Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

Religions > Atheism > Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 47 of 78

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM
Object:	Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.

User: "Bruno"
Title: Re: 2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival	03 Sep 2005 01:39:49 PM

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:49:10 -0500, Tracy Hamilton wrote:

Hitler was not German.

Bush is not a Texan.
--
"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
- Slartibartfast
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: 2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival	03 Sep 2005 05:06:11 PM

Tracy Hamilton wrote:

david ford wrote:

Also posted elsewhere.

The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:

I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to cmbass_us@yahoo.com:

[snip]

The "advice" you refer to is "Don't judge, lest you yourself be
judged." Well, fine, I'm willing to be judged. And I'm not claiming
"superiority" at any level -- that's just your projection. I am
evaluating whether Hitler was a Christian based on the fruits of his
labors, which is something else Jesus advised on. However, in your
quest to "pick and choose", you utterly ignore that aspect of Christ's
teaching, _AGAIN_ .

Hitler received his anti-Semitic views from either the Catholic or Lutheran
churches (opinions differ), but it makes no odds, because both held such
views.

I've been reading quite a bit recently about Hitler, and don't recall
coming across the claim that "Hitler received his anti-Semitic views
from either the Catholic or Lutheran churches." Reference?

Hitler did go to a Catholic school:
Hitler encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism
news:dford3-1118403178.860854.170600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Anti-Semitism was rampant in Germany's dominant elites, with one
scholar noting that "An entire generation of Germans had absorbed
generous doses of anti-Semitism at the gymnasium and the university."
Cited in
Weiss, John. 1996. _Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in
Germany_ (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee), 427pp., 142, in the chapter
"Anti-Semitism, Academics, and Intellectuals, 1890-1914."

Hitler was not German.

Do you consider Houston Stuart Chamberlain to have become a German?

[snip]

Ref:
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler was a
homosexual

How are you doing on showing the quote you used was falsified, and in
fact Hitler was NOT homosexual?

What exactly is this "quote" that you refer to?
_Publishers Weekly_ book review of _Speer: The Final Verdict_ by
Joachim Fest et al.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002DVKBS/ref=pd_sim_2/102-0698186-1566562?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
But as Fest shows, Speer embodied many traits of the
German people. Like thousands of others, Speer was
seduced by Hitler's charisma in fact, the two had a close
friendship that, according to Fest, was erotic but probably
not carnal....

This is at least twice you have
reposted the URL without acknowledgement.

"without acknowledgement" Incorrect: I have commented on Mitchell's
remarks that are in the URL you give below.

It is almost as if you don't
care what you have said is correct, but suits your argument.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/81b22356182ef977?hl

[snip URLogharrea]

1934 Ebermayer: "Hess... was for many years the Fuhrer's partner"
news:dford3-1121399969.441145.63680@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler was a
homosexual
news:dford3-1118315214.069039.280490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final
Solution
news:dford3-1122434358.640904.162640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Rape in New Orleans	03 Sep 2005 10:12:22 PM

I once asked the atheist/ materialist philosopher John Wilkins whether
engaging in rape could be [JW]"a social evolutionary survival
strategy."
What do you think-- can engaging in rape be [JW]"a social evolutionary
survival strategy"?
Do you agree with this Thornhill & Palmer, perhaps in their _A Natural
History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion_ (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2001)?:
rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the
human evolutionary heritage," just as is "the leopard's spots and the
giraffe's elongated neck."
Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the rapes that are
described in the Reuters news story below?
If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?
Also, do you think a person should fear being judged in an afterlife by
the Judeo-Christian God for his or her actions in this life?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03464940.htm
CORRECTED - Rapes, killings hit Katrina refugees in New Orleans
03 Sep 2005 22:52:27 GMT
Source: Reuters
==
By Mark Egan
NEW ORLEANS, Sept 3 (Reuters) - People left homeless by Hurricane
Katrina told horrific stories of rape, murder and trigger-happy guards
in two New Orleans centers that were set up as shelters but became
places of violence and terror.
==
"They killed a man here last night," Steve Banka, 28, told Reuters. "A
young lady was being raped and stabbed. And the sounds of her screaming
got to this man and so he ran out into the street to get help from
troops, to try to flag down a passing truck of them, and he jumped up
on the truck's windscreen and they shot him dead."
==
"There is rapes going on here. Women cannot go to the bathroom without
men. They are raping them and slitting their throats. They keep telling
us the buses are coming but they never leave," she [AB] said through
tears.
==
At the arena, too, there was much talk of bedlam after dark.
"We found a young girl raped and killed in the bathroom," one National
Guard soldier told Reuters. "Then the crowd got the man and they beat
him to death."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thornhill & Palmer cited in
Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have Enough Faith to
Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books), 447pp., 191, who
cite an article by Pearcey.
one view: there's no need for anyone to worry about being judged for
his or her actions in this life
news:dford3-1125418165.686474.220010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d@posting.google.com
Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism, 1999
Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
news:dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1@individual.net
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814@posting.google.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
news:dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1@individual.net
On the Origin of Life
news:dford3-39oh33F63riraU1@individual.net
2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
news:dford3-1125723152.824465.111490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final
Solution
news:dford3-1122434358.640904.162640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett:
Darwinist atheists/ materialists downgrading the value of human life
news:dford3-399aluF5uql89U1@individual.net
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate in post-Darwin
Germany
news:dford3-1118315214.069039.280490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
news:dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1@individual.net
.

