Let me break it down for you:

10. Liberals are against the death penalty for Scott Peterson. Liberals are for the death penalty for Terri Schiavo.

9. For liberals, there's no such thing as states' rights on abortion, juvenile executions, prayer in school, prohibiting contraceptives, and the drinking age. When it comes to starving disabled people to death, though, liberals sound like Jefferson Davis on states' rights.

8. Liberals sued the state of Florida in federal court in 1999, arguing that the electric chair is "cruel and unusual punishment." Liberals now want the state of Florida to starve a woman to death, and decry efforts to sue in federal court to stop this.

7. Liberals hoped to better the lives of Christopher Reeve and other disabled people by killing human emrbyos with taxdollars. Liberals want to better the life of Terri Schiavo by killing her and saving taxdollars.

6. When a twentysomething woman bludgeons two people with a pick-ax and then mutilates their corpses with the same murder instrument, liberals call George W. Bush a murderer for not sparing her from the gas chamber. When a twentysomething woman becomes disabled, liberals castigate George W. Bush for trying to spare her from death.

5. In 1990, it took Florida 19 minutes to kill convicted murderer Jesse Joseph Tafero. In 2005, it will take Florida days, if not weeks, to kill Terri Schiavo. Want to guess which case bothers liberals and which doesn't?

4. Starve a cat in Florida, and the law authorizes incarceration. Feed a woman in the Woodside Hospice, and Florida liberals will send you to jail.

3. In 1999, a Florida court decided to honor Elian Gonzalez's mother's wishes that her son stay with relatives in Florida. Liberals disagreed with the Florida court, and sent armed federal agents to send the boy back to Cuba. Now that a Florida court has issued a ruling in a family dispute more to their liking, liberals are saying that a new federal law--granting federal courts the right to overturn (or not overturn) the Schiavo decision--will "undermine over 200 years of jurisprudence."

2. Legislative attempts to encourage the able-bodied to work rather than collect food stamps are likened to starving poor people by liberals. Actually starving someone to death, on the other hand, is okay with them.

1. For liberals, the 14th Amendment bans religious displays in public places and mandates that state governments provide services to illegal aliens. Heaven forbid that some Republican interpret it to mean that a state can't "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ah yes, but republicans have no problem frying a mentally retarded person in an electric chair.

I really don;t like the precedent that has been set.

Do we really want Congress to decide the standards of life? Do we want 536 people in Washington to have the power to decide when life-your life, my life- is substandard and should be ended?

This is my bottom line.

When Terri said "I do" to her husband, it meant (to me) that she trusted him with everything. The say is his.

But I would remind Mr. Schiavo this

When you said "In sickness and in health" those covenant words did NOT have any time limits or other conditions.

I agree that it is Mr. Schaivo's decision, although I think he is a dirt bag for abandoning his vows.

Be well,

Sponge

True, sarge. Liberals would RATHER execute the retarded before they can even be born. I read last week that a baby was born because she had a cleft palate that could lead to a speech impediment....of course...my DAUGHTER was thought to have a cleft palate when she was born (she speaks fine). And several people I work with, my boss included, have speech impediments and they all make more money than me....Guess they all just got lucky.

This isn't about liberals or conservatives as shown in ABC's poll dealing specifically with the Schiavo case.

Conservatives support removal of the tube by a 54-40 margin. Republicans support removal by a 61-34 margin. Conservative Republicans by a margin of 55-40 support removal of the tube and 57% oppose government intervention. I guess Conservatives support the death penalty as well as Liberals in this case. So this isn't one-sided and when did Tom Delay and Bill Frist all of sudden become experts when they really don't know all of the facts.

This is about politics and NOT saving a life. I feel bad for the parents who are being used as pawns in this political battle. Those using it for political advantage, mainly the Republicans, will pay a price inevitably.

Lets not assume this is all about Liberals who want her put to death. Any Liberal I can assure you wouldn't wish her to die or anyone to experience what she is going through and the same goes for Conservatives. However... this is a display of pandering towards a small group of people... The right-to-life crowd of the Republican party... those you are pro-life and not pro-choice.

