm and it’s a good post:
yllas said,
What is the reason for the reproductive organs?
Are you really that dense to reality?
What is the reason for the lungs?
Is pleasure the reason for your lungs? Or CO2 the by-product of your lungs? Where in the lung is a pleasure cell located?
What is the reason for your heart?
What is the purpose of the Eye?
To see, and what pleasure your get is a by product of the purpose of your eye, which has no pleasure in it.
Why are you soo stupid?
Only when one defends a vice does one become as ignorant to reason as you are Asitis, and TRYS to make pleasure bend reality and purpose, which ends in killing a human being for and from your mistaken idea of purpose and reason in matters of one organ of the human body.
Your a wonderful meditation on how pleasure makes one ignorant.
Socrates said in The Republic that virtue can know vice but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
Care to deny Socrates description of you Asitis?
The full good of the reproductive organs is exactly what their purpose is. Which is why you don’t know it’s evil to murder a innocent human life also.
And this intent you write of, must be a lots of people failing intent since abortion is a common experience amongst the ignorance you preach for Asitis.
But, of course, no one’s intent is to murder innocent human life, because their intent is to receive pleasure and then murder their “intent of pleasure” by abortion.
Posted by yllas 12/15 7:09 A.M.
That’s how I see it, Truthseeker @ 1:04. If you omit the insults, much of the time has some really, really good points and is a wealth of information.
I have actually learned a lot through reading his posts.
Many of the terms he uses (sometimes used in his pet names for people, or descriptions of them) I would later type in google and I actually learned a lot about history (or medical science) through them, and also, I would understand better what he was trying to convey by using those particular words in describing people. He really knows his stuff.
I think that a lot of time, what he’s trying to say goes over my head. i don’t know if it’s because he’s really making no sense, or if I’m just not smart enough to “get it”.
Sometimes I think he’s just trying to be a pain and cause trouble- and at times I’ve gotten downright irritated with him…but at other times, I think he is simply trying to get others to see a point and this is his way of doing it because he is unique.
So, as you can see, I’m a bit conflicted about his posts. lol
What about Laura and Sally? They never were remotely as lolo as yllas.
Posted by: Erin at December 15, 2008 7:07 PM
**
This is true, and Shep has good points as well. Yllas routinely violates the posting rules more than anybody else has ever done, including several who’ve been permanently banned.
Had Yllas pretended to be pro-choice, as she pretends to be pro-life, she’d have been banned very quickly.
Yllas is just a clown troll, but gets a pass because of some weird fakey pseudo “pro-lifeism.”
I do see a lot of sarcasm that bothers me in yllas’ posts but to her credit; never any obscenities.
Posted by: truthseeker at December 16, 2008 12:38 AM
**
No, you see idiotic fantasies about other people from Yllas. And if you want profanity and talk about adults having sex with kids, then Yllas is the most prolific for that. You want to see some quotes?
You evidently didn’t see Yllas’s meltdown with Jess. I was reading Jill’s blog that night.
And if you add up all the insults people on this blog direct towards yllas , they FAR outnumber the insults yllas gave towards others. And unlike yllas, who calls people idiot or stupid, or Dogma dude or Truth dude; the attacks on yllas are meant to be as offensive as possible. Like asitis with her comment:
Sally, nice try, but your meds are for stupidity, not depression.
Posted by: asitis at December 11, 2008 10:30 PM
And asitis is like a grade school child on the playground trying to get people to join her in making fun of somebody:
Here’s a question for anyone since we are on the topic of homeschooling. Yllas, if she were to have children, might homeschool. Would that be a good thing?
Posted by: asitis at December 12, 2008 8:39 AM
And then Miriam bites on asitis’ lead:
No, that would be a very bad thing. I have kids, and I’d also want to know if Yllas was living in my neighborhood.
Posted by: Miriam at December 15, 2008 10:38 AM
Every single post of his/hers on this thread calls someone an idiot, a fake, a poser, or degrades them in some way.
Posted by Shep.
But she is exactly what I wrote.
A person who poses as a person with knowledge of France, and then is asked simple questions about French culture, and fails to answer those post. In my opinion, Asitis, is a fake, a poser, and a rude person that when asked simple questions, became more rude the more she failed to answer simple questions. It is her only way of avoiding answering the questions asked of her to establish her veracity. A person that was asked by Jill to come back and post her pro abort beliefs at this site. Hence a recruit, by Jill, , which is in need of more pro abort propagandist.
When people fail to answer simple questions asked of them, they are being dishonest intellectually, or are just plain old idiots on a subject asked of them.
And the subject which I ask questions of, is normally the subject which they posted about in the first place.
What rudeness you see from me, is almost always a return rudeness from the person who was rude to me first.
Bethany, do you know yllas is a he????
My advice is to ignore yllas. I’ve come to the conclusion that all she/he is capable of doing is launching mindless, practically incomprehensible attacks against anyone she/he talks to.
Posted by: Enigma at December 12, 2008 11:05 AM
_____
I have to say, if Sally was permanently banned, and Yllas is still tooling around here, calling the moderation here fair is almost as ridiculous as Yllas’ posts.
Posted by: Shep at December 15, 2008 10:42 PM
_____
Given what Yllas has posted, I wouldn’t surprised if Yllas is a child molester, hiding behind a facade of Catholicism.
Heather,
Iv’e seen it from yllas. But if you are suggesting that yllas ever condoned sex with kids, I would doubt that. If you want to link me to the post I would look at the context though.
“If you take away the insults”???
As far as I concerned when insults were involved it didn’t matter whether there was a “wealth of information”, it was an insult, and a ban or deletion ensued.
Yo, Truthseeker, either you are not serious about Yllas or you’re just trying to BS us.
What is the name of a person that is having sex with a parent? Mother-fu–er.
Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008
Yllas, to Hal – “that boy you were trapped with on that island, and now admit, you would sod”
Yllas, to Jess – “What is the name of a person that is having sex with a parent? Mother-fu–er.”
Yllas, to Doug – “Are you having sex with your parent?”
Yllas, to Jess – “are you having sex with your parent”
Yllas, to Hal – “You like child sex”
You are one low life SOB
Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:00 AM
until this low life SOB
Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:09 AM
you low life SOB
Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:21 AM
You wrote it you low life SOB, and your playing dense again Jess.
Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:21 AM
are you having sex with your parent
Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:30 AM
I don’t want a damn thing deleted soo you can look at your words until you understand that your SCUM.
Posted by: yllas at June 29, 2008 12:40 AM
Given what Yllas has posted, I wouldn’t surprised if Yllas is a child molester, hiding behind a facade of Catholicism.
Posted by: Chris at December 16, 2008 1:50 AM
Exactly what posts are you referring to Chris? Can you back up your talk or is this just liberal gang-banging?
Heather.
Stay calm, someone will be here to help you soon, God is with us all this day.
Now, to amuse yourself and hope your mind wanders off beyond me.
Are there any similarities between E=mc2 and the Trinity?
What was the name of the first test of the atomic bomb?
Who named the first test of the atomic bomb?
Who is John Donne?
Why is your heart sooo battered by me Hether?
See, Heather, your inability to communicate beyound your obsession about me, really limits your intelligence in matters of fancy, coincidence, and that famous serendipty of what will most likey end your life.
The Trinity.
What rudeness you see from me, is almost always a return rudeness from the person who was rude to me first. ~~Yllas
Hogwash. You routinely appear on threads and make stupid comments about people when you had not been mentioned.
Heather,
I don;t see anywhere in those posts where yllas suggested being a child molester. More likely there was something in the dialogue that made yllas strike out about somebody being a child molester.
And I actually do remember that night with the mother f@XXer comment. I am going to go back to that June 29th and take a look
Now Hether,
People may insult me, but never my mother.
You leave that out, and I give you a rating of 4.5467 on the propagandist scale of agitation.
But, procede comrade.
But most important., stay calm, someone will be here to help you soon, God is with us all this day.
Heather,
What was the title of the blogline?
yllas,
And also with your spirit?
should have read:
yllas,
And also with your spirit.
Hi Truthseeker,
You realize that dozens and dozens of Yllas’s posts have been deleted, right? It’s in those that you find the real Yllas. You ought to get the moderators to send you them, if then will. Won’t be any doubt then.
yllas,
were those low-life SOB’s insulting your mother?
That could certainly explain why you would break out of character with those explatives.
yllas,
I have been calling you a she and Bethany has been calling you a he. I assume she is right but could you confirm for me?
Heather,
I don;t see anywhere in those posts where yllas suggested being a child molester. More likely there was something in the dialogue that made yllas strike out about somebody being a child molester.
And I actually do remember that night with the mother f@XXer comment. I am going to go back to that June 29th and take a look
Posted by: truthseeker at December 16, 2008 2:00 AM
Which is what one of those pro abort toadies called me TS. A mf. Fact is, I don’t remember which pro abort wrote it, since they are nothingmore then propagandist that come to this site to agitate others with no intelligence in their post. Like Heather.
Hal was asked the age which children can have sexual relations, which was answered by agreeing that children may have sex according to Hal if they consent.
I like Hether, she is trying her best to play the half truth teller that she is. It makes good propaganda since propaganda is always a appeal to half the story.
In a strange way, she is on a crusade, a silly crusade that if she had any intellectual honesty, would just ask me not to post here, and state her reasons in a honest manner, devoid of half truths she is depending on.
She is being a typical Stalinist, Maoist on a hunt for others to do what she can’t.
She is a Red Guard. A kommsomal puppet.
“People may insult me, but never my mother.”
Well DUH, Yllas. You’re the one who talks about “MOTHER****ERS.”
Hi Truthseeker,
You realize that dozens and dozens of Yllas’s posts have been deleted, right? It’s in those that you find the real Yllas. You ought to get the moderators to send you them, if then will. Won’t be any doubt then.
Posted by: Nathan at December 16, 2008 2:09 AM
Nathan,
I would need to look at the entire blogline cause single deleted posts have to be put in context. I have been a reguar here for well over a year now and like I said, I have seen more insults and sarcasm then I would like from yllas but I have never seen any hate or tendencies toward deviant behaviour with kids or the rest of the slanderous claims. Nobody could delete out tendencies like that. They don’t just appear in single posts, they get built into the entire thread.
yllas,
were those low-life SOB’s insulting your mother?
That could certainly explain why you would break out of character with those explatives.
Posted by: truthseeker at December 16, 2008 2:10 AM
Correct TS.
As for me being a male or female, it is just another part of my privacy which I shall keep to myself. Bethany is a breaking some rules that she instituted between me and her, which I forgive her as quickly as I write these words.
Heather,
Are you the same Heather that was working the McCain campaign in Ohio? The one that used to be a mod-in-training here?
“Which is what one of those pro abort toadies called me TS. A mf.”
LOLOL Truthseeker, Yllas is flat-out lying and playing you for a fool.
Truthseeker, just ask Jess about all that.
No, Truthseeker. That must be a different Heather. I started reading here in April or May.
On the child sex stuff, when Yllas gets upset she (or he LOL) starts talking about adults and children having sex. It’s happened 5 or 6 times that I’ve seen, and God knows how many times if you include all the deleted posts.
