Several years ago, I had a living will done up. If the worst should happen, I’m never going to have to concern myself that politicians, like leeches, will attach themselves to my case the way they have with poor Terri Schiavo. Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred–unless, of course, we’re bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.
Yes, friends, the US government–the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people’s lives–just loves mixing into people’s deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.
I strongly suggest to any and all reading this that you decide one way or the other while you still can. If you want to insist your family takes whatever measures possible to continue your life, even if medical science says it’s hopeless, then make that clear in writing. If, like me, you don’t want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well.
Don’t leave it in the hands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and, God forbid, a Bush.
PAD
• 
I guess I missed it, but how do the accusations against Michael Shiavo not pass the logic test (though abuse tends to be illogical anyway)? I have no first hand knowledge, but living close allows me to hear the local news about it, which is a lot sharper than the national news (and to be honest, I’m not sure why some of it doesn’t fall into the libel or slander arena).
I’ve thought about things a bit further, and I’ve decided that – while remarkable and uneven – it doesn’t bother me at all that the government would try to stand up for the life of one person.
We carry on about the accusations against Mr. S., but we don’t really know, just as we don’t really know if Terri is in PVS. Enough doctors have said she isn’t to make me wonder. Part of that wondering is if the media has a quantum physics effect on such cases – simply by peering so hard at the event, does the media shape the event? We’ve all been talking about something in which few, if any of us, know the facts. Hasn’t stopped anyone (myself included) from drawing conclusions though.
We carry on about the accusations against Mr. S., but we don’t really know, just as we don’t really know if Terri is in PVS.
Sorry, but this doesn’t stand the logic test either. Do you KNOW what a persistent vegetative state actually is and how they diagnose it?
Robbnn, I think there’s an implied faith in the legal system involved here. Shocking to consider, I know, but I don’t see many other rational reasons for those that side with the husband.
What it comes down to is that this case has been in and out of the court system for over 8 years. It’s been appealed up and down Florida, and rejected by the US Supreme Court at least 5 times. And the courts have consistantly sided with the husband.
Now, if the US Congress can just come in and undo 8 years of judicial work, where would that leave us? EVERY person on the losing side of a heart-breaking, lose-lose case would appeal to the media and congress. There’d never be any finality or permanence to any judicial issue, because the loser would always have the chance that they could appeal to congress and have the courts overturned.
That’s not the way our system works. I’ve seen some statements about how the Supreme Court doesn’t have the final say about the laws in this country. That’s really just flat out wrong. Our triumverate government is designed so that the courts DO have the final say about laws. Congress drafts them, the President signs and enforces them, and the courts decide what is and isn’t “good law.” And if the courts decide that the other 2 branches screwed up, that’s the end of it.
So while it’s not totally inconvievable that the husband could have fooled 8 years’ worth of judges, it’s highly improbable. And some of the accusations have been just that, and pretty wild. Such as the one that suggests that he tried to kill Terri by choking her…like the EMTs wouldn’t have noticed the signs of strangulation? There’s just no evidence anywhere to support that claim.
And from what I’ve seen, all the doctors that are now claiming that she’s not in a PVS have not done more than study her records and view the tape the parents made. It’s not the husband’s doctors that declared her as being in a PVS…it was the court appointed doctors. The state of Florida declared her medical condition as PVS.
Do you KNOW what a persistent vegetative state actually is and how they diagnose it?
Most people apparently don’t.
They’ll just say what they want to make themselves believe that Terri has a chance to recover.
Fat chance that they’ll listen to logic, science, and the rulings of a couple of dozen judges.
“Actually, PAD, I read something earlier that says that quite a few conservatives are actually getting semi-pìššëd about this.”
Oh, I have no doubt that they are. But as you say, merely “semi-pìššëd.” Not enough that they’ll go vote Democrat. And what cheeses me are the Senate Democrats who know perfectly well that this is Congressional abuse, but caved and voted with the GOP because they didn’t want to give the conservatives another opportunity to paint them as uncaring, unfeeling liberals come next election.
To me, it comes down to this: Two thirds of this country supports a woman’s right to choose, but it also elected into office–and turned entire control of the government over to–a party that would love to overturn Roe v. Wade. The GOP isn’t interested in how the people feel. It’s interested in how the people WHO VOTE feel. And the latter doesn’t always reflect the former.
PAD
Fat chance that they’ll listen to logic, science, and the rulings of a couple of dozen judges.
You get used to it, dealing with creationists/intelligent designists. Same thing happening there.
Robbnn, I think there’s an implied faith in the legal system involved here. Shocking to consider, I know, but I don’t see many other rational reasons for those that side with the husband.
It’s not an implied faith in the legal system, at least for me — it’s a belief that doctors, by and large, get it right far more often than they get it wrong. The science behind the diagnosis of a PVS is, while not perfectly clear-cut, relatively cut-and-dried — and when several different independent physicians say that Terri Schiavo’s cerebral cortex has liquified, I take that as very solid evidence. Logic and science go a long way with me.
Of course, those who think science is merely another tool in politicians’ arsenals are not likely to agree. This is why I’m an educator — I’d like to correct those misimpressions as much as I can, or at least make sure that there aren’t enough of those people to elect anti-science idiots on a regular basis.
Hasn’t worked yet, of course.
TWL
Planning to move to Kansas, Georgia or Dover, PA any time soon, Tim?
” Also, I know you will either agree with me or make a good argument in reply, which makes for a more interesting exchange than either silence or a snarky non sequitor insult.”
Sushi-thief.
Just read this on Bartcop:
“The Republicans have redefined marriage to be 1 man, 1 woman, her parents, & Congress”
Just thought I’d share
Planning to move to Kansas, Georgia or Dover, PA any time soon, Tim?
Not a chance. There’s education and then there’s nothing but masochism.
(Note to any Kansans, Georgians, or Doverians — this is not to entirely slam your fair state/city. It’s simply a comment on recent educational initiatives there.)
TWL
Re :Jerome
Okay ,while the parties on both side of this issue
may passionately believe they are right that does not mean they necessarily are right or should be involving themselves in things that quite frankly are none of their dámņ business.
My reasons for wanting these people in Hëll is because they are exploiting peoples emotions ,not telling all the facts and demonizing a husband be he flawed or not going thru a horrible moment in his life.
Yes ,we could all find ourselves in this position but its something that should be decide by individuals not people with an agenda.
As far as my “black and white “answer somethings have no “nuances”.More to the point if you call yourself a pro-lifer that means ALL life baby,adult,american,iraqi..whatever.
