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.

[Quester]

So, the LAW is more important than a woman's LIFE ?

Also, ... is there not a NEW LAW ?

[GWfan]

She's right, we are to honor life.

God loves loves life. He loves life when it is easy and He loves life when it is hard.

[GladesGuru]

The idea that justice can be codified and thus provide absolute justice, impatrially and fairly, was first written about by Aristotle, who claimed that such absolute justice was the goal of good government.

The core premise was that laws should be written to fairly and impartially cover all situations. This is what seems to be the basis of the pgrase "absolute justice" in the context of this thread and your post.

However, it was noted by that same Greek, that alas the city had grown to such a size (some 40,000+ people) as to make that impossible. He therefore said that judges and human judgement, would have to be relied upon.

To assume that the state can be codified to anything approaching perfection or even all situations is to start down the same slippery slope trod by the totalitarian states throughout history.

That is why we have juries, Grand Juries, and legislatures - not just courts.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Yes they do have that right but not when a verdict is rendered. Remember again I say Florida election fiasco? You cannot play by the rule of law with one instance and then not the next. This was passed on the cuff WITHOUT sifting through the 10 years of legal documents nor reviewing the case this was passed based SOLELY on emotion and from pressure by out of state activists. This is NOT how you pass law. This precedence is fanatical and not good policy. What is the next right that will be hi-jacked by the legislature because it is seen as unpopular? This was an overnight off the cuff law that should not have been passed. Most of the activists out there hadn't picked up one court paper to review the case and its history, much like the legislature.

[GladesGuru]

And there is a good reason that the scum get so many appeals, while the innocents don't. Remember that ACLU was originally funded by teh old USSR to defend American Communists. Apples do not fall all that far from the tree.

The USSR was interested in destabilizing America. So is ACLU.

Nothing in the above should be construed in any way to the efffect that I disagree with Blackstone that it is better to free ten guilty than jail one innocent, for jailing the innocent undermines the trust in law which is the core of society.

Blackstone was right - the guilty will commit another crime and can be dealt with then. Public trust in law and its administration must be rightly earned. Jailing the innocent damages such trust and therefore is the reason for caution in court.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"That is why we have juries, Grand Juries, and legislatures - not just courts"

Went to jury, Grand jury, and Supreme court failed to hear the case. It went thru its process. If the legislature was so concerned why is it that they spent 10 years doing nothing with the law that was on the books?

Great writing tho my friend, I respect your position on the matter just not agreeable. I respect all people's position on this matter.

[Diamond]

Florida LAW states that if said person is unable to render such a decision, as is the case with Terri, then her CUSTODIAN (her husband) has the right to render such decision.

Uh, the word is GUARDIAN, not 'custodian'. A custodian takes care of PROPERTY. A guardian is a person assigned by a court to take care of another PERSON.

This is LAW people plain and simple.

Before bowing to your interpretation about what constitutes LAW, let me ask you this;

"Which is lawful, to do good or to do evil; to save life or to kill?"

Answer it. What do you think the purpose of law is in the first place? What aspect of "inalienable" as descriptive of the Right to Life don't you understand?

Cordially,

[Blood of Tyrants]

2 Timothy 3: 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-- 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

[Quester]

If the legislature was so concerned why is it that they spent 10 years doing nothing with the law that was on the books?

Could it be that Terri's situation has uncovered a, hitherto, unrecognized flaw in Florida law regarding this issue ?

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Uh, the word is GUARDIAN, not 'custodian'. A custodian takes care of PROPERTY. A guardian is a person assigned by a court to take care of another PERSON. "

Please don't throw tit for tat in my wording if it says guardian then guardian it is. But you do acknowledge that law at least in some way.


"Which is lawful, to do good or to do evil; to save life or to kill?"

That is not the discussion and would be very flimsy in court. The law is simple it states that ones wishes to not continue life saving measures or continual vegetative non-cognitive state then the GUARDIAN, as appointed by the courts has the decision to end such procedures. This is not a good evil argument. It is not killing as you espouse. No matter what your PERSONAL feeling sin this maater that is not the discussion.

"What aspect of "inalienable" as descriptive of the Right to Life don't you understand? "

What is it that you do not understand when a wife who has told her husband that she did not wish to live a vegetable do you not understand? Were you privvy to the conversations in their bedrooms? Didn't think so. Before popping off about inalienable rights start thinking about ones personal rights and wishes.

10 years in courts
Decision was made.
LAW was on the books
he is guardian he made a decision.
If you cannot respect ones wishes/rights then what good is your little roll up constitution?

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Could it be that Terri's situation has uncovered a, hitherto, unrecognized flaw in Florida law regarding this issue ? "

It was known and has been a LOCAL issue for years. This was nothing new, only until the out of state activists bussed down to protest did it become apparent to the legislature to do something. That something was unconstitutional.

[r9etb]

The way I see it, the FL legislature acted to stop what has all the earmarks of a court-approved murder. It seems clear that the key players -- especially Mr. Schaivo -- have significant conflicts of interest, such that one must wonder whether his motives in spending $2 million to kill his wife are actually pure.

Be that as it may, it is not "fanatical" to act to prevent a death (which harms no one) in a case where the jutification for that death appears to be open to question.

It is quite "fanatical," OTOH, to pound on the law books, demanding death, when those legitimate questions remain.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[r9etb]

It was known and has been a LOCAL issue for years. This was nothing new, only until the out of state activists bussed down to protest did it become apparent to the legislature to do something. That something was unconstitutional.

And Terri Schaivo is not dead, as a result. But you seem to miss the point here: just suppose that Terri's guardian does not have her best interests at heart? Claims to that effect are precisely why this has been an issue "for years."

[AbsoluteJustice]

"just suppose that Terri's guardian does not have her best interests at heart? Claims to that effect are precisely why this has been an issue "for years."

I do agree with you on this point but don't we have to trust the process of the courts on this one? The 10 years spent on this case? I do not see the courts making a hasty decision on this woman's life. But I did see that in the legislature.

Thank you for the good argument on this. You seem pretty level headed. Worthy of debate
LOL
:)

[keri]

This is a great find. Thank you so much for posting it.

[William Wallace]

As the parent of a "non-cognitive, vegetative state" 16-year-old, who was, by all medical experts, not destined to live more than six months, I offer advice. Seize the opportunity to honor life, in all its forms. A body not constrained by the pettiness of appearance or consumed by the drive of ambition is a glimpse of the purity of heaven. Spend fleeting moments in the company of these angels. They will leave us all too soon, even with their feeding tubes intact. The veil between the eternities and this world turns transparent when you look into what medical science calls "non-responsive eyes." When you catch a glimpse of that beyond you will wonder, "Who wouldn't want to live in their utopia?"

And I do mean live.

Thanks Marvin.

I've been there, and it is a humbling and blessed joy to spend a few precious moments taking care of one of God's wounded angels.

Choose life.

[TaxRelief]

Ping for Terri!

Let me know if you want on or off this ping list.

[TaxRelief]

Most of the activists out there hadn't picked up one court paper to review the case and its history, much like the legislature.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Because the activists read through the court documents and because the bizarre inconsistencies and conflicts of interests between the judges and the lawyers became clear to them, they became energized and got involved with preventing a miscarriage of justice.

The legislators who wanted the information, were also provided with many of the same documents on which to base their decisions.

Jeb Bush was aware of the situation and also made an attempt to reason with the court well in advance of the climax in the legislature last week.

[William Wallace]

Flagging a few other good folks who will appreciate this.

xsm, bring a hankie. :-)