As for me being a male or female, it is just another part of my privacy which I shall keep to myself.
Posted by: yllas at December 16, 2008 2:20 AM
Interesting that you feel a need to keep that private. It is harder to trust a person who you refuses to let you know who they really are.
And it raises the likelihood that there are other things you would keep “private” about yourself. The only other person on this blog I know who refused to say wether they were a male or a female was SOMG so your not in good company in that respect.
Nathan.
Come on Nathan, be a man, do you want me banned?
Here Nathan, if your a pro abort, then you can agree with this statement.
God made creation a choice, and pro aborts make life a choice. There is a logical connection between pro aborts and pro life.
Both are for choice.
When I write such words to pro lifers, they lose their ability to think beyond their emotions by such a statement. Such as Lauren or Chris, who prides himself on trying to be logical.
There is a simple answer to that statement which needs not making me into a object of conspiracy, and other emotional rants ending in insults, instead of using their mind’s that God blessed them with, hopefully.
On the child sex stuff, when Yllas gets upset she (or he LOL) starts talking about adults and children having sex. It’s happened 5 or 6 times that I’ve seen, and God knows how many times if you include all the deleted posts.
Posted by: Heather at December 16, 2008 2:27 AM
Again Heather, I would ask for you or Nathan or anybody else who would make those accusation to link me to the blogline or quit making perjurous accusations.
“Which is what one of those pro abort toadies called me TS. A mf.”
LOLOL Truthseeker, Yllas is flat-out lying and playing you for a fool.
Truthseeker, just ask Jess about all that.
Posted by: Heather at December 16, 2008 2:23 AM
Heather,
One thing that doesn;t happen to me much at all is getting plated the fool which is why I won’t take your accusations as fact. If you and Nathan can;t come up with any of the five or six bloglines you are talking about then I’ll look at them when Jess posts a reference. Till then it is all just libel and innuendo. You would be better off not posting these types of accusations until you have the links to the bloglines to back it up.
Interesting that you feel a need to keep that private. It is harder to trust a person who you refuses to let you know who they really are.
And it raises the likelihood that there are other things you would keep “private” about yourself. The only other person on this blog I know who refused to say wether they were a male or a female was SOMG so your not in good company in that respect.
Posted by: truthseeker at December 16, 2008 2:29 AM
Ah TS, it is that the internet is not really any place to make friends, especially when one knows that a one dimensional method of communications is being used.
But, if it pleases you to know if I be male or female. I’m a male of course, who used a moniker of a person who was one of the most cruel posters I have ever met in the net.
Such disrepect for life is what motivates every pro abort that post here, or anywhere they travel in life.
Or, as someone once said, Trust but verify.
I ask questions of pro lifers and pro aborts, and have stated that pro lifers turn on each other more often then the united front of deathsex worshippers that post here,which then gains more hate speech directed to me.
So be it.
It’s also hilarious to watch Yllas try to twist and squirm around when called on the trolling. Trolls hate to be shown for what they are, and Yllas can’t take Yllas’s own words being read back to her.
Truthseeker, Yllas did once say she’s female.
____
Is this the REAL YLLAS here?? Hard to believe it is….
Posted by: Janet
:=P
Now that should be the “Sunday funny.”
Yllas cries and whines and makes a fool out of herself. Instead of lucid and levelheaded discussion, it’s talking about people and projecting yllas’s own irrationality onto them.
Yllas is the same screws-loose poster as always. Jess just shined a light, and you know how some people can’t take being revealed….
Especially to themselves, and when Jess’s words hit home, Yllas freaked.
Posted by: Laura Laura
yllas,
That is why you need to finish those phrases in order to make them what they really are.
Pro-choice to kill the unborn.
Pro-life of the unborn being nurtured
Truthseeker, Yllas is just stringing you along.
The moderators are the only ones that can show you most of the posts, since they’ve been deleted from the blog. They’re not gone forever, since the moderators can access them. They just don’t show here.
Also, you need to see the posts for which Yllas got banned, twice. Had you been there at the time, you wouldn’t bother with the clown troll.
Good enough yllas. Now I must hit the sack. I’ve got a long day of work at my day job tomorrow followed by a longer night of plowing followed by an even longer day of followed by a night of sleep and one more day of work.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
Heather,
No need to concern yourself; I won’t be played the fool. Cause I put my faith only in Jesus Christ and I pray incessantly that the Holy Spirit be my light and my guide. The peace of Jesus Christ be with you Heather. I’ll say this one more time for your benefit. You would be well server to save your accusations till you have the archives to give credence to your beliefs. It is possible you are right, but it is even more likely you may be mistaken. Capture the bloglines and I will review in context, perhaps I can clear up some misconceptions.
Good enough yllas. Now I must hit the sack. I’ve got a long day of work at my day job tomorrow followed by a longer night of plowing followed by an even longer day of followed by a night of sleep and one more day of work.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
Posted by: truthseeker at December 16, 2008 2:52 AM
I leave the post unfinshed soo a person may think the answer out for themselves.
It sticks in the memory much better.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Secret words amongst a pack of wild eyed obsessionist.
Now its just me and you Hether.
Get out your secret decoder ring and turn it to number 3.
tis s sss s od fff foof totot.
I still didn’t find that mf blogline from June 29th and I don’t have time but if my memory serves me right somebody did start up with yllas and called him an mf and then yllas got completely out of charcter and went ballistic including poor Jess who even though she wasn’t the one who caled yllas tan mf, took the brunt of an ongoing tirade. Again, I would have to reread the blog but that’s the way I remember it without refrence. gnight all
Also, you need to see the posts for which Yllas got banned, twice. Had you been there at the time, you wouldn’t bother with the clown troll.
Posted by: Heather at December 16, 2008 2:50 AM
There you go again, spreading half truths of agitational propaganda.
I have been banned three times Hether.
Which now means your truthiness is in question, Hether.
Now Heather.
Stay calm, someone will be here to help soon, God is with us all this day.
The immortal words of Father Capodanno.
See Hether, there are those that do, and those that do nothing but want to ban people. That those that offer you words from a man that will be remembered for sacrifice and honor, and makes the idea of Christ live in those that were there that day.
That he received the highest award for bravery, and is a great lesson in how a man should live his life and die, leaves you unable to go beyond your obsession for the banning of thought.
One gets a school named after him, one a statue of bronze, and one who knew he took away a great man when he cried out in pain.
Really Hether, what do you offer but your obsession about child sex. After all, if one looks at this page, your the one thinking about child sex way to often Hether. And defending child sex as Hal did.
Oh Oh.
Me and Tony Blair have something in common. He was a “secret Catholic” from wanting to keep his private life, private.
Here Hether.
I believe that no one should have sex until they are married. That secular laws have been established to facilitate the appropriate age within that state, and are up for debate if under the age of 18.
That statutory rape laws are just, and when a abortion clinic break’s those statutory laws, they should be charged with a crime too.
That you Hether, encourage underage sexual relations, is from your belief that sexual relations are natural, if “both consent”.
Do you deny the above sentence Hether?
Now, there is my one post on the matter of underage sexual relations, which if my memory serves me right, you Hether, defended child sexual relations, as did Hal.
Bottom line, I think Backwards Sally is well-read, but has had very limited life experiences and opportunites. It explains why her arguments are nonsensical, though she is bright enough. And there is a jealous rage there. It shows through in her themes and attacks.
“The only other person on this blog I know who refused to say wether they were a male or a female was SOMG so your not in good company in that respect.”
LOL, TS.
yllas,
“Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Secret words amongst a pack of wild eyed obsessionist. ”
Alright! Glad to be part of a pack of wild eyed obsessionists… I get to hear those words every other week…
My goodness, these comments are tragic. Rae, it’s so sad about your “List.” Don’t you think you have more to offer the world? Not just Rae, but Hal and anyone else saying they’d off them self.
Haven’t you people ever heard of Stephen Hawking?
I think that what makes me saddest about this whole issue is how often the people who state that they would use assisted suicide use the word “dignity” when explaining their choice. I feel like having the ability to avoid the more difficult aspects of old age or disease allows us to confine the definition of dignity to the easy definitions. And I think that, in having that ability, we may eventually lose the ability to see a quieter, different, more difficult kind of dignity.
I mean, you can say over and over again all the awful things that come with old age and disease. I know them. I have ushered loved ones through them. And honestly, I am occasionally terrified by the thought of ever going through them myself. But I think that even with all the difficulties and the humiliations and everything else, there is something very dignified about facing them, and accepting them, and accepting the aid and love you need, the aid and love you have given to others and that others are now giving to you.
To me it’s kind of like the whole last portion of Love in the Time of Cholera. (OMG SPOILERS for anyone who’s a couple decades behind on their reading list!) The love these two old rickety people share, FINALLY, is not all that attractive to describe, even glossing over the actual physical facts of it. Gabriel Garcia Marquez doesn’t hide from them — he doesn’t give his characters the “dignity” of finally having their love realized, idealized, for the reader — but instead he delves into them. And it’s brilliant because it forces the reader to either side with the rhetorical “they,” who disapprove of two old people claiming love for themselves at such a useless age and who in any sappy romance story would be set up as the villain; or to accept that even the best things in life aren’t always pleasant and pretty. I remember the first time I read it, I really appreciated that GGM didn’t take the easy road and just have the characters sail off into the sunset. They sailed off into the sunset, but they sailed off with fake teeth and old-person smells and a slight deafness in one ear, and pain, and physical limitations, and everything else. The presence of those realities made me so acutely aware of how ignoring them silently reinforces the idea that they are somehow undignified, that they don’t fit into a love story. And I feel like if we can avoid the realities of old age or illness, then will we eventually lose the ability to implicitly understand that old age and illness fit into the greater story of life? This is what runs through my mind when the word “dignity” comes up so frequently in these discussions. It would have been heartbreaking and empty if, at the end of the novel, both lovers had kept each other at arms’ length out of concerns for their dignity. It would have been what their dignified society wanted — but it would, ultimately, not have been dignified.
My favorite place to be is “undecided” so it’s not like I’m making any grand sweeping statements about my opinion on the legality of assisted suicide. I just worry, with this issue as with so many others, what we lose every time we take away one more inconvenient thing. I mean heck, I get anxiety at the idea of ever living in a town where I need to rely on a car, because I find so much benefit in the occasionally annoying need to walk everywhere and carry everything. And I guess that the ready, rapid dismissal of the dignity that can accompany old age and dependence, the embracing of all the trappings of physical weakness as “undignified,” makes me sad. I mean, whether something is dignified or not is a judgment call — it’s not a fact, like pain or sickness. So it seems sad to me that we so quickly interchange “undignified” with “sick” once we have the option to. And unless one has religious prohibitions as an excuse, then it turns the tougher parts of life into a choice — which means that the suffering becomes optional, which makes it self-inflicted in a way, which removes the dignity from it in some senses. It breaks my heart sometimes to think that the only reason we see dignity in the inescapable weakness that is occasionally inherent in human life is because we have no choice but to do so. It makes me wonder just how badly we need our cages.
