What I didn't like here on FR was the villianization of Michael Schiavo, the encouragement of government intervention and the fanaticism of those who didn't even know the simplest of facts.
There is one more thing that keeps ringing through my head. Believe it or not it was something Alan Dershowitz said. He said, "You have eternity to be dead, you just have a short chance at life." If I'm being honest, and I always try to be honest, that line keeps ringing in my head.
I heartily agree with you that Terri should have been at home and cared for by her family, on their dime.
As an eyewitness on the scene for a couple weeks now, I have seen the different sides and have seen the volumes of evidence that rarely clears the media here. To come to other conclusions is as ridiculous as looking out at night and trying to sell the idea the sun is out.
Villainization of Michael Shiavo is just too mild for us who are eyewitness to the evil he visits and continues with daily cruelties.
He is finishing the murder of a healthy human being who does not want to die and is hanging on by dear life as I write.
The evidence is there, abundant, valid, and conclusive if any other than the evil judge here would deign to look.
He will soon have the evidence immediately destroyed and removed from the crime scene. She is to be cremated immediately with not the slightest chance of autopsy which would confirm the documented evidence from official records.
I am doing a drive by because I have to get back to the hospice crime scene, but will respond later if you have a comment.
The simple facts are that the tin pot judge overrides the gov and the president at will and the only copy of the Constitution he has any use for is on a roll in his private toilet.
The "no government intervention" argument is completely bogus. The government intervenes all the time in what some would call "family matters". Things like child abuse, spousal abuse, murder (the killing of one family member by another), etc., and rightly so. Would you disallow those interventions on the same basis that you decry the intervention in the case of Terri Schindler?
Here we have a case of spousal abuse of the gravest kind. One spouse is advocating the death of another, and the evidence is conflicted, at best, as to the wishes of the individual being killed. In such cases, in the past, our culture has always erred on the side of caution, that is, actions are taken to assure that an individual is not harmed. Now, the default position is to assume that the individual being harmed would wish to be harmed. Call me old-fashioned, but somehow that doesn't seem right. Maybe it was the way my parents raised me, from the old school, who taught their children that being an insane masochist was not a healthy lifestyle.
I have found it interesting how the pros and antis have fallen out on this one. I have heard a several Christians say "Go ahead and let her dehydrate" and several Atheists say "Hey, wait a minute.."
While the antis have been spun as some "right wing republican religious kooks" it just isn't so.
There are a number of very liberal people who are uneasy with the killing of a woman who was, to all intents and purpose's physically healthy. There are others who, like me, wonder where do we draw the line after this.
One of the questions that must be considered always is "if I am wrong will it cause harm?"
That is what I brought to this case, "If I am wrong and Terri does not know or feel anything am I doing harm by keeping her body alive?"
On the other hand, "If I am wrong and she is feeling everything am I doing harm by mummifying her alive?"
The answer to one is one I can live with. The other is not one that I could.