Obama Calls Vote to Help Terri Schiavo Biggest Mistake
by Jennifer Mesko, managing editor
'Whether it's abortion or end-of-life issues, he's been consistently anti-life.'
During the 20th Democratic presidential debate Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Barack
Obama said the one vote he would take back was his 2005 U.S. Senate vote to help
save the life of Terri Schiavo, a brain-injured Florida woman.
"We adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed
Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families,"
Obama said. "It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not
something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a
mistake."
Schiavo was not dying nor terminally ill; she was not brain-dead nor in
a coma. Yet for seven years, her husband, Michael, sought to have her feeding
tube removed. Congress intervened toward the end, but it was not enough. Schiavo
died March 31, 2005, after 13 days of court-ordered dehydration and starvation.
Jill Stanek, a pro-life speaker and blogger, called Obama "utterly pro-death."
"He lives in 'opposite world,' where he is an environmentalist,
to the extreme, and very pro-animal," she said. "But when it comes to the
sanctity of human life, he takes every stand against it, up to, and including,
babies who have been aborted alive.
"His priorities are completely unintelligible."
When asked Tuesday which vote she would take back, Sen. Hillary Clinton,
D-N.Y., said she would not vote for the Iraq war again.
Tuesday wasn't the first time Obama talked about his "mistake."
During an April 2007 debate, he said: "I think professionally the
biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a
debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with
a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have.”
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said
Obama has been disingenuous.
"How can Obama reconcile his cavalier dismissal of Terri Schiavo's
predicament as a 'family matter,' when he has stated he wants to appoint judges
who are 'going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process,
the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot
of clout'?
"Whether it's abortion or end-of-life issues," Hausknecht said, "he's
been consistently anti-life."
February 27, 2008
Obama Calls Vote to Help Terri Schiavo Biggest Mistake
From Citizenlink.com:
February 18, 2008
February 16, 2008
The Grace of God
"My grace is sufficient. My power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Corinthians 12:9)
It's so painful to watch my mother suffer. She is constant physical pain. Her mobility is limited, and she has lost some of her independence. In addition, her husband of 34 years past away a year ago. Her grief is great. Sometimes I wonder why God continues to allow her to be beaten down again and again.
Not often, but sometimes, I also look at my own sufferings and wonder why and how much longer I have to struggle with all of the addictions and temptations and 'issues' in my life.
John, in this first video, makes this statement, "He determines what time we would be born, what age, what year, what geographical location, and works all things together in order for us to have a circumstance which we might cry out to Him." I am not saying this is the answer to all suffering. But it's an answer that makes sense to me.
This past year I have been living in the sufficiency of God's grace. Before this year I didn't really understand what God meant by the idea of His grace being sufficient. But I've learned that, for me, it's crying out to God in my weakest moments of addiction and temptation and, in turn, God walking with me through them. He grants me power to get through each moment of struggle. And in spending so much time with Him in vulnerable honesty, I'm beginning to know Him intimately, to recognize His voice, His Truth, His Character, and His presence. So, maybe, that a reason He lets me suffer.
Maybe something like this is happening with my mother and God, too. Either way, I have to learn to trust in the grace of God.
February 3, 2008
Viable People
From LifeSite:
The article continues:
"To be ignorant and simple now- not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground- would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." -C.S. Lewis
Disabled Children Better Off Aborted: House of Lords Peeress
By Hilary White
LONDON, February 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Seriously disabled
children should be considered non-persons and would be better off having been
aborted, according to a Peer speaking in the House of Lords Tuesday. Attempting
to couch her assertion in terms of children's "rights", Molly Baroness Meacher
told the Lords that children born with severe disabilities are "not viable
people".
The comments came as the Lords debated an amendment to the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, put forward by Lady Swinton, Baroness Masham
of Ilton, that would have protected unborn disabled children from abortion after
the 24 week gestational time limit. The amendment was defeated by 89 votes to
22.
Under Britain's abortion law, children judged to have some form of
disability, including such comparatively minor disabilities as club foot or
cleft palate, can be aborted up to the time of natural birth.