I’m probably not making sense. I’m just thinking out loud, really.
Ugh, that was longer than I meant for it to be. That right there was about 500% RDA of Alexandra. Fortunately I think it was like the first thing of substance that I’ve said in two months, so I don’t feel like a bandwidth hog. Just an attention hog.
Yllas is right that there is more to those conversations than Heather is letting on. I don’t know who heather is, and don’t really understand why she is here keeping track of all of yllas’ posts, or why yllas is the only person she is concerned about. I also don’t get why Heather is using multiple aliases to get her point across about Yllas? Maybe she could help explain.
In any case, Yllas is right that you are being unfair and only telling half of the truth about what was said, Heather, and trying to make a case built on assumption about Yllas’ personal life, when we really know nothing about it.
As for whether we would delete people who use insults, PIP, we have on many occasions let pro-abortion posts stay if they were relevant to the issue at hand, didn’t go too far, were humorous, etc, even if they contained insults, because some aren’t worth deleting- especially if we felt the person’s intent was not to insult, but to help a person see where they were coming from and to make a valid argument.
I have seen many valid arguments from Yllas’s comments- you have to know how to read them. I don’t always get it but many times I think I do.
In fact, *most* of the time, I don’t delete anything unless someone complains. I know you are all complaining about yllas right now but I don’t really see anything delete worthy at this time. It may seem hypocritical to you. I know that he has insults in his posts- or what seems like insults, but I truly believe that he has a point behind them that he is trying to express and that people are not getting it. I really don’t believe he posts those things with an intent to insult, but the intent to educate. I could be totally wrong, but that has been my gut feeling since day one. I’m sorry if that offends anyone. I really believe that is what he is trying to do. In my opinion, he’s trying to put a mirror up to your words and let you see them for what they are. He tries to do reflective listening a lot.
There have been times that Yllas has attacked me, and I was offended until I realized how HE may be seeing it, and realized what point he was trying to express (he wasn’t trying to insult me, he was trying to help me see something that I didn’t see before), and I stopped being offended. I can probably find those posts for you if you want to see them, but most of you probably remember those conversations.
BTW, Yllas, I didn’t realize I wasn’t supposed to refer to you as a he. I wasn’t trying to break confidence. Sorry.
Alexandra, never feel bad about making long posts. You can make them as long as you want. :)
I thought that was very beautiful.
Especially this part:
“But I think that even with all the difficulties and the humiliations and everything else, there is something very dignified about facing them, and accepting them, and accepting the aid and love you need, the aid and love you have given to others and that others are now giving to you. “
Amen!
“My goodness, these comments are tragic. Rae, it’s so sad about your “List.” Don’t you think you have more to offer the world? Not just Rae, but Hal and anyone else saying they’d off them self.
Haven’t you people ever heard of Stephen Hawking?”
@Kristin: Stephen Hawking is 1 individual out of 7 Billion+. Think about those odds a bit more.
It’s not really about having anything to offer as my opposition to wasting money on futile care to extend my life a few months or years. it’s about quality of life, not quantity. It’s why I’m opposed to organ transplantation- it’s a complete waste and borderline cruel to the person who receives said organs for their own selfish goal of eeking out a few more years of “life”.
Rae, why is it selfish to desire to continue living? It might be that one is wanting to continue living for the sake of his/her family.
And you say “selfish” as though it were a bad thing. Don’t you support abortion, a selfish act?
@Kristin: Stephen Hawking is 1 individual out of 7 Billion+. Think about those odds a bit more.
Rae, YOU are one individual out of 7 billion. There will never be another Rae. Think about that a bit more.
“why is it selfish to desire to continue living? It might be that one is wanting to continue living for the sake of his/her family. ”
Perhaps selfish is the wrong term. I think “cowardice” is probably better since people have transplants and stuff because they are too damn scared to die.
I’m opposed to organ transplantation because It’s a waste of resources. When you have an organ transplant, you are kept alive by taking immunosuppressent drugs which are dangerous. They nuke your immune system and leave you open to fantastic infections that AIDS patients get (systemic Candida albicans infections, Pneumocystis pneumonia, toxoplasmosis, etc)- organ transplants really just keep you alive long enough to potentially die an even more unpleasant death. You waste money on futile care because when you need an organ donation, at most once you get it- you’re only going to live another 10 years or so and that entire time you’re “living” you’re going to be sick due to lowered immunity.
To me- that’s not worth the effort.
Perhaps selfish is the wrong term. I think “cowardice” is probably better since people have transplants and stuff because they are too damn scared to die.
Why isn’t it cowardice to kill yourself because you are too afraid of suffering?
I’m opposed to organ transplantation because It’s a waste of resources. When you have an organ transplant, you are kept alive by taking immunosuppressent drugs which are dangerous. They nuke your immune system and leave you open to fantastic infections that AIDS patients get (systemic Candida albicans infections, Pneumocystis pneumonia, toxoplasmosis, etc)- organ transplants really just keep you alive long enough to potentially die an even more unpleasant death. You waste money on futile care because when you need an organ donation, at most once you get it- you’re only going to live another 10 years or so and that entire time you’re “living” you’re going to be sick due to lowered immunity.
Well, personally I don’t know if I’d ever want an organ transplant, but really this issue is about a man who intentionally killed himself because he was afraid to suffer or to cause his family to suffer.
Ah, and I forgot to mention above, the reason you only live about 10 years or so with an organ transplant (on average) is because of rejection- your body slowly damages the organ over time even with immunosuppressant drugs.
However, yes, I know there are some transplants that allow for people to live longer than 10 years- chiefly kidneys and livers, and this is because of the low surface antigens on those organ cells. Hearts, lungs, etc…those all have short “shelf-lives”. Multiple organ transplants are even more dangerous.
And I forgot to add another risk to taking immunosuppressant drugs- cancer. Your immune system protects you from cancer, so when you nuke your immune system, you open yourself up to getting cancer. That’s why AIDS patients have higher rates of cancer (Kaposi’s Sarcoma, Lymphoma, etc) and organ transplant recipients do as well.
With the help of his murderous doctor, of course.
Bethany, to me, it’s not about being afraid of suffering, it’s about not wanting to be a financial, and emotional burden on my loved ones and being a waste of space in a hospital where people who are sick and could actually be saved/cured could be instead of myself. It’s not a fear of causing “suffering” on myself or family, it’s a desire not to be a drain on resources.
That’s really interesting information about transplants, Rae.
Bethany, it isn’t murder if he wanted to die and needed help doing so.
@Bethany: I actually learned and retained something from immunology- if you knew that class and the prof who taught it, you’d be equally amazed. :) Worst. Prof. Evar.
Bethany, to me, it’s not about being afraid of suffering, it’s about not wanting to be a financial, and emotional burden on my loved ones and being a waste of space in a hospital where people who are sick and could actually be saved/cured could be instead of myself. It’s not a fear of causing “suffering” on myself or family, it’s a desire not to be a drain on resources.
There it is, Rae. This is what I was trying to explain to people above. That people consider themselves to be burdens on society- that they put a pricetag on life. I think that is so very sad!
Rae, I think your life is more valuable than any amount of money. You should too. You are worth so much more than just your physical body.
I do not think it’s always a good thing to take ridiculous measures to keep someone alive if they’re naturally dying, but to take the action to kill them intentionally is always wrong.
Rae, as Bethany said, we are ALL one in 7+ billion. You don’t have to have to make an impression on those 7 billion, I always thought it was enough to make an impression on one.
And as Alexandra says there is more dignity in facing the end than skipping it.
Really Rae, I thought you had a much more positive outlook than you seem to state here.
And honestly I can’t believe what you said about organ transplant. I know two people who have given and received an organ transplant (not to each other.) Both have said it was the best experience. The one who received the organ said they finally could START living.
Bethany, it isn’t murder if he wanted to die and needed help doing so.
It doesn’t matter if he wanted to die- the other doctor premeditated his death and gave him poison to drink. That is murder. He confirmed that man’s believe that letting him live would be a “waste” and that he was a burden to his family and everyone else. How tragic. That man was a human being with inherent worth. He didn’t want to die. He wanted to be relieved of suffering.
Rae, if he really wanted to kill himself, why did he need help?
” that they put a pricetag on life. I think that is so very sad!”
No it’s not, it’s reality. There has always been a “price on life”. Each life is not inherently equal and it is demonstrated by how much care certain individuals get vs. another, or how much effort is made to save an individual.
What do you think “life insurance” is? Just that- a price on life.
“And honestly I can’t believe what you said about organ transplant. I know two people who have given and received an organ transplant (not to each other.) Both have said it was the best experience. The one who received the organ said they finally could START living.”
Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to have a negative opinion on a topic that I’ve learned about. I’m sure they’ll feel the same way when they start rejecting that organ.
” that they put a pricetag on life. I think that is so very sad!”
No it’s not, it’s reality.
I disagree.
There has always been a “price on life”. Each life is not inherently equal and it is demonstrated by how much care certain individuals get vs. another, or how much effort is made to save an individual.
That some people consider others to be worthless does not prove that a human being is not inherently valuable.
Does the fact that people used to put no value on a slave mean that slaves actually had no value?
What do you think “life insurance” is? Just that- a price on life.
No, it’s not.
“Rae, if he really wanted to kill himself, why did he need help?”
I didn’t watch the story…was he paralyzed and unable to take his own medications? There is also the issue that he would have needed a doctor’s prescription for drugs that are generally fatal enough to kill you. OD’ing on Tylenol doesn’t typically cut it.
“It doesn’t matter if he wanted to die- the other doctor premeditated his death and gave him poison to drink. That is murder. He confirmed that man’s believe that letting him live would be a “waste” and that he was a burden to his family and everyone else. How tragic. That man was a human being with inherent worth. He didn’t want to die. He wanted to be relieved of suffering. ”
It’s not murder, because where ever that happened, it was legal, otherwise they would not show it on TV so the doctor could get arrested. How do you know he didn’t want to die? Did he specifically say, “I don’t want to die, but being a burden on my family is a fate worse than death, so…I’mma gonna off myself!”
He still made the decision, and he didn’t have to follow through with it- but he did, so to me, that indicates a desire to kick-off to an extent.
“That some people consider others to be worthless does not prove that a human being is not inherently valuable.
Does the fact that people used to put no value on a slave mean that slaves actually had no value?”
Our actions show it. Go to a hospital ER and look who generally gets treated better or sooner- people with insurance. I admit that the reason I was treated so well at the hospital in August was because I had insurance.
“No, it’s not.”
Yes, it is. It says that when you die- your life is worth x-amount of dollars. You have no life insurance- your life is literally worthless. Classy.
Anyway, I gotta head to work, so I won’t be responding for awhile and may not get back till later tonight. Ciao.
I didn’t watch the story…was he paralyzed and unable to take his own medications? There is also the issue that he would have needed a doctor’s prescription for drugs that are generally fatal enough to kill you. OD’ing on Tylenol doesn’t typically cut it.
My point is, if he REALLY wanted to kill himself, he could have found a way to do it himself. His doctor murdered him.