People being situational believers can be proven by simple observation,Example being someone who considers themselves “pro life “but would send death threats or commit acts of violence against another because they are executing their LEGAL RIGHT to perform abortions.
My comments about Pro -Death were meant to say can any truly call themselves antilife??!!!I mean outside of a fricking comicbook,the vast majority of the population is prolife ,it may not fit your or my specific views,but we all put some value on human life.
Im done Galactica is on
Posted by: Bobb at March 25, 2005 04:56 PM
That’s not the way our system works. I’ve seen some statements about how the Supreme Court doesn’t have the final say about the laws in this country. That’s really just flat out wrong. Our triumverate government is designed so that the courts DO have the final say about laws. Congress drafts them, the President signs and enforces them, and the courts decide what is and isn’t “good law.” And if the courts decide that the other 2 branches screwed up, that’s the end of it.
Actally, though that’s the way it’s worked since roughly the days of John Madison, that’s not what the Constitution says — a recent bill introduced in the House which would allow Congress to override any Supreme Court decision by a 2/3 majority stimulated me to go back to the actual words establishing the Supreme Vourt and definiong its relationship to the other branches, and i found:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To…
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
… so, apparently, the Congress does have the power to tell the Courts what they may or may not hear (or have to or not have to hear). Also, at no point does the Constitution overtly spell out the power of judicial review; i believe that it was John Marshall who arrogated it unto the Court (but i could be wrong about which Chief Justice it was).
(Also, notice that the Consittution does not capitalise “supreme” when talking about the court; it is simply the supreme [as in highest] Court rather than The Supreme Court, a proper name…)
The GOP isn’t interested in how the people feel. It’s interested in how the people WHO VOTE feel. And the latter doesn’t always reflect the former.
What that tells me is that while most support choice, they don’t base their votes on it. I doubt that more than 10% of the electorate based their vote on abortion policy. Part of that is the extremes in both parties. The GOP wants to restrict all abortion, the Democrats none. Most people are in the middle. Most believe that abortion in the first 3 months is okay, abortion in the last 3 is wrong.
As to the bit about the people versus the voters, well, “decisions are made by those who show up” to quote West Wing. Participation isn’t mandatory, but it sure helps.
My ex-wife, a neurologist and thus better able than most to weed the truth from the crap on this issue, says that the reporting on both sides has been deplorable. There have been doctors who say she has a “flat EEG” which is impossible–she wouldn’t be able to breath much less do her other actions. On the other hand, she is appalled by those docs who look at her scans and say they don’t look too bad–they are, in fact, terrible.
One further though I haven’t seen addressed: in all the talk about how the settlement money was spent, I have yet to see any justification for there even BEING any money to begin with. A woman chooses to starve herself, has a heart attack, sufferes 10 minutes of brain damage and this is the doctors fault exactly how?
A woman chooses to starve herself, has a heart attack, sufferes 10 minutes of brain damage and this is the doctors fault exactly how?
I’m guessing it has to do with something after she was taken to the hospital.
Now, I know that’s a big “Duh” when you stop and think about it, but, well, yeah. 🙂
Maybe they didn’t do something they should have that could have prevented some of the brain damage, etc.
As I understand it, no MRI or other kind of imaging has been conducted on Terri. If her brain is liquified, they haven’t determined it by looking. I’m not saying it isn’t, either. I just don’t know. FWIW, my brother is missing a sizable chunk of his brain (the only way to stop his constant epileptic seizures was to remove several square inches of his brain).
He used to be perfectly healthy (he’s gained too much weight to say he is healthy now, though). He can move, breath, and obviously feed himself, but – golly – a part of his brain is gone and he doesn’t think like he used to. His personality is even quite different. He’s said at various points of his life that he wishes he were dead (not related to his handicap, though). Should we stop feeding him?
Terri is physically healthy. She’s not dieing when she is fed by a tube. The tube doesn’t make her stomach work, it does that by itself. A ventilator actually works the lungs. A person on a ventilator IS dieing. I admit it is a fine line, but killing someone because she doesn’t think like she used to (aaagggh, even as I write this, I do see your side of the argument – I wouldn’t want to live like that either – nor like Chris Reeves did, nor like my brother, but suicide or medically assisted suicide – murder if it wasn’t her wishes (and Michael admitted on Larry King’s show that it wasn’t her wish, it was his) is against the law. THAT’S what bugs me about this case, it doesn’t blur the line, it steps right over.) What was I saying?
Also, none of the court cases dealt with Michael, just with the question of what to do with Terri (not WHAT was done to her).
The unborn have a right to life; the living have a responsibility to life. It doesn’t end because we’re unhappy with our condition. Chris Reeves made a greater contribution than he did before his accident. Terri will never recover what she lost, but that doesn’t mean she’s done.
Craig,
I just read something in the last few minutes that sted, without much deatil, that the money came from 2 doctors for not diagnosing here condition before the heart attack–ie they didn’t know she was anorexic.
Sounds bogus but believable. Juries feel bad for someone and hëll, it’s just the insurance company that pays, right?
In the latest weird development, that noted neo-con RALPH NADER just came out for reinstating the feeding tube. Oy.
Robnn,
A CAT scan was done on Terri Schiavo in 1996. That’s where the doctor’s determined that the cortex was spinal fluid. For almost nine years, Terri has been “alive” with no higher brain functions.
the living have a responsibility to life. It doesn’t end because we’re unhappy with our condition.
Bull.
Life doesn’t HAVE TO end because we’re unhappy with our condition, but I’ll be dámņëd (‘scuse the phrase) if I let you or anyone else tell me that I’m not allowed to die at a time of my own choosing.
Yes, Christopher Reeve made enormous contributions after his accident. Yes, he should absolutely be admired and celebrated for them.
That does not mean everyone else can or would do the same, and it does not mean that everyone MUST stay alive after a similar challenge. Reeve wrote that he strongly considered letting go and dying after the accident, and that he chose not to.
You admire that choice. So do I.
But it was a choice, not a mandate — something which seems to be forgotten with alarming frequency.
And as for…
and Michael admitted on Larry King’s show that it wasn’t her wish, it was his
and
Also, none of the court cases dealt with Michael, just with the question of what to do with Terri (not WHAT was done to her).
… I believe the appropriate phrase is “Post proof or retract.” Accusing Michael Schiavo of attempted murder is not only disgusting, but potentially libelous — and I, for one, will need some sort of evidence in hand before I regard said accusation with anything other than disgust and contempt.
TWL
One more factoid from the ex-wife–She says that Christopher Reeves died, in part, from septic shock due to infections from bedsores. Not through any lack of care; it is very difficult to prevent bedsores in people afflicted with paralysis.