User: "Dubh Ghall"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	04 Sep 2005 06:59:34 PM

On 3 Sep 2005 20:12:22 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

It is a possibility. It is certainly not limited to human behaviour, so it must
have some value.

Do you agree with this Thornhill & Palmer, perhaps in their _A Natural
History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion_ (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2001)?:
rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the
human evolutionary heritage," just as is "the leopard's spots and the
giraffe's elongated neck."

Not if you are going to tie it specifically to humans.
It is a phenomenon, that has been observed through out much of the mammal
kingdom.

Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the rapes that are
described in the Reuters news story below?

Yes.

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?

For one thing, this is not rape for the survival of your genes.
When you rape a woman, with the intention of getting her pregnant, you do not
cut her throat afterwards.
That is somewhat counter productive.
This is rape, as I would expect xtians fundamentalists to behave, should it ever
be proved to them that there is no god.
This is rape, for no other reason than because they have the power, and that
they expect to get away with it.
Aside from that, rape hurts people, both physically, and mentally, and is
therefore inexcusable.
If your suggestion is that what was valid, half a million years ago, is sill
valid today, then it seems to me, your own morality must be, to say the least,
questionable.

Also, do you think a person should fear being judged in an afterlife by
the Judeo-Christian God for his or her actions in this life?

No.
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	04 Sep 2005 07:31:58 PM

Dubh Ghall wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 20:12:22 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

It is a possibility. It is certainly not limited to human behaviour, so it must
have some value.

Whatever you say, David will twist it to mean (or rather rhetorically imply)
something else. Do not bother arguing with this pathetic little man.
For example, he knows, as I have told him many times, that I am an agnostic
not an atheist (although if I were, I'd be proud of that fact). Also, as a
matter of fact, he has no reason to think I am a materialist, either. He's
never asked me if I am. I'm not - I'm a physicalist, and I believe that moral
claims are not physical statements, although they are still obligations and
values.
But that is still not enough to stop him calling me an "atheist/materialist",
and he clearly does this in order to assert some kind of guilt by association
between my supposed views and a supposed claim that rape is acceptable (which,
of course, Thornhill and Palmer do not, so far as I know, say it is). It's a
dirty little trick he does in every sentence, and it's simply not worth
dealign with this sort of slimy, dare one say, "Christian", rhetorical trick.
Everything he posts involves some sort of similar trick. It's crap, and we all
should just ignore the troll.

Not if you are going to tie it specifically to humans.

It is a phenomenon, that has been observed through out much of the mammal
kingdom.

Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the rapes that are
described in the Reuters news story below?

Yes.

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?

For one thing, this is not rape for the survival of your genes.
When you rape a woman, with the intention of getting her pregnant, you do not
cut her throat afterwards.

That is somewhat counter productive.

This is rape, as I would expect xtians fundamentalists to behave, should it ever
be proved to them that there is no god.

This is rape, for no other reason than because they have the power, and that
they expect to get away with it.

Aside from that, rape hurts people, both physically, and mentally, and is
therefore inexcusable.

If your suggestion is that what was valid, half a million years ago, is sill
valid today, then it seems to me, your own morality must be, to say the least,
questionable.

Also, do you think a person should fear being judged in an afterlife by
the Judeo-Christian God for his or her actions in this life?

No.

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.

User: "Bob Casanova"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	04 Sep 2005 03:31:06 PM

On 3 Sep 2005 20:12:22 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:

Could be (if one doesn't get caught and eliminated from the
gene pool).

