Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[musicman]

Alsom some one asked for a source on the memo the Republicans put out to take adavntage of the sistuation. I found an article talking about it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49701-2005Mar19.html

"...a memo distributed only to Republicans...". By whom - Hillary Clinton? Howard Dean? The news articles DON'T SAY - and for good reason: It's bullshit. Believe me, if there were something damaging to report, we'd have seen it - not this thin, vague, cryptic fantasy. We'd have facts and figures, chapter and verse. You KNOW this, whether you'll admit it or not.

Aslo, Im not here to make freinds.

Thas't good. So for it sems to be wroking out weel for yuo.

 

[Merlin1047]

Just had a thought I wanted to share.

Know what this whole mess reminds me of? How about the UN resolutions threatening action against Saddam. Threat after threat with not intention of action.

Same thing here. The Schiavo case has been in the courts for over seven years. But along comes delay and a pack of hacks and now they want "one more" opportunity to prolong the agony.

 

[Bonnie]

Just had a thought I wanted to share.

Know what this whole mess reminds me of? How about the UN resolutions threatening action against Saddam. Threat after threat with not intention of action.

Same thing here. The Schiavo case has been in the courts for over seven years. But along comes delay and a pack of hacks and now they want "one more" opportunity to prolong the agony.

For example when the cops first investigated Terri's death they wrote homicide on the report, and nothing was done about it, until the parents found the original paperwork four years later, but oh well it was too late to file for an official inquiry............Also after Terri's "accident" her family discoverd she had suffered a broken femur and broken back which was never reported officially but has been corrborated by independent doctors.
If she was incapacitated how the hell did that happen?? Three of her childhood friends have not been allowed to testify in court to the fact that Terri was in the process of filing for divorce when she had her accident, she was unhappy in the so called "sacred marriage". There is a pulitzer prize nominated doctor that specializes in treating terri's exact condition who has met with her on three seperate occasions for who emphatically states that she could rehabilitated to the point of even talking someday and that children with Cerebral Palsy are worse off than her, but he has never been allowed to testify in court proceedings but has done so publicly for the record.

I understand where you are coming from here, but I have to pose this to everyone, this husbands credibility is CLEARLY in question by everyone but the main judge Speer who put a gag order on all this other information from very credible people. Shouldnot at least his credibility be seriously taken into consideration before they take his WORD for things and starve her???? This just boggles my mind!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bonnie]

More prayers For Terri
David Limbaugh

March 22, 2005

Just what is it that so earnestly motivates those who zealously want Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed? While there are plenty of exceptions, I dare say that most people in this camp are not driven by constitutional concerns, despite their hollow protests to the contrary.

As my brother Rush cogently noted, it is easy to understand what drives those who want to save Terri's life: the human urge to protect and save the life of another human being. The motivation of those fighting with equal fervor to remove the tube is not so self-evident.

The more I read about this case, the more it weighs on me -- the more a creeping feeling of horror sweeps over me. If, in fact, Terri Schiavo wants to live and is going to be denied that right, the prospect of a court-ordered removal of her feeding tube is no less horrifying than that of a person being buried alive.

If Terri truly wants to live -- as a lawyer visiting with her when her feeding tube was removed avers -- how could any caring person wish death upon her? The question is not whether we think we would want to live in Terri's state, but whether in fact she wants to. Are those advocating Terri's death allowing themselves to consider that this woman truly wants to live -- just like they do?

I doubt that I'll ever be able to understand, much less relate to, the sympathies of certain people. Generally speaking, they seem to feel more compassion for wildlife than animals, more for animals than human beings, more for guilty human beings than innocent ones, more for Communist dictators and tyrannical thugs than freedom fighters, and more for the vindication of an abstract principle devaluing human life than for an actual human being like Terri Schiavo, who, though severely disabled, may truly want to live.

