>I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Can you point me to where I said that?<
You posted an essay headed "Cal Thomas" without any critical or contextual comments from yourself. From that I take that you endorse the entire content.
In answering, I focused on the part that you bolded.
>Ah, but it's not a myth, and that's where Palin nailed it. All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the "final solution." All human life was once regarded as having value, because even government saw it as "endowed by our Creator." This doctrine separates us from plants, microorganisms and animals.<
I see soooo much wrong with that. Going from suicide advisory (clearly working with patient's and family's informed consent" to the Final Solution is a miserable rhetorical trick, but worse in my book - it's faulty logic. This is why I suggested (irritably, I admit) that you need to read these things critically and spot where they abandon making sense. The Final Solution insinuation is arrant nonsense, and you endorsed it. My intent is not to deride you, but to be constructive: "If you really examine this, you might be less willing to endorse it". I'd hope so anyway.
As for government believing in the Creator's endowment: we have different views of how to interpret that key passage in the DoI. Regardless of what you and I think of the framers' actual religion, extending their statement and applying it to the entire government as a monolith is not logically permissible.
Your selected text then follows with a credo regarding what separates us from plants, animals... playing to the home crowd, but in this environment it's a non sequitur.
Your alternative is to >leav[e] decisions about treatment to the patient and his family in conjunction with his Doctor<.
My reading of the Cal Thomas essay is that this is the gov't's proposal that the writer is attacking!
I wonder if you still think that I am being uncharacteristically uncharitable. I recognize that since the essay incorporates and champions some of your dearest-held beliefs, you are probably prejudiced toward its conclusions. No complaint there, "brand loyalty" is a human trait that I consider nice over all. But the text has serious internal inconsistencies: it does not make sense. If you give my closing sentences the intonation I had in mind (something like "Psst, hey buddy. Some advice."), I'm hoping the perceived meanness evaporates.
cheers js |
