The law is pretty clear. The spouse has the final say in terms of medical decisions made on behalf of the spouse.
And if there is plausible evidence that the spouse is lying?
Ah, but you believe THEOCRACTIC institutions should ultimately decide who has the right to decide medical decisions.
It's obvious you are clueless about what I believe. Decisions, IMO, should be based on truth. If the truth cannot be decided, then life should be favored over death. Again, IMO.
Her parents didn't think that it was for "absolutely no reason."
In any case, how we deal with the unwanted, the inconvenient, the expensive and the otherwise burdensome speaks volumes about us as a people. If survival of the fittest is all there is, then let's stop kidding ourselves and start thinning the herd.
Given that her husband had spent the money from a lawsuit that was supposed to be for her care, and that her husband was seeing another woman, do you really think that was her wish? Was he really less biased than her parents? Given that the situation was so murky, the courts could just have well decided on the side of life.
Our society seems to have decided that death is the solution to (some of) our problems. That's not a viable long-term position.
For the record, the husband spent the money earmarked for her care from a lawsuit. Furthermore, the husband was seeing another woman that he wanted to marry. His motives certainly gave the appearance of being tainted.
In any case, should we have the legal right to sentence the innocent to death (which is what you're asking)? I say no.
Ok, I'll bite. Yes, she was brain dead. Yes, she wasn't going to recover.
Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her? This has nothing to do with science, since science cannot answer ethical questions. It had to do with law (who controls another human being since there were no written instructions from her). It had to do with whether we are the kind of people who will dispose of the inconvenient, whether we will choose death over life. It wasn't about Teri, since she couldn't possibly care. It was about us.
Are you sure this is progress? Where do we draw the line between Barry Bonds and steroids and this type of procedure? Can this surgery only be done if one is handicapped in some way? What happens when the handicapped when augmented become more able than those who cannot have the surgery? Will we forbid computer implants for the "rich" because it will give them an unfair advantage over the "poor"? Do we really want to become the Borg? Lots of questions and I don't claim to have the answers. But since I already referred to Star Trek, a quote comes to mind: "Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean that we should do that thing."
... has been actively pushing to have their particular brand of religion enforced as common law
That's true regardless of the group and is the nature of the beast. If you want to take the time, I would be interested in what you see to be some specifics in this area. I can guess, but I'd rather know...
The problem arises because most religions is that they are exclusionary...
But that isn't the problem of religion, that's the problem of truth. Truth, by it's very nature, is exclusionary. Those who think that 2+2=5 will be in conflict with those who disagree. For you to take the position of inclusion for all is, at least to me, a denial that truth exists (which is a self-refuting argument, but that doesn't stop a lot of people).
As for the "willy" factor, I happen to agree with President Bush about atheists. As an American, I hold that atheism is a pernicious worldview that unchecked must -- by definition -- result in anarchy or tyranny and is therefore anathema to freedom. Having grown up in Virginia, I'm quite fond of their state motto "Sic Semper Tyrannis".
As a Christian, the bad news is that, yes, you are an enemy of God. (Don't feel too bad -- everyone starts off that way). What you should find temporarily comforting is not that we are exclusive but that: a) You're welcome to join us, b) Forced conversion to Christianity is no conversion at all, and c) Even if you don't join us, we are commanded to love our enemies. Furthermore, love does not consist in blowing them up or chopping off their heads. The parable of the "Wheat and the Tares" is instructive:
He put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?' He answered, 'An enemy has done this.' The slaves said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he replied, 'No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
I agree with you that "they have surrendered their liberty and thus their future for a cynical illusion of security". But I submit that there is a spiritual basis for this. It is because they haven't found their liberty in Christ or security in God that they turn to government.
we are seeing a resurgence of religion, or at least assertive dogma, over much of the world I understand that. Christianity, for example, is exploding in China and it's going to make for some interesting times to come. I was limiting my comments to the US, where some of the more visible groups are pushing for the privatization of religion so that it is silent in the public square. They won't succeed, but it is happening.
