<p>babybird, you are being extreme. Legally, Mike Schiavo has the right to decide his wife's fate. Once two people are married, they can make decisions like that. As someone mentioned earlier, this is why marriage equality for homosexuals is such a big deal. If Mike and Terri weren't married, her parents would have all of the decision in their hands. But they were married, and according to United States law, Mike gets to make that decision. That's why I am so against the congressmen who are working so hard to invalidate the judicial system's ruling. Terri is not anyone's property. But in the absense of a voice, the person who is legally responsible for speaking for her is her husband. They need to stop questioning him.</p>
<p>kb50410 you expesssed all of my wishes very eloquently, I agree with you 100%</p>
<p>just let the poor woman pass, I think its just a personal family matter than has been blown up by evangelicals in a bid for more political grandstanding</p>
<p>btw, there is also a money issue involved, terri's dad stopped talking to michael after not getting money from a 1994 settlement.</p>
<p>Do you think doctors know everything? If you answered, "yes," you really aren't intelligent enough to be on the D board. If you acknowledged the truth by declaring "no," then how could you support the decision of this judge? We're talking about life and death. There is nothing more sacred than that. All of the benefit of the doubt belongs on Terry's side of the ledger.
The facts: Terry's so-called "husband" is an adulterer, living with a different woman for many years, and has new children. Thus, he is not Terry's "husband" anymore; that is a legal fiction. He should be divorced from her by operation of law so that he doesn't have guardianship over her. It should be taken from him. He has established that he can, and already has, lived his life separate and apart from Terry and that he clearly does not have Terry's best interests at heart. Fact: Terry's husband could relinquish guardianship to Terry's parents and remove himself from the matter. He refuses to do that. Why? He wants her dead because Terry suffered her injury under suspicious circumstances which could implicate him. Fact: Terry has been served a death sentence by a judge. For what? What crime did she commit? Who did she harm? Why should her parents be deprived of caring for her at her time of greatest need? Why? Fact: we could not execute Scott Peterson by allowing him to starve to death. That is considered cruel and unusual punishment and is violative of the US Constitution. Yet that is exactly the sentence imposed on Terry by the judge. Indeed, an animal shelter could not euthanize an animal by letting it starve to death. But it's ok to murder Terry that way.
Why don't you not eat for 7 days and experience what that feels like. Then come back and let us know what you think about Terry's plight.</p>
<p>the only thing I would disagree with the above in, is that Terri Schiavo, in her current state, does not experience hunger. there wouldn't be any suffering associated with removing the feeding tube.</p>
<p>That's what makes me suspicious about the husband. He broke his wedding vows by sleeping with other women and he has new children. He is supposed to stay loyal in "sickness and in health"</p>
<p>I think it's a huge personal traagedy that's not really the business of anyone but the immediate family. That means, both evangelicals and the ACLU need to stay out of it. I also think that there must be a more humane way to do this than starvation, whether she feels it or not.</p>
<p>My two cents.</p>
<p>think of it this way: would this be considered euthanasia if it were, oh let's say 1832? probably not, because there would be no machines to hook into this poor lady. so... IF by some miracle, she survives after having the tube removed, then it's the will of some higher power. If she doesnt survive, then she would not have survived to begin with if there had been no machines to plug into her. (sorry if i don't make sense... im a bit tired and having trouble keeping my eyes open. yes, even though it's 7 pm.)-- feel free to ask me to elaborate on my nonsense. (maybe there just comes a time when people have to die--- i know, such an outrageous idea!!!)</p>
<p>I think I see what you're saying.</p>
<p>I hear a lot of people saying that they shouldn't let her die until "God's ready for her to." I say, She wouldn't be alive if it weren't for MAN-MADE machines. So maybe, by hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, WE'RE the ones who are stringing out God's will.</p>
<p>So much gray area here. There are no right answers.</p>
<p>(AP) - Congress leaders announced agreement Saturday on legislation they said would allow a severely brain-damaged woman to resume being fed while a federal court decides the right-to-die battle between her parents and her husband. "We think we have found a solution" to the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said at a Capitol Hills news conference. "All sides agree that this is the best way to proceed."</p>
<p>journogirl... that's exactly what I mean. thank you for putting it into an understandable post :)</p>
<p>No one is actively trying to kill Terri Sciavo. A heart attack effectivley did that 15 years ago. The Jeffery Dahmer example doesn't apply.</p>
<p>Terri Sciavo's doctors are carrying out her wishes as interpreted by her closest surviving relative. The courts have ruled that he has the right to interpret what her last wishes are. I say again, no one is trying to kill Terri Schiavo.</p>
<p>As to the "god" issue, in religious/philosophical terms we are dealing with subsistence and contingence. God would be subsistent and man would be contingent--on god. Therefore, the man-made argument would not hold--if your theology/cosmology included spirituality and was not simply materialistic in nature, god would be the subsistent possibility behind any providential advance that was termed "man-made," even if god was no more than, in the Platonic sense, the 1st Principal, or in the Aristotelian sense, the Unmoved-Mover.</p>
<p>This is not to take a position on the case itself, but on the references to theology and anthropology.</p>
<p>I would just like to again reinterate that my whole beef with the Schiavo case is that if it weren't for Congressional Republicans butting in at the 11th hour, this case WOULDN'T EVEN BE UP FOR DEBATE!!!!!</p>
<p>I apologize for sounding harsh, and I was not accusing BabyBird as a Right-Wing evangelist. I am a staunch conservative myself, but the way Republicans have handled the issue (with clear disregard for blatant government procedure) has been disappointing. </p>
