Five Questions: Joe
Mar 23
OK, for my second of five interviews, Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost has agreed to be my second victim, er, interviewee. So here goes:
- You are adamantly opposed to allowing Terry Schiavo to die (you refer to it as “killing her” as opposed to “allowing her to die”), and characterize even the earliest-term abortions as “murder,” and yet you seem to have no trouble at all with thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians — including children — being killed while trying to get at a few bad guys; nor do you seem to have any problem with executions. How do you reconcile this, both personally and Biblically?
- Do you feel that more higher-ups should have been held at least partially accountable in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? If so, who? And if not, why not?
- Rank in order of suckitude, from bad to worst: Thomas Kinkade, Pablo Picasso, Terry Redlin, Norman Rockwell, Andy Warhol
- If it could be demonstrated that comprehensive sex education and actively encouraging contraceptive use measurably decreased the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions, would you throw your support behind these options? (Put another way, what’s more important to you: cutting the number of abortions, or cutting sexual activity?)
- Where do I go for the best BBQ in Texas?
There you have it, Joe. Answer those five questions on your blog, then interview five other bloggers with five questions of your own.
Have fun!
P.S. I still need three more victims. (I’ll take Countertop up only if I don’t get three others, since he has already answered five questions for Uncle.)
#1 by norbizness at March 24th, 2005
| Quote
5. Louie Moeller’s, Taylor, TX. (30 miles NE of Austin)
I was about to ask to be interviewed, but then I realized the second part of the bargain would be work. Hard, hard work.
#2 by SayUncle at March 24th, 2005
| Quote
Actually, they are killing her. Removing life support is pretty much killing.
Starving/dehydration sounds like a shitty way to go. If they’re going to kill here, do it humanely. Hell, we do that for dogs.
#3 by Stormy Dragon at March 24th, 2005
| Quote
Eh, do me.
#4 by Jesurgislac at March 25th, 2005
| Quote
Okay, ask me five.
#5 by tgirsch at March 25th, 2005
| Quote
Uncle:
You will pick the tiniest of nits in all matters gun-related, and then you come in here with that BS? Unbelievable. Here, let me spell it out for you, and I’ll try to use small words:
I shoot you in the head: I’m killing you.
I remove artificial life support: I’m allowing you to die, if that’s the way nature takes you.
Besides, there’s no guarantee that she will die without the feeding tube, if the Schnidlers are right. She could wake up at any time and ask for a cheeseburger. Of course, if you’re like me, and don’t believe that’s going to happen, then for all intents and purposes she’s already dead, and you can’t “kill” anything that’s already dead.
#6 by mumon at March 25th, 2005
| Quote
You can always put me on the list…
#7 by SayUncle at March 25th, 2005
| Quote
Tiniest nit? My ass. If you have diabetes and I take your insulin away, I am killing you. If you have a possibly fatal infection and I take away your antibiotics, I am killing you. If you can’t feed yourself and I take away your sustenance, I am killing you.
I mean you’re not one of those religious nuts who thinks that God is the only one who can cure people, are you?
We have medicine for a reason.
#8 by tgirsch at March 25th, 2005
| Quote
And suppose I asked you to take my insulin away? Then what? So any time somebody has a DNR order, and doctors honor it, those doctors are killing the patients in question? You have a pretty loose definition of “killing,” I guess.
#9 by SayUncle at March 25th, 2005
| Quote
They would be killing you but by request. Rather like my buddy who agreed to shoot me in the event i’m a vegetable. He’s still killing me, only with my blessing.
Would you ask to be starved to death? I tend to think not.
#10 by tgirsch at March 26th, 2005
| Quote
Uncle:
I’ll take the second part first:
Actually, if I’m vegetative and my brain has literally atrophied away, I really don’t care what you do.
OK, let me see if I’ve got this straight: If I do anything that directly or indirectly causes your death, or neglect to do something that thereby causes your death, I’m killing you. Great. Let’s test this, shall we?
You impregnated your wife, who subsequently gave birth to your daughter, thereby guaranteeing that she will die. Ergo, you and your wife are killing your daughter. Further, since you presumably planned to bring the child into the world and did so without your daughter’s consent, that makes it premeditated, i.e. murder.
Wow, this parsing is fun! We should play this game more often!
#11 by SayUncle at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
Parsing? The difference is you’re full of shit. If I took it that far, I could use your logic and say:
I’ll lock you in a room, and deny you food and water. After all, I’m not killing you. Just denying you food and water.
