The Grim Lessons of Terri Schiavo [opinions are not those of the poster]

The Boston Globe / Washington Post Writers Group ^ | Ellen Goodman

[FreepinforTerri]

BOSTON -- It wasn't the volume of mail that surprised me when I protested "Terri's Law." After all, the case of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman back on a feeding tube, had been put before a national jury. The vast majority of my e-mailers seemed to believe that the few minutes of edited video represented the 24/7 reality of her last 13 years.

Nor was it the villain that surprised me. What prompted most writers to put fingers to keyboard, add vitriol and send, was the certainty that her husband Michael was an untrustworthy, unfaithful, would-be killer. As a Hotmail correspondent said, "Do you think that fathering a second child with a woman other than his wife has anything to do with his actions? Duh."

[FreepinforTerri]

I'm on Free Republic so I find no need to defend Terri's Law, but I just must say that if this was meant to be a persuasive piece, what's that bit about the partial birth abortion ban using "gruesome details." If the procedure needs to be described with gruesome details, perhaps you're not making a good case in its favor by pointing that out, huh?

[RightWhale]

It's probably best to leave Ellen Goodman unformatted.

[.cnI redruM]

Ellen Goodman has is nuttier than a bowl of Mueslix. If she nauseated me any further, I would Chomsky all over my keyboard.

[walford]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026740/posts?page=15#15
"...The issue in general and this case in particular has been successfully been framed -- as Felos describes -- as a compassionate husband who is striving to relieve his wife’s suffering pitted against “‘right-to-life anti-abortion groups that believe that irrespective of the patients’ wishes, people should be kept alive by feeding tubes’” [Saunders, Debra J. Erring on the Side of Death. The San Francisco Chronicle. 19 Aug. 2003.]

In other words, it is a struggle between secular dogmatists and religious dogmatists.

Those characterizations simply do not encompass all of those who are against euthanasia. Just as it is with abortion, it is a human rights issue for those of us who cherish life and are against any terminating people for being inconvenient. To allow those who cite religious dogma as the main counter-argument obscures the essential human rights of the people involved and only serves to alienate potential allies.

An ignored category of people that has the most interest are the disabled and their advocates. In a combined statement by a group of service providers for the disabled, they expressed concern that their “voices are often not heard over the din of political and religious rhetoric” of advocacy groups that are more interested in their own agendas than the interests of the most vulnerable. http://www.dspofamerica.org/10-30-2003a.shtm

People who had been medically determined to be unrecoverably PVS have indeed regained consciousness and had related horror stories of hearing their demise being calmly discussed while being unable to talk or move. One woman told of her agony while deprived of nutrition/hydration for eight days while her husband fought the courts for her life. She lived to tell her story. http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,102388,00.html

The only source of additional information has been advocacy groups and informal message exchange forums. Given that the putative ‘objective’ media has ignored it, this information can thus be easily dismissed as having emerged from those with an agenda..."

[muawiyah]

There was no need whatsoever to "reformat" that. We always know what she's going to say:

1. Killing babies is good.

2. Executing murderers is bad.

3. Whatever any Democrat politician says is the truth.

4. Whatever any Republican says is not true.

5. Osama Bin Laden is misunderstood ~ we should negotiate first.

6. Americans killed by terrorists probably deserved it.

Now, is there anything else this woman could possibly say that would differ from whatever she has ever said? Since there isn't, there's no need to reformat any of her stuff.

Just for an example of this I reformated her last paragraph in WHINGDINGS ~ to wit:

