Yes it was murder

While I see and understand both positions regarding Terri Schiavo, one thing really stands out in my observation of current events.

Many of those who find Terri's death and the circumstances that led to it to be unconscionable, at the same time they support President Bush's war policies that have resluted in the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqis. Many innocent civilians, women and children.

Wouldn't it be nice if those who've spoken out against removing her feeding tube, would show the same concern for the thousands of innocent Iraqi's being killed by the actions of President Bush?

Bob!

I could help but notice that you posed EXACTLY THE SAME COMMENT DOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL WORDS over on my blog.

Is this comment something you're going around and posting on every pro-life blog that discusses the Terri situation? Is it your own personal effort to exploit Terri's death for purposes of advancing your views on the Iraqi war?

Are the Iraqis being intentionally killed? Do you believe that US military policy (from the top down, since you are specifically mentioning the President) intentionally targets innocent civilians for death?

If the the United State's use of military force was justified, and if the US policy and leadership are doing everything in there power to make sure this military force is being used in a just manner, then the death of innocents are certainly not intentional, but are unwanted evil consequences of a good action. And if this is so, then I believe the principle of double effect would eliminate, or at least greatly lesson, the culpability of the President and other leaders.

One big difference between the situation that exists in Iraq and the situation that existed in Florida is that military force can be used in a just manner, while it can never be just to starve a person to death. Thus, it is possible to believe that the military action in Iraq is just. Whether or not it is objectively so is debatable (I lean towards believing that it isn't), but it is certainly not as black and white as the situation in Florida (no matter how much some want to obfuscate the issue).

May Terri, and all innocents, rest in the peace of Christ.

I have no interest in exploiting Terri's death for any purpose ... to make such a claim is purely ridiculous.

I simply would like to point out the hypocrisy I see by those who claim to be "selectively" pro-life. And maybe, help them see the contradictions in their positions ... then leave it to them to ask questions or not. Thinking is their freewill, to do or not.

In regards to the above comment, my intention was to point out the "selective" regard for life as sacred. (e.g. Terri's death being unacceptable vs. Innoncent Iraqi deaths being acceptable).

Bremlar ... Supporters of the war in Iraq express that they feel the "accidental" killings of innocents is acceptable to them. Intentional or not, they find it "acceptable" ... Re: "unwanted evil consequences of a good action" ... we greatly differ on the issue of the war being justified ... you're entitled to your own opinion. Whether I agree or not. But I've yet to see anything that justifies our countries actions in Iraq (and please don't try to connect them to the 9/11 attacks ... that's already been disproven, repeatedly).

Yo, Bob, you left my blog out of your trolling expedition. I'm deeply offended . . .

It makes no sense to say that people who object to a deliberate killing for personal gain should be opposed to the war in Iraq. If you don't know the difference between murder and casualties in war, you can read up on it in any handbook of moral theology. This one is good:

http://www.marianland.com/romancatholicbooks/handbookofmoraltheology.html

Elinor,

Support the killing of innocents in one instance, and oppose the killing of an innocent woman in another, if you wish.

Explain it however you'd like. It screams hypocrisy.

What can I say? You're wrong. Look it up. War operates under different rules. You don't think so, but you aren't the Magisterium, so that's that. And do stop copying and pasting. Everywhere I go I see the same words (and the same bald unsupported assertion) over and over again. There's more to argument than endlessly repeating the same phrases. By the way, you still haven't given Jeff the cite for your 100,000 figure. Are you going to, or aren't you?

Elinor,

Re: the 100,000 number ... I believe the 100,000 peer reviewed number as reported by many credible sources. Obviously, Jeff doesn't ... that's OK ... it doesn't change my point at all.

Tell me, is a smaller number like 5,000 dead innocents more acceptable to you than 100,000? Personally, I find both unacceptable, esp. given that Iraq didn't start the war.

Re: Your comment "War operates under different rules. You don't think so, but you aren't the Magisterium, so that's that. "

We differ on the premise of the war being "justified" ... given that, No matter how much we might argue about it, we won't agree on it's effects being justified or not.

Elinor, Support the killing of innocents in Iraq as "acceptable" if you'd like.

Oppose the killing of Terri, if you'd like.

Refuse to see the Hypocrisy in that, if you'd like.

