Fair or unfair? The Schiavo case

---

I haven't been following this case too closely, so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US Supreme Court argee not to hear this case? They dont want to set any sort of precedent, and they argeed that the florida courts were correct in their assessment of the facts. So whats this I hear about the president stepping in? What business is it of his or congress? And I think I heard something about her parents offering to pay her husband 1 million dollars to let the feeding tube remain, is that true? Let me stop sounding ignorant, and go do a little research.......I'll be back with my opinion when I know a little more info

I don't think that Damien is a Communist.

In reply to:and go do a little research.......I'll be back with my opinion when I know a little more info you are truely admirable!

In reply to:didn't the US Supreme Court argee not to hear this case?That is correct.In reply to:I think I heard something about her parents offering to pay her husband 1 million dollars to let the feeding tube remain, is that true?Not quite correct. Someone offered $1 million, and somebody in Boca Raton offered something like $10 million, to bribe Terri Schiavo's husband to turn over to Terri's parents decision-making on behalf of Terri.

again, it's not about her, is it

again, it's not about her, is it Not sure what you mean. It's about her, it's about other people in her position, it's about how the U.S. state and federal governments work, it's about civil rights, it's about lots of stuff.

I was refering to Unforgetto.

you are truely admirable! Oh no was that sarcasm? I hope not. I could either take that comment one of two ways. One, the obvious-or two, you dummy, go do research BEFORE you post. Well if it wasn't sarcasm, thanks! and if it was ....hey bear with me, its 2am, lolI guess this is a bit off topic, but in reading I found that her brain damage is the result of a chemical imbalance due to an eating disorder. How is that possible?Okay, time for my opinion. It is unfair that the legislature is attempting to overrule the decision of the courts. The so called "Terri's Law" of last year was deemed unconstitutional then, and this latest attempt to keep her "alive" is also unconstitutional in my opinion. Legal issues aside, I am completely torn. I understand the position of her family, but how many people actually want to "live" like that? I understand the position of her husband also, but at the same time I question if she really confided her wishes to him.What I dont understand is why congress and the president think they should intervene.

i wasn't being sarcastic (for a change) your research is admirable

In reply to:in reading I found that her brain damage is the result of a chemical imbalance due to an eating disorder. How is that possible?She was allegedly bulimic, which led to a potassium imbalance, which led to heart arrhythmia, which led to a heart attack, which led to brain damage due to oxygen starvation...if I understand the case correctly.Some folks dispute that account, but from what I read, they sound like the same folks who claim they were abducted by space aliens and given anal probes.In reply to:is also unconstitutional in my opinionThen it's good that all of the courts that have heard the case agree with you.In reply to:but how many people actually want to "live" like that?Fewer than 13%, according to a recent poll.In reply to:at the same time I question if she really confided her wishes to himNot just him, but others as well. The courts that actually heard and studied all the evidence are not as wracked by the doubts that trouble the folks who've learned about this case from the popular media...at least in the "conveyance of wishes" area.

I think you are all a bunch of left wing liberal pinko commie faggots.Just kidding. No really...just kidding...But seriously, I realize I'm a minority on this and a lot of other issues. But I feel dissenting opinions should be given fair hearing. I also think that, bottom line, a person's view on something like this is totally informed by their underlying worldview...particularly as it pertains to sanctity of life issues. So, I'm not trying to convice anyone of my self-righteous-fundamentalist-bible-thumping-homophobic-racist-misogynistic point of view. That would be futile. Just wanted the othere position to be put out there.Don't you just love labels? They make life for the brain-dead so much easier.

In reply to:Don't you just love labels? They make life for the brain-dead so much easier.[Enter the brain dead...] Do you think labels are ever appropriate for any reason? If not, this seems like a hard-left position.Assigning labels and categorizing, done in a wonton manner, is lazy. But it's a fact that there's a strong correlation between political or religious point of view, and view on things such as "right-to-life" issues.A lot of the same folks who used to chain themselves to abortion clinics are now marching outside of Schiavo's hospice (and some of whom want to break in and feed her (people such as Randall Terry, the divorced Operation Rescue founder who has a gay son). They call themselves members of the right-to-life movement. I can't speak for everyone who's marching, but a lot of people from the movement who've put themselves in the public eye are involved in what most reasonable people would call conservative causes.Is it permissible to call someone who is against abortion anti-abortion, or is that also an unfair label?In an essay that contains a lot of stuff but a little name calling, do you focus mainly on the name calling? Isn't that a bit like obsessing over punctuation and spelling?And isn't "brain-dead" a label for a set of people you happen to disagree with?

