I arrived at my stance (as if stances where pertinent on this private matter between two families) by asking myself what I would do if I found myself in Michael Schiavo's shoes; an idea that was immediately dismissed as the fact that the real issue was never what Michael wanted, but rather what Terri would want if she were able to communicate her wishes.
I put myself in Terri's place, with the luxury of being of sound mind and body of course, and I immediately knew what the answer was...at least to me.
I'd want to die.
I know that my family would arrive at the exact opposite decision; they would want to extend my life for as long as humanly possible, and they would be doing it out of an honest belief that it was in my best interest.
I love them for that, but they would be acting in THEIR on interest, not mine. They would be doing what they believed was the right thing to do for their son and brother, and they would firmly believe that maintaining me alive was their duty, that standing up for me was the right thing to do by me.
They would be fulfilling their "duty" while ignoring what they knew about me.
So what happens when there is a question as to exactly what the individual would want done?
Would I wish to be maintained alive for decades, a burden to my parents and consequently (as well as inevitably) my siblings, on the outside chance that I could improve enough to be considered severely, severely handicapped?
Would I want to exist just barely above the lowest standard that could be applied and call what I was doing "existing"?
Would I rejoice in living under such circumstances on the outside probability of maybe some day regaining an infinitesimal percentage of whatever it is that makes me who I am?
No.
I would want to be made whole again, I would want to be completely healed.
And there's only one way for that to happen, and Terri today is whole and healed again.
I believe that Terri would want to die because that's what I would want, but apparently others have risen who claim the right to put their agenda above the wishes of the individual, and that the force of government should be used to satisfy their needs.
Their needs, not Terri's needs.
I've been here for quite a while, and I've seen this forum go through many, many changes, most good, some bad.
Lately, things have become quite strange, and I am getting bored being attacked by some newly-arrived poster who believes that whatever they've posted has never before seen the light of day, and that theirs is an original idea, when in fact, it's been covered ad nauseum, and fought extensively many times before.
The Terri Schiavo case has exposed a dark underbelly to the "conservative" movement as spoused by the majority of keyboard jockeys in FR; we like dictatorship, and we like judicial activism, and we want bigger, more intrusive government...as long as the results are to our liking.
Well, I don't, and debating the hoi polloi has lost whatever attraction it once held for me.
Wow...an opus.
Who would have thunk it?
I favor lethal injection for myself. I seem to have more patience with the madding crowd than you do. And as a lawyer I am trained to see the gray. I see a lot of gray in life.
No permita que la puerta le golpee en el asno.
Well, Luis, you've moved from economic death-wishes to personal death-wish.
You're consistent.
Please read the referent post. Somehow, this is not a surprise...
Ann Coulter would correct you (as she corrected a NY Times writer--her correction is seen in the special features on the DVD " Is it true what they say about Ann?")
She would argue that your phrase the hoi polloi is a bit redundant since "hoi" is the definite article for "polloi". That is, "hoi" already means "the". So you can simply refer to "hoi polloi".
Then, again, no big deal. It could be viewed as idiomatic, so maybe it should be given a pass.
But i WILL ask you to keep your word that your post #667 is "an opus"---YOUR opus.
I'm sorry this was your opus. You are missed.