Comments on Schindler's List Of One

Go to Court Of The One-Eyed JudgeAdd a commentGo to Schindler's List Of One

choice, choice, choice
Our right as Americans--What about our duty to choose well?

Religion ain't got nothin' to do with, sweetheart. The country has laws that protect life. It's not religion, it's law. If it ain't alive, how can you "abort". "terminate" or hello, KILL IT. Do I need to say it again. Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.

I am glad your mother didn't abort you. Ask your friends, they'll probably say the same. It made me sad when you wrote that. Truly. I'm sorry you have that struggle. I'm sure you bring light to those around you. And I know with certainty that your life has inherent worth.

posted by AnCatubh on March 30, 2005 at 11:37 PM | link to this | reply

Bravo, Temple, mirror mine. And so very well and passionately presented.

posted by saul_relative on March 28, 2005 at 2:15 PM | link to this | reply

After some more thought...
I am saying...if the choice is between the mother's life, happiness, and the quality of life of both, over a grouping of cells or something that has no viable life on its own as of yet, yes, I choose the mother, everytime.  She is already alive and living her life.  She should not be forced to carry a child to term, give birth to it, when she has a medically sound procedure that -- I only agree to this before a certain time -- removes those cells.  It should always be her choice.  This is the issue with Terri, this is the issue here.  My choice.  Terri's choice.  My body.  My choice.  Keep your faith, your religion, your laws, off of my body, my choices.  That's my whole point in every discussion to do with this.  Your god does not apply to me.  I don't belief in his existance, so why do I have to live with your moral decisions?  To me, it doesn't apply.  Scientifically, it's a medical procedure and a choice, on both counts.  I have ethics and morals, but they don't come from your faith and I'm sick of people, Christians, telling me that if I don't believe what they do, I'm wrong or bad.  I'm one of the most, to use a word someone else used to describe me tonight, decent and integrous people you'll ever meet.  Loving, compassionate, empathetic.  But, I don't believe what you do, so why must you push your religious beliefs down my throat and into my government....when it's supposed to be about separation of church and state anyway?  I don't attack your ways.  This is all, again, about choice.  My right to make it regarding what is done or not done, and who decides it, to my body.  It's not for you, the government, your church, or anyone outside myself and my power of attorney to decide.  That is what is fair and just.

posted by Temple on March 28, 2005 at 4:47 AM | link to this | reply

Yes, well, I know one mother who wish abortion was an option

when she was pregnant back in 1968.  Mine.  My quality of life, or should I say lack thereof, reflected that.  I worked in domestic violence, family law was my specialty.  I saw plenty of that because children were unwanted.  I was one of them.  Everyone just says life at all costs.  I say, I'm still battling to find a quality of life that overrules my beginnings.  Quality of life matters. 

posted by Temple on March 28, 2005 at 4:36 AM | link to this | reply

saul and temple
you still can't avoid the fact that your choosing one life over another. Temple, grownups know life is not fair. They also know making someone else pay for their own misfortunes is not grown-up behavior. Need I point out that the mother "being forced" to carry a baby to term is not remotely close to a baby dying for something it had no control over? You're saying the mother's non-life concern trumps a baby's life concern. Where else in our laws is that allowed? Nowhere. Which is why, of course, it's "not alive-it's just a blob of cells".

As an aside, I used to assist unwed mothers with housing, medical care, adoption, and jobs. Some of these women had been raped. I never met one who wished she had aborted her child. I know several who dearly wish they hadn't.

posted by AnCatubh on March 27, 2005 at 11:52 PM | link to this | reply

amdg, sorry if it is a distortion,
but I'll back Temple.  The woman should have the right to choose, and no matter what you may think, a life is not just a life is a life, ad infinitum.  My life is not the same as yours, nor would the child born of a forced pregnancy be like my or your mothers' unforced ones.  And don't give me that crap about how we've at least been given the chance to experience our lives, that is just simple avoidance of the issue.

posted by saul_relative on March 25, 2005 at 6:10 PM | link to this | reply

Look who it is, amdgmary.....
so, the child shouldn't pay, but the woman should by being forced to carry the baby....yeah, that's fair....

posted by Temple on March 25, 2005 at 9:45 AM | link to this | reply

did I say rape was a natural act?
you intentionally distort what I say. A woman's body conceiving and bearing a foetus is a natural act.

Suppose someone breaks into my house and steals all my possessions and/or hurts me.
Am I justified in going over to your house and doing the same, to make restitution?