It is sad when this case is only an exception and not the rule.

This could also be the start of a new political career for some Deathocrat; after all it worked for the Hero of Chappaquidick.

Are the ~50% of democrats voting democrats in the House also trying to cement in the Christian-right as well?

It always the Democrats fault isn't it?

The Dems are opposed to this because it sets up a very dangerous legal precedent and undermines the law of the land.

When did Tom Delay become a medical expert? When he realized that in a few months his world will come crashing down because of his unethical behavior. This is nothing but pandering to a constituency at worst and the poor parents of Terri Schiavo are the pawns in this whole mess.

The proof is in the pudding... Conservatives also support a right-to-die and a states-right.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

When did the Hero of Chappaquidick become an expert at determining when a woman is dead and beyond saving?

To Sponge Daddy:

You claim you really don't like the precedent that has been set. Do you understand what is going on? Congress has done absolutely nothing, other than to guarantee a human being's due process rights and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is the right of every law-abiding American. I laugh whenever I watch the news and hear commentators say this "is an extremely difficult issue". This is one of the easiest moral and legal questions I could imagine. Err on the side of life until all the facts are in and all the evidence has been weighed by as many judicial entities as possible, and afterwards continue to err on the side of life. This is afforded to convicted murderers, who are absolute scum, relatively speaking (I do not support the death penalty or abortion). In the case of convicted murderers sentenced to death, they are ALLOWED TO APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, even though they may have been sentenced in state court. This should be afforded to a precious, innocent woman who has been abandoned by a person who should be her guardian.

You "agree that it is Mr Schiavo's decision" because Terri vowed to be his wife, which grants certain legal powers to him. However, if we still consider Mr. Schiavo her husband, he has committed adultery multiple times and currently has a common-law wife, which should void his guardianship.

It's crap like this that's allowed to occur that really destroys marriage.

Lastly, I love how people promulgate the lie that this is what Terri wanted. Anyone who says that is a damn liar. No one knows what Terri would want in this situation. That Terri said this is what she would want, especially in this specific instance, is hearsay evidence. The fact that all she is receiving is food and water, and no life support, heart machine, respirators, no act of medical heroics being used, further reinforces the notion that Terri should be allowed to live. All she needs is a delivery system to keep her hydrated and nourished. When I was an infant, up until the age of 16 when I was making my own money, I needed one too. My parents bought my food and owned the house that supplied my water. For two years my parents spoon-fed me and gave me bottles. My past situation was no different than Terri's current situation.

"The Dems are opposed to this because it sets up a very dangerous legal precedent and undermines the law of the land."

Dems have little respect for law, and will 1) place judges that will use international law where they need to and 2) obstruct the placement of judges who might not re-interpret the law in such a way. They dissemble to oppose judges they don't like in an ideological fashion.

When Bork engages in a secular-style skepticism about rights, bastion of the liberals, Joseph Biden exclaimed "I am a child of God! I have rights as a child of God." If you find that singular opposition consistent with democratics history on the subject of God and the origination of rights, then well...we're not watching CSPAN on the same days, I guess. One wonders, does Biden have rights, simply because he made it out of the Womb and that makes him a child of God? So the de facto condition allows one inherit the universal principle?

In all my days of watching CSPAN, I have had doubts about the sincerity of both sides. But the ones who can really dissemble are the Democrats. This is my view.

"Conservatives also support a right-to-die"

Mostly libertarians.

"and a states-right"

...ummm... for the legislative process, and mostly by social conservatives.

The judiciary is required to construe according to the established law. They are subject to have their cases reviewed to see if in fact they complied. What matters here is not the court's "rights" but whether they have the grounds to oppose the will of the people, through the legislative process. Ideally, the courts should not be an "interest" or a "party" rights, but an impartial observer of law.

The people's right of self-government does not derrive from "correctness" of their plan, but their interest in living in that society. So you're misunderstanding the case for "State's Rights" simply to charge inconsistency. The democrats are openly inconsistent on State's Rights. In one case they invoke it, in another case they argue that it is a code word for "racism".