ƒ¹ƒÞƒÔƒÕƒÕƒÔƒzƒnƒ³ƒßƒÞƒ×ƒâƒÕƒãƒãƒnƒÛƒÞƒßƒçƒÙƒÞƒ ׃܃éƒnƒàƒÑƒãƒãƒÕƒÔƒnƒÑƒnƒÜƒÑƒçƒnƒãƒÙƒÝƒÙƒÜƒÑƒâƒnƒäƒßƒ nƒÑƒnƒ¾ƒÕƒÒƒâƒÑƒãƒÛƒÑƒnƒÜƒÑƒçƒnƒäƒØƒÑƒäƒnƒäƒØƒÕƒnƒÃƒåƒ àƒâƒÕƒÝƒÕƒnƒ³ƒßƒåƒâƒäƒnƒØƒÑƒÔƒnƒÑƒÜƒâƒÕƒÑƒÔƒéƒnƒÔƒÕƒÓƒ ܃уâƒÕƒÔƒnƒäƒßƒßƒnƒÒƒâƒßƒÑƒÔƒzƒnƒäƒßƒßƒnƒæƒÑƒ×ƒåƒÕƒ|ƒ nƒ²ƒåƒäƒnƒäƒØƒÕƒéƒnƒâƒÕƒÝƒÙƒÞƒÔƒnƒåƒãƒnƒäƒØƒÑƒäƒnƒäƒØƒ ÕƒnƒpƒâƒÙƒ×ƒØƒäƒnƒäƒßƒnƒÔƒÕƒÓƒÙƒÔƒÕƒpƒnƒÙƒãƒnƒÞƒßƒäƒnƒ ãƒßƒÝƒÕƒnƒàƒßƒÜƒÙƒäƒÙƒÓƒÑƒÜƒnƒãƒÜƒßƒ×ƒÑƒÞƒzƒnƒÞƒßƒäƒnƒ ãƒßƒÝƒÕƒnƒãƒÕƒÓƒßƒÞƒÔƒ{ƒäƒÙƒÕƒâƒnƒÕƒäƒØƒÙƒÓƒÑƒÜƒnƒÓƒßƒÞƒÓƒÕƒâƒÞƒ|ƒnƒ¹ƒäƒuƒãƒ nƒÑƒäƒnƒäƒØƒÕƒnƒÓƒÕƒÞƒäƒÕƒâƒnƒßƒÖƒnƒàƒÕƒâƒãƒßƒÞƒÑƒÜƒnƒ ÖƒâƒÕƒÕƒÔƒßƒÝƒ|ƒnƒ¹ƒäƒnƒÙƒãƒnƒÔƒÕƒÕƒàƒÜƒéƒnƒäƒâƒßƒåƒÒƒ ܃كރ׃nƒÝƒßƒÝƒÕƒÞƒäƒnƒçƒØƒÕƒÞƒnƒÑƒnƒãƒäƒâƒÑƒÞƒ×ƒÕƒâƒ zƒnƒÑƒnƒ×ƒßƒæƒÕƒâƒÞƒßƒâƒzƒnƒÑƒnƒÜƒÕƒ×ƒÙƒãƒÜƒÑƒäƒßƒâƒzƒ nƒÑƒnƒàƒâƒÕƒãƒÙƒÔƒÕƒÞƒäƒnƒÙƒãƒnƒ×ƒÙƒæƒÕƒÞƒnƒäƒØƒÕƒnƒàƒ ߃çƒÕƒâƒnƒäƒßƒnƒçƒâƒÙƒäƒÕƒnƒäƒØƒÕƒnƒÕƒÞƒÔƒnƒßƒÖƒnƒßƒåƒ âƒnƒÕƒäƒØƒÙƒÓƒÑƒÜƒzƒnƒÝƒÕƒÔƒÙƒÓƒÑƒÜƒzƒnƒÖƒÑƒÝƒÙƒÜƒéƒnƒ äƒÑƒÜƒÕƒãƒ|ƒnƒÉƒÕƒãƒzƒnƒäƒØƒÙƒãƒnƒÙƒãƒnƒØƒßƒçƒnƒçƒÕƒnƒ ܃߃ãƒÕƒnƒßƒåƒâƒnƒÖƒâƒÕƒÕƒÔƒßƒÝƒãƒªƒnƒ¿ƒÞƒÕƒnƒãƒÙƒ×ƒÞƒ уäƒåƒâƒÕƒnƒÑƒäƒnƒÑƒnƒäƒÙƒÝƒÕƒ|

Makes as much sense as ever in fact.

[AppauledAtAppeasementConservat]

These hypocritical loons of the left are sick. God forbid dogs ever get tube feeding for life support. I bet they would defend a dog under these same circumstances only to let a human being die.

Is it just me or is there some serious payback due to these leftists?

[madprof98]

With gruesome details and inflammatory language, they began a bald effort to ban abortion one procedure at a time.

Such "gruesome details" gnaw at the conscience of decent people, just as the videotapes of Terri Schiavo upset many people who might otherwise have agreed that she should starve her to death. Obviously, though, they had no effect whatever on the stony heart of Ellen Badwoman.

[Aliska]

God forbid dogs ever get tube feeding for life support.

You can get that now.

[walford]

gruesome details: what actually happens

inflammatory language: calling it a 'baby' rather than a Latin word that sounds like an expedible body part.

[sport]

Yeah, I clicked to the full article them immediately regretted it.

I was going to respond to her but decided against it.

Why mudwrestle with a pig? It only gets you muddy and the pig enjoys it.

[FreepinforTerri]

And anal-retentive is hyphenated???

[sport]

Reference your post # 6:

Good job of translating.

[FreepinforTerri]

Nice, vivid analogies....Well done, my friend.

[walford]

"...Why mudwrestle with a pig? It only gets you muddy and the pig enjoys it..."

Which is why it is not advisable to argue with trolls

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1030770/posts?page=6#6

Ellen Goodman is a troll with a column:

She is rehashing old stuff that has already been gone over, contributing nothing new to the discourse, only demonstrating partial knowledge of the critical issues involved and yet presuming to offer an opinion on a life-and-death issue, which I'm sure she hopes will provoke an angry reaction.

No, don't bother with that 'see you in Toledo'...

[WOSG]

"Ellen Goodman has is nuttier than a bowl of Mueslix."

lol - she's more nuts than a jar of Mr Peanuts.

"If she nauseated me any further, I would Chomsky all over my keyboard."

She is so Kerrying arrogant too. A real Clymer.

Is there a medical term forthe nausea induced by Libreal Feminist drivel? Quindlen Syndrome? or a rash of Poisoned Ivins.

[WOSG]

gruesome details: what actually happens

inflammatory language: calling it a 'baby' rather than a Latin word that sounds like an expedible body part.

---

bump for adding to a "conservative dictionary"... ooh, this is good.

[TigersEye]

It took about a paragraph of this ghoul's bilge to see that Ellen Goodman is one sick "Kerry."

[.cnI redruM]

I aim to please.

[thoughtomator]

Since when does an honest review of the facts of a matter (aka "gruesome details") inure prejudice against an assertion?

Abortion is extremely gruesome, and a recognition of that is basic to any rational discussion. Without the details, you can't hold the other side to any standard! Saying that the details of how they kill kids are impermissible is equivalent to saying that a full and fair hearing of the issue is impermissible. It's a prejudiced basis upon which to consider anything - an embargo against factual evidence.

Let me tell you, when they have a trial, you bet they show evidence to the jury in all its graphic detail.

As an example on another issue: A Tamil from Sri Lanka claims he has been tortured in his home country and claims asylum. Do you think that this article would be excluded from evidence in support of an assertion that torture was common in that nation? Of course not. The very fact that it is graphic puts it at the heart of the matter in question.