It’s not murder, because where ever that happened, it was legal, otherwise they would not show it on TV so the doctor could get arrested. How do you know he didn’t want to die? Did he specifically say, “I don’t want to die, but being a burden on my family is a fate worse than death, so…I’mma gonna off myself!”
Basically, that is the message he got across. He said that he had limited options- that either way, he was going to have to die, and that he was going to take the path of least suffering for his family and for himself. But he cried every time he mentioned dying, so I really don’t think he was all that happy about the idea, Rae.
Rae, I’m not talking legality, I’m talking morality. What the doctor did, while “legal”, was still immoral and wrong.
It was murder.
“My point is, if he REALLY wanted to kill himself, he could have found a way to do it himself. His doctor murdered him.”
Really? If you’re paralyzed due to a disease that wastes your muscles so you can’t move, you can’t really want to die because you’re unable to put the damn pills in your mouth or pull the damn trigger?
Interesting.
“Basically, that is the message he got across. He said that he had limited options- that either way, he was going to have to die, and that he was going to take the path of least suffering for his family and for himself. But he cried every time he mentioned dying, so I really don’t think he was all that happy about the idea, Rae. ”
In your opinion. Again- there’s the whole “fear of death” thing that you’re ignoring and that could be causing the tears.
Our actions show it. Go to a hospital ER and look who generally gets treated better or sooner- people with insurance. I admit that the reason I was treated so well at the hospital in August was because I had insurance.
I’ve seen people who were treated very well in the hospital without insurance, Rae.
It depends on whether you have a doctor who values life or not. I’d rather have a doctor who values life than someone who thinks that weaker people are a burden on society, personally.
Yes, it is. It says that when you die- your life is worth x-amount of dollars. You have no life insurance- your life is literally worthless. Classy.
No, that is not it at all, Rae.
Anyway, I gotta head to work, so I won’t be responding for awhile and may not get back till later tonight. Ciao.
Okay we’ll talk more later.
::headdesk::
Murder is a legal term…use it as such in this instance as we’re talking about something that is very much legal, so it canNOT be murder. Just call the doctor an executioner or something if you want to be dramatic- because “executioner” is more accurate given the legality of what the doctor did (like the legality of a doctor giving a death row inmate a lethal injection).
Yes, it is. It says that when you die- your life is worth x-amount of dollars. You have no life insurance- your life is literally worthless. Classy.
Actually, it is the death that is worth x-amount of dollars, not life. And it benefits the close relatives. It’s not about putting a price tag on life- it’s about protecting your family and giving them help after you die.
Rae, the definition of murder is simple: to kill intentionally and with premeditation.
Bottom line, I think Backwards Sally is well-read, but has had very limited life experiences and opportunites. It explains why her arguments are nonsensical, though she is bright enough. And there is a jealous rage there. It shows through in her themes and attacks.
Posted by: asitis at December 16, 2008 5:39 A
I asked you simple questions and you failed to answer them. You have envy, and from that blooms your narcissistic conclusions that I have to be jealous of you.
You think it is a game to avoid answering questions asked of you from being only smart enough to not answer questions put to you, because if you answer, your going to lose the ensuing conclusions of your answering those questions. Not answering questions comes from being limited in intellegence and reveals that dishonestly aa a fake, a poser of an failed intellectual culture, which is the mark of a closed minded propagandist.
Another words, your a politician in the class of the worst of politico culture soo common amongst posers and the fakery of that politico culture represented by the Ill. governor.
And when one thinks about it, he represents all that public education and skills of what public education can do for a person devoid of intellectual honesty which you might be representing at this site Asitis, the recruited one.
Maybe he should have been homeschooled.
“You think it is a game to avoid answering questions asked of you from being only smart enough to not answer questions put to you, because if you answer, your going to lose the ensuing conclusions of your answering those questions. Not answering questions comes from being limited in intellegence and reveals that dishonestly aa a fake, a poser of an failed intellectual culture, which is the mark of a closed minded propagandis”
Yllas, anyone who writes like that shouldn’t attack anyone’s “intellegence.” Were you home schooled? If so, here’s a hint. “you are” turns into “you’re.”
sorry, 9:28 was me.
Rae, I know you’ve gone now, but when you get back, maybe you could answer this question for me:
You said that your decision to die would be based on the fact that you do not want to be a burden on others or cause them to suffer for your sake.
My question is,
If you were paralyzed from the neck down and were being fed by a feeding tube (or something similar), and you told your parents to please pull the feeding tube out and let you die- how would you respond if they begged you not to make them do it, and expressed their love for you and told you you absolutely were not a burden, that it would be absolutely devastating to them to lose you?
Would you allow yourself to stay in that condition if this were the case, for your parents sake? Or would you still choose to tell them that you wanted the feeding tube removed?
Really? If you’re paralyzed due to a disease that wastes your muscles so you can’t move, you can’t really want to die because you’re unable to put the damn pills in your mouth or pull the damn trigger?
Which means the intellect is frozen in fear, since any person with a intellect would not wait till physical conditions prevent suicidal intentions being carried out by themself.
The man who is the subject of this article had a long term neurological disease which took years to develop into a condition of physical weakness first, and then muscle loss.
He had years to kill himself, in private, by himself, and with no one around. It’s is one last act of narcissism which made him face his last narcissistic act in fear. Look at his eyes.
You know, like Johnny Cash, Multiple System Atrophy.
And that leads to his last song where he returned to his childhood faith and told his family and all that he met
I wear this crown of thorns
Upon my liar’s chair
Full of broken thoughts
I cannot repair
Beneath the stains of time
The feelings disappear
You are someone else
I am still right here
What have I become
My sweetest friend
Everyone I know goes away
In the end
And you could have it all
My empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you hurt
Thanks Hal. It seems that yllas is so sure of his superior intellect he fails to realize that people ignore his questions simply because they are ridiculous. Sigh.
Not to mention his approach is hardly engaging. I think lack of human contact.
Asitis.
You really are rationalizing away your intellectual dishonesty.
Sour grapes again, Asitis.
Just answer the questions and leave your emotions at the door of honesty.
Yes you’ll kill yourself, or no you won’t kill yourself when your suffering is unbearable.
My goodness, that is what this article is about you poser.
“I believe that no one should have sex until they are married.”
I believe people should do what they want and not listen to yllas.
Yllas, 9:46, good point. If he had wanted to kill himself, he had years in which to do it privately.
I believe people should do what they want and not listen to Hal.
I think you need a intelligence “stimulus package”.
Really, yllas, I was serious. You are not someone who should ever utter the word “intelligence.”
Hal, you’re right. Yllas is comic relief. At most, just a nutcase trying to act like he’s on the pro-life side, not serious.
Dying Man Opposes Assisted Suicide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qr9_hzVfYI&feature=related
Hal, you’re right. Yllas is comic relief. At most, just a nutcase trying to act like he’s on the pro-life side, not serious.
Chris, are you pro-life?
Heather/Chris/miriam (etc), why do you use multiple aliases?
Don’t you know that ruins your credibility?
Bethany.
The propaganda released by the pro- euthanasia believers, is a false dilemma which doesn’t exist.
I’m trying to remember which famous painting is being imitated in the article image where the dying person is being “looked at” by a daughter.
First I thought a appeal to the Pieta, but it is really a lousy attempt at Ludivico Carraci, The Lamentation.
Then again, where is the divine light shining down on this suffering child of euthanasia, ala David’s painting of The Death Of Murat.
Which is another famous piece of artwork by a Frenchman, which that poser Asitis has no knowledge of.
Interesting enough, Marat’s arm fell off while laying in repose at his apotheosis by the state lunacy that reigned at that time.
Or the fact that Marat was hoisted upon his own petard of what he thought was socially acceptable justice as a Jacobin.
Gee, think Asitis would have been women enough to stab the killer of her family, as the beauty Charlotte Corday did.
Really, Hal, I was serious. You are not someone who should ever utter the word “intelligence.”
Bethany.
I give you permission to delete my post in matters of Hal, since no intellegence is being used by me.
Ask Hal if he would give permission to delete his obviously lousy attempts at ad hominem.
You may delete mine, and free up some space.
Come on Hal, be honest, and ask to remove your post too.
I thought not. Such a dishonest person you are Hal.
Yllas, you could really use some human contact. Seriously.
That is very interesting about Charlotte Corday. I had never heard of her before and now I’m reading up on her.
Asitis.
Tell us something about the French. Anything that goes beyound French bread. How Hemmingway was influenced by French Culture which ended in a shot gun blast that destroyed his family forever.
Which leads me back to the questions which you fail to answer from being a person lacking intellectual social skills at this site, and obviously are transmitting those dishonest intellectual skills to anyone you meet in life.
When the sufering becomes unbearable, will you kill yourself, or not kill yourself, Asitis?.
It is a matter of intellectual honesty towards yourself, and your propaganda for suicide, Asitis.
Remember, this is what this article is about, nothingmore then suicide, assisted or not.
Actually, you pointing this out is what ruins their credibility. But that’s your job as moderator, to ruin the credibility of those who disagree with you. Of course, doing so by by disputing their claims with facts is better for YOUR credibility…
Actually, you pointing this out is what ruins their credibility. But that’s your job as moderator, to ruin the credibility of those who disagree with you. Of course, doing so by by disputing their claims with facts is better for YOUR credibility…
So posting under several different names is not in and of itself, dishonest?
“Yllas, 9:46, good point. If he had wanted to kill himself, he had years in which to do it privately.”
I think part of the reason that people wait so long is that they’re in denial of their condition and don’t fully realize the extent of their illness until it’s too late.
But I will be honest and say the whole public-ness of this dude’s suicide makes him look like an attention-whore- HOWEVER, I do see the potential for him being so public with this so tha the could get the affirmation he *may* be looking for NOT to kill himself by having people realize his plight (and that he’s desperate enough to off himself) and to come help him and his family financially, etc.
I here you there, Rae…a cry for help.
“If you were paralyzed from the neck down and were being fed by a feeding tube (or something similar), and you told your parents to please pull the feeding tube out and let you die- how would you respond if they begged you not to make them do it, and expressed their love for you and told you you absolutely were not a burden, that it would be absolutely devastating to them to lose you?”
I would tell them they’re being irrational and that everybody has to die sometime and my preference would be sooner rather than later. Loving somebody is not going to pay the skyrocketing hospital bills. Loving somebody is not going to prevent my dad’s workplace from firing him so that he loses his insurance so the insurance company doesn’t have to pay for my treatment.
Needless to say, sometimes people don’t know what’s best for them and they need others to make those hard decisions for them, which is why I’m working on drafting a living will in the event I’m in that situation so all the decisions are aleady made and my parents do not have to make them. We’ve discussed these situations (or at least I’ve talked at them, they brush me off 99% of the time), and they know my wishes as I’ve been VERY vocal about them, so I doubt this sort of situation would occur.
However, if they were *adament* about the situation, I would acquiesce and just have a DNR order set up.
“Would you allow yourself to stay in that condition if this were the case, for your parents sake? Or would you still choose to tell them that you wanted the feeding tube removed?”
