The 128th trimester abortion of Terri Schiavo is complete. With the law forbidding saline or vacuums for adults, Florida's courts prescribed starvation and thirst. Like the million or so annual victims of abortion, Terri Schiavo couldn't speak in her defense. Those who did, of course, are fanatics and screwballs. How dare they try to bring a glass of water to a woman dying of thirst? Arrest them! Who, after all, has the right to defend another's life--especially a life not equal to our own? Animal lives, experimented upon by doctors attempting to save people, are more worthy of our protest than Terri Schiavo's life. So too are the lives of murderers and child rapists. Ditto for terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. But a life that makes us feel bad, that bothers us, that inconveniences us--that is a life that should be killed. Isn't that the message of this whole sad affair?
What this story illustrates for me is the peril to one's rights when one has no voice. The unborn, certain of the disabled, and essentially anyone without recourse to legal counsel is subject to the most extreme injustices. Terri Schiavo could not speak, and others spoke for her.
We'll never know her internal struggle, desires, and pains. The mechanism for addressing what she would have wanted was clearly insufficient. There is great room for doubt in Michael Schiavo's ability to know what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted, even if he is telling the truth. I hope some of the lessons learned by us here are to have a much more rigorous fact-finding body than one judge and to err on the side of life. In my view, people are much too quick and ready to cast off someone else's life when that person cannot speak for themself. The aged, injured, the mentally disabled, and the unborn are all in danger if our society continues to allow the voiced population, when it suits their purpose, to run roughshod over and kill the voiceless.
I guess then when you're in the same position that Terri Schiavo was in then we can let you live the rest of your life as you wish with a feeding tube.
The hypocrisy of the right-wing is amazing. This isn't about a right-to-life as one is being made to believe. This issue is being used as a wedge issue by the right and its not doing well in terms of polls. Politicizing this issue and using it to promote a certain agenda is shameless. Sure.. every citizen has a right-to-live and I feel deep sorrow for the parents of Terri Schiavo yet the hypocrisy is mind-boggling. What about the right for health care for everyone or the right that no one should live in poverty or how about a states-right? Even better is the fact that the judges involved weren't merely liberals but they were also conservatives acting in ways termed "judicial murder" or "judicial tyranny". This wasn't an abortion by any means and to label it that or call it an abortion is blasphemy. This was nothing but a giant media circus about a woman who suffered dearly. We as citizens do not know what she was feeling or if she felt anything in the first place. We aren't the experts nor are we armed with the facts to prove otherwise.
President Bush says government should "err on the side of life"... Really??? Then what is that he said as governor of Texas... Oh yeah... That in the matters of life and death complexities he trusted the courts. Hmm... did he say the courts? Now.. the courts aren't trusted because they don't err on the side of life yet err on the blueprint of the US constitution. He made those comments when presiding over and personally reviewing death penalty cases. He trusted the courts judgements.
How about the people denied adequate medical care or organ transplants and thus life under Medicaid which is under the knife constantly when it comes to the Bush budget. Even better lets address the genocide in Darfur? Where was Pres. Bush and our government then? That would've sided with a right-to-life policy yet the overwhelming evidence shows that hypocrisy prevails here and that this was an issue used to politicize a religious and moral ethic.
"But a life that makes us feel bad, that bothers us, that inconveniences us--that is a life that should be killed. Isn't that the message of this whole sad affair?"
The message isn't simple and its more complicated. I wished that Michael Schiavo had giving up his rights to the parents a long time ago however the courts consistently ruled in the favor of the law and the laws of the land. It is a sad affair when the battle is between legality and morality, which is what this is whole circus was about? Right? Now... Terri Schiavo may rest in peace like the rest of America would've rested had they been in that same position themselves.
Right or wrong the suffering is over. Let the woman rest in peace and stop playing judge and jury over the whole thing!! It's over,let it be over.
To suggest that "the blueprint of the US constitution" allows for the starving of a person with even a sliver of hope of recovery displays a perfectly post-modern understanding of our Nation's founding principles. A couple of consecutive generations of public education advocating a moral relativism have come home to roost in a very public way.
I only wonder why, in light of the death cult's arguments that no pain was felt, and that Mrs. Schiavo's "persistent vegetative state" prevented her from a level of awareness that anything was taking place - Why then did they find it necessary to implement a morphine drip last weekend?
"Why then did they find it necessary to implement a morphine drip last weekend?"
In almost all cases of person nearing the end of their life while in a hospice, they will receive some form of pain relief even if one way or another they are or aren't aware of their condition.
"To suggest that "the blueprint of the US constitution" allows for the starving of a person with even a sliver of hope of recovery displays a perfectly post-modern understanding of our Nation's founding principles."
I guess it does to conservative judges...