The article continues:
Others in the Lords, however, do not share Baroness Meacher's extreme form
of eugenic thinking. Robert Shirley, Lord Ferrers, said he was "apprehensive"
about abortion at early stages "because you are destroying some form of life",
and "deeply apprehensive" about abortion in later stages, since it is "difficult
to tell...when [the child] becomes a human being with a soul."
Lord Ferrers said he hoped the amendment would pass, "because I do not
think it right that human beings should decide at one moment that this child,
who is a human being, should not be born."
Baroness Tonge, a leading supporter of the Voluntary Euthanasia
Society, said that the children referred to were not "disabled human beings" but
"grossly abnormal human beings". Citing the "grotesque appearance" of children
with anencephaly, Tonge said, "many of those whom I have seen bear little
resemblance to human beings."
But Baroness Williams of Crosby said the permission to kill the
disabled before birth is at odds with the nation's efforts to help disabled
people throughout their lives. "We have a society where once people are born we
increasingly go to extraordinary lengths to look after them if they are
disabled."
"One of the things that really frightens me is that, if we pick out the
potentially disabled at the age of 25 or 26 weeks, we will sooner or later
develop an attitude towards the severely disabled who have been disabled since
birth," she said.
Contact:
Molly Baroness Meacher
The House of Lords,
London, SW1A 0PW
U.K.
"To be ignorant and simple now- not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground- would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." -C.S. Lewis
February 2, 2008
The Use of Verbs
What would the world be like without Down syndrome? I don't know. What would the world like without the people who have Down syndrome living in it? How have they contributed to society? I can't say.
I can say how my life personally has been affected by people with Downs. Most of the people I know personally who have had Down syndrome and I have made friends. As with all friendships, some of these friendships came easily and others took a lot of work. Either way, through our friendships, I learned things like how to trust people who said they loved me, and I learned that's it's really okay to laugh and be silly sometimes. Something I really needed to learn.
I wonder why it matters. I wonder why it matters what life would be like without Down syndrome and what life would be like without people who have Down syndrome. I wonder why it matters what people with Down syndrome have contributed to society?
No one has ever looked at me, save perhaps my father in moments of frustration and myself in moments of despair, and pondered the question, "What does Julie contribute?" "What good does her 'kind' do?"
Yet, such questions come up when making a case for life. When deciding to terminate a pregnancy when tests show the child will have developmental disabilities or when deciding, as it is becoming legal here in the west, to euthanize an infant with a severe disability or illness. Those of us defending us these children and their right to life are quick to give our western answers which base their right to existence on what they can contribute to society. What they can 'do' and 'give'. These are action verbs, if I remember my 4th grade grammar.
Instead, though, I wonder if our arguments for the right to exist shouldn't be based on being verbs. If we shouldn't understand for ourselves first, before we 'preach' to others, that our right to exist, all of ours, is based on who we are. Or even that we are.
Peter Singer and other such 'ethicists', seem to be bypassing the argument of what one can contribute to society, anyway. They are attacking directly one's personhood. They are defining personhood based on whether or not one is aware of his existence and mortality.
So, they declare that infants, all infants, healthy or not, people with severe or profound cognitive disabilities, those in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's, etc., though perhaps human, aren't really a person. Therefore, if the human is not really a person, euthanasia is very much ethical.
Also, for parents and doctors who really care about children born or who will be born with severe disabilities or illness, they are not so much concerned with what the child can contribute but with the child's potential suffering. They have feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, despair, fear of the unknown, and guilt. In their grief over their child's potential suffering, parents can be swayed by the thought that the child will be better off if they let him/her die by the hand of their trusted doctor.
How do we help those parents make a choice for life? I'm asking because I don't know. While we passionately know that the child has a right to exist, how do we lovingly convey to parents that their child is better off alive and suffering than dead and at peace?
Is the child better off suffering than dead? Who are we to decide that the child must suffer? Yet, who are we to decide that death at the hands of doctors is the answer to suffering?
I think we should put down our protest signs, step out of the marching lines, with all due respect to the pro-life activists who have done much for the cause of life, and find a way to come along side suffering parents. Help them find hope because there is hope in the midst of suffering. Help them by enjoying and appreciating their child for who he/she is.
