This story is one more addition to liberalism’s C.O.D. (Culture of Death). Listen to the audio at this link:
Talking heads and their legal beagles will have a field day with this one. Even dirty little moralist of a liberal persuasion who are responsible for the C.O.D. will chime in. I’m not much interested in their moralizing. I am interested in issues evolving within the C.O.D.
If you read Joe Kovacs’ text you’ll find this:
I do not see how “lawsuit laws” that punish help can be defined as Good Samaritan laws. To me, Good Samaritan laws punish when you refuse to help a person. Remember the last episode of Seinfeld:
Of course Seinfeld was fiction; nevertheless, laws of that type are extremely dangerous. Nothing is more dangerous than laws punishing individuals for not doing what the government tells them to do. And have you noticed that the Affordable Care Act is a Good Samaritan law on a grand scale?
Liberal hypocrites preach Good Samaritan laws at the same time they advance their C.O.D. The Terri Schiavo case caught the public’s attention, but it was only one such case.
Agree or disagree with removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, but you cannot deny that an individual got away with killing her because justification —— not the act —— was the deciding factor.
Florida’s courts allowed it, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. I guess there are no Good Samaritan laws covering premeditated murder when they interfere with socialism’s C.O.D. Someone in authority at Terri’s hospice should have told those judges: “If you want that feeding tube removed come and do it yourself.”
Incidentally, had the SCOTUS taken the case you can be certain the C.O.D. crowd would have screamed about the government interfering in our lives. Naturally, it was not government interference when a state court ordered the feeding tube removed.
The Socialist priests in our courts issue orders while making damn sure real blood does not soil their precious robes. And do not compare the court-ordered murder of an innocent woman to the execution of a criminal after a decade or more of tax dollar funded appeals. In any event Terri Schiavo did not hurt anyone, yet she was killed without her consent.
Parenthetically, to no one’s surprise the ACLU came down on the side of killing Terri Schiavo:
The ACLU is a charter member of the C.O.D. at the same time it fights the death penalty at every turn.
NOTE: Do not let the Socialist push to abolish the death penalty fool you. Liberals are outraged by the death penalty because they fear the day they find themselves strapped to a gurney.
By exonerating the person that did the act did not the courts endorse the Nazi defense: I was following orders. Bottom Line: Look at the act not the justification.
In fact, judges in that case may very well have been guilty of aiding and abetting premeditated murder.
Why murder? And why premeditated?
A person had to commit the physical act of removing the feeding tube well-knowing Terri’s death would be the result. That’s premeditated murder. Think of it this way. Suppose the individual that removed the feeding tube shot Terri rather than let her starve to death. Would that be premeditated murder?
As far as I know, the public never learned the name of the person who removed the feeding tube? The question is: Why the hell wasn’t that person arrested?
I also recall reading that a cop was told to leave the room just before the deed was done. Put that in perspective by comparing real life to all of the cop and lawyer shows on television.
TV viewers are bombarded with government propaganda depicting hardhitting cops and district attorneys ever-ready to lockup the bad guys, yet someone commits a deliberate act that leads to the death of another person and there are no cops or district attorneys in sight. The cop that left the room was kept out of sight deliberately for obvious reasons.
I know that if I worked at Terri’s hospice and someone ordered me to remove the lady’s feeding tube, I would have told them to shove the job up the furthest part of their ass.
To justify taking an innocent individual’s life opens the door to governments murdering millions. If the tens of millions of murders done by governments in the last century taught anything it is that there is no slope slipperier than cultivating the government’s bloodlust.
The road to governments slaughtering their own people begins with the public’s acceptance of things like mercy killing, doctor-assisted suicide, abortion on demand, and so on.
Brain dead
I’ve noticed that the euthanasia lobby —— which includes mainstream media —— pins the success of its agenda on “brain dead.” There is an aspect of brain dead that has always troubled me.
There is an assumption that thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc., originate in the brain. I’ve never been convinced that is the case. When you cut your finger an impulse is sent to the brain telling you to feel the pain in your finger. The paralyzing fear a person feels as their car skids towards an oncoming truck begins in the pit of their stomach, it does not originate in the brain.
Who can deny that thoughts are only processed by the brain originating elsewhere as in pain or fear? If there is a possibility that was the case —— Terri was not experiencing pain if only the brain was damaged. The brain is a processor and doesn’t feel pain. As far as I know, there was no damage elsewhere sending signals to Terri’s brain telling her to feel pain. There was no evidence that she was feeling pain. Even if it can be shown beyond a doubt that she was in pain the answer is painkillers not euthanasia.
Those who killed her said that she was not in pain —— never admitting that starvation causes pain even if the brain was not functioning well enough to activate a defense mechanism.