This is from an MSNBC story>
At a federal appeals court in Atlanta, one judge rebuked the White House and lawmakers Wednesday for acting “in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution.”
“Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper,” wrote Judge Stanley Birch Jr., appointed by President Bush’s father.
Judge Birch is a noted conservative who was appointed by Bush Sr.
More from the esteemed conservative judge courtesy of www.timesonline.co.uk
Justice Stanley Birch of the 11th Circuit court in Atlanta said that the law was unconstitutional because it pushed the federal courts to consider a case that had long been decided by state courts.
"In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincerity and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution," he wrote in an opinion.
Judge Birch also wrote in his scathing assault that the law was an intrusion into the judicial branch of power. "We must conscientiously guard the independence of our judiciary and safeguard the Constitution, even in the face of the unfathomable human tragedy that has befallen Mrs Schiavo and her family."
It seems to the extreme Christian right-wing of the Republican party were all about politicizing this issue. What about the genocide in Darfur? or those who don't have health care? Are they merely just a blip on the right-to-life radar? Hypocrisy reigns here...
God Bless Terri Schiavo... May she rest in peace.
Well, Spitfly, we may share part of a name, but you're just begging to be squashed with the claptrap you just posted. Alas I can't fisk this properly, as Blogger will not work.
Fear not, I've saved the post and will put it up as soon as I'm permitted.
It is funny thing you refute what I've stated because this is being polticized by the right and NOT the left. Everyone has a right-to-life SO before you go making the case that I am for killing an individual IF you can call it that then go ahead BUT remember the majority of Americans believe this issue to be politicized and your short-sightedness is blinding of you of that fact.
I made plenty of sense... anyone in Terri Schiavo's position wouldn't want to live the way she lived... The polls back this up Nightfly. I for one wouldn't want to live in that condition therefore I'd rather die peacefully than be left with a feeding tube while practically braindead. I have said all along that I wish that Michael Schiavo had giving up the decision making to the parents. This way we would've never had this terrible tragedy HOWEVER the courts ruled properly in the face of public scrutiny. I admit that this is a legal and moral travesty and that YES we must take something out of this and come up with a proper solution that answers both the legal and moral side of this tragedy. Don't blast me and tell me that this wasn't a politicized issue... The right spoke from the pulpit confusing law with theology and the hypocrisy was amazing.
Nightfly you can beat on me all you want BUT the majority of Americans aren't stupid and can see past this horrible tragedy that the right tried to exploit. I know a Tom Delay buddy when I see one and you my friend stand with him... hand in hand.
Tom DeLay makes no odds to this little bug. My thinking on this may agree with his, but I didn't consult him about it. And heck, Jesse Jackson agrees with you about universal health care, and still disagrees about Terri Schiavo. And I don't see how any amount of polling can change wrong to right. I'm not blind to it, I just don't care. We don't have a veto over the truth. This was cruel and murderous no matter what anyone says - "Let God be true, and every man a liar." And without Terri's wishes to die being clearly known and credibly established, any legal ruling purporting such certainty is farcical. And even THEN, to starve to death? Gods, man, you go to jail for doing that to a dog or a horse.
If you say this was a travesty that needs resolution, how can you blow off one half of the debate?
But whatever. I'm up. I warn all ahead of time that I was a little too angry to be very cogent.
Before republicans stepped in federally the poll numbers of whether they should were roughly the same as they are now - not good numbers.
How does this not prove that the Republicans were giving the middle finger to the polls on principles?
Bill Clinton would have also polled this before taking action - and no action would have been taken.
Some musings from the Nightfly I found interesting…
“Really? Are you sure you wouldn't just assume otherwise and starve us to death too? Isn't it the whole point that we wanted to give her a chance?”
No I wouldn’t starve anyone since I believe in a right-to-life YET I won’t live in this condition if I end up there.. PERIOD!!!
“Because polls are all that you need to decide whether 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is, in fact, the animating principle of the US Constitution, and a worthy goal to continue to right for.”
NO. We have those rights already… the courts ruled in favor of states-rights and the husband. The polls indicate clearly how politicized this issue became once Delay, Frist, and company stepped in to the arena.
“It's a lot harder to find someone guilty of murder and sentence him to death than it was for Judge Greer to do Michael Schiavo's bidding, and there is much more legal remedy available to the death row inmate than there was for Terri.”
I am glad Nighty brings up Judge Greer since he was only a Southern Baptist with a conservative past.
“think they were fighting a rather important war, limiting our options for intervention. They haven't been utterly useless: you can try reading a little something. Or something else. And if they were, it doesn't let them off the hook elsewhere. While you're reading, why don't you also go over the Constitution to see where health care is guaranteed to every citizen by the federal government.”
My favorite Nighty musing… A war fought over faulty intel that was proven “dead wrong” by accounts AND how about health care? I guess Americans have a right-to-life but not a right-to-health care that could SAVE LIVES.