It is no surprise that the dems like the judges that they have sat in place to re-interpret the law. This is what the filibustering is about. This was what the dissembling about Pinkering is about, where democrats (who are otherwise opposed to the execution of the retarded) claimed that a life-long advocate of black equality--backed by his state's chapter of the NAACP--was soft on anti-black hate crimes because he did not charge the 26-year old mentally retarded "ring leader" (because he was older) with the full force of hate crime legislation.

The democrats put judicial activists on the bench, and they frequently defend them. They cannot reconcile their language between a liberal ruling where "the Constitution says" and a ruling they don't like where decisions "repeal rights". And after 20 years of watching CSPAN more than anybody I know, I have doubted both sides.

"When he realized that in a few months his world will come crashing down because of his unethical behavior."

Hmmm...methinks that is like the doom that befell the Republicans to tried to impeach the previous president. But we'll see. It's funny that 8 years after that "doom", a number of dems are upset because the repubs are too entrenched in government.

"When did the Hero of Chappaquidick become an expert at determining when a woman is dead and beyond saving?"

He is no expert BUT Tom Delay and Bill Frist we should talk to them.

"Congress has done absolutely nothing, other than to guarantee a human being's due process rights and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is the right of every law-abiding American. I laugh whenever I watch the news and hear commentators say this "is an extremely difficult issue"."

The ruling this morning refers to Florida law and how Terri Schiavo's life and liberty interests are acknowledged HOWEVER the ruling states that the parents haven't made any claims that would assert otherwise the replacing of the tube. This means that the laws of marriage are being recognized. This is a difficult issue and its made more difficult by the fact that Republicans are politicizing this issue.

"When I was an infant, up until the age of 16 when I was making my own money, I needed one too. My parents bought my food and owned the house that supplied my water. For two years my parents spoon-fed me and gave me bottles. My past situation was no different than Terri's current situation."

So when you were younger you had no capacity to think on your own or think altogether? Your past situation is not the same as her current situation... you at least were in state of consciousness. She has been diagnosed, and I hate using this word but, as being in a vegetative state. I don't believe you were in a vegatative state. I see how you're trying to compare it BUT that doesn't work at all.

Wait, Spit. I just realized what your "It always the Democrats fault isn't it?" is really in reply to.

That is a pretty poor reading of my "Are the ~50% of democrats voting democrats in the House also trying to cement in the Christian-right as well?" It doesn't "blame" the democrats for anything, but challenges your contention that it was all about a play for the "extreme" right.

If the Christian right scares forty sum Senators so that they avoid public opposition to this legislation in the Senate, why do I hear liberals outright attacking the same group they "fear" reprisals from?

You've got your drum, so your going to beat it.

Bush won't cut a vacation short for a Tsunami, but he will for this?? Give me a break. He doesn't care about this woman as much as how he ties his shoes in the morning. It is all political theatre. Thats all.

The term "Christian conservative" is noting but a catch-22. Christ downright opposed war. These people are fake christians.

"The term 'Christian conservative' is noting but a catch-22."

You mean an "oxymoron".

"Christ downright opposed war. These people are fake christians."

Quote me. Actually James is more direct on war, but he was talking about the wars of nations. So Christ or James would have opposed the deposition of Hitler, would they? Was that just about the interest of nations?

The subject itself is more complex than your rhetoric allows. You have a simple dogmatic definition of "Christian". The recognition that other Christians may feel differently is the basis of the "conscientious objector" distinction.

Ali,

First, my dislike of the precedent is not a "claim," it is a truth. I know I dislike it.
Doesn't anyone consider the possibility that this could lead to a set of established "standards" as to when a person could be taken off of life support? Sorry, but my life and it's quality are for my wife and myself to decide, not by some arbitrary rules. I have been denied certain medical treatments by my insurance company because they don't match "the standards set by medicare."
The possibility that someone (other than my wife and I) might have the authority to decide that I should turn off her life support two years ago is incredibly frightenting.
Government should, by its nature, have certain limitations of its power. This is one.

