what if Terry Schiavo was like a black or an asian or etc?

But then, you never really hear about anyone other than white women having eating disorders.

i'm just wondering if she was another sort of minority if "pro-lifers" from cross-country would still be showing up to protest and screaming things like 'if she dies, there's gonna be HELL TO PAY!!" like i just heard on CNN

If she had wings, she wouldn't bump her rump everytime she jumped.

Stence OTM.

These people fighting for her life probably are pro-death penalty.

also, those folks tend to favor strong punishment for criminals, with their veiw of justice meaning "a life for a life." those who commit crimes are thus guilty and morally wrong, no longer worthy of protection.

The only-white-middle-class-women-have-eating-disorders premise occured to me too when I saw this thread, but really someone can get hit by a car and wind up a vegetable too.

And no, there probably wouldn't be as much fuss if she had been poor (her parents wouldn't have been able to afford attorney's fees for ten years for one thing).

What if she'd been a he?

Pro-Death penalty + Anti-Abortion = inconsistent

Then

Pro-Abortion + Anti-Death penalty also = inconsistent

It's the circular nature of both those arguments that doesn't work. I think they are unrelated arguments, no matter which side of either you're on--a topic I don't mean, paradoxically, to invoke. It's just the logic of it.

Also,

Number of executions vs. number of abortions also skews the debate, a tad, I'd think.

Pro-Death penalty + Anti-Abortion = inconsistent

Then

Pro-Abortion + Anti-Death penalty also = inconsistent"

This doesn't really hold up. Some people are anti-death penalty because they see the criminal justice system as imperfect, and it's hard to remedy a miscarriage of justice when the person has been executed. Another objection might be the disporporiate number of minorities receiving the death penalty or whatever.

I'm not really aware of any objections to abortion that don't involve the "sanctity of life."

L.A. Times: Rep. Tom DeLay Took His Own Father Off Life Support in 1988
2005.03.26

Exposing a previously unknown episode, the Los Angeles Times reported late Saturday that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who this week championed political intervention in the Terry Schiavo case, agreed to his own family’s decision in 1988 to take his father off life support and allow him to die.

The DeLay's father, 65-year-old drilling contractor Charles DeLay, was badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Tom DeLay was a junior congressman from Texas at the time. The patient was being kept alive by intravenous lines and a ventilator.

"DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls 'an act of barbarism,' in removing the tube," the L.A. Times reported. "In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die."

This account was assembled from court files, medical records, and interviews with family members, the paper said.

Doctors advised that DeLay’s father would "basically be a vegetable," the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay, told the newspaper.

When his kidneys failed, the family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes."

His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do Not Resuscitate." On Dec. 14, 1988, the senior DeLay died.

The Times noted similarities between the DeLay and Schiavo cases: "Both stricken patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine. And neither left a living will."

http://www.fiddlesticksdallas.com/images/Accessories/2004Halloween/vampire.jpg

You make a good point. But just another reason why the two arguments don't really have much to do with each other.

I'm not really aware of any objections to abortion that don't involve the "sanctity of life."

The obvious argument that is most often invoked by conservatives is that whereas the death penalty kills people convicted of society's most heinous crimes, abortion just kills innocent li'l babies. (Obv. the miscarriage of justice factor weakens the former justification.)

-- Bored (SoBore...), March 29th, 2005. (later)

I agree. I know that no one is completely consistent. I've been irked by people who expect vegetarians not to wear leather shoes or use any animal products, for example.

I'm not at my most articulate now (I blame the pregnancy hormones for my fuzzy head), so I am struggling to express what bugs me about anti-abortion people being pro-death penalty.

It's just that pro-lifers themselves are often so strident and unforgiving of gray areas between black and white. Life is life and life is holy, whether it be a stem cell or a brain-dead woman, but then NOT if it is a convicted criminal.

I probably am making some spurious connection between pro-lifers and racist conservatives, lumping different issues together.

I'll give this some thought.

and having an Administration in charge that believes similarly doesn't help anything...