What did his WIFE want? Or doesnt that matter more than what YOU want? If she wanted to die then where in the world do you get the idea that YOU should be able to tell her shes wrong and has to keep suffering because of YOUR beliefs?

Because I don't think we should have the right to decide if an innocent person should live or die. Also, there is no proof that the woman wanted to die in the first place, TR, you are simply making an assumption. I find it much easier to believe that the man wanted her dead because she became a burden to him.

Bethany,

That video was beautiful...

TR:

This story is about a man who has overcome amazing odds and suffered much but still tells us to "choose life". None of us is immune to suffering. Should we be encouraged to give up as soon as difficulty comes our way?

Excellent point, Janet.

TR:

This story is about a man who has overcome amazing odds and suffered much but still tells us to "choose life". None of us is immune to suffering. Should we be encouraged to give up as soon as difficulty comes our way?

Posted by: Janet at February 7, 2008 10:49 AM
*********************
Why do you get the bizarre egotistical self absorbed delusion that YOU are some how an authority on someone elses life and that YOU are an authority on how they should live it, what they should be forced to endure, and what they should be forced to do?

Because I don't think we should have the right to decide if an innocent person should live or die. Also, there is no proof that the woman wanted to die in the first place, TR, you are simply making an assumption. I find it much easier to believe that the man wanted her dead because she became a burden to him.

Posted by: Bethany at February 7, 2008 10:07 AM
******************
There is no indication the woman wanted to die? How laughable! Of course you want to make that assumption about the husband. That says some very ugly things about you. In fact a whole lot of your comments say some very ugly things about you.

"If they had let me die, I would have missed the best and most important years of my life."

*************************
If he could go back in time and change things so he could live those years as a fully functional human being who could go where he wanted, do what he wanted, etc. does anyone really believe he WOULDNT do it?

There is no indication the woman wanted to die? How laughable! Of course you want to make that assumption about the husband. That says some very ugly things about you. In fact a whole lot of your comments say some very ugly things about you.

TR, from the Oregonian:

"They also say Virginia had her reasons for not using Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows terminally ill patients to end their lives. Virginia did not want to deteriorate until doctors determined she was within six months of death, as required by the physician-assisted suicide law, they said. Nor did she want to take her own life because of her Catholic beliefs."

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1202358325167590.xml&coll=7

If he could go back in time and change things so he could live those years as a fully functional human being who could go where he wanted, do what he wanted, etc. does anyone really believe he WOULDNT do it?

TR, the point is that he can't, knows he can't. He's realistic about it, and is still very happy to be alive. Who in the world said he wouldn't want to be fully functional? I'm sure any disabled person doesn't WANT to be disabled. But the point is to make the best of what you've got.

I see that remark was in response to this:
""If they had let me die, I would have missed the best and most important years of my life.""

Cohen was recalling the time that his lungs gave out on him and he was resuscitated. At first, he wasn't sure if he should have been resuscitated. But this quote was spoken after he realized how glad he was to still be alive. He found he could still have a purpose on this earth, regardless of his condition. And in fact, he finds MORE meaning in the later years than the years before when he wasn't disabled.

Why do you get the bizarre egotistical self absorbed delusion that YOU are some how an authority on someone elses life and that YOU are an authority on how they should live it, what they should be forced to endure, and what they should be forced to do?

I'm sorry...did someone say something about bizarre, egotistical, self absorbed and deluded?

Why do you get the bizarre egotistical self absorbed delusion that YOU are some how an authority on someone elses life and that YOU are an authority on how they should live it, what they should be forced to endure, and what they should be forced to do?

I'm sorry...did someone say something about bizarre, egotistical, self absorbed and deluded?

Posted by: mk at February 7, 2008 11:44 AM
***********************
Yes. I was talking to you, and your cohorts. You make egocentricity a way of life. You imagine you have every right to poke your face in the private lives of every other person in the US and dictating to them how they WILL live and what they WILL do.

If he could go back in time and change things so he could live those years as a fully functional human being who could go where he wanted, do what he wanted, etc. does anyone really believe he WOULDNT do it?

TR, the point is that he can't, knows he can't. He's realistic about it, and is still very happy to be alive. Who in the world said he wouldn't want to be fully functional? I'm sure any disabled person doesn't WANT to be disabled. But the point is to make the best of what you've got.

Posted by: Bethany at February 7, 2008 11:39 AM
****************************
The point is if YOURE not the one living through this then pretending YOU should have the deciding voice is sheer egocentricity and megalomania.

TR,
***********************
Yes. I was talking to you, and your cohorts. You make egocentricity a way of life. You imagine you have every right to poke your face in the private lives of every other person in the US and dictating to them how they WILL live and what they WILL do.

Well, now isn't that how every law in this country got passed?

MK -

"Well, now isn't that how every law in this country got passed?"

I was thinking the same thing!

If you let everyone choose what is right for them and only them we would be living in the Wild West again. I sure wouldn't want to go back to a time where the gun solved the problems. Where there was a new sheriff every year because they didn't live that long.

Geesh - It's call society! We, as a society, have the right to say what is acceptable in society and what is not. That is what a "law" is all about.

Yes. I was talking to you, and your cohorts. You make egocentricity a way of life. You imagine you have every right to poke your face in the private lives of every other person in the US and dictating to them how they WILL live and what they WILL do.