NOTE: The sci-fi myth that says computers (robots) will someday be capable of original thought shows a total lack of understanding. Computers are processors. They function like a brain. Computers are inactive until someone sends them instructions. The artificial intelligence mavens will have to prove that a computer is feeling pain before they convince me that they know what they are talking about.
So who can swear that Terri’s life force, her emotions, her ability to know life was not functioning? Let’s say that a bird landed on Terri’s windowsill. How can anyone say that Terri did not experience the same pleasure and curiosity that makes an infant giggle? The euthanasia crowd will never admit to that possibility because they only speak for themselves. They assume that because they don’t want to live in a so-called vegetative state no one else does either.
My point: A brain dead vegetative state is a physical thing with no proof that thoughts and emotions aren’t alive and well somewhere else. The Chinese always thought the liver was the most important organ. People in West assigned courage and cowardliness to the heart: “He has the heart of a lion” or “He’s fainthearted.” To me, that shows there has always been a suspicion that thoughts and emotions reside someplace other than the brain. I never heard of any great body of thought that put the brain at the center of life. Those who believe in euthanasia are the only ones doing that. I don’t consider their ideology a great body of thought.
If there is any chance that I’m correct about this ——Terri’s very essence was starved in the cruelest way possible.
Euthanasia’s connection to totalitarianism
First, let me point out that conquerors throughout history were totalitarians. For the most part they conquered and enslaved the vanquished. Slavery after conquest is pretty much a thing of the past. Totalitarians have accepted cheap labor as the inevitable substitute for slavery. Cheap labor is so plentiful it has forced totalitarians to take an approach other than conquest in their drive to control life and the earth’s resources. When slavery began to disappear totalitarians flirted with the pseudo-science of eugenics. Now they have moved their efforts to euthanasia. Euthanasia is an incremental step toward resurrecting eugenics.
Finally, there is one glaring defect common to all modern governments: They are always preparing to kill millions. The only thing they require is justification for the butchery. It is no great shakes to oppose the government after the killing begins, the trick is to identify where government butchers are going and stand in their way. Anything, no matter how farfetched, that encourages governments killing their people should be fought against at all costs.
The pseudo-science of eugenics was the first attempt to excuse killing millions through selective breeding. Few fought against that ideology and the world got Communist and Nazi genocide. Overpopulation is the new justification for slaughter at the same time the federal government refuses to control the borders. There is definitely a government plot hidden in that anomaly.
Talking heads and their legal beagles will have a field day with this one. Even dirty little moralist of a liberal persuasion who are responsible for the C.O.D. will chime in. I’m not much interested in their moralizing. I am interested in issues evolving within the C.O.D.
If you read Joe Kovacs’ text you’ll find this:
I do not see how “lawsuit laws” that punish help can be defined as Good Samaritan laws. To me, Good Samaritan laws punish when you refuse to help a person. Remember the last episode of Seinfeld:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n_OS1q6f5Rc]Seinfeld the end - YouTube[/ame]
Of course Seinfeld was fiction; nevertheless, laws of that type are extremely dangerous. Nothing is more dangerous than laws punishing individuals for not doing what the government tells them to do. And have you noticed that the Affordable Care Act is a Good Samaritan law on a grand scale?
Liberal hypocrites preach Good Samaritan laws at the same time they advance their C.O.D. The Terri Schiavo case caught the public’s attention, but it was only one such case.
Agree or disagree with removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, but you cannot deny that an individual got away with killing her because justification —— not the act —— was the deciding factor.
Florida’s courts allowed it, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. I guess there are no Good Samaritan laws covering premeditated murder when they interfere with socialism’s C.O.D. Someone in authority at Terri’s hospice should have told those judges: “If you want that feeding tube removed come and do it yourself.”
Incidentally, had the SCOTUS taken the case you can be certain the C.O.D. crowd would have screamed about the government interfering in our lives. Naturally, it was not government interference when a state court ordered the feeding tube removed.
The Socialist priests in our courts issue orders while making damn sure real blood does not soil their precious robes. And do not compare the court-ordered murder of an innocent woman to the execution of a criminal after a decade or more of tax dollar funded appeals. In any event Terri Schiavo did not hurt anyone, yet she was killed without her consent.
Parenthetically, to no one’s surprise the ACLU came down on the side of killing Terri Schiavo:
The ACLU is a charter member of the C.O.D. at the same time it fights the death penalty at every turn.
NOTE: Do not let the Socialist push to abolish the death penalty fool you. Liberals are outraged by the death penalty because they fear the day they find themselves strapped to a gurney.
By exonerating the person that did the act did not the courts endorse the Nazi defense: I was following orders. Bottom Line: Look at the act not the justification.
In fact, judges in that case may very well have been guilty of aiding and abetting premeditated murder.
