Gut Rumbles

March 23, 2005

one flesh

I blogged a few days ago about what I think of the Terri Schiavo case. I don't see anything but bad precident coming out of this mess, especially since the federal government decided that it had some asshole reason to become involved. Cut through all the bullshit and the decision is simple to me: The husband has the choice. That is the LAW.

I don't want to hear about what a money-grubbing, cold-hearted bastard Mike Schiavo is. His moral bankruptcy (or not) has no bearing whatsoever on this case. He is the next of kin, under the LAW. The choice is HIS--- not the in-laws, not the court's and not the federal government's.

If the law is wrong, then change it. But DO NOT jump into the middle of this shit-storm and say that laws mean one thing when we like they way they go, but they mean NOTHING when political baksheesh can be made. I heard President Bush say today that if mistakes were being made, he chose to "err on the side of life."

That may sound like a noble sentiment until you stop to realize that THE PRESIDENT just said that laws of this country don't mean shit to him. By implication, he would wipe his ass on the US Constitution if he "erred on the side of life." That's fucking crazy.

Here is really good post on this matter from someone who usually doesn't blog about such serious subjects. I agree with her 100%.

We already have rules that apply to this situation. To change them NOW, over one case, is to make every rule on the books subject to the same "situational ethics" and I think that is the road to NO LAW AT ALL. And we seem to be willing to do this for a woman who has the brain of a zuchinni.

I've said it before. Sometimes, we demonstrate vividly that we are too stupid to live free.


One detail... actually the chice was not Mike Schiavos. A judge made the decision based upon evidence that convinced him Mrs. Schiavo had expressed a desire not to be kept alive under circumstances similar to this. It was the court that acted as Mrs. Schiavos 'guardian', not her husband.

At this point Mr. Schiavo can not change the outcome even if he desires to without a courts agreement, the decision is not, and never was, his.

Posted by: Kinda, sorta, maybe on March 23, 2005 09:51 PM

Bullshit! Florida law says that he husband makes the decisiom. The Judge became involved only after the in-laws fired suit.

Read more carefully next time.

Posted by: Acidman on March 23, 2005 10:09 PM

My whole problem is that she's getting an execution that's ten times worse than what most farm animals or serial killers currently get. She hasn't done shit to anyone, why should she be made to starve to death while cocksuckers like Scott Peterson get heavily sedated before they're poisoned?

The country's doing everything backwards.

Posted by: JG22 on March 23, 2005 11:00 PM

Thank you, Rob. Like the previous commentor, I agree that the method being used to end Terri's life is barbaric - but that's an entirely different issue from the one at hand. Sadly.

Kinda Sorta, as I understand it, it was the Schindlers who chose to block Michael's original petition to have Terri's feeding tube removed. Had the Schindlers chosen to accept Terri's next-of-kin's decision, there would be no story now. One flesh. Conversely, had the "impartial guardian" the court previously appointed for her (at the request of the Schindlers) found Michael negligent in any way in his care of Terri, or somehow developed the idea that Michael was trying to kill Terri for the money, there would now be no story - because Terri would be with the Schindlers, as the will of the court.

Sorry for the long comment. And thanks again for the link and the praise, O my bloguncle.

Posted by: Queenie on March 23, 2005 11:35 PM

One more thing - as to the "culture of life" and the President's statement, from a conservative who voted for the man - if it is always preferable to err on the side of life, then wherefore President Bush's reputation as a Mr. Sparky hard-ass as governor of Texas? Why the resistance to examining death penalty laws?

Personally, I believe in the death penalty. But I'm also pro-choice with restrictions and pro assisted-suicide. However, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining: the moral reasoning to support these conflicting platforms simply is not there. Situational ethics makes for bad, scary lawmaking.

Posted by: Queenie on March 23, 2005 11:42 PM

Acidman: You obstreperous pain. Go read Cellas. Do it now.

We'd respect the law if 60 years of activist courts hadn't turned the statute books into the legalistic equivalent of Love Canal.

Once upon the time our laws and morals coincided, or reconciled, with each other. But today the law has drifted. When the law loses its moral rudder, then you have to turn back to the basics: MORALITY.

