Another Schiavo post

Let's boil this down....

from JoeUser Forums
What upsets you the most about the Schiavo case?

1. That's she's being let die, at all?

2. That she's being starved to death?

3. That the Right is turning this into a right-to-life issue and using it as political leverage?

4. That the Left would just let her go without any reservations at all?

I think that about sums up the majority of what I've been seeing on the threads. If I get any posts here, I'll try to keep track and let you know, if you're curious.
780 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
1. Yes. Either we are taking a hearsay statement on her wishes, or we are imposing a cultural "quality of life" standard that may or may not be universal. Like I said on the other blog, some people believe if they are required to "shit themselves" they want to be put out of their "misery".

I think either scenario puts the lives of many people who can't speak for themselves in the hands of people who may just want to rid themselves of a financial or pysical burden. That's why we need to limit this kind of thing to tangible proof of someone's wishes.

2. Yes. I think it is hypocritical to say you can't have assisted suicide and then starve someone to death, as if by negligence you are letting nature take its course. If that is the case, then you could starve anyone to death and say it was "natural causes".

3. Legislators are put there to react to our concerns. I think is is disengenuous to say that because they are responding to outrage that they are being "political". When Democrats do that they are "activists".

4. I don't pretend that the Left aren't bothered by this as well. What bothers me about the Left in this case and others is their inherent belief that they can make a governmental procedure that fits everyone.

If the "court" says it is right, it must be right, if they agree. Yet when a court messes with Roe v. Wade or homosexual marriage, then they change their tune.

It bothers me that they see the courts as a legislative branch of government that can make judgements on stuff that isn't in the COnstitution, and then block any attempt to put judges in place that differ with them.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue here is who can choose for this women given the lack of a written directive from her. Under the law (up to now) the next of kin made the choice which in this case is her spouse. That was the issue, as I understand it, when the cases went to the Florida Courts. However, the parents wanted to replace the spouse in making that decission and I can understand their feelings. What did not help is to move this to the Ferderal courts. The issue is still who is to make the choice for Terri at this point?
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Her case is a tragedy. No one is advocating to just cavalierly let her die. Although I believe that she really died a long time ago, and her parents are truly selfish, I don't say "let her die" without compassion. If she just became comatose, then letting her die would be unjust. But, she's been kept alive for 15 years. Fifteen years. Isn't that long enough to know she'll not recover, and keeping her alive is just a medical exercise?

Fact is, the press is spinning this. The right to lifers are spinning this. They've all made her husband out to be some kind of monster. From what I've heard, he did his damned best to get her rehabilitated, but she was too far gone. Her parents tried to care for her but they couldn't.

Would you want to live like that? I sure wouldn't. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but her life is really over. Keeping her alive is just an exercise in refusing to let go.

May she just rest in peace.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
We don't allow polygamy in the US, and he basically has two wives at this point; a common law family of ten years, and the woman he manages like a piece of real estate. When the husband moved on, he should have also relinquished his guardianship.

The only reason that T.S. is still married to him is the fact that the courts refused to allow anyone to file for divorce on her behalf. I don't blame him for his actions, but you can't have it both ways.

I think if you look at the role this man has had in her life for the last ten years, it is obvious that he is simply no longer her husband, and therefore should no longer be her "guardian".

Her family, on the other hand, has been by her side, and since they are ACTING as guardians, they should BE her guardian.