What I know as the mother of a "non-cognitive, vegetative state" 16-year-old

Jewish World Review ^ | Oct. 30, 2003/ | Marianne M. Jennings

[SJackson]

The quest for utopian socialism has its twists and turns. A woman has the right to choose when it comes to the life of her unborn child. But, in the exception-ridden liberal conscience, choice regarding her own life belongs to her husband. Husbands have no say in wives' abortions, but, according to those wacky Florida courts, they have the final say on their wives' lives. In the case of 39-year-old Terri Schiavo, her husband, complete with mistress and their children, wants her starved to death. A Florida court, finally halted in its unrighteous dominion by another Bush, ordered it so. Liberals oppose the death penalty for criminals, but not for innocents.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Good argument

[AbsoluteJustice]

There is law giving him this power to pardon but in this instance a law was hastily passed against ones wishes (according to the courts) to overide a judicial ruling. Pardons have been there and is a power of the govenor but to pass laws to overide unpopular court decisions is overstepping your powers

[Lion in Winter]

No matter what the "cause" if the ACLU is against something... I AM FOR IT. I HATE the ACLU!!

Any perosn on this forum who agrees withe ACLU is on the wrong forum... DU awaits.

[AbsoluteJustice]

It has passed by the desks of MANY judges they have reviewed the case and either 1) deemed it to be within legal boundaries so therefore refusing to hear the case. or 2) offered up their opinion on the case. This case has not sat with one judge for 10 years.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Did Terri designate her husband as surrogate?"

If she is unable to FLORIDA Law dictates that that duty falls upon the husband as default.

[Lion in Winter]

Marriage is a contract and ms has broken that contract.

[lupie]

Good to see you too! :)

That article just brought home this passage in 1 Corinthians:
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

[Diamond]

Once you are married and the Government/courts cannot assess the wishes of the patient then it defaults to the husband/wife whichever the case.

39 Am Jur 2d
GURADIAN AND WARD
Section 48
Fitness or competency, generally

"The decision of whom to appoint as as guardian or conservator lies within the broad discretion ot the trial court. In determining the selection of a guardian, the court may consider the financial situaltion, the business acumen, the physical condition, the morals, character, and conduct, and the present and past history of a prospective appointee, [emphasis mine] as well as his or her ability to exercise the powers and duties of guardian for the full period during which guardianship will be necessary. As a general rule, a person is qualified to act as a guardian if he or she is competent to transact his or her own business and is not otherwise unsuitable or disqualified by factors such as mental incapacity, conviction of crime, moral delinquency, [emphasis mine] or physical disability, which prevents such person from properly discharging the duties of the office."

For additional legal perspective on Mr. Shiavo's moral delinquency and criminal conduct, and thus his unsuitability to properly discharge the duties of a guardian, see 2 Am Jur 2d, Sections 3 and 6, ADULTERY and FORNICATION

Cordially,

[Caleb1411]

Great editorial. Marianne Jennings is at the top of my favorite-columnists list.

[Lion in Winter]

You are so right. This article was so touching.

The thread however has been loaded down with goofy-legal-leze and I hope that will soon stop so we all can reflect on the compassionate nature of the article.

There was a comment in the article, that I felt was so true about the courts and Terri's case especially. I feel that I have to place some emphasis on it in this post.

"Courts have labored mightily in the vineyards of greedy relatives, diabolical murderers and petty friends for over 500 years to develop will and probate laws that avoid such he said/she said contentions when there are no written documents from decedents who can no longer speak.

Written proof, not assertions by those who have financial conflicts of interest, determines intent.

BOOM!! That is what Terri's fight is all about!!

[Lion in Winter]

You really are a diamond!! SHINE ON!!

[thepizzalady]

"...And what do you say if this were her wishes?? Do you then say we have caused this woman suffering and it was a travesty? The courts heard evidence that they thought overwhelming enough not to believe the husband had ill intentions. I go with the courts on this one they were more privy to information concerning this case than I."

No, why would I say such a thing?
If your screen name implies you believe in absolute justice in this world, I'd say there is little hope of finding it. Since even reasonable people disagree on just about everything, worldly justice is relative. If everyone agreed, there would be no debate.

There would also be no need for law. The law does not prevent lawlessness. The law only points out that lawlessness has occurred.

It appears that you are very dedicated to the law. That is a noble cause. But as thinking humans, it is our duty to question unjust laws. If we do not, than we are nothing more than automatons.

If an unjust judge proclaims that every citizen shall put to death every first born child, that would be the law. To not comply would make you a law breaker. Subject to whatever penalty the judge imposed.

According to your past posts, it would seem that you would comply with the order because it is the LAW. I am not assuming you would, but your reasoning implies that the law is the law and is to be obeyed, and you will staunchly defend the law with your dying breath. Right or Wrong

I am not attacking your right to your opinion, but I am trying to understand your reasoning. Because I have had many experiences in my life, and held different opinions at different ages, I can usually relate to the opinions of others.

[Badray]

Thanks, but I may have mispoken. Please see #89 and #91.

[Lion in Winter]

BTTT

[Lion in Winter]

"I can't even begin to imagine the pain her parents must feel knowing that their daughter may be legally murdered. They have loved her since birth. And I am sure they know she is inside there loving them back. How tragic this story is. =("

Very well stated.

[thepizzalady]

"...Written proof, not assertions by those who have financial conflicts of interest, determines intent...."

You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Now to find judges who seek the truth.

[Lion in Winter]

Ah, yes... to find a judge that really seeks the truth. In Florida....that type of judge may be as rare as cheese is on the moon.

[BossLady]

Awesome post!

[tioga]

-yes, these are powerful words that I too have experienced. May God bless you and your son, and in the eternity of heaven may you know pure joy together.

[Lion in Winter]

I find all your posts always so good and I wanted you to read this wonderful article. I know your freeper interests lie in other areas, but this article is just outstanding.

Regards, LION