Posted by: torchpraise on March 24, 2005 12:00 AM

Wow, somebody used the "word of the day"!

Posted by: jim on March 24, 2005 12:22 AM

As usual . . . although in this instance--a tragedy . . .

We observe first-hand the idiocy of the government in action--first creating a problem, then trying to solve a problem, and then, idiocy of idiocies--we accept the judgement of the government courts confirming the idiocy.

Government has no business "regulating" marriage to begin with. Eliminate government--collecting its filing fees and all that crap, and everything that has transpired "legally" since Mike and Terry married would be of no effect "legally." That people belive the most solemn bond of humans should be governed by idiotic bureaucrats who collect money and pass laws that only hurt said bond, goes to the heart of the idiocy where a man can expect the government to remove, not life support, but the knife and fork, of someone with less capacity than average.

No breathing tube or heart regulator for life--no--starve her--the most painful death of all. Anyone advocating that is simply an ashhole who hates. Starvation--brain-dead or not, is the most hellish death of all, and an American court and American citizens agree that an innocent woman should be starved to death because of the "laws of governement. Call that--good solid thinking--right?

Have we bought into the euthanasia crap entirely? This case is the nail in the coffin for any pro-life concern, since it allows government and all others but the one scheduled to die, to make the decision of death. Infant humans are already condemned a million-plus times a year . . . now . . . the sights are set on Mom with cancer or Alzheimers . . . those with mental handicaps . . . whoever gets in the way. Adolph would have loved the scenario . . . Americans who fought for freedom, becoming the same base animals he was. Hell, Stalin would be proud, being many times the base animal Hitler was!

Long ago, the opponents of abortion foretold this day with unerring accuracy. The murder of the most innocent would lead to the legalization of the murder of anyone the state decreed worthy of death. Harsh words, but the truth. Rob, you can post whatever criticism of me you wish, but your argumentation only shows you to be, at best, a hypocrite who believes government in the end, or at worst, someone incapable of grasping the reality of this case. Either way, you will get pissed, which only proves my contention that it is not the issue at hand, but the particular political ox being gored.

This time it is almost beyond belief. You support a President whose military is slaughtering thousands of innocents in Iraq, but you chastize him for trying to save the life of a daughter dearly love and cared for by her parents.

Hello? Is anybody home?

Gut--your Momma would have been toast by the same legal realization that is now starving Terri Schiavo to death. Google and read the reality of starvation. Ask yourself, after you read--would you want Michael Schiavo or the government or doctors who betray the Hippocratic oath, to have cared for your Momma? Would you, Gut?

Would you, really? Would you want the same judges making decisions about your Momma, as those who say Terri must die?

If you do, then . . . well, you can draw your own conclusions. I seriously doubt you will publish said conclusions.

In addition, go read about the medical reports that seriously question the "so-called" chemical imbalance that caused Terri's condition. Fact is, you, Gut, medically, should have long ago fit the diagnosis far more than she.

There are x-rays that indicate severe trauma to Terri . . . trauma that would have resulted in her present condition.

Michael--Mr.-faithful-fuck-another-woman-father-two-children-but-I will not get a divorce-husband that he is (gee, like don't say that because it might make a mess of the pro-death argumentation?)

This prick makes your (former) Jennifer look like a Princess in comparison. Michael Schiavo means to have to government force the death of his wife. Your Jennifer, for all you have ever hated about her, was NEVER that vile!

You bitch about government getting involved in this case, when government has owned this case, and a pro-euthanasia lawyer like Felos is effectively running the show. This is nothing more than abortion of the handicapped, and it will be followed, as it was in Hitlerian Germany , with the state-sponsored elimination of any and all who are no longer "legally" useful.

Rob--go read the justification Glenn Reynolds put forth the other day, and realize that even the best legal minds are slaves to the state. Reynolds wants yet further laws forcing free people to submit to the government. In every facet of the Schiavo case, it is the government making the ultimate decisions. There is not one iota of proof that Terri Schiavo wishes death in her condition except the word of an adulterating husband who, being in charge, has resisted every possible attempt at her rehabilitation. The man has been an asshole since day one.