Be well,

Sponge

In the Schiavo case, the government is determining whether she will die. Terri is not deciding, her family is not deciding, activist judges are deciding. All congress did was change the venue through legislation, they did not legislate like the courts did. Again, we afford these due process rights to criminals, why not a precious, innocent woman.

Why would anybody defend Michael Schiavo? Why does he have her best interests? How can you prove Terri told him that in this specific instance she would want to die? You cannot, therefore she should not die.

By the way, my comparison between Terri as a 41 year old and myself as an infant to 2 year old works perfectly. I could not procure nourishment, nor was I capable of expressing myself. Terri is in the exact same position. The ana1ogy works.

PS Dan, I cannot use the word ana1ogy in my posts because of the a-n-a-1 part. Just letting you know

The Terri Schiavo story moved into the theatre of the absurd when our congressmen, pandering to the religious right who presented their chit for paymet, forced open the door to the federal court system to hear this case. The bill which the president rushed back to D.C. to sign into law is patently unconstitutional, and we both know that.

I am looking to some true Federalist with enough guts to stand up and and say so.

This morning, the Federal judge in Fla., after reviewing the case, said that Terri Schiavo's parents don't have a a leg to stand on, that her rights and liberty have been thoroughly protected by the court system in the state. Thus implying that the parents may never had a case.

Otherwise, you have covered some liberal ideas with only a tinge of bias.

Excerpt from Today's ruling:

"The Schindlers also argue that the judgment is void because Mrs. Schiavo was denied a full and fair opportunity to defend her rights in this case. As we have explained in the past, this is not a case where the trial court validated the guardian's decision for the ward without a full and independent inquiry. Instead, both Mr. Schiavo and the Schindlers were allowed to present evidence to the trial court as if each were her guardian. Id. The trial court then made its decision pursuant to law and based upon a heightened standard of proof. That decision has been subject to appeals and postjudgment scrutiny of all varieties, and it remains a valid judgment pursuant to the laws and the constitution of this state. Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any, similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process.

* * *

For those of us who are not trained physicians and who do not deal on a daily basis with patients in vegetative states, or with the difficult decision to remove life-sustaining treatment, the images of Mrs. Schiavo's face are haunting. But the images do not reveal the full extent of the devastation to her brain and her inability to engage in cognition. Dr. Wolfson, the guardian who was appointed at the request of the Governor, visited Mrs. Schiavo many times in 2003. He was unable to independently observe any "consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities." His report does not challenge the now well-established medical diagnosis that Mrs. Schiavo's movements are merely reflexive. As he explained: "This is the confusing thing for the lay person about persistent vegetative states."

* * *

But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. In circumstances such as these, when families cannot agree, the law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about life-prolonging procedures. * * * It is the trial judge's duty not to make the decision that the judge would make for himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead, the trial judge must make a decision that the clear and convincing evidence shows the ward would have made for herself. * * * It is a thankless task, and one to be undertaken with care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to promote the value of life. * * *

* * *
We are well aware that many people around the world disagree with the trial court's decision. However, when he became a judge, the trial court judge took an oath, required by the Florida Constitution, to obey the rule of law and the constitution of this state. The trial judge followed and obeyed the law as set out by the precedent of the Supreme Court of Florida and by the general laws adopted by the Legislature. The trial judge made this most difficult decision after fully considering the evidence and applying a heightened standard of proof that is designed to protect society's interest in sustaining life."

SeaKing said: "Christ downright opposed war. These people are fake christians."

Christ did not turn away the Roman Centurian, nor did he tell him to leave military service or to rebel against the empire. Am I a "fake Christian" because I served in my country's military?

Ranten,

Check your attributions. I'm quoting "Truth". But you make a good point.

Sponge Daddy,

I love your insights into such topics as these and I don't think I directly disagree with you but I do think that you are misunderstanding the situation slightly. Specifically you refer to "life support" as being at issue but that isn't the case here. A feeding tube is not life support properly understood. That is simple ordinary care which no human being has the right to be refused and which no one has the right to deny to another. It is not extraordinary care; it is giving someone food and water.