Ms Schiavo has been remarkably bed sore free, according to accounts that I have read, which would seem to put in serious doubt the claims by some that she has had sub-par health care since the imbroglio began.
Tim, you don’t have the right to die at a time of your own choosing; you have the ability, but it is against the law. No need to be dámņëd, though. 🙂
I’ve tried to be careful about accusing the husband of anything. It has been suggested, though, and as far as I know it has not been legally pursued. Accusing him without fact (which I haven’t done, I don’t think) is as bad as defending him without fact.
Mark, I hadn’t heard about the CAT scan. I’d heard that it hadn’t been done. One hears a lot, one does, whether we want to or not. Seems the only two things they can talk about on the radio is Terri and the show Survivor. Does that quality as ironic?
I’ve tried to be careful about accusing the husband of anything. It has been suggested, though, and as far as I know it has not been legally pursued
Actually, it has, and it was dismissed by multiple judges.
Personally, I think folks should be a LOT more careful about talking about this case without doing a little research.
Tim, you don’t have the right to die at a time of your own choosing; you have the ability, but it is against the law
Well, not quite right. You do have the right to refuse care and therapy under the law.
And, frankly, I don’t think you’ve been very careful at all about the facts about this case.
Tim, you don’t have the right to die at a time of your own choosing; you have the ability, but it is against the law.
As Roger pointed out, this claim is incorrect. If I’m ill, I can refuse care.
Now, as for the idea of an otherwise healthy individual deciding to leap off a cliff or something … you may be right that suicide in that sense is against the law, though I believe it varies state-by-state. It is, however, an exceptionally moronic law — how exactly does the state file charges against a corpse?
(Pass laws against ATTEMPTED suicide if you like, though I’d advise you to avoid the irony of making it a capital crime…)
I’ve tried to be careful about accusing the husband of anything.
Fine: you’ve slyly insinuated it rather than directly accusing him. You have implied that there are untoward things going on that should be investigated (cf. the quotes I mentioned earlier).
That’s even more slimy, and the fact that you’re weaseling out of it here is not even remotely helpful or endearing.
And I notice you still have posted precisely zero evidence. You say he made some statement on Larry King — give us a link to the transcript and let us judge for ourselves.
As Roger also mentioned, you’ve not been very careful about the facts of the case. The fact that you appear not to care unduly about this is saddening.
TWL
Mark L,
The GOP wants to restrict all abortion, the Democrats none.
Where did you get the idea that Democrats want unlimited abortion on demand? Could this be more Republican talking points? Democrats, traditionally, defend the woman’s right to choose. I do not know of anyone who has endorsed abortion, unless the health of the mother is in peril, any time after it is now LEGAL to do so.
Tim, you don’t have the right to die at a time of your own choosing; you have the ability, but it is against the law.
Well, as others have said, that’s not quite right.
But then, as Congress has shown, if they don’t want you to have the right to die, you won’t.
And now some lawmakers have discussed bringing forth bills that would make it so you cannot pull the plug on somebody who doesn’t have a living will.
So, if you’re in the situation of Terri Schiavo, your parents will win.
I wonder how this would work, as it contradicts Texas’ wonderful “futile care” law (signed by one George W. Bush)?
. I do not know of anyone who has endorsed abortion, unless the health of the mother is in peril, any time after it is now LEGAL to do so.
Peter Singer
BTW, for anyone interested in seeing a CT scan of Ms Schiavo, it’s at http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png
The dark areas in the center are spinal fluid where brain tissue should be.
Bill,
Peter Singer
Well, I had to look him up and he does not endorse abortion on demand. Specifically: (from Wikipedia) (bolding mine)
Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.
While I defend that he doesn’t want abortion on demand, I will also claim that ethically he is seriously challenged. He goes waaaaaay too far and citing the fringe element does as much to bolster your argument as those citing the fringe “doctors” who say Terri Schiavo can recover from her current PVS.
Peter Singer’s name has come up in a number of places. I recall a lengthy article in the NYT Magazine a couple of years ago about a disabled woman (paraplegic, I think) who debated him about some of his ideas.
Singer is definitely pretty far out there on one extreme in terms of his ideas. (Not that this invalidates Bill’s use of him as an example, mind you — unless he tries to claim that everyone here must therefore believe likewise, and I rather doubt that’s going to be the case.)
TWL
Couple of folks have mentioned CT scans and the like.A social worker at my job downloaded some info for us about the situation.Sorry I dont have the site address in front of me but.
CT scans were performed.
While people have shown some recovery from a brain injury like Mrs schiavo’s it is only with in the first few months after such an injury that this has been seen.
Micheal Schiavo spent the first three years or so with various conventional or unconventional methods to try to restore his wife’s condition.
He was very proactive in his wife’s care to the point of being considered a nuisance to some of the careworkers.
Again I will try to post the site for anyone interested.
On another note do the people protesting on both side have jobs??Families???And for petes’s sake leave the kids away from your protests.The reality of what kids may have to experience in life are hard enough ,let them be kids.If you decide to discuss with your children fine but to take them to rallies is just wrong in my opinion.
Somehow I think most kids would rather watch Nemo,the Incredibles,or go to the Zoo than stage a protest unless heavily influenced by an adult.
Just my opinions .
While I defend that he doesn’t want abortion on demand, I will also claim that ethically he is seriously challenged. He goes waaaaaay too far and citing the fringe element does as much to bolster your argument as those citing the fringe “doctors” who say Terri Schiavo can recover from her current PVS.
I’m not exactly sure what the last part of your statement means (but I’m tired) but anyway, I’m not sure exactly under what circumstances Singer would not be for abortion on demand. He seems to be an extremist Utilitarian so I think he would see no absolute wrong in aborting a fetus at 8 1/2 months for purely monetary reasons.
And while Tim is correct that I don’t think everyone here believes as he does–at the very least I think I can safely exclude myself–this IS possibly the most famous and influential living ethicist in this country. Which is pretty dámņ frightening.
‘The GOP wants to restrict all abortion, the Democrats none.’
“Where did you get the idea that Democrats want unlimited abortion on demand?”
Gee, I don’t know how ANYBODY could come with such a PREPOSTEROUS notion…..Oh, wait. Yes, I do. How about, because…
1.) The vast majority of politicians endorsed by NARAL and similar groups are Democrats, and that has been the case for about three decades now
2.) Any bill, from “Laci’s Law” to restriction or elimination of federal funds for abortion to the partial-birth abortion ban – which to many supporters of abortion “rights” is an exception they would be willing to have, equivalent to the exception most people who oppose abortion would grant to rape, incest or life of the mother – are opposed by most Democrats
3.) It is generally accepted that a pro-life Democrat cannot win the Presidential nomination in his party, regardless on his support of other “women’s issues”
4.) In 1984, Walter Mondale ran campaign ads accusing Reagan and the Republicans of wanting to end abortion, “even in the cases of rape and incest.” He endorsed these cases, which is more than in just the case of the life of the mother.”