I would tell them my wishes, that they’re being irrational in keeping me around when I’m basically a waste of oxygen at that point. And if they still refuse, I’d just give up and sign a DNR order (as I do not need their permission for that).
Yllas youe question is irrelevant. Whether I would choose to end my own life when suffering becomes unbearable is not the issue. The issue is that I beleive others should have this choice. I believe they should.
Being perfectly happy and healthy in my life, I have not actually give any serious thought to what I myself would do.
BTW yllas, have you ever been to France? You seem to have a deep interest in French history and culture. Pity if you haven’t been able to go.
So posting under several different names is not in and of itself, dishonest?
Is it against the rules of this blog? I did not see that in the guidelines. Is there absolutely no one else who does this?
Yllas youe question is irrelevant. Whether I would choose to end my own life when suffering becomes unbearable is not the issue. The issue is that I beleive others should have this choice. I believe they should.
Which leads one to a matter of hypocrisy in your life Asitis.
If one preaches for death on demand by oneself or the using of another to murder themself, then one must find your answer to my question shallow and intellectually dishonest from what you admit too yourself. See below statement by a person who is a propagandist for euthansia and has not even thought about her own life needing to meet her standards for others, while having no standard herself.
Being perfectly happy and healthy in my life, I have not actually give any serious thought to what I myself would do.
The time is now. Do not wait to be swayed by the illogic of pain and it’s emotions that cloud logic.
Will you kill yourself, or not, when the time comes to face the fact that all die in pain and not in pain?.
Your becoming a hypocrite by failing to believe what you preach for, or fail to act on your belief that you preach for, Asitis. You know suicide or not Asitis.
Which one is it Asitis?
Shep
“I have to say, if Sally was permanently banned, and Yllas is still tooling around here, calling the moderation here fair is almost as ridiculous as Yllas’ posts.”
Right in one.
Things used to be better here. Recently though, the tone of the blog has changed. Posters are far more insulting and abusive than they used to be. I’d almost go so far as to say that the atmosphere here is toxic.
Is it against the rules of this blog? I did not see that in the guidelines. Is there absolutely no one else who does this?
Everyone that does is outed.
Hethermiriamchris….whoever you are…
It’s dishonest to post under several names because it skews the discussion in a way that might not be truthful. Journalists can and have been fired for doing this. Pick a name and stay with it.
No, it is not hypocritical for a person to say they would not kill themselves and yet they believe others should have that option.
Just as it is not hypocritical for me to say I would never go bungy-jumping but I believe that others should have that option.
Ever been to France Yllas?
As long as eveyone that does this is outed, it’s no big deal.
Yes, lauren, I understand why it is dishonest. I am not an idiot. That’s not why I brought it up.
If it’s that important, then the blog should be set up like a forum, with a required sign-in.
Things used to be better here. Recently though, the tone of the blog has changed. Posters are far more insulting and abusive than they used to be. I’d almost go so far as to say that the atmosphere here is toxic.
Posted by: Enigma at December 16, 2008 12:38 PM
Maybe you should leave Enigma.
Then again, someone will be here soon to help you, God is with us all this day.
Abortion, love existing in Isolation.
Unable to share a life of love together, from that drive to murder what obstructs that progression towards Wealth, Health, and that drive for the Power to murder humman beings in the way of that Trinity.
How toxic are abortion believers? Toxic to innocent human life in that attempt to be left alone and be loved only by themselves.
See Enigma, your another toxic preacher, intoxifying others to your isolated love.
Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to have a negative opinion on a topic that I’ve learned about. I’m sure they’ll feel the same way when they start rejecting that organ.
Posted by: Rae at December 16, 2008 8:44 AM
Geeze Rae, now you’re just acting like a baby. The person who received the transplant has not had an easy time of it. I’m not going to get into it here. He realizes the value of his life though, that’s the obvious difference between the two of you.
No, it is not hypocritical for a person to say they would not kill themselves and yet they believe others should have that option.
Just as it is not hypocritical for me to say I would never go bungy-jumping but I believe that others should have that option.
Ever been to France Yllas?
Posted by: asitis at December 16, 2008 12:48 PM
A simple question is asked to affirm your actions match your words for what you belief how others should act.
If you advocate death for others by suicide, then one should have thought about their actions reaching accord with what they preach for others.
Ir reveals a lack of forethought on matters which you advocate for others, while lacking the honesty to answer what you would do when faced with what you preach for Asitis.
By avoiding to answer a simple question directed to you, only confirms a lack of personal believe in what you publically preach for.
You personally don’t believe what you preach for, since you have been asked what you would do faced with what you preach for Asitis. No answer was recieved.
A person that doesn’t believe what they preach, is a big fat HYPOCRITE.
That is the issue Asitis. You won’t even write one word that affirms your belief in euthanasia is applicable to you.
You don’t personally belief in suicide and are unable to act on your beliefs for suicide for yourself.
Either you believe what you preach for, and would act on those believes yourself, or one becomes a fake, a poser, a hypocrite first and foremost.
In essence, your a suicide hawk.
Or a preacher, that really never believed a thing he did or said while preaching for what he publically said he believed in. Get it hypocrite?
Hawking what you won’t do, or actually belief in yourself, hypocrite.
Will you kill yourself or not Asitis?
A simple question.
Yllas, you may be well-read, but your logic is sadly lacking at times.
“A simple question is asked to affirm your actions match your words for what you belief how others should act.” The issue is your use of the word “should”. I have never said that I believe anyone SHOULD decide on euthanasis for themselves. I have only said that they SHOULD have the option. Big difference there yllas.
And since we’ve resorted to playground silliness. I’m not a big fat hypocritic yllas. But you are a big fat dumby. And so is your mother.
;)
“A simple question is asked to affirm your actions match your words for what you belief how others should act.” The issue is your use of the word “should”. I have never said that I believe anyone SHOULD decide on euthanasis for themselves. I have only said that they SHOULD have the option. Big difference there yllas.
Posted by: asitis at December 16, 2008 1:27 PM
Really Asitis, do you preach for abortion and would never get a abortion yourself Asitis? Hail, another faker has come home to deny what they preach for others while denying such actions for themselves.
You might be a hypocrite from not practicing what you preach, or you might be a hypocrite from not believing in what you preach.
You don’t belief in suicide personally Asitis.
Your a hypocrite by not believing what you preach.
You don’t know that definition of hypocrisy from being dumbed down by public education propaganda. Look it up Asitis.
.
Do you belief in suicide for yourself Asitis?
Your becoming the Joe Biden of Stanek’s post board Asitis. Or another cheap politician demanding public education for those “others”, while sending his children to anything but a public education school.
Obama, another hypocrite and everyone knows it.
Why the French Revolution was a excercise in removing hypocrites and the answers those hypocrites gave to the sans culotte once to often Asitis. Your getting there Asitis.
And once again you failed to understand a cultural hint thrown to you about bread and the French.
Silly fools, making paper money king, while trying to assign prices by decree of force, and to control a artifical price of that baker the butcher and that poor old candlestick maker.
And as to visiting France? I really like my life as it is, and besides, car burning is a favorite past time of those French today, instead of carrying the head of a baker on a pike in protest of what they brought upon themselves.
But I do have a French Needle gun, never fired, but dropped twice.
“Obama, another hypocrite and everyone knows it.”
Everyone? Ha.
If you liked the way your life is yllas you wouldn’t be so bitter and jealous. It’s obvious.
As for this:
“You might be a hypocrite from not practicing what you preach, or you might be a hypocrite from not believing in what you preach.
You don’t belief in suicide personally Asitis.
Your a hypocrite by not believing what you preach “.
What I “preach” yllas is the right to choose, be it abortion or euthanasia. I believe in the right to choose. I believe in the right to ethanize.I believe in the right to abort. I am not a hypocrite. I have never been in the position to choose either for myself. If I were in either position I would most definitely consider those options. Because I beleive in them. I can’t say for sure that I would choose them, but that does not mean I do not believe in them.
How much simpler can I say it for you?
Asitis,
Why do even bother with yllas? There is never anything beyond the insults.
asitis: “I believe in the right to choose”
Like the right to choose to kill a stranger? And the right to choose to steal your neighbors rake? I could list a million other things of course, but I think you get the point.
Personally, choose whatever the hell you want for yourself. Go jump of a cliff for all I care. I really dont care if people kill themselves, although I wish they werent such attention hogs that they have to advertise it. Just dont start claiming it is a clear cut “choice” when you involve another human’s life.
Oliver… Bethany? No, of course I don’t believe in the right to kill a stranger (against his will)or steal. Because I don’t believe it’s okay to do these things. And you know what? The majority don’t believe it’s okay either, so it’s illegal.
What you have attempted is a recurring and lame prolife argument on this site.
It’s legal to have an abortion. The majority says abortion is an acceptable option. And if the majority says euthanasia is an acceptable option than we will likely see that become legal too.
I didn’t watch the program yet, but I doubt Ewert agreed to filming this because he was an attention hog. I am under the impression it was to raise awareness and support for legalized euthanasia.
Asitis: “Oliver… Bethany? No, of course I don’t believe in the right to kill a stranger (against his will)or steal. Because I don’t believe it’s okay to do these things. And you know what? The majority don’t believe it’s okay either, so it’s illegal.”
Then dont try to justify abortion as “your right to choose.” You have lots of choices you can make, doesnt mean they are morally, or legally right.
Why the hell not? I just told you…. abortions are legal.So we have the right to choose abortion.
Asitis, how would you argue that slavery was morally wrong, when slavery was legal and people had the ability to legally “choose” to own slaves and treat them as their property?
Just imagine I’m the slave owner, and that slavery is still legal. What would you say to convince me I should give up my slave?
Society can define morals, just as religion and your own conscience can. So even though society says slavery is not morally wrong you could appeal to the slave owner’s religious values or his own conscience to try to convince him otherwise.
What’s your point?
Society can define morals, just as religion and your own conscience can. So even though society says slavery is not morally wrong you could appeal to the slave owner’s religious values or his own conscience to try to convince him otherwise.
What’s your point?
So are you saying that slavery is not inherently wrong?
Is it only wrong based on how many people see it as wrong, in other words?
Okay, I just realized you did not answer my question. So here it is again:
Imagine I am the slave owner. What would you say to me to try to convince me that owning a slave was wrong.
Let’s go further. What would you say to me to convince me not to beat my slave or make him go hungry?
Also, I am an atheist slave owner. You cannot appeal to religion.
No, slavery is inherently wrong, just as murder is. Just as stealing is. Slavery was not always recognized as such. Society had dictated that it was morally acceptable.
Is it only wrong based on how many people see it as wrong? Yes, at one time that was the case. Just as something can be morally wrong based on how a religion sees it as wrong even though it is not inherently wrong.
Also, I am an atheist slave owner. You cannot appeal to religion.
Posted by: Bethany at December 16, 2008 7:16 PM
Well, that makes it easier then! Christian slave owners used the Bible to justify their right to have slaves!