In fact the deteriorated state that she is currently in (as an aside it is ontologically misleading to ever call a human in any state "vegetative") is a direct result of her husband's refusal to follow the order of an earlier court an entire decade ago, I believe, to spend a million dollar settlement to rehabilitate Terry. If he had done so she would probably be eating on her own still and this would never have even come up.

Hey Decision,

What is the law/s being referred to in your quotes? These excerpts don't give the needed info.

Besides,no judge has any authority to order the starvation of someone and no individual has the freedom to do that to themselves. Even if law can somehow be used to shield the judge in this case from censure all that indicates is that the laws at issue are unjust and must be disobeyed.

The Florida legislature probaby should have repassed the law to save her life and simply made it unreviewable by the courts, and Gov, Bush should order Greer's decision null and void and not have it enforced.

This is not a right-to-die case since, just for starters, she isn't even dying, at least she wasn't until somebody decided to start starving her.

I love how the doctor assigned to her case insists that she is in a persistent vegitative state and that lay people won't understand this. Since we see her respond, however minimally, to sensory stimuli and the presence of her parents, we know that she isn't just "vegitating," no matter how the medical experts want to warp the word to suit their purpose.

Being severely mentally retarded is not equivalent to being "vegitative" or in a coma, and it is no reason to end life. I think that this is why the public opinion polls are so slanted for the husband's death wish -- I think most people think she is in a coma.

You all know what the news isn't telling you? This woman has been this state for fifteen years and the initial catalyst resulted from her bolemia. Just thought that I would enlighten those who don't know to these facts. Thats all

Truth all that stuff has been reported in the news. Sorry, no shadow government media conspiracy here. I know you must be disappointed. =(

For your info Mr. T, the corruption of our country at the highest echalons does not make me joyous.

"This is the confusing thing for the lay person about persistent vegetative states."

Except some experts on PVS are apparently making a similar "mistake". Otherwise, I've advised myself the same thing.

Brian,

You are right on a great deal of points. Don't get me wrong though, I want this woman to live. I wish things were different for Terri. And yes, life support is different from a feeding tube. Think her husband is less than a husband for not being willing to spend the rest of his life committed to her, whatever that takes.

But my whole point is that I don't believe we should start giving Congress power in this. Where would it end? What if this sets a standard and in ten years a government agency has the final say in these matters....then my wife appears before an appeals board to save my life, yet doctors and insurers take the opposite point and say, "he's hopeless".

I want this final decision to be Raine's, not some bureaucrat who has no idea who I am. Once we cede some controls in our lives, others will be taken away.

Terri may very well be "in there." Even when Raine supposedly had no brainwave activity, she said she had "dreams" and could "feel me." I, as her huisband of just 3 years at the time, knew in my gut she was a fighter, and deserved every chance. There is a story called Kate's journey about a woman who was "vegetative" yet after she came out of it she told how she heard and felt everything, even the operation she had.

This is not easy. My feelings on this are not easy. I have not lived at Mr. Schaivo's side for these years, I don't know his heart.

What scares me though is that some REAL control freaks will come to power some day and decide my fate for me, using this as a precedent.

Be well
(AND GET YOUR LIVING WILL!),

Sponge

Thanks for the comments Sponge Daddy, I hear ya, and your fears are reasonable given the agenda of the progressives (just look at the Netherlands for where it leads).

I share your fear although in this instance it looks like our only disagreement is that I see the role that Judge Greer accrued to himself to be the scarier one than the actions that Congress took.

I am reminded of something Hillary had said when she was pushing her universal healthcare scheme. When asked about the costs of life-sustaining extraordinary care, she said that we were all just going to have to get used to the idea of death. Of, course, Socrates said as much, but Hillary meant that bureaucrats were going to be determining---based on a cost/benefit ana|ysis presumably---when to "pull the plug." Scary stuff indeed.

Regards,

Hey, as long as Terri's gone. Why not just put her in a box and bury her? Why wait until she's completely starved. If starvation is "peaceful" in Terri's case, couldn't suffocation be as well? And that would be quicker as well. We ought to explore this reasonable proposal to letting her die.