He has seemed desperate to prevent something, which can only be translated as her recovery sufficient enough to say and speak about what really caused her condition.

Can you say "Scott Peterson?"

Wanna know what I think? Mikey Boy beat the shit out of Terri one night, and the result was what we see. And ole Mikey Boy hired Felos, who like Dr. Jack and abortionists, hates all human life but their own. Get the idiotic government courts to say that husband owns wife, and . . . well, the result is a woman being starved to death by government fiat.

Let me ask you, Dude . . . while Jennifer was sucking the cock of that dope smoking hippie you always bitched about . . . what if you had had a medical condition that threatened your life . . . say a stroke . . .

Would you want Jennifer to be your "legal" guardian, and would you want the flipping government to carry out her wishes for your life, or the eventual lack thereof?

Don't bother to answer. You already said yes in the bullshit you wrote in this post.

Be consistent from here on out--quit bitching about government . . . your complaints ring hollow, and in this instance, they ring ridiculous.

You join the chorus of liberals who want Terri dead. You are one with the Hillary bunch, because in the end, you believe government is the solution, and you, like government, cannot see past the bullshit just enough to let a woman whose parents will love her into life do so till she dies naturally.

Rob--never again submit any reader to your bullshit about the illogic of abortion. You already serve as verbal counsel in favor of "taking life" as a matter of convienence.

Michael Schiavo CANNOT PROVE Terri wanted to die in her condition. But his fucking lawyer got government courts to believe she did (hearsay, Mr. Reynolds and all other lawyers!!!), so now, an innocent woman, ost likely beaten into mental incapacity by her husband, is now condemned to death by both her husband, and a government so out of control it argues with itself.

Fucking idiocy. Look at Terri's parents, then look at Mikey boy. Ask yourself, rationally who would you prefer next to you in trouble.

This is a no-brainer, and supposedly intelligent, rational and sentient beings woud kill one of their own because she has trouble using a fork and spoon.

Today, I am ashamed to be called an American.

Challenge me . . . whoever you are . . . and I will prove you suck government dick.

Rob--this is your fucking worst post ever. Logically, you undid anything and everything you have ever said about family, love, support, hatred of government interference, and love.

You trust government in the end.

In the end . .

Which is precisely where government makes it usual delivery . In the end . . . up the ass!

Prove me wrong, Rob. Quit trying to be fashionable for your audience, and tell your audience you were wrong for condeming an innocent woman to death because government said so. Are you a lib, Rob? You sure seem so, and all your many words make you seem little different from Barbara Boxer and her ilk. Quit fucking bitching about her and others like her, if you use government just as does she to prove your points.

Shit, man, quit thinking so emotionally!!!

That WAS a shot . . . but . . . you do defend government every bit as much as does she, so don't get pissed at me. You are the Emperor here, I am the kid watching the parade. Not my fault you forgot to put on the royal gowns. Sometimes, being nekkid is not a good thing.

Go ahead . . . you will justify yourself like Micheal Schiavo and George Felos and the liberal courts that sentence an innocent woman to die--of starvation, no less!

I do not like George Bush, but I will admit I must give him grudging admiration--even he knows the government fucked up, and is trying to kill an innocent, and he is trying to save a life. You adore Bush for sending young folks off to die in a useless war that has no discernable purpose, but you diss your hero because he tries to keep an innocent woman alive.

America, land of the free and home of the brave . . .

Nah . . . just folks who fail to connect their thoughts with the reality.

Rob . . . I can only read your last paragraph and closing sentence with the sad realization that you are completely unqualifed to speak to freedom. My saying that here may make you look bad to your fans, some of whom might call me a meanie (or as usual, far worse) like they usually do, but if you will do some serious fucking logical thinking about all of this . . .

I hope/think/hope you will understand that even as you reject "government" most times, you end up arguing "for" government most of the time, and especialy this time.

As far as your concern about shitstorms and changing the law . . . only government makes or changes the law, and they do as they wish to do--a pointy ou have made time and time again with regard to the individual citizen having no true power over politicians. Now, suddenly, an innocent woman faces starvation by government decree, and you blame us--the American citizenry?