No, slavery is inherently wrong, just as murder is. Just as stealing is. Slavery was not always recognized as such. Society had dictated that it was morally acceptable.
Is it only wrong based on how many people see it as wrong? Yes, at one time that was the case. Just as something can be morally wrong based on how a religion sees it as wrong even though it is not inherently wrong.
Did you mean to just contradict yourself?
Because in the first paragraph, you are saying slavery is inherently wrong.
in the second, you say at one time, slavery was not wrong based on the fact that not everyone saw it as wrong.
By the way, you haven’t answered my question, and you have tried to redirect our conversation.
Well, that makes it easier then! Christian slave owners used the Bible to justify their right to have slaves!
Great! I’m glad it’s easier now. Let’s hear your arguments then. :)
By the way, if I drop out of the conversation unexpectedly, it’s because the power went out. It’s already gone out about 2 times tonight, and the computer’s acting crazy. So just to let you know, so you don’t think I end up ignoring you! :)
Here, I’ll get things going:
Slavery is okay obviously because it is legal. What makes you think that you can tell me what to do with my property? The law is on my side.
Come on, Asitis…it’ll be fun.
No, slavery is inherently wrong, just as murder is. Just as stealing is. Slavery was not always recognized as such. Society had dictated that it was morally acceptable.
Is it only wrong based on how many people see it as wrong? Yes, at one time that was the case. Just as something can be morally wrong based on how a religion sees it as wrong even though it is not inherently wrong.
Did you mean to just contradict yourself?
Because in the first paragraph, you are saying slavery is inherently wrong.
in the second, you say at one time, slavery was not wrong based on the fact that not everyone saw it as wrong.
By the way, you haven’t answered my question, and you have tried to redirect our conversation.
Posted by: Bethany at December 16, 2008 7:56 PM
No, I didn’t contradict myself. We do recognize now that slavery is inherently wrong. It is universally accepted as such. But is the past this was not the case. Slavery was not recognized as being morally wrong. In addition to being universal or inherent, morals can be defined by society, just as they can be defined by religion.And these morals can change over time. This is what happened with slavery. Society deemed slavery to be morally wrong and it is now recognized universally as such, as inherently wrong. Do you understand?
As for how to convince you, a slave owner, that you can’t treat your slave badly. Well, you already said your are an aetheist, so I don’t have to argue the bible with you or explain that even though the slaves aren’t Christian they are still deserve to be treated like fellow man. This makes it somewhat easier. But nevertheless, it’s not easy. You like having slaves and society says it’s okay. I suppose I would attemmpt to appeal to your conscience. Try to make you see the slave as a person just like you who should be treated as you would want to be treated. That the color of one’s skin shouldn’t make a difference.
What’s the point?
No, I didn’t contradict myself. We do recognize now that slavery is inherently wrong. It is universally accepted as such. But is the past this was not the case. Slavery was not recognized as being morally wrong. In addition to being universal or inherent, morals can be defined by society, just as they can be defined by religion.And these morals can change over time. This is what happened with slavery. Society deemed slavery to be morally wrong and it is now recognized universally as such, as inherently wrong. Do you understand?
This doesn’t clarify anything for me. You’re stating what I already know, and somehow avoiding the question which was a hypothetical situation where we are IN that era where society considered slavery to be morally acceptable.
How would YOU personally argue that slavery was immoral, and how would YOU convince someone that they were wrong, that slavery was INHERENTLY wrong, despite the way society was viewing them at the time?
By the way, the power went out again for about 30 minutes. I would have responded sooner if it hadn’t been for that.
As for how to convince you, a slave owner, that you can’t treat your slave badly. Well, you already said your are an aetheist, so I don’t have to argue the bible with you or explain that even though the slaves aren’t Christian they are still deserve to be treated like fellow man. This makes it somewhat easier. But nevertheless, it’s not easy. You like having slaves and society says it’s okay. I suppose I would attemmpt to appeal to your conscience. Try to make you see the slave as a person just like you who should be treated as you would want to be treated. That the color of one’s skin shouldn’t make a difference.
I want to know the exact words you would use in trying to convince me, Asitis.
What’s the point?
It proves your idea wrong, that if something is legal that makes it “right”.
Your statement was in response to Oliver’s statement here:
“Then dont try to justify abortion as “your right to choose.” You have lots of choices you can make, doesnt mean they are morally, or legally right.
Posted by: Oliver at December 16, 2008 5:29 PM
Your response:
Why the hell not? I just told you…. abortions are legal.So we have the right to choose abortion. “
So if we follow your logic, then slavery was actually morally right at the time that it was accepted by law and society.
Now that you know what my point is, can we play the game? Here is my question, as the atheistic slave owner (mirroring your own statement to Oliver):
Slavery is okay obviously because it is legal. What makes you think that you can tell me what to do with my property? The law is on my side.
P.S.(If i don’t come back tonight, give me time because I don’t know how much longer I’ll have power- ugh, thunderstorms!)
. I suppose I would attemmpt to appeal to your conscience. Try to make you see the slave as a person just like you who should be treated as you would want to be treated. That the color of one’s skin shouldn’t make a difference.
Never mind. I’ll just use your argument as it is…basically you are saying to the slave owner, “A slave is a person like you who should be treated like you would want to be treated. The color of one’s skin shouldn’t make a difference.”
**************************
My response:
I disagree with you that they are persons. A slave is not a person under the constitution. The supreme court made this clear in Dred Scott Vs Sanford.
Besides, I see slavery as a merciful act. Isn’t it better never to be set free than to be sent into an environment where one is unwanted?
“So if we follow your logic, then slavery was actually morally right at the time that it was accepted by law and society”.
Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. How many times do i have to say it Bethany? Morals can be defined by society. So is society says something is acceptable society is saying it is not morally wrong.
Well, those are very good arguments slave owner Bethany. I don’t think I’m going to be able to change your mind. And can’t take away your right to choose even if I wanted to. I’ll just have to let you go on doing what you are doing until society decides it’s morally wrong and changes the law.
And with that….I’m going to bed now.
Asitis, it is so sad that this is how you would handle this discussion in the pro-slavery days.
You would allow people to be treated as property, abused, neglected, killed, beaten, all under the guise of “choice”, and would just wait for a day when society changed their minds on their own.
Asitis,
Why do even bother with yllas? There is never anything beyond the insults.
Posted by: Enigma at December 16, 2008 2:50 PM
Cause insulting yllas gets her rocks off.
“Geeze Rae, now you’re just acting like a baby. The person who received the transplant has not had an easy time of it. I’m not going to get into it here. He realizes the value of his life though, that’s the obvious difference between the two of you.”
@Kristen: Oh, now I’m a baby? I’m not the one who got all huffy because I have a negative opinion on organ transplantation and got all indignant and played the “I know a person who…” card in order to try to shame me into backing off my assertions.
Oh c’mon truthseeker, you’re just being a sore loser over the whole procreation thing. Looked it up yet?
Hi Asitis,
“”So if we follow your logic, then slavery was actually morally right at the time that it was accepted by law and society”. Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. How many times do i have to say it Bethany? Morals can be defined by society. So is society says something is acceptable society is saying it is not morally wrong.”
This idea of society being able to define morals leads to some interesting paradoxes. First of all, it is not obvious how to define a society such that what is moral for any particular person is well-defined. For example, you could be born into a family (one possible understanding of society) that believes that all marriages are evil, attend church (another possible society) that says homosexual marriage is evil, live in a state (another possible idea of society) which allows gay marriage (and hence believes it to be morally permissible), and live in a country (another possible understanding of society) that is indifferent or neutral to gay marriage. In such a case, you are part of several societies, all of whom have different understandings of marriage and gay marriage. If society can indeed determine values, which one do you take? At this point, it just becomes a matter of subjective, personal opinion and there is no right or wrong answer to the question of gay marriage. It’s simply a matter of personal preference. Examples like this could be multiplied using cases like murder or theft, ones which you mentioned above are intrinsically wrong. This undermines the idea that they would be “intrinsically” wrong. They would only be wrong relative to what society or they think, but there would be no transcendent cause which binds them to hold that murder is morally unjustified.
Another large problem with societal relativism is what is called the reformer’s paradox. Because society can deem what and what is not moral, anyone wishing to change what society says is moral is by definition being immoral. This would make men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King evil. When King was fighting against segregation, he was saying that segregation was evil, something society had deemed was good. Thus not segregating was evil, and MLK was fighting for non segregation, which is an evil according to societal relativism. Thus, MLK was an evil man because he fought to bring about evil in society, namely, the abolition of segregation.
This is a major problem. You look at aguy like Doug who has taken all of this to its logical conclusions and will admit that rape, torturing a small child for fun, etc are not inherently wrong. Sure he may not like them, but there is nothing transcendent that says that those are wrong for all people; it’s simply a matter of personal valuation.
This is a major problem. You look at aguy like Doug who has taken all of this to its logical conclusions and will admit that rape, torturing a small child for fun, etc are not inherently wrong. Sure he may not like them, but there is nothing transcendent that says that those are wrong for all people; it’s simply a matter of personal valuation.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at December 17, 2008 7:05 AM
not only that but self-actualization and possibly self-fulfilment
hence the push towards the legalization of polyamorous relationships, bestiality and pedophilia.
good post Bobby.
Bobby, you are absolutley right that there are various societies and that each can have their own and possibly opposing moral codes on a wide range of issues.
So then, Virginia, wouldn’t we like a good moral system to be well-defined? It seems that this way everything will just fall into subjectivism, where ultimately the individual decides what is right and what is wrong for himself.
BTW Virginia, do you happen to be on maritime?
Sure, it would be great if we had a universal moral code for everything. Problem is, how would we get everyone to agree on every issue? Democracy is the the best way we can handle differences of opinion.
Maritime?
I have to run (literally) back later………….
Thanks Patricia.
BTW, have you checked facebook recently? Something is missing from somewhere…(hint: something=beard, somewhere=my face)
Maritime; the time zone. You always seem to be up early, and I can’t imagine why anyone would ever be up early, so my best possible explanation is that you must be in a later time zone, hehe.
OK Virginia, talk to you later.
“Something is missing from somewhere”
Though I wouldn’t say my wife is “missing” it… bwahahahahaha!
@Kristen: Oh, now I’m a baby? I’m not the one who got all huffy because I have a negative opinion on organ transplantation and got all indignant and played the “I know a person who…” card in order to try to shame me into backing off my assertions.
Posted by: Rae at December 16, 2008 11:55 PM
Rae, I’m not huffy. Really, come on. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I said I couldn’t believe it because I surmised an idea based on other things you’ve written. You can hardly blame me for a wrong assumption since you assumed I was “huffy.”
Should I not say that I know people who have been involved in transplants? Part of my opinion is based on my experience and I was hardly trying to “shame” you. Yes, I’d say you are being infantile. And if you want to have a decent conversation it would help if you grew up.
EST Bobby which is one hour later than the time clock on this site. I’m generally up early for early group runs, see the kids off to school, travel to games, etc. No rest for the wicked I suppose!
Oh yeah! Me too. EST 4 life, baby!
ZEST for life?