Besides she wouldn't suffocate until after the funeral, they might as well put her on display while she starves. That would make an effective use of time. Then just dump her in the ground. Not dead yet? Well, that problem would go away pretty soon.

Mikey could be off to living his new life in track shoes.

Flynn made a big error when comparing Christopher Reeve to Terri S. in this post. Reeve had sound mental function, while Shiavo's brain is atrophied, partially liquified and in a continual state of degredation. Reeve just had a somatic handicapp. Conversely, Terri has somatic and severe cognitive disabilities. Her mind isn't really present. I could go on...

"Her mind isn't really present."
-self-styled "truth"

What does that mean? Obviously she is severely mentally damaged. Is her mind "really" present? Is she conscious? Does she feel pain? I think so. Can she do math? No. I don't think that means that she is in a coma, and I don't think that means that we should kill her off.

This case is euthanasia pure and simple. She is being killed because people like "truth" think her conscious life is too meagre to be bareable.

Contra "truth," the comparison with Reeves' demand for embroyonic stem cells is a good one. In both cases the question is: which weak and voiceless humans are we willing to kill so that our lives are more convenient?

Apparently truth is posting from a certain hospice in Florida with hands on info about Terri's condition. You a candy striper down there or something?

Reeve's lungs were not functioning, he needed a respirator to remain alive thus receiving extraordinary care to maintain life which is much different than Terri. Also, Terri is not brain dead so her level of brain activity bears no weight upon whether or not she should be fed.

Sea King, brilliant comments as usual, your proposals hit home for me all the harder how exasperating and sad this situation is. Just keep praying I guess.

I have no political stance on this subject. I was just questioning the nomenclature of the term "vegetable"... Are there different kinds? different intensities? The answer is yes, and henceforth, might there be a person so vegetative in all capacities that euthanasia is accepatable across the board?
And about Reeve, the guy could clearly communicate, think and had functional neurology. A Different breed than Terri no doubt. Thats all

Truth: there are different types of vegitable, but no vegitable has sensations or conciousness of any kind.

As far as euthanasia goes: good, we're being explicit. I'm against euthanasia (intentional killing of a sick or depressed or disabled person out of "mercy" or convenience) of all kinds.

Euthanasia is also generally illegal in the US, and thus those who are "letting the poor woman die" spin it to make it seem not like a mercy killing, but "letting nature take its course." This is BS. As you realize, it is euthanasia of a mentally retarded woman. Now let's tell that to the American people and see if the poll numbers change.

Very good post, Dan.

No one should ever expect moral consitency from the Left.

Your strawman crafting would be invaluable down on my farm. You are unemployed, right?

If you let Terry Schiavo die "peacefully", then you might as well free Dr.Kevorkian and let him be on his merry way helping people die "peacefully" and never harrass him again.

The irony of this post is astounding, considering the subtitle of Flynn's book: How Ideology Makes People Fall For Stupid Ideas. And no, I'm not talking about who the author is writing about.

Hey, "don't you think" -- I don't know, but don't you think that starving and dehydrating an innocent, conscious woman until she is dead is a stupid idea?

How could an intelligent person, once they admit that Terri has some level of consciousness, even call this "eu"-thanasia?

How could an intelligent person think that standing around, inebriated, comtemplating his political future while an unconsious woman in the back seat of a Buick slowly sinking in 8 feet of water was a good idea?

Wait a minute, I'm talking about the Hero of Chappaquidick... never mind.

Hey "Don't you read?".

It's "Smart People", so its about two truckloads more generous than typical liberal condescension.

Sea King,

Let's not be so mean...two Buick loads more generous.

Now that the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of Terri Schiavo's parents (for the last time?), lo and behold, Jeb Bush says he has found a doctor who saw signs that Terri Schiavo was not unconscious. The state legislature may be askd to intervene again! Politicians are having a field day and your right to privacy (see the Ninth Amendment) is going down the toilet.

Guido

Guido:
Followed your advice.
Saw the 9th amendment.
No right of privacy found ...
(let alone a husband's right to starve his brain-damaged wife).