My statement, BTW, has nothing to do with victimhood, since I refuse to be a victim.
A Christian's submission to government isn't absolute and there are several instances of civil disobedience (e.g. Daniel and the Apostles Peter and John). The trick, of course, is knowing where the line is.
Of course government isn't in and of itself a bad thing. "And the government shall be upon His shoulders..." [Isa 9:6]. Nevertheless, given that man is fallen and that fallen man cannot help but abuse power, government should be limited in scope.
Right -- it isn't the particular technology used, but rather that buying and selling is no longer free from government control. If the government doesn't want you buying something, you won't. Government is not our friend; why we keep giving it more and more control over our lives is, IMO, a byproduct of an increasingly secular society. We will have something take the place of God, even if it is something of our own invention. YMMV.
So the question becomes (which a portion of the scientific community refuses to consider solely because of the implications to their worldview) is: Can design be scientifically detected and, if so, how?
While I am all in favor of providing opportunities for success, personal responsibility must still be first and foremost. If they are not watching out for themselves, there is nothing more that I feel obligated to do.
Just a quick comment. You write "Agape love is something that is built over a long period of time... whereby the bond between two individuals...". How would you apply this definition to the command to Christians to "love your enemies"? We are told to love them today -- not in the future, and we are told to love them regardless of their response back to us.
ariscusmaximus asked Why not devote equal time to phileo, eros and storge?
Well, others more eloquent than I have done this. However, I wanted to focus on agape because when I posted, the majority of posts did not deal with agape.
Your attack on scientists certainly is un-agape-like.
Please note that my "attack" was against naturalism and it was simply an observation that naturalism, with it's focus on species survival, cannot logically produce a like-minded statement about love.
The Greeks had four words for love: agape, phileo, eros, and storge. We English speakers seem to conflate everything around eros and thereby miss the point. Love is the act of the will whereby another individual is placed ahead of yourself. That's why Christians are commanded to "love their enemies" and why the Apostle Paul wrote that the greatest act of love was when God gave His Son as the sacrifice for the sins of the world.
No naturalistic scientist could ever write:
Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant
or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends.
'If you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" is not completely correct. I'm doing nothing wrong, but I nevertheless worry about the government doing something wrong. Governments exists to increase their power -- at the expense of freedom. Therefore, government should be limited wherever and whenever possible.
I thought ID was... "Life is very complicated. Too complicated for it to have just happened. Therefore it must have been designed."
I'n not an ID expert, so take this for what it's worth. I think we all agree that "life is very complicated". However, from there, I think the IDist would say, "life is too complicated to have arisen by Darwinian processes. Furthermore, the kind of complexity found in living things is only found elsewhere in nature in things that are designed."
How are ID'ers looking for the designer?
As far as I know, they aren't. They are working on the mathematics of identifying design.
As someone who watches the battle on the sidelines, I find it interesting that everyone can agree that my watch, or my laptop, is designed. SETI thinks that they can detect intelligence in signals from space. I'm fascinated why it's practically illegal to ask in a science class if there are signs of design in living things. Can we mathematically describe the properties of things that are designed? If so, what happens when we apply those techniques to things we know are designed an things we know that aren't? Can we then ascribe any confidence to the results if these techniques are applied to living things? It seems to me that these are all valid scientific questions.
Slashdot Mirror
The law is pretty clear. The spouse has the final say in terms of medical decisions made on behalf of the spouse.
And if there is plausible evidence that the spouse is lying?
Ah, but you believe THEOCRACTIC institutions should ultimately decide who has the right to decide medical decisions.
It's obvious you are clueless about what I believe. Decisions, IMO, should be based on truth. If the truth cannot be decided, then life should be favored over death. Again, IMO.
Yes, thank God the Fundamentalist Taliban failed.
The Taliban would have used guns, not the courts.