Thanks Patricia.
BTW, have you checked facebook recently? Something is missing from somewhere…(hint: something=beard, somewhere=my face)
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at December 17, 2008 8:03 AM
thank goodness that “animal” is gone! :-D
The big question is what does Gianna think?
Internet polling using a convienience sample is not the most valid way to poll… just thought you’d like to know.
Also: how is finding a practice legal “forcing” it on a state. Force implies that the practice is mandatory. Making something available merely gives the consumer a choice.
asitis, You determine what is right or wrong based wholly on wether or not the rest of society thinks it right or wrong. Their are many words to describe that, none of which are flattering?
convictionless.
liberal.
spineless.
without a backbone.
drone.
lacking strength of character.
etc.. etc… etc…
This is a major problem. You look at a guy like Doug who has taken all of this to its logical conclusions and will admit that rape, torturing a small child for fun, etc are not inherently wrong. Sure he may not like them, but there is nothing transcendent that says that those are wrong for all people; it’s simply a matter of personal valuation.
Bobby, come on – this is not “a major problem” because there isn’t significant disagreement about rape, torturing kids, etc. You are denying a good bit of the premise here – that there is vast commonality of opinion among the world’s people about such things.
Truthseeker, I never said any such thing. Yes, part of my moral code, and everyone’s for that matter, is dictated by what society decides is right and wrong. Others are universal or inherent. Others are individual. You may have religious morals as well.
Please stop being so silly.
Hey Doug. I wasn’t terribly clear on what I meant by major problem. I didn’t mean a practical problem, but an intellectual one. You are a rarity in the sense that you take the non-existence of a transcendent being to its logical conclusions. Many people do not. They would like to deny such a being but also hold that such things like rape are always inherently wrong. So that’s the major problem I was referring to; that once you realize where objective moral values must be grounded, one must hold to some higher power. Either that or one denies objective moral values. But most hold to both which, as you and I have discussed, is not logically consistent.
That’s all I meant, old friend.
asitis, when a woman is pregnant does that mean she another life inside her womb, or does it depend?
asitis,
glad to hear you understand that legality does not mean morally o.k. .. eg. a mother killing the child in her womb is intrinsically evil but mother’s can still legally go to abortuaries like Planned Parenthood and have babies sucked from their womb in bloodied pieces.
“So that’s the major problem I was referring to; that once you realize where objective moral values must be grounded, one must hold to some higher power. Either that or one denies objective moral values. But most hold to both which, as you and I have discussed, is not logically consistent”.
Bobby, one does NOT have to believe in a higher power to maintain that some things are inherently wrong. It’s a matter of having more faith in humanity. People do not need a god to know the difference between absolute right and wrong.
Truthseeker, laws are based on society’s moral code , so things that are legal are things that society has determined to not be morally wrong.
But if you, as an individual, firmly believe that what the woman is carrying in her uterus is a person with rights, than you can call it murder, sure. And you can say that abortion is wrong, because humanity universally believes that murder wrong. Thing is, it is not a universal belief that it is a person and therefore murder. Furthermore, society has not sided with you and as a result, abortion is legal.
But nevertheless, you can hold to your own individual beliefs or those of your religion and call abortion murder. And you might recognize that this is your own belief and should’t apply to others who do not share your belief and be “pro-choice”. Or you can believe so fiercely that you feel your belief should apply to all and be “pro-life”.
Or you can put yourself into denial and not even admit that a pregnant woman carries a life inside her at all.
asitis, when a woman is pregnant does that mean she has another life inside her womb, or does it depend?
What I “preach” yllas is the right to choose, be it abortion or euthanasia. I believe in the right to choose. I believe in the right to ethanize.I believe in the right to abort. I am not a hypocrite. I have never been in the position to choose either for myself. If I were in either position I would most definitely consider those options. Because I beleive in them. I can’t say for sure that I would choose them, but that does not mean I do not believe in them.
How much simpler can I say it for you?
Posted by: asitis at December 16, 2008 2:29 PM
Sure it does.
Here let’s make it simple for ya, hypocrite.
Do as I say, not as I do.
It is why politicians are held in low esteem.
Choose because I say soo, but when I won’t even choose what I preach for, I reveal that I’m a hypocrite by not believing what I preach for.
Stop smoking, yet I smoke.
Commit suicide, yet I won’t.
The list is endless and when one preaches for something and can’t practice what they preach for by actions, you have the essence of a hypocrite.
You don’t believe what you preach Asitis.
It’s that simple.
Were you raised in a house of hypocrites and never understood hypocrisy is choosing for others a course which you never would procede on yourself?
Sacrifice I say, but sacrifice is not for me.
I chose to take a private jet to beg for a financial bridge, while asking others to choose to sacrifice. See unions.
Your a hypocrite Asitis.
Hey Doug. I wasn’t terribly clear on what I meant by major problem. I didn’t mean a practical problem, but an intellectual one. You are a rarity in the sense that you take the non-existence of a transcendent being to its logical conclusions. Many people do not. They would like to deny such a being but also hold that such things like rape are always inherently wrong. So that’s the major problem I was referring to; that once you realize where objective moral values must be grounded, one must hold to some higher power. Either that or one denies objective moral values. But most hold to both which, as you and I have discussed, is not logically consistent.
Very good Bobby, and now I do see what you meant. Yeah, if one sgoes with “inherent” stuff then in lieu of any real proof over opposing “inherent” views it comes down to person A’s opinion versus person B’s.
That’s all I meant, old friend.
Well said, my young friend.
BTW Asitis,
You’re the essence of all modern revolutions by preaching for a choice that always ends in another doing what you say they should, but won’t even commit to a unequivable position of doing what you preach for.
Ah, Let them eat euthanasia and suicide.
Your a poser, a fake, and a provocatuer of that bourgeois that always gave the poor a choice which you never would allow for yourself.
Simply state that you would chose suicide and euthanasia for yourself and remove that mephitic of hypocrisy. That nausea that you are, which ends in you being forced to do as you say others should do, at the national razor.
Afterall, if it’s good enough for others to chose what you preach for, it should be good enough for you Asitis to chose such actions yourself.
Oh poor yllas, the nonsense you spew.
“You’re the essence of all modern revolutions by preaching for a choice that always ends in another doing what you say they should, but won’t even commit to a unequivable position of doing what you preach for.
Ah, Let them eat euthanasia and suicide.
Your a poser, a fake, and a provocatuer of that bourgeois that always gave the poor a choice which you never would allow for yourself.”
Where do you get this stuff? I have not said that I would tell anyone what they should do. I am saying they should have the choice to do what they want to do/what they believe is right. And I never said I “never would allow for ” abortion or euthanasia for myslef. I said that faced with either situation, I would definitely consider those options. I cannot say for certain which I would choose.
You really have no sense of logic.
asitis, when a woman is pregnant does that mean she has another life inside her womb, or does it depend?
Posted by: truthseeker at December 18, 2008 7:28 AM
Well, I will say that it depends on what you mean by “life” TS. There is no universally accepted definition for life, so it would help if I knew what you mean when you say “life”.
Where do you get this stuff? I have not said that I would tell anyone what they should do. I am saying they should have the choice to do what they want to do/what they believe is right. And I never said I “never would allow for ” abortion or euthanasia for myslef. I said that faced with either situation, I would definitely consider those options. I cannot say for certain which I would choose.
You really have no sense of logic.
Posted by: asitis at December 18, 2008 11:22 AM
Your not being able to understand that a person that doesn’t believe what they espose for others is a rank hypocrite.
Admit that you would choose suicide or euthanasia and not equivoqate what you don’t equivoqate for others.
You have no understanding of the French Revolution either.
People should revolt if they are told to kill themselves and commit suicide, and never be told/lectured/preached to by a person to do something they would not do themselves.
Do you deny revolution also Asitis?
They simply should put you under the razor and allow you to actually do what you propose that others do. Your the reason for Revolution in being that pompous hypocrisy that always told others what you still have not admitted you would do yourself.
Admit you would kill yourself, or be killed by another, for the greater good of the society you preach should kill themselves with no real believe in your words.
Your a faker, a poser and that force which builds resentment towards those that preach too others, doing what you will not do.
That was one of the principles of the French Revolution. Marat always played off others by telling them to sacrifice their life for liberty, equality, and fraternity while running in fear when his life might have been sacrificed for those principles he preached for, but really didn’t believe in himself. His feet were blistered from the friction of fear of dying for what he preached for.
You Asitis, are Marat.
“People should revolt if they are told to kill themselves and commit suicide, and never be told/lectured/preached to by a person to do something they would not do themselves”.
Okay, sillyllas, this is the last time I am going to try to get this through your thick head: I am not telling anyone to kill themselves. I am merely saying that assisted suicide should be allowed in certain circumstances IF THAT IS WHAT THE PERSON WANTS TO DO.
And euthanasia is not something that I would not necessarily do myself. I don’t know what I would decide under the circumstances. Would I choose death? Would I be brave enough. I do not know for certain, but I would consider it for myself. Better to admit that than say definitely yes! at this time and not be entirely honest. But what I would do is not important to my belief that others should be given the right to do as they choose with regards to euthanasia.
If you lack the ability to coprehend this or are too stubborn or self-righteous to, there’s really nothing more for me to say in response to your outrageousness.
So scram.
Exactly! Thanks Bethany.
Well, I will say that it depends on what you mean by “life” TS. There is no universally accepted definition for life, so it would help if I knew what you mean when you say “life”.
Posted by: asitis at December 18, 2008 11:29 AM
I honestly can’t believe you wrote this. And you are a scientist? Please!
asitis, when a woman is pregnant does that mean she has another life inside her womb, or does it depend?
Posted by: truthseeker at December 18, 2008 7:28 AM
Well, I will say that it depends on what you mean by “life” TS. There is no universally accepted definition for life, so it would help if I knew what you mean when you say “life”.
Posted by: asitis at December 18, 2008 11:29 AM
asitis,
For me it is not that complex, a pregnant woman has a life inside her at the point of conception.
Just what does it depend on and just when is it that you think a pregnant woman has a “life” inside her.
asitis, when you got pregnant was your product representative of procreation? Did same product have the capacity to bleed? Hmmm… You don’t even have to know it’s a life to know that tearing same product from womb would be sacrificing the blood of your procreation.
“Just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does asitis wash her hands of the blood man’s procreation when she compels the allowance of this civilation’s progeny be turned over to the abortionist to be terminated under the guise that the choice to kill this new life is only the mother’s to make.”
I can tell you for a fact that my oldest niece was ALIVE in the WOMB BEFORE she was born. I felt her HICCUP. This was a good month before she was born!
Remember folks, sometimes even 4D and 3D ultrasounds with actual LIVE footage of the baby moving isn’t enough to convince the naysayers.
Okay, sillyllas, this is the last time I am going to try to get this through your thick head: I am not telling anyone to kill themselves. I am merely saying that assisted suicide should be allowed in certain circumstances IF THAT IS WHAT THE PERSON WANTS TO DO.
Sure you are. As surely as you tell people to get a abortion too.