I think the war was good thing in the light of what has been found AND I have stated already many times that I believe in a right-to-life. Hey I agree we don't have a veto over the truth YET the courts ruled in favor of the husband to be the executor of her rights through marriage.
Nightfly... Just don't go telling me I don't read plenty... your blogspot was interesting muse.
We all have a right to life because, well it occurs in nature.
We do not have a right to health care because, well it is man made.
Lets examine exactly what health care is. It's doctors performing talented operations. It's drugs invented by some brilliant brainiac who does that for a living to pay bills and take Johnny to Red Sox games.
Simply put, we do not have a right to health care because it confers an obligation on another person to provide it. Saying you have a right to health care is like like saying you have a right to cars, vacations, and daily supplies of Jello.
"I wouldn't want to live like that ?"
I can't believe someone is so stupid as to suggest that as a reason for pulling the plug on Terri.
I wouldn't want to live as an atheist, can I go around and starve them all to death now ?
And before anybody complains that I am being ridiculous, it is your argument, i'm just taking it seriously.
Nightfly,
Good fisk. I agree that the Village Voice is a crappy rag, but Nat Hentoff is no grandstander. A pro-life lefty is a man to respect. I may not agree with him, but I believe he is genuine and thoughtful.
I like these rights to money, which is what health care and non-poverty amount to. I think we should all have a right to, let's say $60,000 per annum. Do you think that would cover it?
I didn't realize health care came with cars, vacations, and Jello. Since it does it should be mandated. I guess those who are suffering and cannot afford health care that could save a life or prevent an illness is something we all agree that no one should have except those who have a right-to-life which is really occurring through nature and health care is man made therefore its evil.
Shouldn't we be obligated to provide those who are weak with health care or is that too man-made for one's taste? too much of government getting involved? Like W said, "government should err on the side of life..."
JASON:
Would you want to live in that condition buddy?
I wasn't suggesting that as the reason merely I was stating that as a fact many people would agree with me that they would not want to live in that condition or state. You're assuming that this is why they pulled the plug on Terri is definitely dead wrong and ridiculous BUT I am only taking this seriously.
Terri was killed by the culture, and is kidding themselves if they think otherwise.
She was in this state due to a reaction stemming from an eating disorder. The insane obsession with physical appearances in our culture drove her to this condition.
I think it's funny that we value the body, and the appearance of the body, SO very highly when it's a body we want to use. When it's someone we want to leer at, or actually physically use, there is no higher accolade than to be "beautiful". Yet when the body no longer serves us, it should die or be disposed of rather than be cared for. And why not? If the body is just a commodity, it should be thrown away like yesterday's newspaper when it has lived beyond its usefulness. That's where we are now, as a people, if anyone cares.
It' a commodity and we should treat it as such. Too often those with good intentions are blinded to the law of unintended consequences. As it is famously said - if you think health care is expensive now, wait till it's "free."
They didn't pull Terri's plug - they denied her food and water, with or without the tube. Do that to anyone and anyone will die.
I far prefer the life I have to the life Terri suffered through, but that is absolutely not the point - is it what Terri wanted? Michael said it was, if she reached a permanent vegetative state. But the only testimony was his, and the PVS diagnosis was highly disputed. This whole decision rested on biased testimony and a faulty medical evaluation. What possible harm could it have done to have ordered the necessary testing to confirm the diagnosis?
Call it legal if you like, but it was bollocks of the lowest order. You couldn't have convicted a pickpocket with such a piss-poor case.
PS - Thanks, Webster. Yeah, $60 large would be just fine. Heck, it's a raise in the Hive! I could hang curtains...
Homer you are nailing it perfectly. I have had several discussions w/ people who insist that Terri's "consciousness" was gone b/c of the destruction of her cerebral matter. That may well be (thus any motions were reflexes, etc.) I am agnostic on that. But does a human BODY have any intrinsic dignity to it simply as human? I would say most definitely, hence mutilating corpses (as the Somalis did of our Rangers for example) or grave robbing are completely unethical and immoral ways of treating the human body. In this case, of course, we weren't even talking of a dead human body but a living one making the proper attitude to it all the clearer.
Theresa Marie Schindler-Shiavo, requiescat in pace.
Spitfly, there is a gulf between denying you subsidized healthcare and ruling that nobody can give you a kidney, wherever you go.
You have options when you're denied healthcare. Schiavo's iron rule was that Terri was to have none. If other outraged Americans misunderstand that as badly as you do, I really don't care what they think.
Additionally, we don't and should not start deciding who lives and who dies by polls. So it is not about whether we would want to live in that condition. Thus, the hypocrisy point is moot.