George W. Bush came back to the White House (on Air Force One) from spring break, and is waiting to sign whatever bill the Congress produces this afternoon. Then it's back to the ranch.[Might a better name for this thread have been something like "Fair or unfair: the Schiavo case"? It looks pretty non-descript in the flat list.]

I have never heard about any of this!

Steve, you took my post way too seriously (imagine that). But nonetheless... In reply to: Do you think labels are ever appropriate for any reason? If not, this seems like a hard-left position. Of course there are times when they are appropriate. It's useful to use labels such as freshman, woman, athlete, or canned goods. I just have problems when they are used unfairly (as I'm sure you do too). In reply to: A lot of the same folks who used to chain themselves to abortion clinics are now marching outside of Schiavo's hospice And a lot of folks who tout right to choose bumper stickers are the ones saying "let her die". Your point? In reply to: people such as Randall Terry, the divorced Operation Rescue founder who has a gay son What's your point in pointing out that he is divorced and has a gay son (something I would like to see documented)? Are you placing value judgments on these things? Or are you using that tired John Kerry trick of trying to discredit someone by pointing out such things? In reply to: Is it permissible to call someone who is against abortion anti-abortion, or is that also an unfair label? People who are apposed to abortions use the terms pro-life and pro-abortion , while those who are not opposed to abortion use the terms anti-abortion and pro-choice . I prefer the terms pro-life because (as the Schiavo case shows) the position is about much more than abortion, and pro-abortion because not everyone's choice in the matter is always considered.I also believe that the term anti is a loaded term that is used by both sides of lots of arguments to paint the other side negatively.But you can use whatever term you want. In reply to: In an essay that contains a lot of stuff but a little name calling, do you focus mainly on the name calling? Isn't that a bit like obsessing over punctuation and spelling? What the carp are you talking about? I wasn't focusing on name calling on anyone's part in any essay? What are you referring to? My left-wing- and fundamentalist-racist- comments were purely sarcastic and meant in jest. That's why I used the perjoritive terms used by and for extremists on both sides. It was meant to point out the absurdity of such labels, not to be taken seriously. Do you always read things so literally? In reply to: And isn't "brain-dead" a label for a set of people you happen to disagree with? Do you think it's okay to use labels in such simplistic ways that are used to marginalize and set up straw men? Or are you, once again (yawn) twisting my words to make them say something I never said?