Your telling people to go kill themselves while not even believing in killing yourself.
You don’t believe a word you write Asitis. That is the definition of a hypocrite.
Your Marat plain and simple Asitis.
You are equivocating when you should practice what you preach for others and won’t do for yourself.
It’s is the classic reason for Revolution since the French based it on those same reasons as I’m giving you.
Are you saying the French Revolution was not based on seeing the fact that the bourgeois were preaching to the citizens about equality? Say the equality of suicide or euthanasia they offered as a choice to those sans-culottes, while never doing what they preached for the sans culottes in matters of killing themselves.
Let them eat euthansia and offer them suicide.
All the fakery, all the posing of the Aristocratic society was given their own words back to them by the most clear thinking and rightous citizens aroused from the rhetoric and sophistry your trying to give me.
What silliness that you preach for others to kill themselves while not even doing what you preach for.
Do as I say, not as I do, sums you up Asitis.
Citizens, before us is this faker Asitis.
She offers you death, and then acts in all manner to preserve her life while you die from this actor of choice.
Her choice for you Citizens, is for you to go off and die by your own hands, while she lives off your death by gaining more power to convince you that your choice for suicide is not her choice.
Let’s us give her the choice of dying by her own hands, or us taking this bougeois Aristocrat to let her eat her words at the National Razor.
Which one is it Asitis? Kill yourself, or wait for the Razor of Justice to fall on your hypocritical neck? I bet you sweat to the end, hoping someone will come to their logical senses, and save you from your own words you offer to others, while denying your words to yourself.
Will your last words be; I’m not a hypocrite, just a person that offered death to you as a choice.
I honestly can’t believe you wrote this. And you are a scientist? Please!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 18, 2008 10:18 PM
You can’t toostunnedtolaugh (or whoever you are)? That’s preobably because you yourself are not a scientist and are only thinking of your own personal view. To define life in unequivocal terms remains a challenge for scientists.
And inasmuch Truthseeker, you’ll need to tell me what you mean by “life inside her” before I can answer yeas or no to your question.
Asitis, what about a biologically alive human organism/being?
So to rephrase Truthseeker’s question, when is it that you think a pregnant woman has a “biologically living human organism/being” inside her?
Citizens,
Before us is the aristocrat, Asitis.
She offers you a decision between a black cake and a white cake.
The black cake is filled with your killing yourself for her society that gains from your death.
The white cake is life with the sweetness of suffering and a natural end to life.
She writes that you may eat the black cake, or the white cake, but when asked to eat the black cake herself, she denies that cake.
I say, if it is good enough for you citizens, it is good enough for her.
We all know the black cake is death, and when asked to eat the black cake, she refuses, Citizens.
For years we have lived under this hypocrisy that equivocates when asked to do as they say, and say as they do.
They filled the halls of government, the Church, the emigres, the friends of the people, and asked you to eat the black cake, while denying eating the cake they offer to you Citizens.
She offers you to administer your own death as a sacrifice to her hypocrisy, and then insults you by writing that your logic is faulted in her aristocratic mind, devoted to you eating your death with a smile to her equivocations of not eating that black cake she offers you.
Many have come before the Razor offering their reasons that “you chose to eat that black cake”, while never eating what she offered you Citizens.
She wouldn’t be here at the Razor, if only when asked if she would eat the black cake herself, and then insulted you with sophistry and bourgeois logic so often used to hide their desire to see you kill yourself, so she may collect your rags and sell them again.
Now, you are sans coulotte, her equivocating class having taking your rags which clothed you, and offers you to eat black cake, while she eats only that white cake for her family and herself.
Let her and her family eat the black cake too, Citizens.
“To define life in unequivocal terms remains a challenge for scientists.”
I don’t think so.
From the Online Medical Dictionary:
“The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms.”
“Conventional definition: The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism).
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Also, individual members of a species may not meet all the criteria, but are still considered alive, such as members of a species who are rendered unable to reproduce or unable to respond to stimuli.”
Davison, Paul G.. “How to Define Life”.
Witzany, G. (2007). The Logos of the Bios 2. Bio-Communication.
Pretty much every definition I came across had combinations of the above two definitions. Based on what I’ve read, a woman is pregnant with something that is “life” or “alive”. You are merely blowing smoke to leave room for your support of abortion. End of discussion.
Maybe you meant:” To define life in unequivocal terms remains a challenge for somescientists.”
Bethany, a BROAD definition of human life would be any living cell or collection of living cells that contains human DNA. In addition to a newborn,child and adult this would include an ovum, a spermatozoon, zygote, embryo, a fetus, a complete strand of hair plucked from my strawberry head, a cancer cell, and a recent skin scraping.
But you are asking for something more specific I think by saying “biologically alive human organism/being”. Take away the slash and it reads “biologically alive human being”. (This was not lost onme !)So if, by human being you mean human person, than everyone agrees that is at birth at the latest. Prior to that it depends on who you ask. The answer could range from anywhere from sperm or ovum to newborn. I doubt anyone would say a hair follicle or a cancer cell is a human organism/being (though yllas might if he’s been sipping the egg nog early again). As for me, I would say as early as a viable fetus.
too stunned to laugh, those are characteristics of life that there is consensus on. It is hardly a universal, working definition of life.
Bethany, a BROAD definition of human life would be any living cell or collection of living cells that contains human DNA. In addition to a newborn,child and adult this would include an ovum, a spermatozoon, zygote, embryo, a fetus, a complete strand of hair plucked from my strawberry head, a cancer cell, and a recent skin scraping.
You’re really just nitpicking- you knew exactly what Truthseeker meant.
But you are asking for something more specific I think by saying “biologically alive human organism/being”. Take away the slash and it reads “biologically alive human being”. (This was not lost onme !)
Okay, lol, don’t know why you assumed I was trying to hide that, but I’m glad you were able to figure out that being/organism would be basically the same thing. lol :P
So if, by human being you mean human person, than everyone agrees that is at birth at the latest.
You were avoiding the question. The question was ‘when do YOU think’, not “what does everyone agree on’.
Prior to that it depends on who you ask. The answer could range from anywhere from sperm or ovum to newborn. I doubt anyone would say a hair follicle or a cancer cell is a human organism/being (though yllas might if he’s been sipping the egg nog early again). As for me, I would say as early as a viable fetus.
Define “viable”, and then tell me at what exact point a fetus becomes viable.
Asitis, can you tell me biologically what change occurs in the non-viable fetus to change it into a viable fetus?
For instance, an ovum must have something added to it (obviously sperm) before it can transform from an egg into a zygote.
So can you please tell me what process or change occurs for the fetus to go from the stage of non-viability to viability, making it only potentially human one moment, and actually human the next?
Also, are you against abortions after viability?
too stunned to laugh, those are characteristics of life that there is consensus on. It is hardly a universal, working definition of life.
Posted by: asitis at December 19, 2008 2:00 PM
predictable response, as usual. I thought there was NO consensus.?????
It is a working definition scientists use in many disciplines including medicine! Given and defined by scientists themselves.
“Okay, lol, don’t know why you assumed I was trying to hide that, but I’m glad you were able to figure out that being/organism would be basically the same thing. lol :P
Don’t you think asitis should have been aware of this, if she is a true scientist? I do. Bethany let her answer the viability question first.
Toostunnedtolaugh scientists agree on that criteria but have yet to reach consensus on a definition for life. Period. End of discussion.
Bethany why should I explain my personal beliefs on when personhood begins and abortion to you and others here? So I can change your mind? Not likely! So you can change mine? Ditto. So you can tell me I have it wrong and you have it right? Impossible, since there is no absolute wrong or right on these issues- it’s personal and in some cases religious. So you or others can call me names? Don’t waste your time or mine.
No, I’m not avoiding the question . I just see no point ingetting into it . Now…… I have yet another hockey game to cheer on and then heading home to start the holiday season with family and friends . So I won’t be around here for awhile . Maybe in the New Year. Enjoy this time of year, whatever it means to you, your family or your faith. Peace on earth. Goodwill to men. (and women!)
Bethany why should I explain my personal beliefs on when personhood begins and abortion to you and others here? So I can change your mind? Not likely! So you can change mine? Ditto. So you can tell me I have it wrong and you have it right? Impossible, since there is no absolute wrong or right on these issues- it’s personal and in some cases religious. So you or others can call me names? Don’t waste your time or mine.
Maybe you’re afraid to answer because you know where this is going if you answer honestly?
Have fun at the hockey game. We go to another one in January, and I’m really looking forward to it. :)
By the way, I asked your scientific opinion on a biological reality. It was not a religious or personal question.
life (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)
1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as
metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
3. Living organisms considered as a group.
4. A living being, especially a person.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Conventional definition: The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[8][9]
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Plant life.
Herds of zebra and impala gathering on the Masai Mara plain
Marine life around a coral reef.
An aerial photo of microbial mats around the Grand Prismatic Spring of Yellowstone National Park.
Also, individual members of a species may not meet all the criteria, but are still considered alive, such as members of a species who are rendered unable to reproduce or unable to respond to stimuli.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
Bethany, it’s most interesting (and telling) that you omitted the sentence that preceded that list of characteristics in the wikipedia reference:
“There is no universal definition of life. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists”
This is exactly what I have been saying all along:No universal uniequivocal definition. Remains a challenge for scientists. As I said to toostunnedtolaugh.
No, I am most definitely not afraid where my honest answers will lead to. And your suggestion that this is the case is exactly why I am not getting into this discussion with you.
Almost all pro-lifers and pro-choicers would agree that once the life form is a human person it has human rights including the right to live and that abortion is murder and illegal. The problem is that there is NO consesus as to when this happens. The answer is not a scientific one, but rather a personal one. And this discussion you want so desperatley for me to engage in, leads to that.
It is NOT about my scientific opinion on biological facts Bethany. It is about our personal beliefs. Science has not provided us with the answer to when personhood begins. I’m pretty sure it never will.
You go to another hockey game in January? I can’t tell you how many I’ll be at before January (with four teams on the go).
But I think you meant professional…………
Asitis, we are not asking about life in it’s broadest terms. We are asking very specific questions about human life that you have avoided repeatedly.
It should not be so difficult for a scientist to present answers to these questions.
Try the ones about viability.
Define “personhood”. Do you consider that a scientific term?
Asitis, if Science has not provided an answer for when HUMAN life begins, then how can we know for sure that a newborn baby is a living human being?
I predict an appeal to popularity coming soon….
Asistis, you are the first one I have ever know who thinks the defintion of physical life is up for scientific debate. I hope you don’t get a job as a paramedic.
Bethany I am sure you realize that the concept of personhood is not only rooted in science, but also philosophy and religion.
Oh, and it is “so difficult” for scientists to answer these questions. Otherwise they they would have reached consensus. And they haven’t.
And besides, it isn’t REALLY about science for you anyway, is it?
Now, I’ve already told you I am not getting into this futile discussion and why. So, make any claims you want, bait all you want,ask any loaded question you want but I won’t be reading them. I’m outa here for the holidays! Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
Asitis, it’s clear to me why you can’t answer the question.