How can we possibly view in a favorable light the position of those who protest to save the lives of convicted killers on death row and who bend over backward to believe their most incredible stories of innocence, but won't lift a finger in support of Terri Schiavo and won't even momentarily consider that Terri wants to live? Where are the "Free Mumia" chanters when Terri needs them?

I realize that some believe that many advocating for Terri's life are using her for their own political purposes and that even Terri's parents, the Schindlers, are putting their own selfish wishes to keep Terri alive above those of Terri herself.

But do we actually believe that loving parents -- parents who would eagerly trade places with Terri in an instant -- would place their own comfort above their daughter's? If not, how can we possibly believe they would fight to prolong her suffering? In examining this case from a distance, isn't it much easier to believe Terri's parents' assessment of her desire to continue living than that of her adulterous husband, whose conflict of interest should disqualify him from guardianship in this case and participation in this decision?

And isn't the essential argument of those wanting the tube removed that Terri's wishes ought to be honored? Since Terri left no legal document directing her death in these circumstances, shouldn't the system require clear and convincing evidence that Terri indeed would want to die in these circumstances? Yet the court is relying on the hearsay evidence of Terri's estranged husband, Michael.

The question is whether as a society we want to resolve these very difficult, doubtful cases in favor of death.

I detect more than a bit of intellectual dishonesty among many favoring Terri's death. They are claiming they merely want to honor Terri's wishes, yet they rely on her tainted husband, callously discount the testimony of her loving parents, blindly accept the disinformation that Terri is in a purely vegetative state, and ignore multiple firsthand accounts, including from examining physicians and nurses, that Terri is responsive, sometimes animated, and definitely wants to go on living.

Could it be that something besides Terri's wishes motivates many of the death-soldiers, such as an allegiance to the culture of death, or some abject, inhumane resentment that we spend so much money keeping severely disabled people alive? I've received appalling e-mails from people complaining about the financial burden on society in keeping Terri alive.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, because I know that many who want the tube removed are motivated by their perceived compassion for Terri and even honoring Terri's wishes. But I fear that many arguing for tube removal are doing so with complete disregard for Terri's actual wishes in this case. To the extent that is going on, we are witnessing up-close the face of evil.

We must fight on … More prayers for Terri.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20050322.shtml

 

[Eightball]

Well, it looks like the "Right To Kill.....oops, Right to Die" folks may be victorious.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Assisted_Suicide

Sad day in America.

 

[Bonnie]

'Cruel and unusual'
Thomas Sowell


March 22, 2005


If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water. Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.

Would I want to be kept alive in Terri Schiavo's condition? No. Would I want to be killed so slowly and painfully? No. Would anyone? I doubt it.

Every member of Terri Schiavo's family wants her kept alive -- except the one person who has a vested interest in her death, her husband. Her death will allow him to marry the woman he has been living with, and having children by, for years.

Legally, he is Terri's guardian and that legal technicality is all that gives him the right to starve her to death. Courts cannot remove guardians without serious reasons. But neither should they refuse to remove guardians with a clear conflict of interest.

There are no good solutions to this wrenching situation. It is the tragedy of the human condition in its most stark form.

The extraordinary session of Congress, calling members back from around the country, with the President flying back from his home in Texas in order to be ready to sign legislation dealing with Terri Schiavo, are things that do us credit as a nation.

Even if critics who claim that this is being done for political or ideological reasons are partially or even wholly correct, they still miss the point. It is the public's sense of concern -- in some cases, outrage -- that is reflected by their elected representatives.

What can Congress do -- and what effect will it have? We do not know and Congress does not know. Those who are pushing for legislation to save Terri Schiavo are obviously trying to avoid setting a precedent or upsetting the Constitutional balance.

It is an old truism that hard cases make bad law. No one wants all such cases to end up in either Congress or the federal courts. But neither do decent people want an innocent woman killed because she was inconvenient and a court refused to recognize the conflict of interests in her legal guardian.