We can talk about all that later. So, do you have a cite you can give so that we can check the number on our own, or don't you? Because it looks awfully odd that you don't back it up.

Bob,
Whether the war in Iraq is justified or not, and regardless of how its supporters feel about Terri Schiavo (and I bet there are just as many opponents of the war who opposed the killing of that poor woman) your argument has rife inconsistant logic. It's a red herring and a circumstantial attack to accuse Terri Schiavo's defenders of hypocrisy. The fact is that the argument for Terri's being kept alive was not based upon credentials or on anyone's good word, but upon the natural law. And anyone, be it Hitler or Pope John Paul II, can validly appeal to this transcendent law and the cohesiveness of their argument would not rely upon their own character, but on the nature of their formal claim.

So, throw all the sticks and stones you will, and maybe your observation of hypocrisy holds water, but it does nothing to weaken the case that Terri Schiavo was a victim of an unjust and untimely deprivation of life, which case is founded in facts irrelevant to anybody's opinions about a war or anything else.

Joey,

You make some interesting points to ponder with the rest of your comments. I will certainly give them some thought.

Also, I can see where my comments would be "received" as stones being thrown ... it may not look that way, but it's really not my intention to do so.

I'm really just hoping to stimulate some thinking within people about what I see as contradictions given the current discussions regarding the sacred value of ALL life. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about whether a condradiction exists or not.

I also agree with you, Terri was a victim of unjust and untimely deprivation of life.

In regards to the war, and it's relevance to the discussion of Terri. I hear many reasons why the killing of children, and other innocents in Iraq are somehow justified, or acceptable.

All I know is, if it was my son or daughter, or wife being killed by another country's bombs in my backyard, accidental or otherwise, the value of their lives would be painfully felt. And those arguable justifications would hold little value. Would you not feel the same if your family were killed by another country's bombs in your land?

Now, our country has imposed that experience on thousands of innocent Iraqi's. With good intentions or not. That's what we've given to many.

In their eyes (very important to see their perspective), Does that make the US better than Sadaam? Or, based on their experience, are we more like the otrocities they experienced under Saddam? Still wonder why many of them have come to hate us?

You may differ with me on my position Jeff. I'm cool with that ... and I do respect that you articulate your views in a reasonable manor.

But personally, I DO see a clear contradiction in the spoken outrage that I hear for Terri, and then the same people expressing acceptance of the innocents being killed by our Presidents decisions.

Again, I wish they'd speak out with the same concern for ALL people.

Elinor,

I've posted the cite you requested on the JimmyAkin.org Terri Discussion... if you don't get it there, please let me know and I'lll post it here.

If you differ on the "exact" number, it matters little to my original point.

Bob,

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I would have liked to be. I am not a supporter of the war. My own view leans towards the war not objectively meeting the criteria needed for the just use of military force. The point, however, was that these conditions are not as easy to discern as the fact that it is immoral to starve a woman to death is. Thus, people who believe that the use of force in Iraq is just are not contradicting themselves when they spoke out against the murder of Terri.

I would also ask what you mean when you say that those in favor of the war find the death of innocents to be an "acceptable" consequence. If you mean that they believe that, even with firm policies and rules in place to prevent such things, accidents will happen, but that these accidents do not make the use of force immoral, then I agree with them. Machines malfunction, soldiers who have never seen combat before may be overcome by fear or adrenaline and make bad decisions, etc. Double effect would remove culpability for these accidents from US leaders if the use of force is justified.

If, however, you mean that there are Catholics who support the war and do not care at all about the death of innocents, thinking that the only thing that matters is the ends and not the means, I would agree that this is immoral and contradictory. I have, however, not seen many, if any, Catholic say anything even remotely close to this, especially not recently. I believe it to be a strawman.

I'm not going to dignify the quotation marks around "accidental" in "accidental deaths" with a response. Unless you have clear, irrefutable evidence that US policy specifically targets and kills innocent civilians, charity seems to demand that we believe that these deaths are exactly what they are said to be: accidents.

Oh geez, that! You'd believe anything, obviously. Nothing left to talk about, unless you're interested in a gold mine in central New Jersey.

For Terry Im not saying anything about the feeding tube .Being reinserted but then they could have tryed to feed by mouth or at least water to drink. If she was unable to then At least there would have been an effort made to help her. But Michel did not alow her to drink by mouth. thanks.