Mover Mike http://www.movermike.com/ Mover Mike has his own particular take on todays political and economic news. In addition he has many other interests, geology, literature, poetry, writing, eminent domain, etc. en-us 2005-12-29T05:12+00:00 <!-- strtcv-->Sailer on Shiavo<!-- strtcv--> http://www.movermike.com/posts/1111980388.shtml ... movermike 2005-03-28T03:03+00:00 Steve Sailer at i.Steve.com has posted a very good article on the legal aspects of the Shiavo case that I've not seen elsewhere.]]> <!-- strtcv-->Is That All there Is?<!-- strtcv--> http://www.movermike.com/posts/1111860123.shtml ... movermike 2005-03-26T18:03+00:00 The Other Side of the Coin He recently purchased a gold coin without asking what was engraved on the reverse side. He used the other side of the coin as a metaphor for passing to the other side, as in death. Some on one side of the Teri Shiavo debate might believe that when you die it's a Peggy Lee song, "Is that all there is?" Fraser on the other hand, with others like him in the Teri Shiavo debate, believes there will be a rejoining with God and those who suffered in this life will be made whole in heaven. I don't disagree with Fraser, but my comments focused on these few lines rather than the larger issue:
Quite some time back I listen to Dr. John Lienhard’s radio show, “The Engines of Our Ingenuity”, when he was explaining about how these inscriptions on our coinage is a reflection of our culture. His five minute dialogue was very informative and the message has stayed with me over the years.
I commented:
Thanks for the kind remarks Fraser. That's not all there is! On the back is a large eagle landing in a nest. It looks like it is providing building materials for the nest that another eagle is sharing with him. I assume one eagle (flying) is male and the nest builder is female. If they are going to have babies they must be of the opposite sex, since I don't know of any birds that are practicing bio-technology. On one side of the coin is "e pluribas unum" which I believe means from many, one. Probably some anti-multiculturest thought that one up. Certainly not PC. On the right side is: "In God we Trust". Seems entirely appropriate! At the top are the words United States of America. On the bottom are these words "1 oz. Fine Gold $50 Dollars. The coins have a weight to them, unlike the coins of today and they have a great metallic click, when you drop one on the other. This a $50 Gold Coin. One ounce of Gold today is $425.90. The Gold hasn't changed in hundreds of years, but the USD has. I believe it will take $1500 to $5000 USD to buy a Gold in the future. Mover Mike
Yes, this struggle for Teri Shiavo is between those who value life and those who see it as accidental. It is a struggle between views about how to live a life, for today, tomorrow, or for a life in heaven. However, as old age approaches and our bodies begin to wear out, we begin to face the prospect of our death. I am prepared to face the known ways to die. It's the unknown side of the coin that scares me. The slipping into some un-death, kept alive because science can. ]]> <!-- strtcv-->John Podhoretz Writes... <!-- strtcv--> http://www.movermike.com/posts/1111769559.shtml ... movermike 2005-03-25T16:03+00:00 It's Now Clear to Me because I just read the column in the NY Post, THE SCHIAVO STAKES: WHAT THE FIGHT'S REALLY ABOUT by John Podhoretz. Podhoretz writes:
Those who have sided with her parents in seeking the reinsertion of her feeding tube have a view of life that is profoundly different from those who have sided with her husband's quest to have her die.

Those who want her to live tend to view life as a gift — a treasure beyond value that has been bestowed upon us and that we therefore have no right to squander. The giver of the gift cannot be seen by the human eye, and the essence of the gift cannot be seen either.

We usually call that essence the "soul." Our souls define us: They make us who we are in the deepest sense. And they transcend us as well: They are our connection to the divine, to all in the universe that is unseen and unknowable but is still there.

I know we are "meaning making machines", however I believe that our souls choose the parents and the kind of life it wants to experience. To end ones life artificially, by suicide for example, is against the souls wish for experience. In essence, it is against God's will. I believe one thing the soul wishes to experience is karma. If you murdered someone in one life, it would be karma to experience being murdered in another life, thus, experience the profound grief at not being able to fulfill the soul or God's plan. Think of the 1,000,000 souls that choose parents just in this country each year, only to be aborted. Imagine the grief of souls!]]> <!-- strtcv-->It's Now Clear to Me <!-- strtcv--> http://www.movermike.com/posts/1111600369.shtml I have refrained from posting about the Terri Schiavo case, frankly, because I couldn't sort out the arguments or which side had truth on their side. I came across this article... movermike 2005-03-23T17:03+00:00 Unspeakable Conversations, by Harriet McBryde Johnson. Ms Johnson is severely crippled, confined to a wheelchair, and a lawyer. In the article she has numerous debates in person and vis e-mail with Prof. Peter Singer of Princeton, often called the most influential philosopher of our time believes that babies should be aborted if they are impaired mentally or physically.
He wants to legalize the killing of certain babies who might come to be like me if allowed to live. He also says he believes that it should be lawful under some circumstances to kill, at any age, individuals with cognitive impairments so severe that he doesn't consider them ''persons.''

I have refrained from posting about the Terri Schiavo case, frankly, because I couldn't sort out the arguments or which side had truth on their side. I came across this article (hat tip to Free Republic) and suddenly things are clear...for me. Prof Singer Singer lays it all out.

The ''illogic'' of allowing abortion but not infanticide, of allowing withdrawal of life support but not active killing. Applying the basic assumptions of preference utilitarianism, he spins out his bone-chilling argument for letting parents kill disabled babies and replace them with nondisabled babies who have a greater chance at happiness. It is all about allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their preferences as possible.
IMO, it is just a short step from what is allowable today to "active killing".

]]>