I think we should come along side those with disabilities and illness. It is through relationship with them that we will come to understand that most of their suffering does not come from their disability or illness. But rather their reception from the rest of society of prejudice, rejection, untold amounts of abuses, and the suspicion and judgment by some of us of their very existence.
I can say how my life personally has been affected by people with Downs. Most of the people I know personally who have had Down syndrome and I have made friends. As with all friendships, some of these friendships came easily and others took a lot of work. Either way, through our friendships, I learned things like how to trust people who said they loved me, and I learned that's it's really okay to laugh and be silly sometimes. Something I really needed to learn.
I wonder why it matters. I wonder why it matters what life would be like without Down syndrome and what life would be like without people who have Down syndrome. I wonder why it matters what people with Down syndrome have contributed to society?
No one has ever looked at me, save perhaps my father in moments of frustration and myself in moments of despair, and pondered the question, "What does Julie contribute?" "What good does her 'kind' do?"
Yet, such questions come up when making a case for life. When deciding to terminate a pregnancy when tests show the child will have developmental disabilities or when deciding, as it is becoming legal here in the west, to euthanize an infant with a severe disability or illness. Those of us defending us these children and their right to life are quick to give our western answers which base their right to existence on what they can contribute to society. What they can 'do' and 'give'. These are action verbs, if I remember my 4th grade grammar.
Instead, though, I wonder if our arguments for the right to exist shouldn't be based on being verbs. If we shouldn't understand for ourselves first, before we 'preach' to others, that our right to exist, all of ours, is based on who we are. Or even that we are.
Peter Singer and other such 'ethicists', seem to be bypassing the argument of what one can contribute to society, anyway. They are attacking directly one's personhood. They are defining personhood based on whether or not one is aware of his existence and mortality.
So, they declare that infants, all infants, healthy or not, people with severe or profound cognitive disabilities, those in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's, etc., though perhaps human, aren't really a person. Therefore, if the human is not really a person, euthanasia is very much ethical.
Also, for parents and doctors who really care about children born or who will be born with severe disabilities or illness, they are not so much concerned with what the child can contribute but with the child's potential suffering. They have feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, despair, fear of the unknown, and guilt. In their grief over their child's potential suffering, parents can be swayed by the thought that the child will be better off if they let him/her die by the hand of their trusted doctor.
How do we help those parents make a choice for life? I'm asking because I don't know. While we passionately know that the child has a right to exist, how do we lovingly convey to parents that their child is better off alive and suffering than dead and at peace?
Is the child better off suffering than dead? Who are we to decide that the child must suffer? Yet, who are we to decide that death at the hands of doctors is the answer to suffering?
I think we should put down our protest signs, step out of the marching lines, with all due respect to the pro-life activists who have done much for the cause of life, and find a way to come along side suffering parents. Help them find hope because there is hope in the midst of suffering. Help them by enjoying and appreciating their child for who he/she is.
I think we should come along side those with disabilities and illness. It is through relationship with them that we will come to understand that most of their suffering does not come from their disability or illness. But rather their reception from the rest of society of prejudice, rejection, untold amounts of abuses, and the suspicion and judgment by some of us of their very existence.
February 1, 2008
Life Issues
A 23 year-old woman may be killed, may be killed the way that Terri Schiavo was killed. Her feeding tube would be removed, thus resulting in starvation and dehydration, and then death. Words like 'persistent vegetative state' and 'life support' are being thrown around regarding her story, but the only life support this woman uses is a feeding tube.
Why do the doctors and some of her family members want to end her life? Why was Mrs. Schaivo killed? I don't know. Because she was suffering too much? Because she wouldn't have wanted to live like this? I really don't understand the argument, and I'm tired of pretending I do.
These women are fairly easy targets for euthanasia. They cannot speak for themselves. The doctors and lawyers and some of their family members who advocate removal of the feeding tube put themselves in the sufferers' positions and can't imagine living like that themselves, maybe, thus acting on some sort of distorted empathy? We as a society judge the only alternative to 'poor quality of life' to be death, instead of making efforts to actually improve someone's life? Dare I say, the cost of the feeding tube, other medicines, and around the clock personal care?
