<p>"He believes that it would be Terri's wish"</p>
<p>Last I checked, we weren't into subjective analysis of people's thoughts and desires. Of course, we can bring Big Brother into this if you like, but let's not pretend for a second that thoughtspeak is where this nation should be headed.</p>
<p>I know what the courts have decided, and I disagree with it. I don't think that her husband should have any say over her, neither should her parents. People are not in charge of other people's decisions, especially not their life or death ones. Terri Schiavo may not be able to speak, but in that case, we should be assuming she wants to live. Not going by a he said/they said nonsensical debate. Boo.</p>
<p>Babybird87, this case has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It is because there are certain rights and privileges gained when two people enter into a marriage relationship.</p>
<p>Thousands of gay couples are currently fighting for the same rights ("property rights", as you would call them) across our country.</p>
<p>No, babybird. Absent legal documents saying that Terri wishes to live in a vegatative state, that decision falls to her closest relative, which is her husband.</p>
<p>This situation happens everyday in all 50 states. The only differance here is that the religious right is using Terri Schiavo's case as a springboard to call judges and lawyers barbarians and murderers.</p>
<p>On a personal note, after people get done reading this thread, sit your parents down and have a conversation about living wills and what your family's wishes are. You don't want to be in the situation that the Schiavo family is in.</p>
<p>Oh, God. I've been counting down the minutes before I could hear that fabulous and loaded and made up phrase again. Maybe I'll break out "Massachusetts liberal" while we're digging up that stuff.</p>
<p>You can do that if you like. But it isn't John Kerry and Ted Kennedy trying to insert themselves into this private family matter.</p>
<p>Its Tom Delay, James Sensenbrenner, Mel Martinez, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell who think that thier believes and values should usurp those of Terri Schiavo and her closet relative.</p>
<p>Can you really tell me that her husband has Terri Schiavo's interests 100% at heart? This country sometimes forget what it's like to be human.</p>
<p>And I wasn't using "MA liberal" as a John K/Ted K sort of a thing. I was using it as conservatives sometimes do, an enveloping slur against the other side. Just because it's true, i.e. someone is religious and conservative, it is not OK to shove them into a negative classification like the "religious right" that apparently controls all of Washington.</p>
<p>I can't tell you that, and its not really my business, or your business. The courts have already hashed this out. The only reason we are even discussing what only yesterday was a local issue at best is because Congressional Republicans are on a grandstanding tour. Its the display of disgusting politcal opportunism that bothers me more than the case itself.</p>
<p>while subpoena'ing her is entirely excessive, I don't believe trying to save someone's life is political opportunism. So much for the so-called Republican majority.</p>
<p>anyhoo, I am going to sleep. hopefully someone will not think I am vegetating and try to peacefully off me.</p>
<p>Babybird, you're making horrible arguments here. This isn't the simple matter of just trying to save someone's life and bringing name-calling into teenage college message boards. Terry Schiavo's life will be gone regardless. Would you want to live in that state, where you could not communicate with the world?</p>
<p>Thats not the point at hand. The point is that Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen have twisted the law to favor one issue over another merely because they trick people like you. Another example is acting as if picking federal judges is a huge deal and that filibusters should not be allowed in Congressional hearings about judges. These are the same Republicans who used filibusters to disarm amendments concerning the abolition of poll taxes in the 1970s. Point at hand is that they use issues of life/death in terms of black/white and this allows them to twist many rules. You are their prey.</p>
<p>I have no educated opinion on the issue (like everyone else in this discussion), however, the condescending attitude being shown to babybird is so over the top.</p>
<p>because they trick people like you oh please, good thing theres somebody on cc to point out how gullible someone must be to disagree with them.</p>
<p>The courts have already hashed this out I dont believe you mean to say that a court decision puts a particular moral issue beyond the realm of dissent. </p>
<p>But the thing I find most bothersome, is when people have to turn any particular moral/ethical question into a Republican v Democratic ad nauseum attack. As far as I can see, babybird is addressing an issue (rightly or wrongly, I dont know) but instead of taking on her position directly shes attached as being a stooge for The Religious Right. I dont even know if babybird is conservative, I only know how she feels about this particular issue; is everyone else psychic?</p>
<p>Agree or disagree but ice the ad homonym attacks. I dont really have a strong view on this issue; people are dying all the time in far more clear cut cases and nobodies talking because its just not sexy and stylish enough. </p>
<p>You are their prey. OMG, is this apparatchik boilerplate, or what?</p>
<p>"But the thing I find most bothersome, is when people have to turn any particular moral/ethical question into a Republican v Democratic ad nauseum attack"</p>
<p>I find it bothersome as well. So where is your outrage at the Republicans in Congress who have made this a national issue. If it weren't for Tom Delay, this woman and her family would be spending her last days together in peace.</p>
<p>The Republicans in congress are not debating in the dartmouth forum at the moment. </p>
<p>Like I said, I don't really know what's right in this case and I'm not afraid to say it. These kind of cookie cutter views don't make it into my rap.</p>
<p>Tom Delay is proudly part of the "Religious Right," he'd say so himself, but I don't believe you can say the same about babybird, unless she says so herself.</p>
<p>I don't think she's a hack for the "Religious Right" so it would be better to take on the moral implications of her view rather than imposing a scarlet letter on her like "religious right" or "card carrying liberal."</p>
<p>I got nothing against your view in this issue either...I don't have a clue on this one.</p>
<p>What happened to debating issues, rather than causes?</p>
<p>No, not really. Every ethical or moral dilemma is not by any necessity a cause. There is a problem and a solution to a problem, there doesn't need to be some overarching ideology hacked on to the solution for it to be a solution. </p>
<p>What are we debating here: the issue of whether Schiavo should be kept on life support or not? or whether the government has the right to intervene or not?</p>
<p>I would argue that the question of whether or not Terri Schiavo should be kept on a feeding tube is none of our business. There is nothing about that question that is the purview of the media, and American public, or the loyal group of cc'ers.</p>
<p>The governmental intervention is what has pushed the first question in to the public square in the first place. Congress is the reason we are talking about this. This was at best a local issue until the Congressional Republican's butted in.</p>
<p>The governmental intervention is ergo the only question. Terri Schiavo's feeding tube shouldn't even be up for public debate.</p>
<p>Thank you, Kalidescope. You seem like someone I'd want to hang out with. :) I ignored hallucinations outright because, seriously, that guy doesn't want to debate, he wants to talk down to people. I responded to some of kb's things just because he was far more rational than the other, but agreed-- don't label me anything. I think I tried to say that. as for being a member of the (I maintain, made-up) "religious right", I am not. I may be conservative but religion is the farthest thing from my mind in the Terri Schiavo case.</p>
<p>kb-- how can you say that it's none of our business? Any violation of the Hippocratic oath automatically becomes our business. I guess we could also argue that Jeffrey Dahmer's serial killing ways are none of our business, it his right to kill as many people as he wants and not have Congress intervene.</p>