If you believe that an unborn child is human, the circumstances of it's conception are not relevant. Not to the unborn. Yes, it's awful for the woman. Yes, the man should rot in hell. But why should the baby pay? A life is a life is a life is a life....

posted by AnCatubh on March 25, 2005 at 9:41 AM | link to this | reply

Let me get this straight, amdg --
you're saying that the natural act of rape and fertilization with subsequent impregnation results in a gestation period that results in a childbirth.  And that is okay?  Because it is life?  Why should a woman have to endure the fertilized egg of a man she never wanted to inseminate her?  What abominable code states that a woman should gestate and bring to term a child born of rape?  The entire idea is sickening. 

posted by saul_relative on March 24, 2005 at 4:17 PM | link to this | reply

go read roe v. wade--it's full of inconsistencies
and contradictions. Nature forces a pregnancy to term, rape or not. An unatural act ends it.

posted by AnCatubh on March 24, 2005 at 1:13 AM | link to this | reply

And amdg:
the Roe vs. Wade decision is about as fair a decision as can be handed down in such circumstances.  You may not agree with it, but how would you like it if laws were passed that forced you legally to carry a baby to term that was the result of a rape?  Mitigating circumstances demand a fairer, less biblically judmental, ruling. 

posted by saul_relative on March 23, 2005 at 3:59 PM | link to this | reply

I couldn't have said it better, Spitfire70,

and didn't.  I watched Nightline last night and the panel had the usual people spouting pros and cons, and the one thing I saw was that they all agreed that living was for the living, and medical intervention wasn't considered self-sustained living.  One gentleman even referred to DeLay's political posturings as totalitarian.  The conservative gentleman stated that he beleived Terri's case deserved an appeal, just like a convicted killer would be allowed one (in this regard, he was absolutely correct).  They all also agreed that the woman should be allowed her dignity, something that all this political grandstanding seems to deny.  Another member of the panel, a constitutional lawyer (I believe), even stated that most of the politicians were pounding their chests as if nothing had ever been done in this vein before, but cases such as Karen Ann Quinley and others have set the precedent by which the judges ruled today.

Oh, and here is the kicker:  a poll stated that on a personal level, some70-80% of us would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. 

posted by saul_relative on March 23, 2005 at 3:54 PM | link to this | reply

Holy crap. I have SOOOO much to say about this

in fact, I've been working on a post about this very subject. My opinion would be too much to leave in a comment, so all I will say for now is this: I live in the next county over of this poor woman who is not only being USED as a political gain pawn, but her rights are being severely VIOLATED. HER HUSBAND HAS BEEN OFFERED MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BY MANY INDEPENDANT PEOPLE TO SIGN PAPERS relinquishing all rights to Terri's life, leaving it up to her parents' decision. He has walked away from COUNTLESS offers and has even offered to GIVE UP ALL AND ANY LIFE INSURANCE monies he would receive after Terri's death (even though most of it is gone due to high medical bills.

This is no different than turning off a life support switch to anyone WHOM CANNOT AND WILL NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT A MACHINE!!!!!!! It is done EVERY SINGLE DAY, people!! It is not euthanasia. No one is giving her an injection to kill her. SHE IS FRIGGIN BRAIN DEAD!! Just because she can open her eyes doesn't mean she's aware of her surroundings. Again, SHE IS BRAIN DEAD and has been for OVER 15 years. Even IF she did by any slight chance, "wake up" out of her state, what the hell kind of life is she gonna live?

    Great. I'd loooovvve to be a woman who is fed like a baby, diapered like a baby, continued to be TALKED TO LIKE A BABY (as her clueless mother does now) and live in a permanent state of a veggie salad. Kick ass.

posted by SpitFire70 on March 22, 2005 at 10:59 PM | link to this | reply

The federal judge who made the ruling today
is a republican appointed to the bench by Clinton. As far as Gonzalez I thought he had to go back to his father.

posted by scoop on March 22, 2005 at 6:51 PM | link to this | reply

so it bothers you when liberal judges appointed...
by Clinton legislate from the bench. Take a look at the Supreme Court's so-called conservatives. Their rulings are not always what conservatives would hope but we, conservatives that is, respect that they are interpreting the Constitution. A ruling on the merits of a particular case in light of the Constitution is what they do. The same cannot be said of the Supreme Court in such cases as Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade.

What everyone thinks is Congress overstepping it's bounds is Congress responding to judicial activism, not interperetation. Terri Schiavo is being starved to death on hearsay. We do better by murder suspects.

posted by AnCatubh on March 22, 2005 at 6:42 PM | link to this | reply

The Children of Darkness(C.O.D.)

''The most powerful means to destroy society is to destroy its one absolutely fundamental building block, the family, the only institution where most of them learn life's most disgusting lesson, unselfish love.''


The case of Terri Schiavo is another episode in the titanic cosmic struggle between good and evil that dates back to the very beginning of time.

It is a struggle often referred to in the Essenic texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the war between light and darkness, described in the New Testament and attested to by scores of scholars and holy men and women since the time of Christ.

This struggle is real. It is the battle between good and evil and it is being waged today on a host of fronts, many of which involve the burning political and social issues of our times....

 

posted by MikeCorthell on March 22, 2005 at 5:37 PM | link to this | reply

amdg:

I beleive the boy should have been treated under the rules of asylum.  And I also beleive that the gestapo-like tactics used to enter the neighborhood and household to secure the little guy was terribly extreme and uncalled for.  All of it should have been handled better.

About our court system:  the judicial system is in place as part of the checks and balances of our government.  They are there to ensure that fairness under the law is maintained, that all rulings and laws remain constitutional.  Given the rate of right-wing moralist judges ascending to judgeships via Dubya, it won't be long before there are extremely few checks left in the judicial heirarchy, just like there are few checks in the legislative branch now. 

posted by saul_relative on March 22, 2005 at 3:54 PM | link to this | reply

Because, kingmi, there are quite a few people

on reservations, for various reasons (humanitarian, missionary, see how they do it on the rez, etc.), that are not Indians.  I was just hoping, that's all.

posted by saul_relative on March 22, 2005 at 3:47 PM | link to this | reply

Why have a Rule of Law and a Constitution?
Activist judges just twist them suit their agenda.

Just curious, scoop and saul: What did you have to say about the private family matter of the custody of Elian Gonzalez?

posted by AnCatubh on March 21, 2005 at 8:04 PM | link to this | reply

Saul, what are you thinking, it might not be a native American?  Why would they be on a reservation ifthey were otherwise? Although I admit some of those names in the newstory sounded very anglo.

posted by kingmi on March 21, 2005 at 7:55 PM | link to this | reply

Why have courts and judges if scumbag crooked politicians
want to rule everything to suit their way, that is why we have courts to make decisions.

posted by scoop on March 21, 2005 at 6:31 PM | link to this | reply

and scoop, Congress and the president have DUTY to uphold the Consitution
So do judges. When the laws protecting the lives of every member of society are skirted over by judges, Congress should act to spell it out. you think the judges have no agenda? Grow up.

posted by AnCatubh on March 21, 2005 at 6:26 PM | link to this | reply

For those of you just tuning into this case...
the" insipid right-wing moral cowards" have been paying attention to this case for some time and many have been lobbying on her behalf. Like it or not, this case is not just about one woman. WAS ROE V. WADE JUST ABOUT JANE ROE? 40 million dead say no.

posted by AnCatubh on March 21, 2005 at 6:22 PM | link to this | reply

amdg,

if Congress does an end-around, using this case as a springboard, circumventing all the laws that keep them out of the private affairs of the citizenry, then they can just add a few more amendments to the Patriot Act.  It is a case of legal jurisprudence, whereby the laws need be upheld.  I am not saying that Michael Schiavo is right to press the issue when there was no living will, nor do I necessarily agree with the Schindlers attempts to keep their daughter alive by artificial means.  What I detest is that those insipid right-wing moral cowards in Washington are weighing in at the 11th hour, pontificating and grandstanding, politically posturing for the sanctity of life when the hypocrites pass bill after bill that further limits everyone's personal freedoms and the sanctity of life while we're engaged in the living of it, which, unfortunately, Terri Schiavo has only barely been for 15 years.  I repeat, this act of Congress is a disgrace.  Leave it to those involved and the courts.

posted by saul_relative on March 21, 2005 at 5:27 PM | link to this | reply

Hello amdg, anyone home in there?
You say this in your comment; "Judges have no right to overstep THEIR bounds"

Then tell me what the hell Congress and the President are doing, playing the game of LIFE?

posted by scoop on March 21, 2005 at 5:20 PM | link to this | reply

Barrett:
The Democrats have a long way to go to salvage their party.  PR is a big problem.  Distancing themselves from ultra-liberal Hollywood would help also.  Being looked upon as soft on terrorism doesn't sit well with many.  They have lost their power base (the common man, the blue collar working stiff, John Q. Everyman) and need to overhaul the entire party.   

posted by saul_relative on March 21, 2005 at 5:14 PM | link to this | reply

Dennison_Mann:
I'm sure he can get an anullment, if nothing else.  But my point in this is that it is disastrously draining on all concerned, the Schindler's and Schiavo.  You make a good point -- if all he wants is a divorce, then he should just walk away and allow the Schindler's their misery without his company.  And I don't think you'll have to worry about Schiavo having money once this is done;  he'll probably file bankruptcy to clear his accounts (depending on how much of the hospital costs he's liable for) and sign a multi-million dollar book deal (with movie rights, etc.)

posted by saul_relative on March 21, 2005 at 5:09 PM | link to this | reply

MayB:

Those fine upstanding Congressmen wish to debate and administer to something that already has legislation, laws, and precedence established.  What they are trying to do is circumvent the already existing legal rulings.  And where the hell were they during the years of Karen Ann Quinley [sic?] ordeal?  You bring up a good point about the timing.  I'm sick of the religious right's moralistic grandstanding at the expense of our laws.

posted by saul_relative on March 21, 2005 at 5:04 PM | link to this | reply

Quirkyalone,
you are oh so correct.  Those sanctimonious asses wouldn't know dignity if it defined itself right there in the rotunda. 

posted by saul_relative on March 21, 2005 at 5:00 PM | link to this | reply

Judges have no right to overstep THEIR bounds
If Terri Schiavo is alive, and she is, her life is protected by law. No convincing evidence has been put forth that she wished otherwise, other than her husband's relatively recent contention that she wouldn't want to stay alive under such circumstances. Lawmakers are right to step in when activist judges refuse to uphold the law.

I am the mother of eight children. From infancy, they are dependent on me for food and water, whether it is at the breast, from the bottle, or a spoon at the end of my hand. They are incapable of reason and speech. Were I to deny them this, I would be thrown in jail. Show me why the same shouldn't apply to her husband and caregivers.

The guarantee of the right to one's life is not a "law to to protect the majority". It protects us all.

posted by AnCatubh on March 21, 2005 at 1:04 PM | link to this | reply

These are good points / This intrusion is Horrible

This intrusion for the one, has had an unsetteling effect on all of us.  This was flat wrong!  I think the Democrats should slowly and painfulling use this as the fuel for the New Democratic Party.  They have to get out of bed from the Hollywood Left and stop being pro-terrorist. 

posted by Barrett on March 21, 2005 at 10:53 AM | link to this | reply

Michael Schiavo Only Want The MONEY He Stands To Inherit

...after she dies.

Wait! What's that? You say he's not in line to inherit anything now? Great! Glad to hear it! Then he should just walk away from the case and get on with his life. Leave his wife alone with her family--as they wish--and get on with his own life. The Schindlers obviously don't want him around. Terri is in such bad shape that she doesn't even know that he's there...so why stick around?   

If all Michael Schiavo wants is a divorce then he's got his priorities all screwed up. He needs to focus the attention on divorce laws and not on Terri's condition. He needs to remove himself from the picture and honestly get on with his life.

                                                                   DM 

posted by Dennison..Mann on March 20, 2005 at 7:37 PM | link to this | reply

Saul, what is despicable is that they are all jumping on the bandwagon now. This debate should have been played out long ago. It is hypocritical in the extreme that they all jump up and down now. There must be many people in the same situation as Schiavo. Is this the way they plan to react to every case? Good post.

posted by Azur on March 20, 2005 at 7:17 PM | link to this | reply

Saul,
You've written a good post here. The quote from today's paper that I found particularly distubring was this: "Congress has been working non-stop over the last three days to do its part to uphold human dignity." So....a woman has been in a vegetative state for 15 years with severe brain damage, and keeping her alive is upholding her dignity? Pu-leaze.

posted by Julia. on March 20, 2005 at 4:21 PM | link to this | reply

Unfortunately, scoop, there is.
But there are no real winners in this one.  You hope to err on the side of what is for the greater common good.  However, in so doing, someone will be hurt on the opposing side.  It is a terrible dilemma, but one I think our politicians have no moral ground upon which to stand, using political expediency to change laws that already protect the majority.

posted by saul_relative on March 20, 2005 at 1:51 PM | link to this | reply

Saul good points
there is a lot to be debated here

posted by scoop on March 20, 2005 at 9:58 AM | link to this | reply