Possibly. So?

Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the rapes that are
described in the Reuters news story below?

Of course. Any action which injures others for
self-gratification is immoral.

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?

Because innocents are injured. Is another reason required?

Also, do you think a person should fear being judged in an afterlife by
the Judeo-Christian God for his or her actions in this life?

No. Morality does not depend on fear of retribution.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03464940.htm

CORRECTED - Rapes, killings hit Katrina refugees in New Orleans
03 Sep 2005 22:52:27 GMT
Source: Reuters
==
By Mark Egan

NEW ORLEANS, Sept 3 (Reuters) - People left homeless by Hurricane
Katrina told horrific stories of rape, murder and trigger-happy guards
in two New Orleans centers that were set up as shelters but became
places of violence and terror.
==
"They killed a man here last night," Steve Banka, 28, told Reuters. "A
young lady was being raped and stabbed. And the sounds of her screaming
got to this man and so he ran out into the street to get help from
troops, to try to flag down a passing truck of them, and he jumped up
on the truck's windscreen and they shot him dead."
==
"There is rapes going on here. Women cannot go to the bathroom without
men. They are raping them and slitting their throats. They keep telling
us the buses are coming but they never leave," she [AB] said through
tears.
==
At the arena, too, there was much talk of bedlam after dark.

"We found a young girl raped and killed in the bathroom," one National
Guard soldier told Reuters. "Then the crowd got the man and they beat
him to death."

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thornhill & Palmer cited in
Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have Enough Faith to
Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books), 447pp., 191, who
cite an article by Pearcey.

one view: there's no need for anyone to worry about being judged for
his or her actions in this life
news:dford3-1125418165.686474.220010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d@posting.google.com

Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism, 1999
Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
news:dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1@individual.net

1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814@posting.google.com

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
news:dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1@individual.net
On the Origin of Life
news:dford3-39oh33F63riraU1@individual.net

2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
news:dford3-1125723152.824465.111490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final
Solution
news:dford3-1122434358.640904.162640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett:
Darwinist atheists/ materialists downgrading the value of human life
news:dford3-399aluF5uql89U1@individual.net

Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate in post-Darwin
Germany
news:dford3-1118315214.069039.280490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
news:dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1@individual.net

--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	04 Sep 2005 10:02:27 PM

Bob Casanova wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 20:12:22 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:

Could be (if one doesn't get caught and eliminated from the
gene pool).

While reacting to complaints about his men's behavior, Hitler once
commented that he didn't care what his men did, just as long as they
didn't "get caught."

Possibly. So?

It's too early for me to draw conclusions from your response of
"possibly."
Do you agree with this viewpoint?:
'Genocide is a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the
human evolutionary heritage, just as is the leopard's spots and the
giraffe's elongated neck.'
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final
Solution
news:dford3-1122434358.640904.162640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Fest on "Social Darwinism in Hitler's thought"
news:dford3-1125598958.059080.62950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
news:dford3-1118315214.069039.280490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814@posting.google.com

Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the rapes that are
described in the Reuters news story below?

Of course. Any action which injures others for
self-gratification is immoral.

Do you agree with this Nordau?:
Nordau, Max. 1922. _Morals and the Evolution of Man_ [trans. of
_Biologie und Ethik_] (London), 73. Cited in Weikart, Richard. 2004.
_From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in
Germany_ (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 30. About Weikart's
book:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
Good and bad.... derive not only their existence but their
measure and their significance from the views of the
community. They are therefore not absolute but variable;
they are not an immutable standard amid the ever-changing
conditions of humanity, a rule by which the value of the
actions and aims of mortals are indisputably determined, but
are subject to the laws of evolution in society and therefore
in a constant state of flux. At different times and in different
places they present the most varied aspects. What is virtue
here and now may have been vice formerly and at another
spot, and _vice versa_.

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?

Because innocents are injured. Is another reason required?

Let's find out:
Do you think "innocents are injured" in abortion?
Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the destruction of
pre-born human life via abortion for reasons of personal convenience?

Also, do you think a person should fear being judged in an afterlife by
the Judeo-Christian God for his or her actions in this life?

No. Morality does not depend on fear of retribution.