We may be hypocritical on states rights. But hypocrisy lies on both sides. For years the liberals have been happy enough to watch the court strike down a state laws, even those passed by direct referendum. And again, at one point it was a popular Dem argument that "States Rights" was a "code word" for racism. ("Code word" has long been a code word for "We need a scarecrow for out back".) They preferred the process of the courts, filled with judges-for-life that ~40 years of democratic control of the Congress has allowed them to place there. Now they are worried about states rights because a court decision was challenged.
But we get out of that not just a "hypocricy" but a relative consistency as well. Out of both sides. You agree to some degree that Greer was too rigid in this case, and yet the courts have upheld his finding throughout. Thus, there has been no process in the judiciary which has been able to check the precipitate findings of a single judge, who chose to believe and dispute whom he wanted. To the extent that lacking a doubt in his own mind, the principle of doubt was never applied. This again has been upheld in every single court.
Thus, you may wave the polls at us now, but the fundamental inconsistency is that you would use the popularity of a position to argue the authoritative and pre-emptive position which is based on the last remaining power structure of the democrats.
And we're posturing?!?!
Right or wrong the suffering is over. Let the woman rest in peace and stop playing judge and jury over the whole thing!! It's over,let it be over.
Posted by maury at March 31, 2005 12:05 PM
-------------------------------------------------
Pathetic. May I recommend Simon Wiesenthal's Justice, Not Vengeance? Before you make a statement like that, you have to ask the question, "Was there justice in this situation? Was the outcome right or wrong?" If there wasn't, if what happened was wrong, then it is the responsibility of all moral agents to fight to make sure that something like this never happens again. The sad part was that I thought the constitution would protect precious, innocent people like Terri. First the unborn, now Terri, and disabled people next. =o(
We cannot permit the judiciary to piss and shit all over life, as our parents did during Roe v. Wade. We have to stop this slide into a culture that acquiesces to those who clamor for euthenasia and eugenics by countering with legislation that prohibits non-voluntary and involuntary forms of both. We have to educate ourselves. We have to pressure the slithering weasels that call themselves legislators, and if necessary we force our representatives to impeach judges that destroy the system of checks and balances by disregarding the law and creating new law from the bench. This goes beyond the simple ethical/philosophical question posed by the Schiavo tragedy and strikes to the heart of our democracy. Why doesn't anybody care that a handful of judges can invalidate the will of the legislative AND executive branch. The judiciary is currently omnipotent. They can invalidate ANY law by fiat, they can disregard precedent in American law and use international standards and internation law, and they can do that based solely on their personal biases. How in the hell have Americans allowed this to continue for three-quarters of a century?
"You have options when you're denied healthcare. Schiavo's iron rule was that Terri was to have none. If other outraged Americans misunderstand that as badly as you do, I really don't care what they think."
I have no options when I am denied health care so don't assume what you don't know. Terri Schiavo had NO options I understood this whole time. I mentioned earlier that I wished and its a big wish at best that Michael Schiavo had giving up his battle and handed custody to the parents... BUt that never happened and we're faced with this unfortunate tragedy.
"And again, at one point it was a popular Dem argument that "States Rights" was a "code word" for racism. ("Code word" has long been a code word for "We need a scarecrow for out back".)"
And strengthening social security is code for "we are going to cut your benefits and privatize the hell out of social security." It goes both ways.
BTW... the judges who got involved were conservative judges appointed by Republicans who I guess happen to activists themselves. Let me state again that my position is that everyone has a right-to-life yet the courts decided based on the law of the land according to the constitution which BTW doesn't permit the right-to health care SO I guess that means we cannot have health care PERIOD.
SO if I don't have health care and therefore my options are none whatsoever then what can I do to save my life in the future? Nothing I guess.. This is purely compassionate care at its finest. The true staple of the conservatism movement.. a belief to a right-to-life YET not everyone is entitled to a right to proper health care that can save a life or lives for that matter.
See, Spitfly, the reasons cons aren't being hypocritical on health care and right to life is this: cons have a different understanding of legal rights than libs do; libs think of entitlements; we think of exemptions from others' power.
So, OK, let's call the "right to life" the "right not to be murdered," not (as you would have it) a "entitlement to make other people provide an able-bodied person all his food and medicine."
BTW Homer Fong: single most insightful point in a FlynnFiles comment ever. I mean it.
I need to clear a few things here.
---------------------------------
Spitfly wrote:
"I have no options when I am denied health care..."
Which is saying:
"I have no options when I am denied jello..." - again, both are created through human invention and work - and no one has right to claim another’s work through government force. Just because the effect of health care far surpasses the effect of jello does not distinguish the principle that it's someone else's time/energy. The state should never claim one persons work for the benefit of another no matter how "noble" or "compassionate" it is.
-----------------------------------
Spitfly wrote.
