It is a strange and touchy subject to address, but I think voluntary euthanasia has some merit. I know, I know. All of you extreme right wing conservatives are about to lost your cool. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I ask you though, what would you do if you were faced with a situation in which a loved one were incapacitated, had no quality of life, no hope for a cure, and he or she willingly and coherently were actively choosing to die? Could you, in good conscience, refuse the person's autonomous decision purely for the sake of your own personal beliefs? Is that not terribly selfish?
See, sometimes, in certain very particular situations, I think that perhaps this may in fact be the kindest most compassionate act possible. I say this not with an uninformed or inexperienced perspective. I say this because had I been old enough to fully understand the extreme suffering my own father must have endured up to his very last breath, I would have chosen to allow him to die peacefully instead. Never would I wish anyone to writhe in pain as he or she fought for a tiny gasp of air, only to end up suffocating to death on a hospital bed. It is a cold and cruel day when that happens. I believe it to be far kinder to allow the person in pain to quietly slip away in his or her sleep instead.
It's a slippery slope I know when you appear to condone such an act. I wouldn't dare say that I am for euthanasia across the board. Not at all actually. I think though that in a few rare cases that may in fact be the most selfless act of all. Because it hurts to let someone go. It is painful beyond belief. But so much better in the end than holding on to the shell of whom the person once was.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The New Status Quo?
It's not earth shattering news (anymore) that Casey Anthony was acquitted yesterday essentially of all charges associated with the death of her little girl Caylee. Yes, yes, the masses still think she's guilty despite the fact that the case against her was based on little more than circumstantial evidence. I know people all over the country are in an uproar. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that this girl may soon wish she had been found guilty just so she doesn't have to deal with a public that doesn't care at all about what our judicial system handed down as a verdict.
The age old line is "innocent until proven guilty". Well, Miss Anthony was not at all proven guilty. Say what you will but let's face it, the prosecutor had very little to work with here to prove his case and the jury could hardly sentence a woman to death based on pretty much nothing more than speculation.
Here is where my confusion comes into play though. I keep reading comments from people and hearing things like "she'll get hers in eternity". Well, what if there is nothing for her to get? Really, no one will ever know what happened to that little girl. So who are we to assume, AFTER this girl has been found innocent in a court of law, that she is still guilty and will pay for her transgressions amidst hellfire and brimstone?? Besides, isn't that also to ASSUME that she is not a Christian? (If you do believe the Christian doctrine that only accepting Christ as your savior grants you passage into heaven.) Is it now the accepted policy to make assumptions about people and damn them to hell when they've not been found guilty of a crime? Also, if this girl did kill her daughter, and let's say she is a Christian and follows Jesus Christ, does that mean her salvation is nullified? I can't see how that's possible. The way I understood salvation growing up in the church is that it isn't conditional, but now maybe it is?
Either way, I think I like my idea of Jesus better anyway. The one I believe in forgives and loves and washes away our sins no matter how terrible they may be. As for Miss Anthony...let the woman alone. I imagine living the rest of her life without that little girl is far worse punishment than anything anyone could do to her anyway.
The age old line is "innocent until proven guilty". Well, Miss Anthony was not at all proven guilty. Say what you will but let's face it, the prosecutor had very little to work with here to prove his case and the jury could hardly sentence a woman to death based on pretty much nothing more than speculation.
Here is where my confusion comes into play though. I keep reading comments from people and hearing things like "she'll get hers in eternity". Well, what if there is nothing for her to get? Really, no one will ever know what happened to that little girl. So who are we to assume, AFTER this girl has been found innocent in a court of law, that she is still guilty and will pay for her transgressions amidst hellfire and brimstone?? Besides, isn't that also to ASSUME that she is not a Christian? (If you do believe the Christian doctrine that only accepting Christ as your savior grants you passage into heaven.) Is it now the accepted policy to make assumptions about people and damn them to hell when they've not been found guilty of a crime? Also, if this girl did kill her daughter, and let's say she is a Christian and follows Jesus Christ, does that mean her salvation is nullified? I can't see how that's possible. The way I understood salvation growing up in the church is that it isn't conditional, but now maybe it is?
Either way, I think I like my idea of Jesus better anyway. The one I believe in forgives and loves and washes away our sins no matter how terrible they may be. As for Miss Anthony...let the woman alone. I imagine living the rest of her life without that little girl is far worse punishment than anything anyone could do to her anyway.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Lately I've been thinking very hard about geography. I don't mean so much in the sense of what is the capital of Germany and exactly how many countries are there since the end of what we knew as the USSR when I was in school. I'm referring more to geography and how it relates to personal happiness. By the way though, does anyone even vaguely know how many countries there are now in what was the USSR???
Back to my original thought though...
In my own life I strongly associate my geographical location to my happiness quotient, in fact I allow it to directly affect it, rightly or wrongly so. Now like anyone else, I have many, many memories linked to my geography, but I feel as though my memories here in Georgia are overshadowed by what I will refer to as the Black Plague. Most of my time in this fair city has been spent fighting, crying, and simply trying to survive, so the fun memories, despite whatever score they may have received on the funness scale, kind of get lost in the shuffle. That being said, I think I have explained well enough my desire to leave this land of muck and mire.