5.) In 1992, highly respected Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wanted to speak to the Democratic Convention about the issue, and some common ground for those on both sides of the aisle of his party on the issue. But the “party of diversity”, led by Team Clinton, shut him down. How dare there be a dissenting voice on such an explosive issue! To add insult, female Republicans WERE invited to speak. The message was (and is) clear: If you dissent from the party line on this issue, well, we might put up with you (especially if you’re from the South) but we will not welcome you, and will even choose members of the OPPOSITION PARTY who support the “right” view on this issue
But wait, there’s so much more…
“Could this be more Republican talking points?”
No. The following statement, however, has become a cliched, absurd Democrat taling point:
“Democrats, traditionally, defend the woman’s right to choose?”
Choose what? A new dress? To smoke in a restaurant? Whether or not to wear a seatbelt?
Sorry, but this line really pushes my buttons. If there are health issues or legal issues or equity issues in regard to the issue, fine. State them. Defend them. Argue them. Using such semantic sleight-of-hand will not work. Not anymore. Especially, when you follow it up with
“I do not know of anyone who has endorsed abortion”
Right. Neither did the women at the DNC who wore the “I got an abortion and am proud of it” t-shirts.They just endorse the “right” of someone to get one. There is no other issue where people are allowed to get away with such nonsense.
If George W. Bush were to proclaim, I do not endorse the drilling at ANWR, I just support the right of people to do so, you would rightfully laugh in his face.
If Robert Kennedy said, “I don’t endorse segregation, I just support the right of local communities and individuals to do as they see fit”, I believe history may be far less kind to him.
And again, why not just say you are “pro- abortion”, since the press still labels people as anti-abortion. It’s the only issue I know of where the natural flip term is not used on a regular basis.
“unless the health of the mother is in peril, any time after it is now LEGAL to do so”
Wrong. As stated, Democrats far outnumber Republicans in opposing “restrictions” like parental notification. And the time it is now LEGAL to do so can be done for ANY reason, not for women’s safety but women’s convenience.
“citing the fringe element”
No. What you don’t realize is that while most Americans are divided about abortion, the Democrats more and more have leadership, especially on this issue, that is on the fringe.
Tim Lynch,
As I said, there are some excellent points you make that I would like to comment on (and have already but lost to electronic oblivion) so here goes. Since this thread is still highly active, I am hoping to get your responses.
“The bottom line, though, is this: the fact that the federal government’s full bureaucratic force is being put into play for legislation concerning ONE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL is something that should frighten every single person out of every bodily fluid they possess.”
First, this is done all the time in constitutional/judicial cases. ROE was only one woman. Anita Hill’s sexual harassment charges were deemed worthy of Congress’s attention for an inordinate amount of time. And so on.
The end , where you state every living person should be frightened out of every bodily fluis they possess,is a perfect example of the “politics of fear” you acuse Bush and the Republicans of so often.
“It is about as huge an intrusion as government can make into the life of an individual or the lives of a married couple.”
Well, as I stated later, there are plenty of examples of this, one of the chief among them being domestic violence laws where a spouse (there are some wives who abuse their husbands) can be charged with abuse even if the their spouse doesn’t want to press charges. But you conveniently ignored all my points in that post except to bash my contention that the Republican pro-life position in this case as being consistent with their views. But there IS hypocrisy on the parts of the Democrats, whether you choose to see it or not.
“It’s amazing to me how many how many so-called small-government conservatives appear to be just fine with this action.”
Not all of them. George Will is steadfastly stating that this violates states rights and that he is uncomfortable with it and does not support it. Bill O’Reilly has said the decision by the courts have been legally correct.
“”If Congress is allowed to make legislation that is affecting one specific person and only that person, that opens a far bigger can of worms than removing a particular feeding tube.”
Agreed, though I don’t entirely agree that is being done here.
“It means the way is open for a Constitutional Amendment that, rather than lifting the “natural-born-citizen” ban, could be put in place to let Schwarzenegger and only Schwarzenegger get around the problem.”
I understand your analogy, but feel the odds are incredibly smaller that would happen. An amendment would be tough enough if it included ALL foreign-born citizens.
An example of this is the backlash that resulted when one group took out ads that said basically what you suggest, “change the Constitution for Arnold.” That is incredibly elitist, and was criticized by conservatives like Michael Reagan.
As an aside, I do feel the ban should be lifted. With so many people foreign-born contributing to this country, it is ridiculous that their “non-natural” status can keep them from the highest office in the land.
I think your Governor is doing some incredible things and think he would be a great choice if the rule were no longer in place.
“I’ve said before in the occasional abortion discussion that the same government we give the power over a woman’s body to outlaw abortion will then have the power to mandate them, ot anything else with said body that it wants to.”
You know, that is one of the sharpest arguments I have heard in the abortion debate. It is far superior to most arguments, most of which have become cliched.
However, we outlaw drugs people inject nto their own bodies, be it pot or cocaine or steroids. Do you reject these laws as well?
”
Tim Lynch Part 2,
Sorry. Just wanted to make sure my words weren’t lost again.
Anyway…
“For that matter, what’s to stop Congress from going the other way, and ‘saving’ Medicare, by saying that after you’ve spent $X on extreme care you’re done, regardless of the particular situation?”
Oh, plenty. Plus, they’re not as similar as you suggest. One involves the government not supporting (financially) keeping a citizen alive. In this case, two parents are willing to pay to keep their own daughter alive.
When you get down to it, who would that hurt?
“Anyone who claims that they want to ‘protect’ marriage from those evil gays”
I’m not one of them. I fully support civil unions, health benefits, etc. for gay couples. I just don’t feel you can call it marriage, snce that is a religious institution. That so many would fight over what is essentially semantics and invite a backlash is beyond me.
“and simultaneously wants Congress to prevent a woman’s husband from carrying out her final wishes is cordially invited to keep their mouths shut until they take, and pass, a basic logic course.”
And you are cordially invited to prove, oh man of science, that these were indeed her wishes. No one else has succeeded in supporting his “claim” or corroborating it. And neither will you.