"And again, at one point it was a popular Dem argument that "States Rights" was a "code word" for racism. ("Code word" has long been a code word for "We need a scarecrow for out back".)"
And strengthening social security is code for "we are going to cut your benefits and privatize the hell out of social security." It goes both ways.
ME: the issue was not about the Orwellian use of words and distorting terms for political advantage. The social security point you made is true, but this truth is completely unrelated to your charge of "hypocrisy" in Republicans selectively proclaiming states rights, correct? Or am I missing the correlation?
------------------------------------
Charging "hypocrisy" is not an argument for 3 reasons.
1) Saying "hypocrisy" in something you yourself don't believe in is not an argument (discussion in which disagreement is expressed).
2) When D's are proclaiming "states rights" as they are, then it negates your attempt of an argument against the R's because it equally exists against the D's. Correct?
3) The only reason why R's in the past have stood for the principle (and legal) notion of states rights is because they are the more conservative party, not THE conservative party. SO, of course you’re going to have contradictions in a movement that is as large as ours. Show me a small sect or group and I'll show you consistency. Republicans get blasted because "our tent is not big enough" yet we get charged "hypocrites" because our tent is actually larger than I would like. I guess the Republican Party is too diverse for your liking (and mine).
> Would you want to live in that condition buddy?
I don't know. Perhaps it is wonderful to live like that. Seriously. How do we know. Given the choice, should we really side with executing them ?
It concerns me greatly that someone would seriously say, "I wouldn't want to live like that so we should execute them".
That is insane. It concerns me greatly that anybody would reason that way. It is truly horrifying that people are so careless about the lives they are willing to throw away.
Yea, Homer that was a fantastic post. Love how short and sweet it was - yet it packed a powerful punch.
polemical you ever want to hear the story of how my mom turned into a vegetable over the course of the fourteen years she was in the hospital suffering with MS u let me know ok! I have been there brother and people like u who will paste my thread to their own, trying to make me look stupid are only out to look interlectual on a damn website! watch it happen then tell me how to deal with things big guy! The only plus in what happened to my family is we didn't have to deal with the public or media or government. Have a nice day creep!
Maury,
Perhaps I responded crudely to your post. That doesn't change the fact that what you wrote was illogical. You claim that the suffering is over, but that is completely inaccurate. The suffering has just begun for the Schindler family, Terri's biological family that loved her and cared for her and wanted desperately for their precious, innocent daughter and sister to live and not be starved and dehydrated to death. As for my first post, I stand behind what I said.
I'm sorry about your own personal situation. I have never dealt with a situation like that, and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone, and I'm not accusing you or your family of any wrongdoing, but if you're going to make a value judgment and take a holier than thou stance as if this debate is irrelevant or inappropriate, then be prepared to defend what you say. The conclusions you draw from your own situation cannot be extrapolated to every other situation that may appear similar without defending it with a rational argument.
Waking up this morning and finding out the Pope is in grave condition is something that we should all acknowledge. My prayers and thoughts are with him in hopes of him getting well so that he can continue to serve his flock and provide spiritual guidance.
Now... I want to be the first to concede that my statements of the "right" being hypocritical were dead wrong. My view is that the courts decision was based on the rule of law and my position has been that no matter what is or was being said that the judgements decided were correct in the face of public scrutiny. Spin this as "So its okay to murder a helpless individual?" NO.... It isn't this way at all. The hypocrisy is that conservatives believe in a state's right as Rob and others have pointed out yet while they preach that this is "judicial tyranny" the courts are ruling directly in line with one of their own principles SO you have this sort of contradiction going on. I'll admit no one is perfect... both Dems and Repubs are hypocritical on a plethora of issues YET I wonder why I don't believe in it When clearly I do. An assumption is being made here that I am claiming hypocrisy when I don't believe in it. I guess pointing out the obvious contradiction is wrong then. I do believe in the law of the land and the US Constitution... I guess my hypocrisy is that I believe in federal intervention at times therefore I'm a bit contradicting BUT in this special circumstance I personally believe the right decision was to uphold the framework of the constitution and I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who claim "judicial tyranny" in the face of their own principles.
I am someone who believes STRONGLY in a everyone's right-to-life w/ the exception of those on death row. I hold the view that the courts made the proper decision made the proper legal decision despite its tragic outcome. I also will say this poor woman's life was exploited by the media, politicians, lawyers, etc., This is tragic and something must be done about disability right's. May she rest in peace...
Lastly... This commment was made by Jason, "It concerns me greatly that someone would seriously say, "I wouldn't want to live like that so we should execute them"."