Absent a written record, what if there is plausible evidence that she is lying in court about what your wishes are?
Then write it down and leave a copy with a lawyer.
Her parents didn't think that it was for "absolutely no reason."
In any case, how we deal with the unwanted, the inconvenient, the expensive and the otherwise burdensome speaks volumes about us as a people. If survival of the fittest is all there is, then let's stop kidding ourselves and start thinning the herd.
Given that her husband had spent the money from a lawsuit that was supposed to be for her care, and that her husband was seeing another woman, do you really think that was her wish? Was he really less biased than her parents? Given that the situation was so murky, the courts could just have well decided on the side of life.
Our society seems to have decided that death is the solution to (some of) our problems. That's not a viable long-term position.
For the record, the husband spent the money earmarked for her care from a lawsuit. Furthermore, the husband was seeing another woman that he wanted to marry. His motives certainly gave the appearance of being tainted.
In any case, should we have the legal right to sentence the innocent to death (which is what you're asking)? I say no.
Ok, I'll bite. Yes, she was brain dead. Yes, she wasn't going to recover.
Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her? This has nothing to do with science, since science cannot answer ethical questions. It had to do with law (who controls another human being since there were no written instructions from her). It had to do with whether we are the kind of people who will dispose of the inconvenient, whether we will choose death over life. It wasn't about Teri, since she couldn't possibly care. It was about us.
Personally, I think we failed miserably.
Just for the record, I hate all human beings...
Just curious, but does that include yourself? If so, do you see your predicament as hopeless or is there a possibility of improvement?
Are you sure this is progress? Where do we draw the line between Barry Bonds and steroids and this type of procedure? Can this surgery only be done if one is handicapped in some way? What happens when the handicapped when augmented become more able than those who cannot have the surgery? Will we forbid computer implants for the "rich" because it will give them an unfair advantage over the "poor"? Do we really want to become the Borg? Lots of questions and I don't claim to have the answers. But since I already referred to Star Trek, a quote comes to mind: "Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean that we should do that thing."
... has been actively pushing to have their particular brand of religion enforced as common law
That's true regardless of the group and is the nature of the beast. If you want to take the time, I would be interested in what you see to be some specifics in this area. I can guess, but I'd rather know...
The problem arises because most religions is that they are exclusionary...
But that isn't the problem of religion, that's the problem of truth. Truth, by it's very nature, is exclusionary. Those who think that 2+2=5 will be in conflict with those who disagree. For you to take the position of inclusion for all is, at least to me, a denial that truth exists (which is a self-refuting argument, but that doesn't stop a lot of people).
As for the "willy" factor, I happen to agree with President Bush about atheists. As an American, I hold that atheism is a pernicious worldview that unchecked must -- by definition -- result in anarchy or tyranny and is therefore anathema to freedom. Having grown up in Virginia, I'm quite fond of their state motto "Sic Semper Tyrannis".
As a Christian, the bad news is that, yes, you are an enemy of God. (Don't feel too bad -- everyone starts off that way). What you should find temporarily comforting is not that we are exclusive but that:
a) You're welcome to join us,
b) Forced conversion to Christianity is no conversion at all, and
c) Even if you don't join us, we are commanded to love our enemies. Furthermore, love does not consist in blowing them up or chopping off their heads. The parable of the "Wheat and the Tares" is instructive:
He put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?' He answered, 'An enemy has done this.' The slaves said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he replied, 'No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them.
Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
I agree with you that "they have surrendered their liberty and thus their future for a cynical illusion of security". But I submit that there is a spiritual basis for this. It is because they haven't found their liberty in Christ or security in God that they turn to government.
we are seeing a resurgence of religion, or at least assertive dogma, over much of the world I understand that. Christianity, for example, is exploding in China and it's going to make for some interesting times to come. I was limiting my comments to the US, where some of the more visible groups are pushing for the privatization of religion so that it is silent in the public square. They won't succeed, but it is happening.