“To those who are saying, with no evidence, that Michael Schiavo intentionally put his wife in a coma and has been milking the situation for over a decade for the sake of what’s now nonexistent cash – you are sick, twisted, hateful people, and I am ashamed to share a planet with you.”
Agreed.
“Let’s not get into the brain-dead action of subpoenaing a brain-dead woman.”
And why would this bother people? Because the fact is she’s ALIVE.
“Were I in a position to do so, I’d follow this up by sunpoenaing all the people that Bush’s war put at risk. Every single soldier, one by one. Maybe their families, too.”
See, you’re starting to turn this from a reasoned argumnet to a rant against the Administration. But, actually, I would support your doing so. Since most of the troops support what they’re doing and feel it’s honorable, maybe we would hear that from the men who fight than the people on talk shows and in the media and on college campuses who claim to be speaking for them while bashing the war and everything they’re doing at every turn. Maybe then, the NY Times and others would be forced to have america hear about the good we’re doing, the schools we are building, etc., rather than beating incidents like Abu Ghraib to death.
“A few thousand Iraqi citizens, while I’m at it.”
Same as above. Maybe those who were brutalized by Hussein, braved voting and are working with our troops and each other to build everything from new schools to a new government would actually have their voices heard, as well.
“So far as I can tell, little issues like factual evidence mean zero to those bent on interfering”
The same can be said of those who insist that 10% of our population is gay based on ONE study; that DDT should be banned; that global warming is a FACT despite evidence to the contrary; that we ever had 1.5 million homeless; that abortion is ‘safe and legal’ though many women die from legal abortion,and so on.
“Look, I know this an emotional case, and different people can have lots of diferent views on what should or shouldn’t be done in Terri’s situation. For those who recognize the difficulty and simply fall elsewhere on the spectrum than I do – let’s hope we can find some common ground.”
Thank you.
“For those who insist that there is only one answer and they’ve got it, however – you, and you, and you over there are precisely the reason keep predicting this country is headed for civil war.”
A bit hyperbolic and cynical. I DO feel one of the major parties is going to crumble in the next two decades. We are reaching critical mass of frstration with government, whether it should do more or less. Whether more regulation is good or less. While the Democrats are not in a good position, they are still in the game. The pendulum COULD swing back. But if the Republicans start winning more minority voters, gain true control of the Supreme Court,if they succeed in Social Security reform and the like and make us less dependent on traditional programs and continue to gain strength on issues like health care and education, the Democrats are done.
If on the other hand the republicans overreach and blow this opportunity, they could be in big trouble, as the big tent splinters.
That’s why the battles the next few years are so mportant. To both sides.
Jerome,
You put out the Democratic positions much better than I could, but remember that the Republican position – a Constitutional amendment banning ALL abortions – is just as much on the fringe of what most Americans think.
Jerome (part 1):
The bottom line, though, is this: the fact that the federal government’s full bureaucratic force is being put into play for legislation concerning ONE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL is something that should frighten every single person out of every bodily fluid they possess.
First, this is done all the time in constitutional/judicial cases. ROE was only one woman.
Roe V. Wade was not a Congressional act. Of course judicial actions tend to affect single individuals — that’s how they come about.
Anita Hill’s sexual harassment charges were deemed worthy of Congress’s attention for an inordinate amount of time.
That’s because they were direct accusations made against someone about to take a position on the highest court in the land.
There was also no Anita Hill Act proposed or enacted. Your analogy is more than a little specious. Show me a case where legislation has been put forward and passed specifically to affect one single individual and no one else.
The end , where you state every living person should be frightened out of every bodily fluis they possess,is a perfect example of the “politics of fear” you acuse Bush and the Republicans of so often.
First, it’s called an opinion. I’m known to have them. So are you. Kindly deal.
Second, I very rarely use the term “politics of fear” or its equivalent. I think you’ve confused me with someone else on this point.
It’s amazing to me how many how many so-called small-government conservatives appear to be just fine with this action.
Not all of them.
I’m aware of that. There’s a reason I said “many” and not “all.”
It means the way is open for a Constitutional Amendment that, rather than lifting the “natural-born-citizen” ban, could be put in place to let Schwarzenegger and only Schwarzenegger get around the problem.
I understand your analogy, but feel the odds are incredibly smaller that would happen.
The odds are not what concern me. The fact that we’re opening the door to make it possible AT ALL is what concerns me.
As an aside, I do feel the ban should be lifted.
So do I, but not immediately. Given that natural-born citizens can run once they’re 35, I would be completely in favor of letting a foreign-born indvidual run once they’ve been a citizen for 35 years. I seem to recall that at least one proposal has suggested exactly that — I’d certainly support it.
I’ve said before in the occasional abortion discussion that the same government we give the power over a woman’s body to outlaw abortion will then have the power to mandate them, ot anything else with said body that it wants to.
You know, that is one of the sharpest arguments I have heard in the abortion debate. It is far superior to most arguments, most of which have become cliched.
However, we outlaw drugs people inject nto their own bodies, be it pot or cocaine or steroids. Do you reject these laws as well?
Most drug convictions are for possession or distribution, not actual use — but that’s arguing semantics.
In general, I think we’d do a whole lot better if most of said drugs were legalized and then heavily regulated. It would allow us to treat drug abuse as the illness it is, and wipe out most of the crime connected with the drug trade.
For us to spend pile after pile of money on pot busts and leave the alcohol trade firmly in place is not only hypocritical, but absurdly ineffective. Booze is responsible for a whole lot more death than marijuana’s ever been.
(And I say this as someone who doesn’t drink and has never tried pot or any other drug, so it’s not as though I have much of a personal stake here.)
TWL
Jerome (again),
“For that matter, what’s to stop Congress from going the other way, and ‘saving’ Medicare, by saying that after you’ve spent $X on extreme care you’re done, regardless of the particular situation?”
Oh, plenty.
Name one way. Don’t toss the argument aside. Once you give Congress the power to decide the life-or-death fate of one person, you’ve given them the power to do it for everyone.
and simultaneously wants Congress to prevent a woman’s husband from carrying out her final wishes is cordially invited to keep their mouths shut until they take, and pass, a basic logic course.
Okay, Jerome, stop right there.
That is not what I wrote. That is the spirit of what I wrote, yes — but you removed a word. My exact phrase was “to keep their gøddámņ mouths shut”.
You want to edit my words so that they don’t offend you, fine. You do it again without making it obvious that you’ve done so, and we have a huge problem.
Back to the topic.
And you are cordially invited to prove, oh man of science, that these were indeed her wishes. No one else has succeeded in supporting his “claim” or corroborating it. And neither will you.