What bothers me here is that I hope he isn't implying that I said that BECAUSE I did not say that. If so, then this is a blatant attack and a twisting of my words into something false. It is a gutless attack on me as a person. I never said we should execute them rather I said I wouldn't want to live in that condition yet I never implied the term lets execute them. I have stated all along my stance that I favor a right-to-life yet we must understand the courts decision is based on the rule of law. I really hope that comment was directed towards me or about something I said because if so it is a gross and false twisting of my own sentiments and you my friend should apologize for them.
"And strengthening social security is code for 'we are going to cut your benefits and privatize the hell out of social security.' It goes both ways."
It goes both ways??? I only felt comfortable using the word "code word" in the liberal sense only because it is such a common staple in the liberal diet to talk about the conservative "code words". Didn't you notice that I said that the Dems had argued that States Rights was a code word for racism? So you doing an example of the what the democrats tend to do is not "going both ways".
You're not evening the flow "both ways", your just flushing the toilet the way it usually runs.
But as I said you have options. If HUD denies a family living in a hovel a loan, have they exhausted their option? No. Why? Because we now have this show called Extreme Home Makeover. EHM can come and redo your entire house and give you a just short of a mansion, if they so choose. On the other hand, the Schiavo case is like the government condemned your house, knocked it down and forbade anyone to build on the property as long as you owned it.
Charities could accomplish their main purpose with a "Save Spitfly" fund, but they could not through a "Save Terri" fund. So I'm not talking about what I don't know. I didn't say "options as easy as filling out a government form and having the government sign the bill", and I didn't imply that either.
And Rob!! Great job on point #3 on hypocrisy!! Kudos!! (or maybe just a granola bar, I don't know.)
"Would you want to live in that condition buddy?"
As long as we're talking about what I (or somebody else) might want, why not mention that I might prefer a guardian who didn't let an infection fester in me. As long as I'm going to hang on with the possibility of life, I might not want that.
Then, in 15 years I might prefer some rehabilitation therapy to see if my life isn't really worth living. And I might want some of that after my wife wins full custody and 1.6 million dollars by pledging that she will spend the rest of their life caring for me. I might prefer some fresh air and drapes pulled back every once in a while. And if I might be conscious, some family pictures in the room might be nice--I don't know. And I might appreciate the thought of people who are concerned enough that it really is my wish to die, apart from the word of the spouse who gave me all these things I don't prefer and her siblings.
Now in my case, if after a couple years of therapy, I do not improve, I don't think I would have the problem with my wife making the decision. Actually, I have no problem with my wife making the decision now. I have no problem with my brother-in-law or sister or many people I know making that decision--because I cannot conceive that they are going to leave me in a dark room to die or forbid anybody from my deathbed. I have a real relationship with my wife. We were attracted to each other, but from early on it moved past attraction to as full an appreciation as we can muster. My wife already knows she doesn't have to starve herself for my approval at any time.
So I might prefer to have my life ended, but as long as we are considering what we might prefer, I have other preferrences as well which might actually prove what my condition was. How do I know what "that condition" is if there has been this consistent screen against anyone finding out. If they cremate her, Schiavo's screen will be complete. There is a lot of presumption that you are asking me about "that condition" unless more was done to find out what "that condition" was. My opinion shouldn't count for more than the facts. If Michael Schiavo has his way, all those facts will be burned up within a week. After that "that condition" will only mean "whatever condition we think that was". And that is really giving to much import to my opinion, in my opinion.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is simple in my mind:
The Republicans want government to intervene in social issues (Terri Schiavo) while staying out of economic issues (raising the minimum wage)thus the Democrats want government to stay out of social issues (stem-cell research) yet intervening in economic issues (Social Security). That is the big difference between the two parties.
Rob... Is that "tent" you're talking about the one that I saw down in Pinellas Park, Florida outside of Terri Schiavo's hospice?
Once the Democrats were the party of big government yet now with the Republicans in control and with the "power", they're promoting their agenda through the meddling of government albeit "big government". Just look at President Bush's spending since taking office in 2001...
Need I say more???
Spitfly,
You write, "the constitution which BTW doesn't permit the right-to health care SO I guess that means we cannot have health care PERIOD." Do you mean that if a right to a government program (i.e., health care) is not made explicit in the constitution then that program cannot be? If that is your meaning, you overlook many govt programs like social security which are not guaranteed by the constitution but do exist. The constitution does not guarantee health care, but neither does it forbid it.
It is obvious that a personal matter between a family is now a moral matter for our country.
The Declaration of Independence founded the our nation on the principle that our rights are bestowed by God, and religion and morality clearly should inform both public and private decisions.
Yet we want to be left alone by government to make up our own minds. This approach not only enhances personal freedom, it also develops a personal responsibility.
And, yes, on many questions -- including whether a severely ill loved one lives or dies -- the responsibility belongs to the individual, not the government.
The problem that exists is that what she wanted done in case of an event such as this was never made clear except through the words of Michael Schiavo and that is where the problem lies. We definitely need some legislation indicating that if it is unclear what a persons's wishes are then that person must be kept alive because the wishes were never quite clear except what the husband maintained.