What (if anything) _does_ "morality... depend on"?
Do you think rape involves the commission of an 'injustice'?
Do you think rapists should receive an appropriate punishment for their
rapings?
Do you think there is such a thing as 'justice being done' following
the commission of an 'injustice'?
If 'yes,' do you think 'justice was done' in the case of the "immoral"
actions of the atheists Hitler and Stalin?
In the event that you don't think 'justice was done' in the case of the
"immoral" actions of the atheists Hitler and Stalin:
Do you think Hitler and Stalin need to be held to account for their
actions?
Do you think Hitler and Stalin escaped 'justice being served' to them?
Would you like it if 'justice was served' to Hitler and Stalin in an
afterlife?
Do you think there is an afterlife?
Do you think a person's death in this life is the absolute, complete
end of that person's existence?
Do you think some completely holy Judge will in an afterlife judge
Hitler and Stalin for their "immoral" actions, and give them each an
appropriate punishment?

User: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	04 Sep 2005 10:50:36 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1125889347.285596.54640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Bob Casanova wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 20:12:22 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:

Could be (if one doesn't get caught and eliminated from the
gene pool).

While reacting to complaints about his men's behavior, Hitler once
commented that he didn't care what his men did, just as long as they
didn't "get caught."

Do you have a cite or are you just making this up?
<snip>

Do you agree with this viewpoint?:
'Genocide is a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the
human evolutionary heritage, just as is the leopard's spots and the
giraffe's elongated neck.'

Given how often we do it, it sure seems to be nothing terribly
foreign to us.
<snip>

Good and bad.... derive not only their existence but their
measure and their significance from the views of the
community.

Do you deny the evidence for this statement? Not whether
it *should* be true, but whether it actually happens?
<snip>

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?

Because innocents are injured. Is another reason required?

Let's find out:
Do you think "innocents are injured" in abortion?

In times when abortions are illegal, women who have them
illegally have been injured and killed by the operation. Oh,
sorry. Not the example you had in mind? Weren't they
"innocent" enough for you? Meaning of innocent?
<snip>

Do you think there is such a thing as 'justice being done' following
the commission of an 'injustice'?
If 'yes,' do you think 'justice was done' in the case of the "immoral"
actions of the atheists Hitler and Stalin?

Trying to evade Hitler's claims to be a good Christian, eh? And did
you ever answer the question about the good church-going, self-professed
Christians who manned the gas chambers? Were they Christians?
<snip>
Deadrat
.

User: "Bob Casanova"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	05 Sep 2005 05:39:34 PM

On 4 Sep 2005 20:02:27 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 20:12:22 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>:

Could be (if one doesn't get caught and eliminated from the
gene pool).

While reacting to complaints about his men's behavior, Hitler once
commented that he didn't care what his men did, just as long as they
didn't "get caught."

Your point, if any?

Possibly. So?

It's too early for me to draw conclusions from your response of
"possibly."

So you had no thoughts about this yourself? OK.

If by "agree with this viewpoint" you mean "accept as a
*possibly* valid statement", the answer is, as I stated
above, "yes". If, OTOH, you mean "agree that rape is
*desirable*", the answer is, of course, "no". The point, if
any, to this question?

Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final
Solution
news:dford3-1122434358.640904.162640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Fest on "Social Darwinism in Hitler's thought"
news:dford3-1125598958.059080.62950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
news:dford3-1118315214.069039.280490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814@posting.google.com

Evolution, despite the efforts of kooks (including some
rather famous ones), has nothing to do with morals or
ethics.

Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the rapes that are
described in the Reuters news story below?

Of course. Any action which injures others for
self-gratification is immoral.

Do you agree with this Nordau?:

Nordau, Max. 1922. _Morals and the Evolution of Man_ [trans. of
_Biologie und Ethik_] (London), 73. Cited in Weikart, Richard. 2004.
_From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in
Germany_ (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 30. About Weikart's
book:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
Good and bad.... derive not only their existence but their
measure and their significance from the views of the
community. They are therefore not absolute but variable;
they are not an immutable standard amid the ever-changing
conditions of humanity, a rule by which the value of the
actions and aims of mortals are indisputably determined, but
are subject to the laws of evolution in society and therefore
in a constant state of flux. At different times and in different
places they present the most varied aspects. What is virtue
here and now may have been vice formerly and at another
spot, and _vice versa_.

The statement is true; social conventions and acceptable
behavior vary widely between societies; I'm surprised you
don't seem to be aware of this. However, most *rational*
(and all civilized) societies share certain taboos - murder,
rape and incest are the ones which come easily to mind. Do
you think this fact is denied by the passage you quoted?

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?

Because innocents are injured. Is another reason required?