I believe in life, Rob . . . almost 50 million dead babies later and now, beginning with Terri Schiavo, how many more millions of dead American?

Gut . . . you used to think. Try it again, you will like it.

Read your last line in this post again. Since you do not believe in Jesus, try Zig Ziglar. Apply your criticism to yourself. More importantly . . .

Apply the results of your criticism to yourself.

Learn to be consistent, and understand the total invasive nature of government.

As an aside . . . open to ridicule from whatever mental midget wishes to respond . . .

Micheal is Jennifer . . . Terri is Rob . . .

Need I say more?

I know you get it, Smif . . . but you will make me out to be the asshole for saying what I said . . .

The Left always does that in defense pf their bullshit . . .

If you were a true conservative . . .

I would be happy with your response . . .

But you will get pissed, or worse yet, I will suffer your online echoes trying to defend you over against me . . .

All the while. Terri will die the miserable death of starvation, and when conservatives think it is okay, then . . .

Well, there really is no "then" . . . is there?

Defend goverment . . . defend the death culture.


Posted by: jb on March 24, 2005 01:36 AM

You Rock, Blog GranPaw!

JB, your duty as a Conservative is to First, defend the Constitution and the principles with which it was brought into being.

If such defense does not conflict with defending someone's life, then your Second duty is to do THAT.

You have no duty, none, to defend the installation of a religion or it's principles into our Constitution, or to defend combining the distinctly Separated Powers that the Constitution calls for.

The Acidman has stated the case in his own personal style, but every word of it is true.

You can do with your GOP what you want, but they have just whored themselves out badly, and they will be lucky indeed if we have forgotten about it 20 months from now.

Posted by: Rivrdog on March 24, 2005 02:10 AM

It is a very hard position to be in this Miss Terry situation. I know I would have a hard time deciding if it were the right thing, but, if I did in fact make that determination ,there are many much kinder ways to accomplish the end result. If I were to tie my dog outside and withold food and water they would throw me in jail quicker than if I murdered someone over town. but yet we think that is a easy passage, well it isn't to starve to death or die of thirst is horrible and should not have to be tolerated.

Posted by: arathorn on March 24, 2005 08:18 AM

Damn! JB had a rant didn't he. Some of my feelings on this subject change every day, some don't. Have you ever shot your dog? I have. Rob has. If this was my wife I know what she would want. She would NOT want me to go jail for it, but I would. No question!
I love her. I've loved some dogs (and yes some cats too). Why are we having this discussion?

Posted by: Ed on March 24, 2005 08:24 AM

Ok Rob, one last time, let's try to get our shit in one sock here. The federal government has every right to be involved with this case. Consider the first section of the 14th amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pay particular attention to the part about no State shall deprive anyone of life liberty or property without the due process of law. This tells me that the Constitution forbids the States from doing what the Federal government isn't allowed to do as expressed in the 5th amendement:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again the words about not being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I will not further flog this horse by mentioning the 10th amendment, because the adoption of the 14th makes the point moot.

You can argue until you are blue in the face as to whether or not Terri's husband has the final say on this matter, but the fact remains that it is an issue that the government should be interested in. And before you go barking away that the matter already has been properly ejudicated—I am not aware of any legal representation on the part of Terri herself, just her parents and her husband. Don't give me the arguement that a vegetable cannot hire a lawyer either. The courts can, and frequently do, appoint an ombudsman in cases such as this, to represent and speak for someone who is either incaple of doing so for themselves, such as Terri, or not legally able to, such as in the case of a minor, with shit bag or untrustworthy parents.

I stand by my previous post on your other thread that this is nothing more than state sponsored murder.

Posted by: Anthony L. on March 24, 2005 09:15 AM


Several things . . .

I do not have a duty to defend the Constitution, the Constitution exists to defend me from government in all its intrusive manners and forms. The Constitution exists to keep the government out of my life. My DUTY is to defend myself against government--the Constitution merely states why I should do so, what rights (not all) are mine by birth as a free man, and why we have reached a point where the Constitution is essentially a piece of parchment under glass--a witness to antiquity when free men valued freedom.

The principles which brought it into being? They were to defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not some convoluted judicial reasoning by government courts that result in the idiocy of which I spoke--one branch of government passing a death sentence through the barbarity of starvation, while the other branches pander to public opinion trying to reverse the courts.

The courts are just as unconstitutional as is Congress and Bush in this matter. The government has no business in the marriage business, as it has become anymore, and were that the case, Michael Schiavo would be remarried and Terri would be in her parents' care and being fed and receiving the therapy Mikey boy long denied the wife he loves so much he wants dead.

And maybe those x-rays would get a critical examination, and the results would give Mikey Boy a new reason to consult with lawyers.

On that count, I might advocated strong intervention by government, such as it is. It would be far more American were those who actually believe the 2nd Amendment, to simply override the government at this point, and restore Terri's freedom. Think that would happen, maybe?

One more note: I despise both political parties, and have at the least in my rants, made that point very clear. Nor did I impose any religious phiosophy over upon the Constitution. That was a straw man.

When the Constitution is employed to kill the innocent, the purpose of the Constitution has been long out-lived, save as a tool to be legally manipulated for those employing the best sharks.

Witness Terri Schiavo . . .

Posted by: jb on March 24, 2005 10:04 AM

what's even crazier is that president bush signed a law as texas governor that would allow a hospital to withdraw life support OVER the family's objections, with the patient's inability to pay as a factor. one victim of that law was a six month old baby boy.

where was the "culture of life" then?

Posted by: not-troll beth on March 24, 2005 10:12 AM

Rob, I couldn't have said it better.

This is not a happy situation, but the existing law and the courts have more than addressed it. All of the grandstanding by President Bush, brother Jeb, and the people in Congress is nothing more than a cynical ploy to suck up to the religious right.

What happened to the Republican party that used to want to keep Big Government out of people's business? Damned if I know.

Posted by: Elisson on March 24, 2005 10:16 AM

JB, I respect your position, but forgive me if it *seems* as if you are perhaps unaware that families - guardians - make decisions like this every day? That the Terri Schiavo case is not at all unusual except in the media scrutiny and higher-court involvement? That it is, and has been for years, legal in cases such as this for a family to decide that an incapacitated loved one has suffered enough?

I'm not saying that the legality to which I refer is "morally correct" - it's hard to argue such a massive, emotionally charged subject in the space of a blog's comment-box - all I'm saying is that your statements lead me to believe you feel like this "state-sponsored murder of innocents" is something new. It isn't. Rob is arguing from a point of LAW, you are arguing from a point of morality. They aren't the same thing. Yet.

Again, YES. The death that Terri is suffering is a HORRIBLE death that we wouldn't wish on a dog. The fact that this is the only legal end available to her is another judicial problem entirely.

As for whether Rob would have wanted the BC pulling his plug, OF COURSE NOT. But, I think even Rob would agree that while she was still legally his wife, and before divorce/separation proceedings began, Jennifer would have been within her rights to make that decision if necessary. It sucks, man, yes it does. But, as Rob stated so well, it's the law.

By the way? I vote Republican, too.

Posted by: Queenie on March 24, 2005 10:34 AM

One right we have as free men is to ignore idiotic laws . . . not capitulate to them like sheep just because "it is the law." That evades critical thinking.

Better that Terri be convicted of murder, sentenced to death and taken to the gas chamber. Then the governor could legally commute her death sentence.

Instead, we have this present idiocy of laws.

Get government out of this, and the whole mess goes away instantly.

But nobody sees that. A country founded upon the principles of the least government is the best, cannot see past governement here when every principle of true freedom sans the courts and government is being played out.

It only sucks because we the people allow it to suck by our passive compliance with government dictates.

That is decidely NOT American.

Posted by: jb on March 24, 2005 10:48 AM

Right on JB, we have strayed so far from our founding charter, that I believe the framers of it are probably spinning in their graves. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are pretty straight forward, and easy to understand. That is why I made the arguement I did above.

Terri Schiavo did not get legal representation, nor did she have her case heard before a jury of her peers, before she was sentenced to death by starvation by judicial fiat. Her death sentence is based solely on the heresay testimony of her husband, with no supporting evidence. There is not a jury in this land that would convict and send someone to jail, let alone impose a death sentence with such flimsy evidence. The problem here is that there is no jury involved, just a high-hat judge who is empowered appearently to play God, our founding charter be damned. Read our Constitution, and then come back to me with an argument as to why this is being allowed to happen. I dare you.

Posted by: Anthony L. on March 24, 2005 10:53 AM

Then CHANGE THE FUCKING LAWS, dammit, but don't expect the rest of the denizens of what is still a nation of laws to join with you guys in throwing them all in the trash basket for the purposes of argument just because you don't like 'em. How did the laws get like this? Because voters, over the past 200 years, have seen fit to let 'em get this way. How long you been votin', JB? Anthony? Take a little responsibility, for Christ's sake. I certainly do.

Our legal code may be seriously fucked up, but it's all we've got. You can argue morals, and you can argue legalities, but when you argue both at once, in this case, you're talking at cross-purposes.

In the past seven years, this case has been before a judge twenty times. The Supreme Court has, today, for the fifth time, refused to hear the case. You think if it were only a case of a "high hat judge", that some other, more conservative judge wouldn't have overturned him by now? Especially at the prodding of the fucking CONGRESS? The President? The Governor of Florida?

The law is the reality, right or wrong, like it or not. We can argue morals, or we can argue law. Rob's post was about law. If we're arguing morals now, let me know so that I can adjust my position accordingly.

Posted by: Queenie on March 24, 2005 11:10 AM

Florida law says that he husband makes the decisiom. The Judge became involved only after the in-laws fired suit.

Read more carefully next time.

Uh, no.

From the Second District ruling upholding the original decision:

Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.

Source: Abstract Appeal.

Posted by: Kinda, sorta, maybe on March 24, 2005 11:14 AM

Yeah, Kinda Sorta...but the only reason this was necessary is because there were two adversarial parties at work. No adversarial parties = no case at all. I think what Rob was saying is that if the parents had respected the guardian's decision, there would be no snippet of case decision for you to so handily cut and paste.

Posted by: Queenie on March 24, 2005 11:20 AM

Queenie, the very decision to let Terri die was made by that same 'high-hat' judge I was talking about, the problem is, the other courts refuse to let other evidence be introduced. The higher courts are merely upholding that judge's original decision. Again, I remit to the Constitution, in that she was never given due process with a truly un-biased representative to speak for her interests. Not her family's, or her husband's, but HER'S.

I refer you to my above post on this thread which discusses the 14th and 5th amendments to the Constitution, and ask you to defend your position as to how this situation can be rectified with our present laws. If the legislature (congress) passes a law that is unconstitutional, it is the duty of the court to strike it down. Where did we go wrong?

Posted by: Anthony L. on March 24, 2005 11:48 AM

"They came for the unborn, and I did nothing, for I was already born.
They came for the nearly born, and I did nothing, for it had nothing to do with me.
Then they came for the infirm, the mute, the least among us..."

Michael has prevented his wife from getting treatment since her "mysterious collapse". Now that he's getting his wish to legally murder his wife to get the court settlement money, I think Michael should be forced to shoot her. Or, at least inject the "final solution".

It's illegal to starve an old dog to death instead of a humane putdown.
How can the legal system justify this ?

Posted by: Dan Pursel on March 24, 2005 12:02 PM

I would agree with your point that Michael Schiavo had the right to make the call, if it weren't for the fact that there was abundant evedince that he did NOT have Terri's best interests at heart. He wouldn't allow any of the rehabilitative care that could have markedly improved Terri's condition, he wouldn't even allow the tests that would allow us to know the real extant of her condition.

The media throws around phrases like "brain dead" and "PVS", when in fact, the LEADING expert in the area says that that is NOT the case. The court appointed Drs. spent less than 3 hours in toto wiht Terri in rendering their verdict, and did so WITHOUT the standard diagnostic tests to back up their conclusions.