I am asking that of my friend Rob. I am not assuming that whatsoever or implying that.
I believe health care should be something that everyone should have access to. I think their is fundamental right, a moral right, an ethical right to a person, rich or poor, to have access or the right to proper health care.
You're correct that the constitution does not permit it as a right but neither does it forbid it. My view is that it should be a "right". I'll admit that statement was made when I was bit perturbed and I did not intend for it to sound the way it comes off.
How have democrats been so successful in this PR campaign? According to Spitfly, Dems want to stay out of personal and moral issues, while Reps want to meddle.
The fact is that Dems are absolutely active and interventionist on many personal/moral issues, (homosexual propoganda to children; condom distribution to 14 boys; forcing the Catholic Charities to fund contraception; funding abortions and scientific experimenting on embroyos; making smoking cigarettes illegal in various places, making sexual jokes illegal at work; getting rid of community regulation of porn, contraception, or abortion salesmen -- these are just the examples that immediately occur to me). Are Dems content to stay out of cultural, moral and personal matters? Get real.
Maury,
Perhaps I responded crudely to your post. That doesn't change the fact that what you wrote was illogical. You claim that the suffering is over, but that is completely inaccurate. The suffering has just begun for the Schindler family, Terri's biological family that loved her and cared for her and wanted desperately for their precious, innocent daughter and sister to live and not be starved and dehydrated to death. As for my first post, I stand behind what I said.
I'm sorry about your own personal situation. I have never dealt with a situation like that, and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone, and I'm not accusing you or your family of any wrongdoing, but if you're going to make a value judgment and take a holier than thou stance as if this debate is irrelevant or inappropriate, then be prepared to defend what you say. The conclusions you draw from your own situation cannot be extrapolated to every other situation that may appear similar without defending it with a rational argument.
Posted by polemical muhammad ali at April 1, 2005 03:58 AM
Never did I say that this issue was innapropriate or irrelevent I just said let the woman rest in peace. This isn't a urination contest bro I understand that my views are a bit bias but to sit around and drag this thing into the ground is what I was speakin of. You say the suffering has just begun for the Shiavo family? Are you really serious when you say that? We can argue back and forth whether or not Terri had any chance of recovery till we turn blue or "they" remove our feeding tube, but to say the family's suffering has just begun? Come on man, this woman has been watched by her family since 2001? Laying in the hospital bed and tranforming from a quite attractive girl to someone who you look at and sincerly empathize with. Watching that transformation is by far the most suffering that family will have to endure believe me. Her family seemed to be a nice family and of course they shouldn't want her feeding tube removed but why? Is it because you are really holding on to hope that she can make a recovery or is it because of a religeous belief? Is it what is best for Terri,or what is too difficult for the family to give the ok for.
I am confused by the husband and the family's difference in this instance though? If someone has an eating dissorder it is something both the family and husband should know about. With that said why is it only her husband sayin it was Terri's wish?
When I said what I did in my first post it was only for her family and her husband, it was a respect thing. I know that many people are big huge supporters of life by way of putting stupid red tape with life written on it, but to me that is the type of crap that will negate this family from gettin on with life without one of their daughters. The family would have had to deal with a daughter who was stricken to spending the rest of her life on assisted living or one that spares her of further suffering and lets her go rest with the Lord. Personally, and thats all it is, I would want the later. Death is also a part of human life and when it means a stop to human suffering I'm all for it. The autopsy may change my mind, however the fact that her results will also reach the media and the nightly news is exactly why I wrote thread number 1. It is none of our business frankly.
Spitfly: "We definitely need some legislation indicating that if it is unclear what a persons's wishes are then that person must be kept alive because the wishes were never quite clear except what the husband maintained."
Thank you, Spitfly. We agree. But, just in case legislation sounds like "bigger government" it does not have to, we should not have to create any bureaucratic office to oversea this. The courts already act here, they can be guided by law.
"I believe health care should be something that everyone should have access to. I think their is fundamental right, a moral right, an ethical right to a person, rich or poor, to have access or the right to proper health care."
You ought to be thankful that this country graciously gives you the right to say that.
Spitfly Fellow Viking (we went to H.S. together everyone, land of the famous and brave Vikings)
You can think H.care is a right, but not a fundamental one because it does not exist in nature (natural rights). Our constitution is a set of negative rights (telling the government what it can not do) not positive rights.
Therefore, government is not the grantor of rights (but the protector) and thus declaring that H.Care "should be one" runs contradictory to the American system. I'm just touching on the legal aspect for now.
Flyswatter said...