The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

If nothing else comes out of all this, there needs to be a national discussion of some humane way to end life in those cases when it has to be ended -- and this may not be one of those cases.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/printts20050322.shtml

 

[SmarterThanYou]

what more do you extremist whackos need? you clamored for a federal review and you got it. The FEDERAL judge said directly, terri's rights were protected by the florida courts.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

'Cruel and unusual'
Thomas Sowell


March 22, 2005


If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water. Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.

Would I want to be kept alive in Terri Schiavo's condition? No. Would I want to be killed so slowly and painfully? No. Would anyone? I doubt it.

Every member of Terri Schiavo's family wants her kept alive -- except the one person who has a vested interest in her death, her husband. Her death will allow him to marry the woman he has been living with, and having children by, for years.

Legally, he is Terri's guardian and that legal technicality is all that gives him the right to starve her to death. Courts cannot remove guardians without serious reasons. But neither should they refuse to remove guardians with a clear conflict of interest.

There are no good solutions to this wrenching situation. It is the tragedy of the human condition in its most stark form.

The extraordinary session of Congress, calling members back from around the country, with the President flying back from his home in Texas in order to be ready to sign legislation dealing with Terri Schiavo, are things that do us credit as a nation.

Even if critics who claim that this is being done for political or ideological reasons are partially or even wholly correct, they still miss the point. It is the public's sense of concern -- in some cases, outrage -- that is reflected by their elected representatives.

What can Congress do -- and what effect will it have? We do not know and Congress does not know. Those who are pushing for legislation to save Terri Schiavo are obviously trying to avoid setting a precedent or upsetting the Constitutional balance.

It is an old truism that hard cases make bad law. No one wants all such cases to end up in either Congress or the federal courts. But neither do decent people want an innocent woman killed because she was inconvenient and a court refused to recognize the conflict of interests in her legal guardian.

The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

If nothing else comes out of all this, there needs to be a national discussion of some humane way to end life in those cases when it has to be ended -- and this may not be one of those cases.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/printts20050322.shtml

let it be known that from this day forward, the right to life whackos, along with tom delay, have declared that the sanctity of marriage is pre-empted by the sanctity of life when declared by the parents. Don't bother making any decisions about medical care for your spouse anymore WITHOUT consulting his/her parents. the spouse and patient wishes are no longer of any importance. so let it be written, so let it be done.

 

[dilloduck]

What's with the conservative movement---the libs would have taken over the building by now IN SPITE of the law-----this is where the conservatives lose every time

 

[Bonnie]

SMARTER THAN YOU... extremist whackos need?

What an arrogant pompous thing to keep saying especially regarding this subject. Please do me the courtesy of not repsonding to any more of my posts.


Thank You in advance
Regards and prayers Bonnie

 

[dilloduck]

let it be known that from this day forward, the right to life whackos, along with tom delay, have declared that the sanctity of marriage is pre-empted by the sanctity of life when declared by the parents. Don't bother making any decisions about medical care for your spouse anymore WITHOUT consulting his/her parents. the spouse and patient wishes are no longer of any importance. so let it be written, so let it be done.

Easy dude---all they are doing is making sure that she has had due process--now hear this--NO LAWS HAVE BEEN CHANGED !

 

[SmarterThanYou]

What an arrogant pompous thing to keep saying especially regarding this subject. Please do me the courtesy of not repsonding to any more of my posts.


Thank You in advance
Regards and prayers Bonnie

I believe thats what they call the 'ignore button'. Let me remind you that on other issues of the same importance, I and many others, have been branded arrogant, pompous, stupid, braindead, mindless, and many other names because of something we believe is right that you(meaning republicans or conservatives on this board) don't. While this story is indeed tragic and heartwrenching I stated many times in the beginning of this, and politely as well I might add, that there are centuries of legal precedence as well as hundreds of pages of court documents that verify that terri's rights were always protected in this issue concerning the state courts of florida. Many of you, while screaming for federal justice and spouting the XIVth amendment, proceeded to lambast myself and others with titles and names that included pro-death and killer monikers.