;)

Short,

Do you mean you didn't see the emanating penumbras in that amendment? Come on, they are all over the place, like flies, how could you miss them?!!

The amendment even has two commas in it which means that sodomy is a constitutional right. Commas always indicate sodomy.

Dear short,

His inability to comprehend the logical place of the Ninth Amendment in the structure of our government is the reason judge Bork is not on the Supreme Court and Kennedy is.

;) Guido

Guido: Agreed, Bork's reading of the constitution is the reason he was borked. But that doesn't mean he was wrong. Some truths are unpopular. Let's not make our measure of truth the opinion of 51 Senators!

Happy Easter.

The Terri Schiavo case isn’t about liberal or conservative consistency of opinion. The case isn’t even about a “culture of life” versus a “culture of death.” The case is, purely and simply, about Terri and only Terri. Does she want to live or die, given her current condition?

Unfortunately, no one knows or can know what Terri wants. There is even a legitimate question whether Terri herself is capable, or will ever be capable, of knowing what she wants. So what to do with this poor woman who has been kept alive by the goodwill, efforts, expertise and resources of others all these many years?

Terri’s nominal and legal husband says he knows what she would want now because she told him 17 years ago what she would want then. All the courts agree with him. But how many of us would feel comfortable sentenced to death on the basis of our own casual testimony uttered in brash youth?

Politicos of all stripes jump into the fray for reasons of their own. Liberals fear the horror of being themselves sentenced to the state-imposed horror of a brain-dead or nearly brain-dead existence.

So, motivated by their own selfishness, they substitute their own wants and desires for Terri’s. They’d rather die than live as a vegetable. So Terri should too.

Rather then experience the degradation of a so-called life indefinitely sustained by feeding and hydration tubes, they’d rather end it all in two or three weeks of so-called “euphoria,” i.e., dying by starvation and dehydration. So Terri should too.

Conservatives are no more noble or unselfish. For whatever reasons they believe that life – whatever life REALLY means in our modern day and age – should be preserved by all and by any means. They fear that they themselves might at some point in the unknowable future be a sentient and thinking being trapped in a helpless, uncommunicative and critically broken body. So they want the judgement of the state to always and forever rule on the side of so-called and so-so defined life. So Terri should too.

As a result of these fearful and selfish politicos – and the self-serving and arrogant judges and politicians who serve them – a political “crisis” is born. A media spectacle rises over the land and shadows all of us like a gigantic hot-air balloon.

In the meantime, Terri is celebrated, but forgotten. She has wound up as the means to everyone else’s end. She will die because the courts have for one reason or another decreed it so. She will die because there is a limit even to the patience and interest of the most committed politicos among us. She will die because even the media balloon at some point in time will run out of hot air.

The most troubling thing to me about this entire affair is this. If, in our wisdom, we mere mortals can decide that Terri must die, why can we not decide and guarantee that her decreed and inevitable death be quick, painless and humane?

Why must Terri endure a dying that no caring person among us would dare to impose – alleged feelings of euphoria notwithstanding – upon his or her pet cat?

The answer is: Because this case is not about Terri's interests. It is about ours.

It is about the pretense that it is not the state that decides whether Terri lives or dies, but God.

It is about the pretense that the state is not us.

I find it absurd that you would compare this case to a death penalty case. Before I go any futher allow me to say that I am a republican and support the death penalty.

With that said, it is a person's right to either refuse or request life support. In the absence of written proof that said person did not want to be put on life supporting equipment it is up to the next of kin to decide. In this case the husband.

If there is some concern as to the integrity of the husband it is up to the courts to decide if the person wanted to be kept on support or not.

The courts have spoken over and over again. They believe she would not want to be kept alive artificially.

I urge you all to let it go and move on. This tragic situaiton as been turned into a political issue. Troops are in danger over seas, the budget is not balence but the only time the congress has a mid-night session is to meddle in the affairs of the courts.

All the other arguments are moot. It's not murder to take someone off life support that did not want it. I would also like to add that intimate information like that would be privy to a husband and not her parents or siblings.