Go to Court Of The One-Eyed Judge
- Add a comment
- Go to Ridiculous Jeb
Thanks, amdg.
posted by
saul_relative
on March 28, 2005 at 2:08 PM
| link to this | reply
understood and well said
posted by
AnCatubh
on March 27, 2005 at 11:30 PM
| link to this | reply
amdg:
Two dozen courts have heard the Schiavo case. All of them essentially agree. Since these gentlemen and ladies are there to interpret the law as it stands, I really have no problem with it. However, I do have a problem with the fact that Michael Schiavo expressed his wife's wishes some seven years after her vegetative state began. But I have already stated that Michael Schiavo's motives may be suspect. And you are correct in saying that the legal code is a reflection, sometimes the exact same thing, as our moral codes. But societal moral codes change, become altered with time. So far, our Constitution and legal system have kept pace, remaining nonintrusive (to most extents) with this. But I see absolutely no value in keeping a woman alive artificially until she literally dies of old age (that is a personal beleif, not backed by anything legal). My problem with this entire fiasco is the political rhetoric being bandied about like a social salve on both sides. This issue is and has been one to be decided in the courts. If it had been decided that the Schindlers had custody of their daughter or had power of attorney in her affairs, I would be 100% behind their efforts to keep thier daughter alive.
But that isn't what has happened.
And I impose my beleifs on others only in the aspect that I voice what I beleive and how I believe others should within their chosen faiths, hopefully with a more empirical viewpoint. I do not advocate any one religion over another, nor do I really wish to impose anything. It is just an opinion, to be taken as such, found useful or not. I do stand by my statement that the act communion for a brain dead person is relatively irrelevant. This act is for assuaging the parents and her fellow Catholics, not for Terri Schiavo.
posted by
saul_relative
on March 27, 2005 at 3:54 PM
| link to this | reply
also, saul
How can you speak to whether or not Terri's soul benefits from receiving communion? Your opinions are not those of the Church she professed belief in. We don't know what her end-of-life wishes were. We do know she professed belief in the Catholic faith. Here you are saying, essentially, how her case is to be regarded in spirirtual terms. Who is imposing their beliefs now?
posted by
AnCatubh
on March 26, 2005 at 12:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul, you're right
The religious angle has nothing to do with. But it does concern morality. The Rule of Law presupposes a moral code. We hear the phrase "Don't impose your morality on me" all the time but those who say it would never want the laws that prevent them from being killed by someone removed. This government recognizes one's inherent right to life and liberty. That is a moral code. Nearly all laws reflect a code of ethics and hence, impose morality.
So, as a society, we accept that. Until it impedes what want to do. Which is why it comes down to: who is a person under the law? The courts have made bad decisions on this subject, largely based on societal demands. We'll surely agree that the Dred Scott decision was a bad one. African Americans were not full persons under the Law. Clearly a reprehensible idea. But in Roe v. Wade they did the same thing. Societal demands. And it's happening here in the Schiavo case. The courts are defining who is a "person" under the law. And personhood is defined by whether that life is "meaningful". Doesn't that disturb you in the slightest? If the arguments in the Schiavo case were solely based on the fact that the court appointed her husband as guardian so he alone can make end of life decisions, we wouldn't see quite the furor we are seeing. It's the arguments his attorneys have used and the language of the judges' decisions that are problematic. His attorneys have argued and judges have agreed that because she is in a persistent vegetative state and there is no hope of recovery, her life is not meaningful and Michael can starve her. The courts have, in effect, said that such persons do not have a "meaningful" life. So many are up in arms about the government "interfering" in a private matter. That's nonsense. It is within the rights and responsibility of the government to intercede when the rights of even one of it's citizens is being infringed upon. What should frighten people is the judges deciding who's life has meaning and who's doesn't. The LANGUAGE of the decisions in this case set the precedent for this in end of life cases. Roe v. Wade made it possible to even talk about "meaningful life". What opponents of abortion claimed would happen is coming to fruition. Is it so hard to see that this thinking puts us in league with the genocidal maniacs of history? We have become so obsessed with choice that we are ignoring when our "choices" trample on the rights of others.
posted by
AnCatubh
on March 26, 2005 at 10:07 AM
| link to this | reply
First of all, JanesOpinion,
I don't give a damn about a death-row inmate's dignity or whether or not he lives. I prefer expedited sentences, less appeals. And I don't beleive allowing someone to live in perpetuity while brain dead is all that dignified either. Besides, whether or not Mrs. Schiavo receives communion is immaterial to her condition and the status of her soul. Do you think Mrs. Schiavo will be less likely to go to heaven because she doesn't have communion? She has become like a child; god accepts children unconditionally. If Terri Schiavo has any sins to pay for, they came before the coma and brain death. If she has nothing to atone for, then she's fine. Your religious zealotry reeks of sanctimonious bullshit directed toward Michael Schiavo, pressing your personal beliefs on another. And I am not for starving or dehydrating Mrs. Schiavo to the point of death. However, since the case revolves around the issue of medical intervention and whether she wanted it or not if she became comatose or unresponsive -- and the only evidence we seem to have is her husband's word, which the court's have upheld -- I believe you're braying from the pulpit. I admit that Michael Schiavo's motives might be suspect, that his statement as to his wife's wishes may also be suspect, but since they are what the case seems to be based upon, that is the way it must be adjudicated. The religious angle has absolutely nothing to do with it.
posted by
saul_relative
on March 24, 2005 at 4:06 PM
| link to this | reply
You know, SlyCy?
I'd rather be heading towards the crapper knowing I've done everything possible to protect human life, than swirling the drain with YOU and your seeming belief that human life isn't worth the pot you piss in. Pardon my vulgarity, but that's the impression I'm getting from people like you.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on March 24, 2005 at 6:22 AM
| link to this | reply
You're right about that amdg and you and Jane are leading us.
posted by
SlyCy
on March 24, 2005 at 5:47 AM
| link to this | reply
you got that right, jane
And Michael Schiavo stands to gain by a wrongful death suit which he can't do if she's alive or divorced from him. And where does this insane idea that death by starvation is something dignified? And why are Food and Water extraordinary means? Because they come through a tube? This country is going to crapper.
posted by
AnCatubh
on March 23, 2005 at 11:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Excuse me, she's dying with dignity?
You'd let your dog die of starvation? You'd celebrate a convicted criminal dying of starvation? People like you and the ACLU would have a cow if a death row inmate was purposefully starved to death.
Nowhere have I read where she's being given Roxanal (a Morphine derivative) to at least keep her comfortable. For that matter, her asshole of a guardian husband won't even let her receive communion.
You call that dignity? You should be ashamed.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on March 23, 2005 at 7:52 PM
| link to this | reply