you got what you wanted but thats not good enough.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I believe thats what they call the 'ignore button'. Let me remind you that on other issues of the same importance, I and many others, have been branded arrogant, pompous, stupid, braindead, mindless, and many other names because of something we believe is right that you(meaning republicans or conservatives on this board) don't. While this story is indeed tragic and heartwrenching I stated many times in the beginning of this, and politely as well I might add, that there are centuries of legal precedence as well as hundreds of pages of court documents that verify that terri's rights were always protected in this issue concerning the state courts of florida. Many of you, while screaming for federal justice and spouting the XIVth amendment, proceeded to lambast myself and others with titles and names that included pro-death and killer monikers.

you got what you wanted but thats not good enough.

Did you see this nurse on tv who said she was to not encourage improvement and to ignore signs of improvement because Shiavo wanted her dead? Is she just a liar?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Did you see this nurse on tv who said she was to not encourage improvement and to ignore signs of improvement because Shiavo wanted her dead? Is she just a liar?

no. i saw no nurse on tv. what are the specifics of her court testimony?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

no. i saw no nurse on tv. what are the specifics of her court testimony?

It wasn't in court. It was on tv. Of course any version of reality that doesn't have the court stamp of approval on it is obviously a lie. Get real, DumberThanMud.

 

[Bonnie]

Did you see this nurse on tv who said she was to not encourage improvement and to ignore signs of improvement because Shiavo wanted her dead? Is she just a liar?

Not only that one nurse but the whole staff had a restraining order on Michael because he was getting violent with them. Why none of this was allowed in court by Speer and indeed he put a gag order on all this info.

 

[MyName]

No. What she wanted was you to do her the service of not responding to anymore of her threads.

There are several people on this board who'd love to participate in your favorite sport of going toe to toe and calling each other names, but she isnt one of them.

She asked rather nicely - obviously youre too riled up to honor that.

The bottom line is this. I know why youre so riled up over this.
YOU know why youre so riled up over this. WE have determined it isnt an issue. Ergo, LET IT GO.

You are always saying that everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions and feelings...even if they dont mesh with someone elses.
That applies to everyone.

People ARE allowed to disagree with you or anyone else for that matter and just because they do, does NOT mean that they are moronic or less than you or anyone else for that matter.

I disagree with you daily and all that proves is that we are 2 adult individuals with our own minds, opinions and beliefs....AND that we've transcended the judgemental bullshit enough to enjoy a marriage, a friendship and a life together. Which in my mind, if more people would do this....meaning ALLOW others to have their own opinions without slamming them down for it, then more people might actually begin to understand these different view points.
Case in point - as you have stated...when you first came to this board, you were a die-hard liberal. Then you started reading, debating and then listenning and considering. Youre views have somewhat changed. However, they didnt change when you were being slammed down and called names, did they? NO. Of course not. Its human nature to slam closed the open mind when one is verbally attacked. So it would make sense then, to effect change, one would have to do so in a less offensive manner.

My 2 cents. They make SENSE. Read it over again if need be.

~Lanyce

 

[no1tovote4]

no. i saw no nurse on tv. what are the specifics of her court testimony?

She was probably breaking the privacy portion of her contract speaking on TV at all, it isn't likely that she would be allowed to testify in court without putting herself into a certain lawsuit.

 

[dilloduck]

Still amazed at the vehemence displayed by those who want her dead---she taking up somebodys bed or something?

 

[Gem]

From what I have read there are sworn affidavits from several nurses/nruses aides that have testified that Michael Shiavo made them stop doing things like putting towels in Terri Shiavo's hands to stop them from curling because such actions were "therapy" and he would not allow that.

Also a nurse stated that Terri could eat jello but Michael Shiavo refused to allow his wife to be fed orally, insisting on the feeding tube. And that he was overheard by several nurses saying, "When is she going to die?" "Is she dead yet?" and "When is that bitch going to die?"