19 court cases (if I have that number right) say otherwise. I am not privy to all the facts of the case, and will not be without being one of the judges or juries involved. Neither can you.
The people entrusted by our judicial system — not one person, but many different ones over the course of many different cases and many years — have all agreed that there is clear and convincing evidence to support Michael Schiavo’s claim.
They did not have a vested interest in one outcome or the other.
I, therefore, will believe them over the claims of an anguished parent, who while well-intentioned is likely blinded by grief and not thinking clearly about the matter. I would expect others to believe a judge over me were I in the Schindlers’ situation (which I hope with all my being I never shall be).
That’s how the system works, Jerome. Considering that you’ve always been one of the first to defend the legal system when it gives you outcomes you like (Bush v. Gore, for instance), I find it curious that this time you’re not.
Let’s not get into the brain-dead action of subpoenaing a brain-dead woman.
And why would this bother people?
Because it’s fûçkìņg moronic, Jerome. When my tax dollars are being spent on clearly moronic activities, I tend to get annoyed.
End of point.
I’m not going to get into the Iraq discussion now. No time, and frankly not much interest. Believe what you will.
A bit hyperbolic and cynical.
As I said before — it’s an opinion.
TWL
Jerome Maida posted:
Gee, I don’t know how ANYBODY could come with such a PREPOSTEROUS notion…..Oh, wait. Yes, I do. How about, because…
1.) The vast majority of politicians endorsed by NARAL and similar groups are Democrats, and that has been the case for about three decades now
Well, perhaps that’s because abortion has been legal in this country “for about three decades now”. You might want to recall that a certain George H W Bush was pro-choice right up until he was selected to run as Reagan’s vice-president AND that the Republican Party, until 1980, recognized abortion’s legality. It wasn’t until the GOP unholy alliance with the Religious Right that the GOP included an anti-abortion plank in its party platform (and it was largely due to Reagan’s own ties with the Religious Right).
2.) Any bill, from “Laci’s Law” to restriction or elimination of federal funds for abortion to the partial-birth abortion ban – which to many supporters of abortion “rights” is an exception they would be willing to have, equivalent to the exception most people who oppose abortion would grant to rape, incest or life of the mother – are opposed by most Democrats
How about because those laws are simple end-runs around allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion? “Laci’s Law” is as big a piece of šhìŧ as this garbage that Congress pulled with Terry Schiavo. I will guarantee you that in the very near future some fool will decide to use “Laci’s Law” to prosecute a doctor who has performed a LEGAL abortion.
As for “partial-birth abortions”, THERE IS NO SUCH THING. That’s a fûçkìņg lie (sorry for the profanity, but it fits), put forth by the far-right anti-abortion extremists. And ANYONE who dares use that lying terminology doesn’t have the first clue about the reality of the true procedure and has only listened to anti-abortion extremists who aren’t interested in facts when they don’t match what they want.
Anti-abortion extremists are the ones who devised the term “partial birth abortion” because they know it provides a more disturbing image even though it doesn’t exist. You tell me how someone is “partially born” and then you define what a “partial birth abortion” is. Otherwise, you’re just spewing forth a meaningless phrase.
3.) It is generally accepted that a pro-life Democrat cannot win the Presidential nomination in his party, regardless on his support of other “women’s issues”
Gee, as opposed to a pro-choice Republican who can’t win the Presidential nomination in *his* party? Face it. Since 1980, there has not been a truly pro-choice Republican who has received his party’s nomination for the Presidency, and we’ve recently seen just how anti-choice the current GOP is when Arlen Specter was threatened with the loss of becoming the Senate Judiciary Commission chairman by commenting that anti-choice judicial nominees wouldn’t be likely to be approved (since–when he made the comment–judicial nominees needed enough support to overcome a filibuster). It’s also interesting to note that Specter is one of the few pro-choice Republicans in the Senate.
Don’t make it seem like the Democrats are somehow alone in their “single-minded” attitude on the abortion issue.
4.) In 1984, Walter Mondale ran campaign ads accusing Reagan and the Republicans of wanting to end abortion, “even in the cases of rape and incest.” He endorsed these cases, which is more than in just the case of the life of the mother.”
Are you somehow suggesting this is the Republican attitude NOW? If so, you’re woefully misguided.
From 1980 through the present, the OFFICIAL Republican Party platform has been narrowing and narrowing on its interpretation of abortion rights.
From LAST YEAR’s Republican Party platform:
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.
(Note, if you will, no “punitive” actions against women, aside from the criminalization of a medical procedure so that doctors are not immune to prosecution which means that a woman who wants an abortion will be forced to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. We’ve already witnessed states enacting harsh anti-abortion measures–whether it’s a mandatory 24- or 48-hour waiting period *after* being told of the “horrors” of an abortion, or, as with South Dakota’s new law which forces doctors to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure puts an end to a “human being”, and the woman then has to sign a form which states she’s been advised that she’s ending that “being’s life”–so who needs “punitive action” being taken against the woman who has an abortion? Strip away all provisions in which a woman can obtain a legal abortion, and you won’t have to take “punitive action” against her.)
5.) In 1992, highly respected Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wanted to speak to the Democratic Convention about the issue, and some common ground for those on both sides of the aisle of his party on the issue. But the “party of diversity”, led by Team Clinton, shut him down. How dare there be a dissenting voice on such an explosive issue! To add insult, female Republicans WERE invited to speak. The message was (and is) clear: If you dissent from the party line on this issue, well, we might put up with you (especially if you’re from the South) but we will not welcome you, and will even choose members of the OPPOSITION PARTY who support the “right” view on this issue
Oh, do some research, will you? What *really* caused Gov Casey’s being “banned”? Could it be his lack of endorsing his Party’s presumed nominee? That seems to be the real reason, not his anti-abortion stance. The simple fact is that a political party is not likely to allow ANY speaker who refuses to support the party’s presumed ticket (which has been the case for both the Democratic AND Republican tickets for the better part of the last 3 decades). It’s very easy for the anti-choice movement to claim that Casey was barred from speaking because of his stance, but it’s also very easy to accept that issue wasn’t the cause.
Furthermore, in 1996, Ohio Congressman Tony Hall did speak at the Convention in which he said, in part,
I’m a pro-life Democrat. I’m one of about 40 Democrats in the Congress. And many of us have felt left out by our party’s position on abortion for many years. But this year is different. For the first time, the Democratic Party has included in our Platform a conscience clause on this divisive issue. It says, “the Democratic Party therefore recognizes that individual members have a right to abide by their conscience on this difficult issue and are welcome participants at every level of the party.”