I wonder though what would happen if I did. You see, I often believe people wish to move places, well move BACK to places, simply because of the memories they associate with those places. I don't think actually moving back to an old familiar place is all it's cracked up to be. Actually, I think it would incredibly disappointing because nothing is ever the same once you leave. I think those old familiar places are good to visit, but that ultimately they should be kept safe in the caverns of our minds where we can retreat to them when we feel sad or lonely or just need a good daydream.
That being said, is it better to keep the idea of a new place locked safely away in my mind so that I have that hope and that daydream? Or am I erring in not chasing after my dream? Would I just be brokenhearted to pursue my dream and find reality doesn't live up to the ideas in my head? I just don't know sometimes. And this is the hardest dream for me to give up I must admit. The idea of kissing NYC goodbye draws a tear every time I think of it, but is it for the best? The good and right things are not always easy. Is it better, despite the difficulty, to stay here and continually fight against that Plague?
Back to my original thought though...
In my own life I strongly associate my geographical location to my happiness quotient, in fact I allow it to directly affect it, rightly or wrongly so. Now like anyone else, I have many, many memories linked to my geography, but I feel as though my memories here in Georgia are overshadowed by what I will refer to as the Black Plague. Most of my time in this fair city has been spent fighting, crying, and simply trying to survive, so the fun memories, despite whatever score they may have received on the funness scale, kind of get lost in the shuffle. That being said, I think I have explained well enough my desire to leave this land of muck and mire.
I wonder though what would happen if I did. You see, I often believe people wish to move places, well move BACK to places, simply because of the memories they associate with those places. I don't think actually moving back to an old familiar place is all it's cracked up to be. Actually, I think it would incredibly disappointing because nothing is ever the same once you leave. I think those old familiar places are good to visit, but that ultimately they should be kept safe in the caverns of our minds where we can retreat to them when we feel sad or lonely or just need a good daydream.
That being said, is it better to keep the idea of a new place locked safely away in my mind so that I have that hope and that daydream? Or am I erring in not chasing after my dream? Would I just be brokenhearted to pursue my dream and find reality doesn't live up to the ideas in my head? I just don't know sometimes. And this is the hardest dream for me to give up I must admit. The idea of kissing NYC goodbye draws a tear every time I think of it, but is it for the best? The good and right things are not always easy. Is it better, despite the difficulty, to stay here and continually fight against that Plague?
Tree of Life
I saw the movie Tree of Life this weekend, and as someone who is generally pretty open minded and quite welcoming to the art world and that of profound thought and philosophical fodder, my overall opinion of the movie is that it is terrible. Harsh? Yeah, I know, but typical of myself. I'd be more forgiving had they at least disclosed in the previews that National Geographic apparently contributed over 45 minutes of footage to the film...even some footage that strangely included dinosaurs. Yes those dinosaurs...the extinct ones...like a velociraptor that was just so much cooler in Jurassic Park.
That aside, there was in fact one very poignant point made in the movie. Brad Pitt plays one of the lead roles as a father of a family of 3 boys set in the 1950's. His character is constantly striving for perfection and success which he views merely as possessing great wealth and maintaining a certain image. This causes him to be incredibly demanding of his children and even his wife. Granted, the kids in the movie really could have settled down and dealt with the fact that sometimes they are told "no", but I can see the other side too...how Brad was a little too demanding on occasion.
Either way, he makes a comment toward the end of the film and the gist of it is something along the lines of how he didn't dignify anything he had because it was never enough for him and in turn he missed the glory of it all. I wish I could remember the quote verbatim, but that's not happening apparently. If anyone happens to see the movie and can clarify for me exactly what it is he says, I'd be much obliged.
At any rate, the point is made and what a point it is. All this rushing around trying to find the perfect job, perfect house, perfect mate, etc...and we miss the glory of what we already have. Thinking in this way, I'm saddened by all that I've missed, and I hope to not let anything else slide through my fingertips.
That aside, there was in fact one very poignant point made in the movie. Brad Pitt plays one of the lead roles as a father of a family of 3 boys set in the 1950's. His character is constantly striving for perfection and success which he views merely as possessing great wealth and maintaining a certain image. This causes him to be incredibly demanding of his children and even his wife. Granted, the kids in the movie really could have settled down and dealt with the fact that sometimes they are told "no", but I can see the other side too...how Brad was a little too demanding on occasion.
Either way, he makes a comment toward the end of the film and the gist of it is something along the lines of how he didn't dignify anything he had because it was never enough for him and in turn he missed the glory of it all. I wish I could remember the quote verbatim, but that's not happening apparently. If anyone happens to see the movie and can clarify for me exactly what it is he says, I'd be much obliged.
At any rate, the point is made and what a point it is. All this rushing around trying to find the perfect job, perfect house, perfect mate, etc...and we miss the glory of what we already have. Thinking in this way, I'm saddened by all that I've missed, and I hope to not let anything else slide through my fingertips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
