Posted on 04/11/2005 7:56:09 AM PDT by RobinOfKingston
Death is exactly what your feared State ORDERED upon the innocent Terri.
You have twisted the debate back to issues you already admitted were irrelevant. I said that the logical conclusion to be drawn from that article was that Terri's wishes or consent does not matter because the right to "life" was "inalienable". I pointed out that even if she'd executed an affidavit saying she did not want intubated feeding, was on video tape expressing her wishes, etc., that would not matter to the author because her wishes are irrelevant. You agreed.
You also complain that the state would rule over us in a matter so personal as when we die! Fool!
Look in the mirror, Tex. You are the guy saying that whether or not someone wants to be intubated is not their choice. So if the person refuses intubation, the state, to preserve that "inalienable right", must force feed that person. I find that offensive.
We both apparently believe that the state court in the Schiavo case got it wrong, but you seem to think that the wishes of the person shouldn't matter even if they are unambiguous. You get intubated whether you like it or not. And on that issue, we part company.
Can a person excute a valid contract that says based on condition A and B and C that they be starved? No. That's suicide. The contract is an illegal contract.
You are right about the valium, though. Not that particular de-stressifier though. I think I'll take a break and do some productive work and get some de-stressing via that enjoyable activity.
>
> The justices held that Scott was not a citizen, and could
> not sue in federal court. That left the Missouri Supreme
> Court decision standing.
>
which I understood to be a large part of the author's point. throw a case out on a jurisdictional issue and you never have to rule on the facts. poor d.scott for not understanding the law and making a case while living in illinois or wisconsin. feds couldn't touch it once he got back to missouri. poor t.schiavo, congress wrote a law giving feds jurisdiction based on the constitution and the 14th amendment but birch says sorry you can't do that. end result being that the state's decision is left standing w/o looking at the facts of the case.
If a person can refuse intubation, can they express those wishes in a document so that they are not intubated if they are unconscious? It seems odd to me that a person who is conscious can say "no intubation", and effectively starve himself/herself to death, but that right disappears once that person is unconscious.
To rule on the facts without the party having standing would be judicial activism. Scott might have been a citizen under Scottish/French/Cuban (get the point?) laws, but not under US law.
congress wrote a law giving feds jurisdiction based on the constitution and the 14th amendment
And W/Jeb were WRONG for NOT enforcing it.
first, i'm not disagreeing with you -- just asking for my own knowledge enrichment...
>
> To rule on the facts without the party having standing would
> be judicial activism. