[Restorer]

I do not disagree with your goals.

Demonstrating and protesting is entirely appropriate.

Expecting a judge to rewrite the reasonably clear law to comply with your wishes as to what it should say seems to me to be profoundly anti-conservative. It accepts the basic methods of the anti-Americans as justified.

IOW, those who promote their various liberal causes through the courts rather than the legislature are right to do so. There is nothing wrong with their methods, only with their goals.

I disagree strongly with this point of view.

BTW, what people forget is that hundreds or thousands of patients in similar condition are treated the same every year, and nobody pays a bit of attention. The only difference in this case is that one part of her family is opposed to the process.

[chimera]

The founders of this nation spoke clearly as to the nature of rights and the role of government (which includes the courts). They noted that individual persons, by their very nature, are endowed with inalienable rights, and the role of government is to safeguard those rights, not grant them.

What is disturbing to me about what this case illustrates is that we have drifted away from these founding principles. What we have here is an agency of the government no longer taking the role of safeguarding a fundamental right, but adjudicating whether or not this right applies to an individual who has been convicted of no capital crime. IOW, the government is placing itself in the position of granting the right of an innocent person to live. If this is so, then passing/changing laws in reference to those inalienable rights has no meaning, because we have lost the vision of what the true role of government, as envisioned by the founders, really is. An agency of the government then becomes the mechanism of granting a fundamental right. Individuals are no longer endowed with it from their beginning, and only by the whim of government to they retain it. Then, whether or not an individual, or group, lives or dies is no longer answered by appeal to inalienable rights. It simply becomes a question, as the Nazis showed, of who has more guns and bayonets.

Just as with abortion, once we cross the line and allow an outside agency to be the determiner of whether or not what has heretofore been regarded as an inalienable right applies to a particular individual, we have abrogated, as an operable legal and philosophical and moral principle, the entire concept of inalienable rights. The result, as history shows, can only be measureless destruction.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well now we have the MSM weighting in....

A Family's Slow Descent Into Loathing

*********************************

Michael Schiavo and his in-laws stuck together, but then a settlement planted seeds of discord.

By Josh Getlin
Times Staff Writer

March 27, 2005

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. — Through good times and bad, the Schiavos and the Schindlers stood together.

When money got tight after Terri and Michael Schiavo were wed, her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, made room in their home near Philadelphia for the young couple.

When the Schindlers moved to Florida two years later, the kids followed so they could all remain close. Michael called his in-laws "Mom and Dad." They treated him like a son and felt fortunate to have him in the family.

They stood together again in 1990, when Terri had a heart attack and permanent brain damage. The family gathered at her bedside, praying for a miracle.

"Without him there is no way I could have survived all this," Mary Schindler said in court testimony, recalling that her son-in-law was a source of strength in the days after her daughter's collapse. "We were in it together."

They still spend hours at Terri Schiavo's side, trying to comfort the 41-year-old woman who is near death at Woodside Hospice here. But Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers are never in the small room at the same time. They have not spoken in 12 years.

**************************

Excerpted.....see link for the rest of the article.