Then, we have the very odd situation where a Catholic Archbishop provided the invocation to the 2000 Democratic Convention in which he said, in part,
“I welcome you to the “City of Angels” with all its vibrant religious, ethnic, and racial diversity. I come to this great convening out of respect for our nation’s democratic traditions. I come as a pastor, not a politician; an advocate of values, not candidates.
[. . .] As you gathered your people into the land that was promised to them, you called them to heed your voice and follow your commandments. These commandments are at once simple and profound: To love God above all else and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We have been called to “choose life” and to “serve the least of these.”
[. . .] In the span of just three weeks, our nation’s major political parties will have gathered at their conventions to select their candidates for the upcoming presidential campaign. We pray tonight that your Spirit will inspire all candidates, regardless of party, to embody in their words, actions, and policies values that protect all human life, establish peace, promote justice, and uphold the common good. For it is in you, O God, that we trust.
In You, O God, we trust that you will keep us ever committed to protect the life and well-being of all people but especially unborn children, the sick and the elderly, those on skid row and those on death row.
(emphasis added)
Of course, prior to last year’s Republican Convention 127 of the House’s 227 Republican members signed a formal complaint to Bush over the lack of any pro-life supporters being able to speak during prime-time. They weren’t mollified by John McCain’s prime-time speech as he had run “against” religious conservatives in 2000 nor could they take comfort in Zell Miller’s speech as he’s a (nominal) Democrat.
A comment from Sen Lindsay Graham of South Carolina was rather telling: “But a lot of conservatives believe the conservative movement that got us here is being ignored at the convention.” One can’t help but guess which “movement” he’s alluding to.
Show me a case where legislation has been put forward and passed specifically to affect one single individual and no one else.
The Elizabeth Morgan case. Which was also an abuse of power (and eventually declared unconstitutional).
Arguably, the bill that was put through congress specifically to overrule the contract that Nixon made with the government for his papers was also designed to apply to one single person.
Joseph W.
Nice rebuttal. You added many things I didn’t think of when I read Jeromes post.
If this were a man’s choice, I wonder if we as a country would still be arguing over this 3 decades after it was made legal. It is a woman’s body and SHE has the decision on whether she will allow a couple of cells to grow into a baby. I’m coming to believe the whole argument is more about control of women than about what is life and when it begins. I became pregnant at 39. When we found out is was more than just pre-menopusal symptoms my husband asked whether I wanted to have an abortion. It was my decision. Having a baby at 40 is not as easy as at 20. Knowing I will be past 60 when my child graduates college, knowing to pay for that we will be working well into what could have been retirement. There were many mental and emotional reasonings that went into my decision. (Not financial, since at our age we are getting by, unlike a teenager) I could have decided I could not raise a child at this age, when many are becoming grandparents. If my baby had a genetic anomoly (tested for with the amniocentisis) I would not have hesitated to get an abortion. I don’t believe I am emotionally or physically able to care for a child with those kind of needs.
The bottom line is that this decision is a woman’s to make. It is law, just like it is law for Michael Schiavo to decide on Terri. Everyone else needs to butt out. Until the neo-cons in charge manage to change the constitution so they get to make all the decisions. And since they seem to be heading in that direction, we should all be very frightened.
“19 court cases (if I have that number right) say otherwise. I am not privy to all the facts of the case, and will not be without being one of the judges or juries involved. Neither can you.”
I’m no expert in law and I’d like to throw this out there to those who know better–this phrase, or something like it, often gets thrown around when we face, as now, the end of a lengthy court process.
My impression, and again, let me know if this is incorrect, is that it is highly unlikely that 19 courts actually looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion. That, in actuality, when you appeal up the ladder you are having to prove that there was something wrong with the way that the first court reached it’s decision. If you just got outlawyered you are pretty much SOL. This is why you sometimes have death penalty cases where, in my view, a jury that has all of the evidence available TODAY would have reached a different conclusion, but the verdict stands unless they can show some malfeasance or incompetence on the part of counsel or judge.
None of which changes my opinion on this case but I think we should be clear on the facts (and, if you ever go to court, spend the money up front. Plan to win the case, not the appeal.).
Bill,
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. My point was that there are extremists on both sides of the questions. The people who get abortions, women, want it to be their decision. Those against abortions want to be able to make those decisions. A very small percentage of abortions occur after the 3rd month. (I posted a link to that research a while ago.) Any group of cells at that time is not viable. Most done after the 3rd month are for the woman’s health or because the fetus has developed major problems. By creating these laws, like the 24 hour rule, you are making it more difficult for a woman to legally end a pregnancy. The longer a pregnancy continues the more expensive it is to terminate. I guess some people won’t be happy until it is illegal, but just as before Roe v. Wade, it won’t stop. There will simply be many more deaths from complications or botched abortions.
Mark L.,
“Jerome,
You put out the Democratic positions much better than I could, but remember that the Republican position – a Constitutional amendment banning ALL abortions – is just as much on the fringe of what most Americans think.”
Possibly. But that is not the point. I was simply responding to Karen’s bewilderment that the Democratic party is seen as supporting abortion.
Oh, do some research, will you? What *really* caused Gov Casey’s being “banned”? Could it be his lack of endorsing his Party’s presumed nominee? That seems to be the real reason, not his anti-abortion stance. The simple fact is that a political party is not likely to allow ANY speaker who refuses to support the party’s presumed ticket (which has been the case for both the Democratic AND Republican tickets for the better part of the last 3 decades).
Please. A little research into this shows that Casey was exiled and humiliated for exactly the reason of his opposition to abortion. Kathleen Brown of California had not endorsed Clinton, but she was allowed to speak. The party even went to the extraordinary trouble to give the microphone to a pro-choice REPUBLICAN who had just campaigned unsuccesfully against Casey. Al Gore even called to apologize for that snub.
Even more dámņìņg–ŧhë Democrats have never made much effort to disavow the idea that Casey’s views arewhat got him banned. I guess they wanted the message to get out and it has, judging from how several candidates for thr presidential nomination became born again pro-choicers once their ambitions grew.
What amazes me is how Casey gets described as a “conservative” democrat when he was an extremely progressive liberal. For all the good it did him.
Show me a case where legislation has been put forward and passed specifically to affect one single individual and no one else.
The Elizabeth Morgan case. Which was also an abuse of power (and eventually declared unconstitutional).
Hmm. I’m not familiar with that one. I’ll have to go see what I can find on it; thanks. (The fact that it was recognized as an abuse of power just supports my point, of course — but I’m 99% sure you realized that.)
Arguably, the bill that was put through congress specifically to overrule the contract that Nixon made with the government for his papers was also designed to apply to one single person.