So many words, so little time.> Steve, you took my post way too seriouslyWithout seeing your face, hearing your voice, or seeing smilies, I take everything you post with the utmost seriousness.> (imagine that).Sarcasm! > Of course there are times when [labels] are appropriate. It's useful to use labels such as freshman, woman, athlete, or canned goods. I just have problems when they are used unfairly (as I'm sure you do too).You gave some examples, but not an explanation of when they are appropriate. So labels like "liberal", "conservative", "social conservative", "fascist", "right-to-lifer" are never appropriate?>> A lot of the same folks who used to chain themselves to abortion clinics are now marching outside of Schiavo's hospice> And a lot of folks who tout right to choose bumper stickers are the ones saying "let her die". Your point?Who? I'm sure there are some, but show me one who's in the public eye. The point is that there is a strong correlation between people who are against abortion and people who want to have the feeding tube reinserted. There is also a commonality among activists in both cases (Randall Terry is an example).>> people such as Randall Terry, the divorced Operation Rescue founder who has a gay son> What's your point in pointing out that he is divorced and has a gay son (something I would like to see documented)? Are you placing value judgments on these things? Or are you using that tired John Kerry trick of trying to discredit someone by pointing out such things?I assume you're referring to John Kerry's being victimized by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"'s scurrilous charges: FactCheck.org on that controversy. The point is this: hypocrisy. It's not like Terry is talking about things that can't be nailed down easily, as can things like the number of protons in a carbon atom. It's all about values. And he is a religious Christian divorced hypocrite. (What did Jesus say about judging others, and casting stones? And what did He say about divorce?)Documented? You didn't really think I just pulled the gay son thing out of the air, did you? 4th and final page of Randall Terry interview:[questioner] What he said to me was that it began for him the process of admitting it to himself, that doing that could bring him happiness.[Terry's reply] I would contend that is a lie. The homosexual community has more acceptance in America than it ever has and the suicide rate is as high as it's always been. People commit suicide when they're in despair. They're in despair because they know in their heart of hearts that this sexual addiction is self-abusive and a horrifying, degrading lifestyle. I know my son, and believe me, he has not obtained peace or happiness.(Is it possible that the despair is caused by parents and other people not accepting gay people for who they are? But that's another discussion for another place.)>> Is it permissible to call someone who is against abortion anti-abortion, or is that also an unfair label?>> People who are apposed to abortions use the terms pro-life and pro-abortion , while those who are not opposed to abortion use the terms anti-abortion and pro-choice. I prefer the terms pro-life because (as the Schiavo case shows) the position is about much more than abortion, and pro-abortion because not everyone's choice in the matter is always considered.I also believe that the term anti is a loaded term that is used by both sides of lots of arguments to paint the other side negatively.But you can use whatever term you want.People use loaded words to describe those whom they agree with, and those they don't. If you're discussing the issue in a legal context, might "pro-abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion-rights" be more descriptive? After all, "pro-abortion" people aren't telling anti-abortion people or anyone else to go get abortions. They are concerned about the right to have an abortion. But the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion and right-to-life have practically lost their emotional impact, they been used so much.>> In an essay that contains a lot of stuff but a little name calling, do you focus mainly on the name calling? Isn't that a bit like obsessing over punctuation and spelling?> What the carp are you talking about? I wasn't focusing on name calling on anyone's part in any essay? What are you referring to? My left-wing- and fundamentalist-racist- comments were purely sarcastic and meant in jest. That's why I used the perjoritive terms used by and for extremists on both sides. It was meant to point out the absurdity of such labels, not to be taken seriously.A thing that you write that has a lot of words and a cohesive idea is an essay. One man's extremist is another man's moral paragon.>Do you always read things so literally?See the first item.>> And isn't "brain-dead" a label for a set of people you happen to disagree with?> Do you think it's okay to use labels in such simplistic ways that are used to marginalize and set up straw men?This is what the carp I'm talking about. If you see only the label stuff, then go into "saw label -- bad" mode and disregard everything else, then all you'll see are straw men.> Or are you, once again (yawn) twisting my words to make them say something I never said?We'll get you on your school's debating team yet.

Back to the thread at hand...NYT, early this morning: Congress Passes and Bush Signs Legislation on Schiavo CaseThe approval and signing of the measure allows a federal court to intervene in the case of a brain-damaged woman in Florida.(Now the ball is in the Federal District Court in Tampa.)____________________________________________________"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.(Funny, he signed a lot of death warrants as governor of Texas...under 18, mentally retarded, poor legal representation, forensic labs cooking evidence, etc....no "serious questions", I guess.)

it is a fact that she had heart failure and it is a fact that the heart failure was not due to a heart attack. and it wasn't until she started to be able to communicate that these so-called "wishes" came about. (at least that was what the family said on Larry King Live on march 18th) besides most ppl tell their families their "wishes" before, if not right after, discussing them with a significant other..... so you just have to imagine all the reason for letting her starve to death her husband might have.personally i think she should be returned to her family and he should be granted a divorce... he's already got another family and if he loves her as much as he says he does then he sure should have another woman!!!!!!

I don't think you will get the unvarnished facts from what the family says on Larry King. Are you saying that the family said that Schiavo made her wishes known right after her brain was damaged? This makes no sense. (Also, look back in this thread for what Schiavo's doctors believe caused the brain damage).

Neither Terri nor her husband have requested a divorce. Whether the husband should have maintained fidelity while his wife spends potentially decades in a vegetative state, and the dies, is an interesting issue, but not a legally relevant one.

I can honestly say, I would not want to live like a vegatable. But I would hope my husband/family wouldn't let me starve to death. Whether her brain functions are there or not, she is still a human being.