<p>The only reason I was getting angry at babybird was because she was bringing issues of sentimentality and morality into the Terry Schiavo case, which frankly (and without presumption) have no bearing. It is bad that Terry's husband was an adulterer, and to top it off, he allegedly beat Terry and was, at one time, accused of causing her comatose state. He still has rights, though, and morals and law do not always coincide. I am of the opinion that, in those cases, we should approach morals only through the law and not through byways because it is the whole Congressional approval that maintains order and general morality.</p>
<p>So, to sum it up (this is my last post on the issue), I have nothing against BabyBird personally, nor against her political leanings (which I heartily support). I do, however, insist that she not view the situation through a moral perspective. That would be closing the argument without addressing the main theme. Sure, we all believe Terry should be given the right to life. The question is, whether the Constitution backs us sufficiently. I say it doesn't.</p>
<p>Wow, it's hard to make even an apology sound patronizing, but you managed to do just that. nice. </p>
<p>"I do, however, insist that she not view the situation through a moral perspective"</p>
<p>Try not to insist anything of anyone, it's condescending.</p>
<p>Anyway, moralistics aside, not that I was much harping on those anyway...I do not believe that Terri Schiavo's husband has a right to her life in this case. I do not believe this responsibility falls to him, and if you keep saying that the courts say it does, then I continue to disagree with the courts. I especially think that it does not fall to him because he effectively should not be considered her husband in the slightest.</p>
<p>First of all, my apology was genuine. If you want to get that sensitive over rules of civility, I'd note that you confused me with someone who accused you of being a part of the evangelical right (which I did not even mention until my apology--and even there, I apologized for something that I did not do. KB54010 mentioned it first, and you capitalized on it). My insisting was an expression--however your arguments DID center around morals and the importance of life. Moreover, your arguments touched on the rights of a woman, which, in this case, was not relevant. The Terry Schiavo case was not about male v. female.</p>
<p>"haha, i find it hilarious that you claim to be civil liberties fans when you are clearly telling all of us that you think she is her husband's property."</p>
<p>Husbands have been accused in the past of viewing their wifes as property (and they have been guilty of it). Raising that issue in message boards does bring morals and other factors into this which make the issue charged...and off-topic.</p>
<p>"When did we all revert back to the idea that a woman has no say of her own? And when silent, we assume they have the right to life. End."</p>
<p>That sounds pretty emphatic in terms of what we should assume. You were irritated by my insisting that we not bring morals into this, but you went ahead and "assumed" for me. Thanks. Once again, your referring to a woman not having say on her own brought back the suffrage movement--that is relevant in many contemporary cases like the Summers revival, but not here. You keep claiming that your opinion trumps the court's--which is perfectly fine if you have evidence. Your evidence seems to be that "when silent, we assume they have the right to life." That is your assumption, based on your values. There is no evidence that can progress the discussion any further. </p>
<p>Even others have agreed that your arguments do not prevent convincing evidence (not that your evidence is weak--it is certainly convincing to the individual that holds similar values--but it does not convince others because others do not change values on whim):</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>You bring humanity into this conversation, and that can only be changed by actual encounters, not with claims:</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>The man is legally her husband. I think it would be presumptuous of us to decide whether the man should or should not be her husband (that is a judgment call not mentioned in American law. American law does, however, grant the closest relative the right to decide life/death).</p>
<p>"
anyhoo, I am going to sleep. hopefully someone will not think I am vegetating and try to peacefully off me.
"</p>
<p>You call me patronizing? You're turning a Constitutional interpretation into an act of sadism (albeit with humor). What I am trying to say is, good, you might disagree with the courts due to moral values (or some evidence that I have yet to find in your posts). Your arguments aren't convincing because nobody else will adopt statements like that off-hand. Moral arguments cannot trump legally instated ideas. With that logic, why run the Americas with Christian law, regardless of the Constitution (and don't bring the whole Republicanism into this argument...I am using this as an example that should stand by itself)? I think that you are personally involved in this issue but not objectively involved. Every argument you make sounds like it has been influenced by some past experience that other messagers have yet to understand. They have supported your right to give an argument, they have supported your irritation against the condescending attitude in my first two posts (I have admitted to having this). Your point has yet to garner any supporters though.</p>
<p>A question: Who has payed for Schiavo's life support for the 15 years - her husband, or the taxpayers?</p>
<p>Are you sure you're not a liberal, hallucinations? You're using the kind of quack psychoanalysis that they just love to employ. </p>
<p>Anyway, the main reason that I want to keep Terri Schiavo alive is because hysteria is being raised by the opposition. Any time hysteria is around, I plant myself firmly on the other side of it.</p>
<p>quack psychoanalysis that they just love to employ. </p>
<p>if its anyone thats quack its the right wing reactionary evangelicals</p>
<p>You all should check out Peter Singer's writings. He's a leading ethicist at Princeton. I completely disagree with his positions, but he might bring a different perspective to the conversation. I did some research on him last summer. </p>
<p>Essentially he feels that different people have different interests in society. Someone like Terry Shaivo would have less right to be alive and use societys resources than say a living toad would. People with severe disabilities would have less right (or interests) than most animals, for instance.</p>