Perhaps (though you could make a serious argument that it was intended to set a precedent) — but like the Anita Hill hearings, that’s a rather special case when the single individual in question is in a special position and possessing extraordinary power.
My impression, and again, let me know if this is incorrect, is that it is highly unlikely that 19 courts actually looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion.
I’m no lawyer either, but I suspect you’re right on the money here. I think my point is still valid, though — if there were a significant error on the facts of the case, at least one step of the appeals process would have noticed that and acted accordingly.
I do agree with your advice, though — plan to win the case and not the appeal. I’m hoping not to be in a position where I’m worried about either one, but if you’ve got to win, win the first one.
TWL
Even more dámņìņg–ŧhë Democrats have never made much effort to disavow the idea that Casey’s views arewhat got him banned. I guess they wanted the message to get out and it has, judging from how several candidates for thr presidential nomination became born again pro-choicers once their ambitions grew.
While I have a lot of criticisms for the current incarnation of the Democratic party, this isn’t really one of them.
Parties need guiding ideals and visions — without any vision beyond “we’ve gotta win this one”, they can flounder, as the 2004 election proved conclusively. (Not that said election was as pure as the driven snow IMO … but if the Dems had done even a half-decent job it wouldn’t have ever been close.)
As far as this particular Democrat is concerned, respect for a person’s right to control his or her own body is a non-negotiable tenet. Individual people can and will differ in their opinions about abortion and under what circumstances it’s appropriate or inappropriate … but if someone is going to offer legislation giving the government power over that decision rather than the woman in question, that shows a contempt for the average citizen that I want no part of.
I’m not familiar enough with the Casey imbroglio to know exactly where on the spectrum he happened to fall (and I’m almost ashamed to admit that, given that the ’92 election was the only the second one I had a chance to vote in), so I can’t really talk about whether this particular decision was reasonable or not — but I have no objection at all to the Democrats simply saying “we are a pro-choice party.” It’d be a lot less hypocritical than any number of other things both parties have done.
TWL
Jerome:
Possibly. But that is not the point. I was simply responding to Karen’s bewilderment that the Democratic party is seen as supporting abortion.
No, you said abortion on demand, which is quite different than supporting abortion. We support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion on demand has quite a different connotation.
I’m a bit late to the debate here but I’ll throw my two cents in anyhow.
On Terri herself:
The talking heads and public figures fighting for both sides of this case seem to have no second thoughts about throwing the most extreme points for their sides out there for public consumption. This has resulted in a mess where about half of what everyone “knows” about the history of this case is about as factual as a photo of the Loch Ness Monster. It’s also almost completely pointless. Even the facts.
The thing we should be looking at is what is right now. Did her husband spend these years fighting to carry out her last wishes or did he do everything he could to destroy her chances of ever having a chance. To some degree it doesn’t matter in this arguement. The damage is done. Scans of her brain and other medical tests show that she doesn’t have the ability to recover the way so many want/pray her to. The things reported as what she has done or “said” in recent times to respond to family are accounts stretched thin by hope. The hard science of the matter, taken into account everyday in this country to do this same thing in hospitals in every state (and begging the question of just what planet these people and Pols who act like this is a wholey new or unique case have been living on all these years), says that she is basically brain dead. She is a shell with little or nothing of who or what she was left in it.
Whatever has brought her to this point is, for just this choice, pointless. If she was abused or her husband did things that were designed to bring her to this point….. That’s another matter and another legal case/cause.
The simply named “feeding tube” is another matter. Everyone keeps talking about how they won’t feed her by court order as though just putting a Big Mac in her mouth is all it takes. Just give her a glass of water and she’ll be fine. That machine that so many talking heads want to talk down as if it were light years from being the type of machine that keeps the lungs or heart working is actually a far more complicated system that took longer to develope and perfect. Read up on the thing sometime. It’s amazing in how much it actually does that the name “feeding tube” doesn’t come close to describing.
If I were in her position, my soul trapped between life and death, I would want to die. I would look on it as a mercy.
Don’t get me wrong on one point. I Think her husband, from what I’ve been able to learn on my own and from having lived down there in sunny Florida when this was still just a local thing, is an jerk. I think he did more then his fair share at putting her into the state she is in now. I think some of his actions should have been fought. But the time to fight that cause was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. Not now. Now isn’t the timw to be fighting over what has been done. The choice now is keep a shell alive with an advanced machine or let a soul rest.
On Bush and the GOP.
They disgust me right now.
These are the people preaching about state rights and the constitution and keeping big Gov out of our lives and they pull this garbage for votes. And make no mistake about it. The GOP internal memo stating backing this cause would be great for votes in the base displayed what quite a few of these “fine men with noble hearts erring on the side of life” are really looking at here.
The garbage they’ve pulled in the last week was a slap in the face to the Constitution in their attempt to run around both state’s rights and the seperation of powers. These are the same people that claim “the Libs” are always doing things to strip the Constitution of meaning and thwart the rule of law or the Seperation of Powers and they just did something that dwarved the greatest attempts of anyone before to undermine it and turn the Constitution and what it stands for to Bathroom tissue. It was an example of Goverment power out of control. An attempt to pass a law for one person too preen for their base and get votes? It was the single most shameless act I’ve seen in some time.
The Dems aren’t making me much happier. They spoke out against this but, like the Iraq vote and the many votes since 9/11 dealing with important issues, failed to stand behind their statements when the vote came. They spoke against it, voted for it and then point the finger at Bush. Can’t risk actually standing for something when the next vote comes up or they may have to explain it in straight up langauge when they’re about to be voted on by the public. It’s no wonder that they’re a party in ruin. They deserve it. Maybe once they completely destroy themselves they’ll be reborn into a party that remembers what it was and will regrow a spine.
Makes it so much fun to pick a lever to pull in elections. Disgust VS slightly greater disgust. Great choice there.
We support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion on demand has quite a different connotation.
Karen, I’m not entirely certain I see where you’re coming from…what exactly is the definition of “Abortion on Demand”? My understanding of the current law is that you can get an abortion at just about any time during pregnancy, even the third trimester, as long as a doctor signs off on the pregnancy being harmful to one’s “health”–which can just as easily be mental health as physical health.
At any rate, if one truly does “support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion” in the absense of any qualifiers, isn’t that pretty much abortion on demand? If there are qualifiers what are they and by what moral logic do you have them? (Me, I use the patented “Bill Mulligan Ewww Test” which pretty much outlaws most of the things that make me go “Ewww…” but I recognize that few modern ethicists have signed on to this epistemology.)