My statement, BTW, has nothing to do with victimhood, since I refuse to be a victim.
Thanks for the interesting comments.
A Christian's submission to government isn't absolute and there are several instances of civil disobedience (e.g. Daniel and the Apostles Peter and John). The trick, of course, is knowing where the line is.
Of course government isn't in and of itself a bad thing. "And the government shall be upon His shoulders..." [Isa 9:6]. Nevertheless, given that man is fallen and that fallen man cannot help but abuse power, government should be limited in scope.
Right -- it isn't the particular technology used, but rather that buying and selling is no longer free from government control. If the government doesn't want you buying something, you won't. Government is not our friend; why we keep giving it more and more control over our lives is, IMO, a byproduct of an increasingly secular society. We will have something take the place of God, even if it is something of our own invention. YMMV.
Have you never had two conflicting emotions at the same time? Sorrow at a deep loss and joy for new life?
And It isn't make believe, btw.
Without knowing (in whole or part) the nature of the designer you cannot detect if something was designed.
How do you know?
Due to these facts we'll never figure out whether life on Earth is random or started from a design of some sort.
Probability theory seems to show that random processes cannot account for the complex information in living things. YMMV.
So the question becomes (which a portion of the scientific community refuses to consider solely because of the implications to their worldview) is: Can design be scientifically detected and, if so, how?
Only if the computers get to the point where they get into arguments over whether the computer virus was designed or created through a random process.
...no-one is watching out for them...
While I am all in favor of providing opportunities for success, personal responsibility must still be first and foremost. If they are not watching out for themselves, there is nothing more that I feel obligated to do.
Just a quick comment. You write "Agape love is something that is built over a long period of time... whereby the bond between two individuals ...". How would you apply this definition to the command to Christians to "love your enemies"? We are told to love them today -- not in the future, and we are told to love them regardless of their response back to us.
ariscusmaximus asked Why not devote equal time to phileo, eros and storge?
Well, others more eloquent than I have done this. However, I wanted to focus on agape because when I posted, the majority of posts did not deal with agape.
Your attack on scientists certainly is un-agape-like.
Please note that my "attack" was against naturalism and it was simply an observation that naturalism, with it's focus on species survival, cannot logically produce a like-minded statement about love.
The Greeks had four words for love: agape, phileo, eros, and storge. We English speakers seem to conflate everything around eros and thereby miss the point. Love is the act of the will whereby another individual is placed ahead of yourself. That's why Christians are commanded to "love their enemies" and why the Apostle Paul wrote that the greatest act of love was when God gave His Son as the sacrifice for the sins of the world.
No naturalistic scientist could ever write:
Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant
or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends.
'If you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" is not completely correct. I'm doing nothing wrong, but I nevertheless worry about the government doing something wrong. Governments exists to increase their power -- at the expense of freedom. Therefore, government should be limited wherever and whenever possible.
I find it interesting to consider the implications of "what his subjects will allow" when applied to God.
God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He's a monarch.
I thought ID was... "Life is very complicated. Too complicated for it to have just happened. Therefore it must have been designed."
I'n not an ID expert, so take this for what it's worth. I think we all agree that "life is very complicated". However, from there, I think the IDist would say, "life is too complicated to have arisen by Darwinian processes. Furthermore, the kind of complexity found in living things is only found elsewhere in nature in things that are designed."
How are ID'ers looking for the designer?
As far as I know, they aren't. They are working on the mathematics of identifying design.
As someone who watches the battle on the sidelines, I find it interesting that everyone can agree that my watch, or my laptop, is designed. SETI thinks that they can detect intelligence in signals from space. I'm fascinated why it's practically illegal to ask in a science class if there are signs of design in living things. Can we mathematically describe the properties of things that are designed? If so, what happens when we apply those techniques to things we know are designed an things we know that aren't? Can we then ascribe any confidence to the results if these techniques are applied to living things? It seems to me that these are all valid scientific questions.