Let's find out:
Do you think "innocents are injured" in abortion?

Probably, depending on the viability of the fetus outside
the womb. Note that this would be the case whether or not
the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. In those
cases, as in those where the health of the mother is
concerned, the objective should be to do the least harm to
an innocent, whether that innocent is the fetus or the
mother.

Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the destruction of
pre-born human life via abortion for reasons of personal convenience?

I think that if done solely for "personal convenience" after
consensual sex it shows immaturity, selfishness and
immorality on the part of the mother *if* the fetus is
viable outside the womb at the time of the abortion; IOW I
don't think abortion of a viable fetus should be used as an
after-the-fact means of birth control. That said, I don't
think there should be any restrictions on abortion of a
fetus which is *not* viable outside the womb, since such a
fetus isn't really a "person" in any real sense; nor do I
think abortifacients used in the first few weeks of a
pregnancy should be subject to legislative or judicial
overview and/or control (IMHO; YMMV; IDWTDI).

Also, do you think a person should fear being judged in an afterlife by
the Judeo-Christian God for his or her actions in this life?

No. Morality does not depend on fear of retribution.

What (if anything) _does_ "morality... depend on"?

The conventions of society.

Do you think rape involves the commission of an 'injustice'?
Do you think rapists should receive an appropriate punishment for their
rapings?

*I* think first-time rapists should be castrated. YMMV;
again, IDWTDI.

That question assumes that Hitler was an atheist. He wasn't;
he was a professed Christian (as was Torquemada, who was at
least as much of a monster as Hitler; he was far from the
only one). And they're both dead, so it hardly matters now.

In the event that you don't think 'justice was done' in the case of the
"immoral" actions of the atheists Hitler and Stalin:
Do you think Hitler and Stalin need to be held to account for their
actions?
Do you think Hitler and Stalin escaped 'justice being served' to them?

They're dead, so the point is moot.

Would you like it if 'justice was served' to Hitler and Stalin in an
afterlife?
Do you think there is an afterlife?
Do you think a person's death in this life is the absolute, complete
end of that person's existence?
Do you think some completely holy Judge will in an afterlife judge
Hitler and Stalin for their "immoral" actions, and give them each an
appropriate punishment?

Sorry; I don't answer questions about my religious beliefs,
assuming I have any.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	04 Sep 2005 01:29:16 AM

david ford wrote:

It probaby is, yes.

Tentatively, yes.

Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the rapes that are
described in the Reuters news story below?

Yes.

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?

It hurts people. Why - can't you tell right from wrong?
This has been explained to you before, David - science studies how the
world is, not how we should behave.
I note that co-eoperation and charity are also natural, biological
phenomena, and and an evolutionary survival strategy.

Also, do you think a person should fear being judged in an afterlife by
the Judeo-Christian God for his or her actions in this life?

No. There are scientists (and others) who think so, but not because of
their science.
<snip stories indicating that rape happens>
Kermit
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	04 Sep 2005 08:10:30 PM

wrote:

david ford wrote:

It probaby is, yes.

Can engaging in infanticide be [JW]"a social evolutionary survival
strategy"?

Tentatively, yes.

Do you agree with this Watson and Crick?:
From
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814@posting.google.com
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to _Prism_ magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
_Time_ later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
If a child were not declared alive until three days
after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
choice only a few are given under the present
system. The doctor could allow the child to die
if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
and suffering. I believe this view is the only
rational, compassionate attitude to have.
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the _Pacific News Service_
as saying,
. . . no newborn infant should be declared human
until it has passed certain tests regarding its
genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
it forfeits the right to live.

Do you condemn as 'evil/ bad/ wrong/ immoral' the rapes that are
described in the Reuters news story below?

Yes.

If 'yes,' upon what basis/ grounds do you make that condemnatory
judgment?

It hurts people. Why - can't you tell right from wrong?

Only when I'm at the receiving end of "wrong."

This has been explained to you before, David - science studies how the
world is, not how we should behave.