Well, now isn't that how every law in this country got passed?

Posted by: mk at February 7, 2008 12:13 PM
****************************
This country was founded to AVOID exactly that - egocentric control freaks with the delusion they knew how everyone else 'should' live with no regard for the rights of others.

This country was founded to AVOID exactly that - egocentric control freaks with the delusion they knew how everyone else 'should' live with no regard for the rights of others.

Then why do we still have prochoice?

MK -

"Well, now isn't that how every law in this country got passed?"

I was thinking the same thing!

If you let everyone choose what is right for them and only them we would be living in the Wild West again. I sure wouldn't want to go back to a time where the gun solved the problems. Where there was a new sheriff every year because they didn't live that long.

Geesh - It's call society! We, as a society, have the right to say what is acceptable in society and what is not. That is what a "law" is all about.

Posted by: valerie at February 7, 2008 12:26 PM
*************************
Laws rose from people trying to live together - not from mythology and superstition, but from practicality. If someone with Lou Gherigs, for example, says they cant stand their life any more who are you to contradict them, and why does society have the right to contradict them? What 'rights' do you have that should contradict their right over their body and their life? How does it infringe on YOUR rights if a person makes this decision?

"Laws rose from people trying to live together - not from mythology and superstition, but from practicality "
----------------------------------------

...agreed...hence the 10 Commandments are generally accepted as THE moral law of the land and, if you think about, is the basis of most laws of the civilized world, too.

What part of "Thou shall not Kill" don't you understand?

...agreed...hence the 10 Commandments are generally accepted as THE moral law of the land and, if you think about, is the basis of most laws of the civilized world, too.

What part of "Thou shall not Kill" don't you understand?

Posted by: RSD at February 7, 2008 12:53 PM
*********************************
No, its not. Where did you get an illiterate idea like that? And the commandment is against committing murder, not 'killing'. Killing was rationalized, accepted, condoned and commanded all through the old testament. All the Children of Israel had to do was say 'god said it was ok' and they could kill ANYONE they wanted to. The commandment is against committing murder.

And..What's the difference between murder and killing?

And pls refrain from the insults...it makes this discussion a childish debate.

This country was founded to AVOID exactly that - egocentric control freaks with the delusion they knew how everyone else 'should' live with no regard for the rights of others.

Then why do we still have prochoice?

Posted by: mk at February 7, 2008 12:32 PM
*****
What is egocentric or 'control freak' about saying 'let everyone make up their own mind'? Egocentricity is in your "I know whats best for EVERYONE else and what THEY think doesnt matter!" No one is trying to force ANYTHING on you - you cannot say the same thing about your attitude towards others.

And..What's the difference between murder and killing?

And pls refrain from the insults...it makes this discussion a childish debate.

Posted by: RSD at February 7, 2008 12:57 PM
********************
Im not responsible for your ignorance. And the difference between killing and murder is defined by the law. The difference between killing and murder in the context of the old testament was defined the same way. A whole LOT of killing was accepted, excused, condoned and commanded. There is a whole long lists of 'transgressions' for which the punishment is death - ie, someone got killed. It was NOT murder for a man to drag his wife in front of the tribe and tell everyone to stone her to death, just as one example ... or if a woman was raped and didnt 'cry out' then she could get killed for that, too .. but it wasnt 'murder'.

Should have said - stone her to death as an adultress - sorry

Both result in death of another. Your arguement states difference is defined by law, unfortunately it is untrue, it just boils down to translation. There may be controversy as to which is more faithful to the original text but the ethical command remains the same.

Both result in death of another. Your arguement states difference is defined by law, unfortunately it is untrue, it just boils down to translation. There may be controversy as to which is more faithful to the original text but the ethical command remains the same.

Posted by: RSD at February 7, 2008 1:08 PM
***************************
The children of israel cheerfully caused the death of others all thru the OT - obviously there was NO restriction against that. And no, its not untrue - the commandment was against committing murder. The children of israel had no trouble at all with KILLING if they could pretend 'god said it was alright'.

...I think TR forgot to take her medicine today...

...I think TR forgot to take her medicine today...

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2008 5:33 PM
.........................

Good for her! Red really knows how to cut through the nonsense,

Hi anon,

sorry, but TR does have a point. The difference though was: 'killing' was done to non-people-of-the-Covenant and 'murder' would be to the 'people of the Covenant' by 'the people of the Covenant'.. Such a split in semantics may seem strange in our culture/era but to many, many peoples (not just Jewish) ... they alone were 'HUMAN' and those 'outside this-in grouping' were dealt with differently, even killed with no lasting condemnation. I guess, it is much the same kind of outlook that for centuries was the dominant ethic of the slave trade. It did not end until the 'other' was embraced as an equal, in being accepted under the US constitution.

It is said that what defines a nation is in how it embraces its weakest members. It seems with many modern people, a belief that: getting-rid-of/disposing-of the weakest will somehow make those that remain strong ... sounds much like the 1000 year rule of the Third Reich?

It seems weird until you note that 90% of your time/energy is spent to prove how invincible you are. Does this sound like macho or feminist ideology, to you?

Oh, oh,
Texasredneck opens up on the Jews and the old testament.
"The children of israel cheerfully caused the death of others". Words written by a typical redneck from Texas.