Why murder? And why premeditated?
A person had to commit the physical act of removing the feeding tube well-knowing Terri’s death would be the result. That’s premeditated murder. Think of it this way. Suppose the individual that removed the feeding tube shot Terri rather than let her starve to death. Would that be premeditated murder?
As far as I know, the public never learned the name of the person who removed the feeding tube? The question is: Why the hell wasn’t that person arrested?
I also recall reading that a cop was told to leave the room just before the deed was done. Put that in perspective by comparing real life to all of the cop and lawyer shows on television.
TV viewers are bombarded with government propaganda depicting hardhitting cops and district attorneys ever-ready to lockup the bad guys, yet someone commits a deliberate act that leads to the death of another person and there are no cops or district attorneys in sight. The cop that left the room was kept out of sight deliberately for obvious reasons.
I know that if I worked at Terri’s hospice and someone ordered me to remove the lady’s feeding tube, I would have told them to shove the job up the furthest part of their ass.
To justify taking an innocent individual’s life opens the door to governments murdering millions. If the tens of millions of murders done by governments in the last century taught anything it is that there is no slope slipperier than cultivating the government’s bloodlust.
The road to governments slaughtering their own people begins with the public’s acceptance of things like mercy killing, doctor-assisted suicide, abortion on demand, and so on.
Brain dead
I’ve noticed that the euthanasia lobby —— which includes mainstream media —— pins the success of its agenda on “brain dead.” There is an aspect of brain dead that has always troubled me.
There is an assumption that thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc., originate in the brain. I’ve never been convinced that is the case. When you cut your finger an impulse is sent to the brain telling you to feel the pain in your finger. The paralyzing fear a person feels as their car skids towards an oncoming truck begins in the pit of their stomach, it does not originate in the brain.
Who can deny that thoughts are only processed by the brain originating elsewhere as in pain or fear? If there is a possibility that was the case —— Terri was not experiencing pain if only the brain was damaged. The brain is a processor and doesn’t feel pain. As far as I know, there was no damage elsewhere sending signals to Terri’s brain telling her to feel pain. There was no evidence that she was feeling pain. Even if it can be shown beyond a doubt that she was in pain the answer is painkillers not euthanasia.
Those who killed her said that she was not in pain —— never admitting that starvation causes pain even if the brain was not functioning well enough to activate a defense mechanism.
NOTE: The sci-fi myth that says computers (robots) will someday be capable of original thought shows a total lack of understanding. Computers are processors. They function like a brain. Computers are inactive until someone sends them instructions. The artificial intelligence mavens will have to prove that a computer is feeling pain before they convince me that they know what they are talking about.
So who can swear that Terri’s life force, her emotions, her ability to know life was not functioning? Let’s say that a bird landed on Terri’s windowsill. How can anyone say that Terri did not experience the same pleasure and curiosity that makes an infant giggle? The euthanasia crowd will never admit to that possibility because they only speak for themselves. They assume that because they don’t want to live in a so-called vegetative state no one else does either.
My point: A brain dead vegetative state is a physical thing with no proof that thoughts and emotions aren’t alive and well somewhere else. The Chinese always thought the liver was the most important organ. People in West assigned courage and cowardliness to the heart: “He has the heart of a lion” or “He’s fainthearted.” To me, that shows there has always been a suspicion that thoughts and emotions reside someplace other than the brain. I never heard of any great body of thought that put the brain at the center of life. Those who believe in euthanasia are the only ones doing that. I don’t consider their ideology a great body of thought.
If there is any chance that I’m correct about this ——Terri’s very essence was starved in the cruelest way possible.
Euthanasia’s connection to totalitarianism
First, let me point out that conquerors throughout history were totalitarians. For the most part they conquered and enslaved the vanquished. Slavery after conquest is pretty much a thing of the past. Totalitarians have accepted cheap labor as the inevitable substitute for slavery. Cheap labor is so plentiful it has forced totalitarians to take an approach other than conquest in their drive to control life and the earth’s resources. When slavery began to disappear totalitarians flirted with the pseudo-science of eugenics. Now they have moved their efforts to euthanasia. Euthanasia is an incremental step toward resurrecting eugenics.
Finally, there is one glaring defect common to all modern governments: They are always preparing to kill millions. The only thing they require is justification for the butchery. It is no great shakes to oppose the government after the killing begins, the trick is to identify where government butchers are going and stand in their way. Anything, no matter how farfetched, that encourages governments killing their people should be fought against at all costs.
The pseudo-science of eugenics was the first attempt to excuse killing millions through selective breeding. Few fought against that ideology and the world got Communist and Nazi genocide. Overpopulation is the new justification for slaughter at the same time the federal government refuses to control the borders. There is definitely a government plot hidden in that anomaly.
Last edited:
