plaintext

Okay, so you're saying that the Catholic standard is that feeding tubes cannot be removed if they are keeping death away, but they can be removed if they are prolonging death? Delving deeper, does the Catholic church offer a reason for the distinction between a feeding tube versus blood or electric current or air to the lungs. What makes a feeding tube less extraordinary than other treatment. How would you state the standard by which the ordinary and extraordinary can be distinguished? (As for the Florida woman being Catholic, I think that is one factor the courts should have considered in determining her intent. )

Yes, I understood what you said, but was wondering about whether the duration would be relevant to a Catholic. I think you are saying that duration and quality of life are valid if one is deciding whether to remove one's life-saving equipment. You are also saying that to a Catholic, deciding to remove one's feeding tube is disallowed. So, the pope would be immoral by the Catholic standard if he asked that his feeding tube be removed. Since he did not ask that, his case is different from the Florida case. Am I understanding you correctly. You probably realize that to an Objectivist, the distinction between feeding tube and another life-support device is meaningless. But, you were not arguing that point, you were commenting on the idea that a contradiction is involved.

Is it different? How? Could you provide an example of something that is impossible rather than arbitrary?

Does the church allow make any distinction between a procedure that will prolong life for a day, versus one that will prolong it for a year?

Don't know what Ms. Rand would have done. Ten years ago, I would not have lied. Today I would do so with clear conscience.

Controlled by the Jewish bankers, no doubt. Or, do the modern conspiracies prefer to blame Saudi bankers?

Rights are definitely not god-given, nor are they "prior to human existence". Put simply, they're a concept that names an essential element that is required to transition from individual morality to life in society. They are the bridge from Ethics to Politics.

Are you also implying that you know that you require people to respect your rights if you are to be happy, but you cannot understand why they should do so. You understand your need for rights but you question your need to respect the rights of others? Just trying to clarify your focus so I or others can point you in the right direction.

You can link your blog to this forum (I think using your profile). If you want discussion and replies, better use threads.

In LFC, this is not a sustainable situation. Briefly, the marginal worker gets fired and a cheaper one hired, wage-rates come down, and the fired worker is re-hired. The proof that a "living wage" will always be possible under LFC is a little more complicated. I can explore it, but first I ask you this about where you live, in Germany. Suppose a single young person in decent health has to earn enougn to live. And if there are no laws saying things like "5 people cannot share a single room apartment". Suppose this person was willing to economize extremely. How much would they need to live for a year if they save nothing?

I walked past a poster on a lightpost. It said "Discover the truth about 9/11" and it had a web-site address (no doubt some Michael Moore fan). I was thinking then if we can use posters "Who is John Galt? Discover tht truth at... www.objectivismOnline.net"

Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you meant how do we explain to people who do not want to give us the right to life. I see that you are actually asking a deeper question. You are asking if rights are axiomatic (i.e. "obvious") or if they can be derived from other ideas and concepts. Correct?

Edit the poll so there is a read-only choice with a single vote (yours). The choice says "Prime mover".

Cool dad Felipe.

Non objectivist gave me an Ayn Rand book because he thought I might find it odd enough to be interesting.