What if anything tells us "how we should behave"?
How is it that people can "tell right from wrong"?
Do you agree, or disagree, with Reagan's allegation that there exists
some [Reagan]"natural law," some [Reagan]"higher law of morality"?
Reagan, Ronald. 1976, 1980. _Sincerely, Ronald Reagan_, edited by
Helene von Damm (New York: Berkley Books), 224pp. A paragraph on
103-4:
I could not have worked in the motion picture industry
for most of my adult life and been a 'blue-nose' or prude.
Still I have to believe that all law is based on natural
law. On the higher law of morality we know that
premarital sex or promiscuity in our entire
Judeo-Christian tradition is a sin. Most of our common
law is based on this concept and belief. In recent years
an adult society has said to our young people in a
thousand different ways, including the classroom and
the lecture hall, that this concept has somehow become
outmoded and, therefore, sex ranks with the physical
appetites with no more importance assigned to it than
eating a ham sandwich when you're hungry. We have,
in fact, been preaching or at least accepting hedonism,
and not for the first time in man's history. The easy
way, of course, is to accept this as a new life-style and
adjust accordingly. The more difficult, but I believe
proper course dictated by the past, is to return to
standards we know are based on solid moral principles.
All of history proves that happiness is to be found by
following such moral precepts.
Do you think there exists some [Reagan]"natural law," some
[Nordau]"immutable standard amid the ever-changing conditions of
humanity," according to which torturing children in front of their
parents in order to extract bogus confessions from the parents (which
Saddam's henchmen did) is "wrong" in all times and in all places and
in all cultures?
Saddam ref:
last of the URLs re: brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0410301923.52e4dab5%40posting.google.com

I note that co-eoperation and charity are also natural, biological
phenomena, and and an evolutionary survival strategy.

Do you agree with this Dawkins?:
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.

Also, do you think a person should fear being judged in an afterlife by
the Judeo-Christian God for his or her actions in this life?

No. There are scientists (and others) who think so, but not because of
their science.

<snip stories indicating that rape happens>

User: "Icarus"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	05 Sep 2005 06:34:09 AM

david ford wrote:
....

Do you think there exists some [Reagan]"natural law," some
[Nordau]"immutable standard amid the ever-changing conditions of
humanity," according to which torturing children in front of their
parents in order to extract bogus confessions from the parents (which
Saddam's henchmen did) is "wrong" in all times and in all places and
in all cultures?

The idea of an objective 'natural law' or 'immutable standard' of morality
is illogical.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	07 Sep 2005 10:38:19 AM

In talk.atheism Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:

david ford wrote:
...

The idea of an objective 'natural law' or 'immutable standard' of morality
is illogical.

Not really. It can be stated very simply: do what-ever helps the species
survive and spread it's genes. Now trying to put that into practice is
another matter. Would killing your child in order to save 1,000 strangers
help in the goal of perpetuating the species or not? Tough call, right? But
it's obvious that just killing 1,000 people in cold blood definitely
wouldn't help the goal and thus it's obvious that THAT act is wrong. So the
principle is very simple but putting it into practice or deciding how any
given act would fit it can be extremely difficult.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
-------------------------------
The only product that Micro$oft could produce that *wouldn't* suck would be a
vacuum cleaner..
.

User: "Icarus"
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	07 Sep 2005 11:21:31 AM

wrote:

In talk.atheism Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:

david ford wrote:
...

Do you think there exists some [Reagan]"natural law," some
[Nordau]"immutable standard amid the ever-changing conditions of
humanity," according to which torturing children in front of their
parents in order to extract bogus confessions from the parents
(which Saddam's henchmen did) is "wrong" in all times and in all
places and in all cultures?

The idea of an objective 'natural law' or 'immutable standard' of
morality is illogical.

Mmm... What I was getting at, though, is that in any other context, a
'natural law' would be descriptive - It would say that (for example) "heat
will not, of itself, flow from a cold body to a hot body", or something like
that. Not only is morality prescriptive rather than descriptive, it's
optional (we can choose whether or not to obey any particular moral
directive). So, morality doesn't fit any definition of 'natural law' that I
can imagine.
As for 'immutable standards', it's an observable fact that people assert any
number of moral standards which are mutually contradictory and mutable, so
that doesn't make any sense either.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Rape in New Orleans	08 Sep 2005 03:05:37 PM

In talk.atheism Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:

prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:

In talk.atheism Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:

david ford wrote:
...

Do you think there exists some [Reagan]"natural law," some
[Nordau]"immutable standard amid the ever-changing conditions of
humanity," according to which torturing children in front of their
parents in order to extract bogus confessions from the parents
(which Saddam's henchmen did) is "wrong" in all times and in all
places and in all cultures?

The idea of an objective 'natural law' or 'immutable standard' of
morality is illogical.

Not really. It can be stated very simply: do what-ever helps the
species survive and spread it's genes. Now trying to put that into
practice is another matter. Would killing your child in order to sa