Posted on 10/25/2003 6:00:26 AM PDT by NYer
In a court of law, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually did commit a crime.
In the court of public opinion, it is frequently the case that individuals who are accused of a crime are judged guilty regardless of the facts. Some call that bias; others label it as nothing more than ignorant.
In the case of a severely disabled woman whose starvation death was ordered by a Florida judge, the court of law has not determined her guilt or innocence, because she committed no crime. The court has preferred to arrogantly deem it compassionate to put her out of her alleged misery by sanctioning an act of murder.
Murder is defined as the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought. Such a definition applies in this case. However, no human court is going to find this particular judge guilty of a crime, and no human court is going to query this woman’s husband regarding why he thinks she should die. That has already been taken care of through an arduous five-year court battle that may yet end with this woman’s tragic death — a death resulting from court-approved removal of food and water.
As one attorney recently wrote, if a judge or a state governor were to order the execution of a serial killer on death row by means of withholding food and water, a variety of courts would intervene at once to block that order, which would amount to constitutionally-prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, who is not terminally ill, and was not near death until the starvation process began, it has been ruled that her life is not worthy to be lived. Thus others were willing to impose on her a slow, agonizing death by starvation. That is murder according to the natural law; but according to the Florida judicial system, it is an exercise in compassion. So much for human justice!
The Terri Schiavo case is currently receiving widespread media coverage. The callous disregard for her human dignity is being exposed in many venues – but only at the eleventh hour. Over the past five years, however, as this case has been unfolding, nary a word could be found describing the barbaric nature of what some were proposing should be done to her.
Perhaps the most appalling aspect of this woman’s plight is rarely noted. Terri Schiavo is a Catholic who, one would hope, would have been staunchly defended in every conceivable way by the Catholic hierarchy in her state. After all, she is vulnerable, she is totally dependent on others to speak for her, and she is a human being with the gift of human dignity that God bestows on each of us.
The sad reality is, however, that Florida’s Catholic bishops have been virtually silent. These bishops joined together in a public statement begging Gov. Jeb Bush to spare the life of convicted killer Paul Hill, a man who murdered two people. The prosecution in the Hill case did its job. Yet the bishops publicly pleaded that his life be spared. But two days after defending Hill’s life, these same bishops said the Church could not make a decision regarding whether Terri Schiavo should be starved to death. These bishops urged that more time be given prior to Terri’s imposed death by starvation so that “greater certainty as to her true condition” could be reached.
How much more certainty does one need that a living, breathing human being will die if he or she is denied access to food and water? The burden of proof in Terri’s case must ultimately be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to cautiously stand aside and allow the courts to wield their power, even if the result will be the death of an innocent human being who never had the opportunity to defend herself. What crime did Terri Schiavo commit, I would ask the bishops that drove them into equivocating about whether or not she had a right to life?
Americans who care about this young woman have mounted campaigns to pressure Gov. Bush into doing all he can to save Terri’s life. Others have stepped to the forefront and applauded Florida state lawmakers who, after nearly six full days had passed in which Terri was denied nutrition, approved legislation to stop the starvation from continuing. Still others have offered legal opinions providing the governor with ammunition and exposing the reality of the situation: Terri Schiavo was being executed, pure and simple.
Yet nowhere in this flurry of last minute, desperate activity, do we find the Florida Catholic Conference. There has been a number prayer vigils held outside the hospice where Terri resides. To our knowledge, not one bishop has attended. There have been numerous public demonstrations of support for Terri’s parents, who are courageously doing all they can to defend their daughter’s right to life as her husband, her legal guardian, continues his quest to see that her food and water is denied. Not one bishop has offered Terri’s parents his public support. There is a courageous priest who has tried to provide Terri with Holy Communion. His efforts were thwarted by police officers who banned him from giving the Eucharist to Terri. As far as we can tell, not one bishop spoke out at such an outrage or applauded the commitment of this priest to be a true shepherd for Terri in what appeared to be her final days.
As the moments continued to pass, and the very life ebbed out of this lovely young woman at the center of this storm of controversy, one could only wonder what it really means to be innocent until proven guilty. To my mind, as I reflect on the burden of proof that never evolved prior to Terri’s death sentence, it occurs to me that some day, the most important Judge of all will have to deal with certain people who were aware of the travesty but chose to avoid a controversy because “difficult cases” are a bother. At that time, He will have amassed a burden of proof with regard to their culpability in the case of Terri Schiavo. In His court, justice will be done.
You and some others here these days seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
Who were you before? CSAZ?
I've been posting at this site since June 1998 and always used ONLY this screen name.
But you continue to avoid the central issue here see post #155.
Yup.
I understand that you disagree with my overall set of comment here, but how about my main point as expressed in post #155?
I would not get in your way at all...even though I 100% disagree with you.
Make sure you write it down and you may want a trial run on the dehydration, starving thing before you totally commit to it :) It is not pretty, dignified or painless.
May God bless you!
The central issue, as expressed in #155, is what you want. Who cares? I have more than addressed the issue of what Terri wants. But you ignore it.
....Like nearly every poster on Free Republic...?
1 a : not knowing or perceiving : not aware b : free from self-awareness
2 a : not possessing mind or consciousness b (1) : not marked by conscious thought, sensation, or feeling (2) : of or relating to the unconscious c : having lost consciousness
3 : not consciously held or deliberately planned or carried out
As I said, her condition seems to be a matter of opinion - some medical experts saying one thing - some saying another. I don't have any first hand knowledge, nor do you I assume.
I hope you have a Living Will to that effect. Terri did not. Therefore we must take the position that she wants to live. The other decision is irreversible. We can always reverse the decision to live, should she be able to communicate that wish.
Do you have something to back this claim up?
ALL posters on Free Republic.
I suck worst of all.
You are not in her condition. You have no idea as to what she wants except . . .
(and keep in mind that the nature of my wife. . .)
for statements from her husband. Which makes his nature pretty relevant.
To: TigersEye
I draw the line a feeding tubes - if needed for more than just a few days.
117 posted on 10/25/2003 10:49 AM PDT by Normally a Lurker [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I simply replied that you were condeming many children of your fellow posters. Now you skirt around this and say that it was taken out of context?? Puhlease...
In the mid sixties, the liberals were appalled by illegitimate birth rates and single-parent homes among minorities and poverty. This was the rationale for the War On Poverty and subsequent social programs.
Now those rates are 10x what they were then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.