The judge in the first filing cherry picked what evidence he allowed into the proceedings to come to the ruling he did. And for those that say that "15 other judges upheld him", you don't understand the way our system works, the appellate judges could only rule on whether the trial judge followed proper legal procedures, not on the merits of the evidence.
EVERY ONE of those other judges may have ruled very differently than the trial judge given the same evidence, but that is not the issue argued. The issue is "was the trial judge following accepted legal procedure".

As Charles Krauthammer put it, we're faced with making a choice between a legal travesty and a human tragedy, either way, there can be no good outcome.

Posted by: delftsman3 on March 24, 2005 12:10 PM

Delftsman, I think I agree more with that last paragraph there "we're faced with making a choice between a legal travesty and a human tragedy, either way, there can be no good outcome," than anything else I've read on the subject. Very trenchant.

Posted by: Queenie on March 24, 2005 12:43 PM

"Cut through all the bullshit and the decision is simple to me: The husband has the choice. That is the LAW. "

I suppose you'd argue that Laci Peterson's husband had the same right to make that choice?

Posted by: Gramps on March 24, 2005 12:47 PM

There are two issues:

The moral issue -- I agree, this is wrong.

The legal issue. The appeals process does not exist to hear the case over if you do not like the first outcome. It exists to see if procedural errors occur in the lower court. The law says the husband is the guardian. the law is upheld.

I do not like it, but the acidman and queenie are right. Either we have laws or we do not.
Frankly anyone of usis expendable to the alter of the Constitution and the Law.

Posted by: hoosierboy on March 24, 2005 01:19 PM

Gramps: I've sometimes made comments, pressed the send button, then re-read the comment only to realize what an ass I made of myself.

I trust you've realized the same.

Posted by: Michael on March 24, 2005 02:06 PM


Laws reflect the morality of a nation. You say arguing morals and law at the same time is at cross-purposes? That statement alone destroys the premise for discussing either.

As to voting, I last voted for Reagan, his first term. After I watched what I hoped would be a true return to bedrock conservatism become just the other side's version of the same old thing, I began to seriously examine the constitutionality of government as it exists now. I quickly reached the conclusion that it has none.

Now, since voting can only permit a choice among those who promise to continue down the same old road, I have chosen not to vote, since to do so and elect members from either party would be a rank betrayal of my constitutional rights, and also, a rank betrayal of fellow citizens, since my vote in essence forces others to accept said unconstitutionality of the government.

Again, I repeat--failure is attempting the same old worn out efforts repeatedly, but somehow expecting a different result.

Every aspect of the Schiavo case has been all about government power, and the rejection of the individual rights of Terri Schiavo. She is the one individual from whom we have not heard, and yet she is the one being forced to pay the ultimate penalty.

Watching you and other hand-wringers say it is "so bad and terrible" and whatever other adjective might apply, all the while justifying the court's decision . . .

Well, not much one can say to that--either you worship law, or you value freedom.

Law is supposed to undergird freedom, not dictate the terms of freedom.

And please, whatever your response, do not hit me with the sophomoric retort that "because I do not vote I have no say in matters." That is the refuge of the politician, who needs votes to sustain his power. When the inmates have taken over the asylum, I hardly need to consider voting for one inmate over the other.

The government is willfully putting Terri Schiavo to death. That is commonly, and legally , called:

Murder. No argument can refute that fact.

This is the good ole US of A. Yeah . . . sure.

Posted by: jb on March 24, 2005 09:49 PM

As for changing the laws: where will those of you advocating her death be, when/if the kind of changes suggested by Charles Krauthammer are proposed and debated?

To wit:
There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently -- by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law. It would help prevent our having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy.

What is your true position?

Posted by: Desert Cat on March 25, 2005 01:47 PM

Desert Cat, that idea frightens me almost as much as anything I've heard surrounding this case. Um, yeah...we give the "choice" to whichever relative opts for the predetermined outcome? What about the person who's sick - what if they wanted NOT to "choose life"? And the family? What about their privacy, their dignity, and their rights?

That's not freedom. That's a sick fucking joke.

Posted by: Queenie on March 26, 2005 12:12 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.