In Canada an eighty-four year old man's feeding tube may be removed, also. He like the women is not dying. He incurred a brain injury in 2003, and has been in the hospital since October due to pnemonia. His body is not shutting down, and he is benefitting from the provision of fluid and food. Unlike the women, the decision to take this man's life is not being made by any of his family, but rather the hospital where is receiving care.
This man and his family are Orthodox Jews, and in an affidavit, local Rabbi Y. Charytan, said Orthodox Jews believe "life must be extended as long as possible and we are not allowed to hasten death." A lawyer for Grace General Hospital, however, told the court that doctors "have the sole right to make decisions about treatment - even if it goes against a patient's religious beliefs."
These people are alive. A feeding tube is not an 'extreme measure of life support'. It's the way they eat. As the 84 year old man's family's lawyar said, "...I don't see the difference if [a doctor] came in and put a pillow over his face."
I'm baffled. This is really happening. We in the west are actually deciding that the murder of innocent people is okay sometimes.
My heart is heavy, and I don't have words to describe what's going on in my head. How does one argue the case for life? Who would have thought we would have to?
Psalm 72
12 He will rescue the poor when they cry to him;
19 And I will deal severely with all who have oppressed you.I will save the weak and helpless ones;
I will bring together
those who were chased away.
I will give glory and fame to my former exiles,
wherever they have been mocked and shamed.
20 On that day I will gather you together
and bring you home again.
I will give you a good name, a name of distinction,
among all the nations of the earth,
as I restore your fortunes before their very eyes.
I, the Lord, have spoken!”
Why do the doctors and some of her family members want to end her life? Why was Mrs. Schaivo killed? I don't know. Because she was suffering too much? Because she wouldn't have wanted to live like this? I really don't understand the argument, and I'm tired of pretending I do.
These women are fairly easy targets for euthanasia. They cannot speak for themselves. The doctors and lawyers and some of their family members who advocate removal of the feeding tube put themselves in the sufferers' positions and can't imagine living like that themselves, maybe, thus acting on some sort of distorted empathy? We as a society judge the only alternative to 'poor quality of life' to be death, instead of making efforts to actually improve someone's life? Dare I say, the cost of the feeding tube, other medicines, and around the clock personal care?
In Canada an eighty-four year old man's feeding tube may be removed, also. He like the women is not dying. He incurred a brain injury in 2003, and has been in the hospital since October due to pnemonia. His body is not shutting down, and he is benefitting from the provision of fluid and food. Unlike the women, the decision to take this man's life is not being made by any of his family, but rather the hospital where is receiving care.
This man and his family are Orthodox Jews, and in an affidavit, local Rabbi Y. Charytan, said Orthodox Jews believe "life must be extended as long as possible and we are not allowed to hasten death." A lawyer for Grace General Hospital, however, told the court that doctors "have the sole right to make decisions about treatment - even if it goes against a patient's religious beliefs."
These people are alive. A feeding tube is not an 'extreme measure of life support'. It's the way they eat. As the 84 year old man's family's lawyar said, "...I don't see the difference if [a doctor] came in and put a pillow over his face."
I'm baffled. This is really happening. We in the west are actually deciding that the murder of innocent people is okay sometimes.
My heart is heavy, and I don't have words to describe what's going on in my head. How does one argue the case for life? Who would have thought we would have to?
Psalm 72
12 He will rescue the poor when they cry to him;
he will help the oppressed, who have no one to defend them.
13 He feels pity for the weak and the needy,
and he will rescue them.
14 He will redeem them from oppression and violence,
for their lives are precious to him.
Zephania 3
19 And I will deal severely with all who have oppressed you.
I will bring together
those who were chased away.
I will give glory and fame to my former exiles,
wherever they have been mocked and shamed.
20 On that day I will gather you together
and bring you home again.
I will give you a good name, a name of distinction,
among all the nations of the earth,
as I restore your fortunes before their very eyes.
I, the Lord, have spoken!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)