But that would make me full of shit too
#12 by Joel Vos at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
What a conversation at The Evangelical Outpost! Say Uncle–go take a look at how adults maintain conversation! Terri Shiavo was a loving wife, daughter, sister and friend to many. But, she wasn’t mine, or most of ours. It’s a shame that she will have to die this way, but after this much time, I wonder if she is just being kept alive to serve as a memory of herself. If this was my wife/daughter/sister I would want her to live as long as it made sense. If were in their shoes, I would see the evidence of her vegitative state and come to grips with the fact that I was postponing her death–maybe making it even more painful in life. All I can say is that we should take this time to step away from the media controversy, give the family room to mourn, and think about our own lives. Is it clear what we want if we find ourselves in Terri’s state? I hope it is clear.
In Terri’s state it’s almost as if she is starved to death like she was fed to life–a life void of living. Medical evidence shows there was/is little hope of any recovery. They have waited long enough. Possible unconfirmed outside motives aside, Terri’s husband is telling everyone Terri’s wishes to not be where she is. I don’t know why we can’t trust that. So with those wishes being truth, for years she was fed to live…just to create this very extraordinary way to pass away. What seems so maniacal is that we, as conscious humans, see dehydration as slow, painful death. For Terri, someone who likely cannot comprehend those emotions or feelings, this may be the release she has been hoping and waiting for–getting to see God in the afterlife.
#13 by tgirsch at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
Uncle:
Ha! Said the kettle to the pot.
Words have meanings, Uncle, and no reasonable person thinks a “No Extraordinary Means” order is the same thing as a “Kill Me” order, even if the result is likely the same. The difference between the “active” method (say, bullet to the head), and the “passive” method (no resuscitation, no feeding tubes) is that in the latter case, there’s always the possibility (however slim) that the person will pull through on their own. In the former case, you’re making absolutely certain that doesn’t happen.
In the Schiavo case, we’re pretty damn certain she’s not going to pull through on her own, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that virtually all the available evidence indicates that she wanted it this way. What purpose does it serve to poison the well by using the term “kill?”
Then again, I forgot about SayUncle Rule of Debate #37: Always use the most incendiary, controversial term possible, even if it only tangentially applies, unless the subject is guns, in which case doing this is foul play.
Besides, you’re a libertarian, and personal liberty is everything. They’re force feeding her? Why not decry this trampling of her personal liberties?
Joel:
I’m guessing that Uncle actually leans toward supporting the husband in this case; I think he’s just being contrarian here for the sake of being contrarian.
#14 by SayUncle at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
Actually, I think her life/death is a family matter and none of my business. I am quite disappointed in the .gov sticking it’s nose in.
My position is that, effectively, she is being killed. It is a death sentence. Sure, we flower it up with colorful euphimisms to make killing her sound like something else (why not throw out ‘let nature take its course’ too). It’s just that most evidence indicates she’d want it that way.
And letting someone starve to death is just horrible. Heck, we euthanize dogs more humanely.
#15 by SayUncle at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
And, to my knowledge, there is no hard evidence that Terri Schiavo’s wishes were ‘No Extraordinary Means.’
#16 by tgirsch at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
Uncle:
See, maybe this is where you and I differ: her “death sentence” didn’t begin with the removal of the feeding tube. It began fifteen years ago, when she slipped into this condition. The feeding tube hasn’t been prolonging her life; it has been extending her death, making it an even slower, even more painful process. Rather than allowing her to die in a couple of weeks (yes, by starvation and dehydration), they’ve stretched her death out for over a decade. Fortunately, she no longer has the brain capacity to comprehend pain and suffering (even if she can technically feel pain).
I agree that something quick would be far more humane. Unfortunately, that’s not legal. So of the legal options, the most humane remaining option is removing the feeding tube and letting her go naturally. This is not a rare case, either. In hospice care, we “let people starve to death” all the time. (In many of these cases, they let themselves starve to death — the alternative would be to literally force feed them).
I also agree that we have no hard evidence as to what her wishes were, so we’re forced to make the best decision we can with the information we do have. Every single court to ever look at this case (including several involving conservative Republican justices) came to the same conclusion. If you think they all universally made the wrong one, Oliver Stone probably has a job available for you.
#17 by SayUncle at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
And one more thing: ‘Always use the most incendiary, controversial term possible, even if it only tangentially applies, unless the subject is guns, in which case doing this is foul play.’
Huh? Kill is not controversial and it doesn’t tangentially apply. And, in terms of controversial terms, other than ‘dancing in the blood of dead children’ i can’t think of any other times where I used a term just because it’s controversial. Of course, i didn’t use that term to be controversial, just because i felt it was a good (though colorful) description of what they do.
#18 by tgirsch at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
“Kill” is controversial, in my mind, because it implies an active process. In this context, it equivocates shooting someone in the head with allowing nature to take its course. And in this particular case, it also implies that the person in question is really still alive, in any meaningful sense, which I contend she is not.
#19 by SayUncle at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
I don’t really think we disagree over anything here other than whether or not the actions of the court are ‘killing’ her.
#20 by SayUncle at March 28th, 2005
| Quote
Edit to add (brain fart): not the actions of the court, but the actual removal of the tube. As you were.