"I made plenty of sense... anyone in Terri Schiavo's position wouldn't want to live the way she lived... The polls back this up Nightfly. I for one wouldn't want to live in that condition therefore I'd rather die peacefully than be left with a feeding tube while practically braindead."
Whhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
Am I actually reading this correct...wait, let me get my duct tape out and tape my ears, nose, and mouth, because my brain is about explode here from this comment!
How can you honestly think that a poll justifies a reason to let this woman die?
And for the record Flyswatter, NO ONE EVER ASKED WHETHER YOU WOULD WANT TO LIVE LIKE THAT!
How can you even use these arguments and expect them to come across as rational?
Ok, i'm slowly taking the duct tape off.
Polemical, could you please whisper something nice to me (like life, at it's most vulnerable stage, is important to protect) so I don't go insane?
Last comment on the hypocrisy charge.
Liberals believed it was legal for federal intervention when a person was denied a seat at a lunch counter because they were black - consrvatives (dems/repubs mix at the time) disagreed claiming state's rights.
Moral Math Calculation - Republicans Win.
(case 1) A person being denied a seat to eat a turkey sandwich because they are black is bad - (case 2) an innocent person denied the right to live is really bad.
Arguing for federal intervention in case 2 and not case 1 makes way more sense (though not legally correct) than the other way around.
"Why doesn't anybody care that a handful of judges can invalidate the will of the legislative AND executive branch. The judiciary is currently omnipotent. They can invalidate ANY law by fiat, they can disregard precedent in American law and use international standards and internation law, and they can do that based solely on their personal biases. How in the hell have Americans allowed this to continue for three-quarters of a century?"
Polemical,
I could not agree with you any more on what you wrote here. I have been irate since hearing and reading what Judge Birch has done.
I have posted a similar story on this called:
"Tyranny lives, Schiavo dies" at:
www.childofreagan.com
I invite you to join the blog there and read my post.
Judge Birch also wrote in his scathing assault that the law was an intrusion into the judicial branch of power. 'We must conscientiously guard the independence of our judiciary and safeguard the Constitution, even in the face of the unfathomable human tragedy that has befallen Mrs Schiavo and her family.'"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Supreme Court was the only member of any such "Judiciary branch". That's why the Federalists called the the least of the branches. The constitution says "judicial power" is vested in both the Supreme and the lower, and that gives them authority to ajudicate. But it does not make it a "branch". The Congress has the power to make and unmake the lower courts as far as the Constitution said--but then again the liberals have probably gotten her latest word on this over the phone. So this is all moot.
Chris J. Doyle,
Maybe you should put the duct tape back on so I can tear it off and listen to you scream.
"How can you honestly think that a poll justifies a reason to let this woman die?"
I never said this reasoned or validated why she died. I was only stating the obvious that majority of public opinion would not want to live in that condition SO put the duct tape back on and stop twisting my words into some other meaning you think is irrational.
Rob... You make a very good and valid point on health care HOWEVER I think it should be a moral right and ethical right those in need and not having access to health care should have that option or right.
SeaKing... I am thankful for free speech and I can say what I believe ALSO I never said "lets create a bureaucratic office". Are you saying I am not thankful and ungrateful for the sacrifices of those you gave their lives for our rights we now have???
May our prayers and thoughts be with the Pope...
"I am thankful for free speech and I can say what I believe ALSO I never said "lets create a bureaucratic office".
Spitfly, I was honestly not implying that you did. I just wanted to make that clear in the case of any lingering scent of republican inconsistency as far as BG. I said "just in case legislation sounds like 'bigger government'". So you can disregard it if it does not apply to you.
"Are you saying I am not thankful and ungrateful for the sacrifices of those you gave their lives for our rights we now have???"
I don't think I said that, I meant just be glad we give you free speech on the topic.
If government gives us the right to health care, we then accept the dangerous premise that government is the grantor of rights - thus, we are ceding a power that completely contradicts the American creed Jefferson proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
The issue is really not about health care - I too would love for everyone to have it, just as I wish everyone could have a nice home. The issue is about disrupting the American system- government protecting rights, to government granting us rights. And what the government can give us, it can also take away - this is the danger that I unfortunately see liberalism taking us.
Okay, before this goes to the archive, I need to explain my obnoxious comment to Spitfly. I said "...just be glad we give you free speech on the topic."
I was trying to bait him into a topic. I wanted him to protest the use of the word "gracious" when I talked about an inalienable right he possesses. It's simply because rights are something you possess, therefore you cannot have a right to healthcare unless you possess the access to someone else's money.
A couple of other people also pointed this out, but I was trying to prod a response from Spitfly that would make a sort of object lesson. I think that societies ought to pursue the good of members of their society under the ethic of mercy. As mercy, it cannot be owed to you. Because as an entitlement, it could not be mercy to give it to you.
I am genuinely impressed that Spitfly didn't take the bait.
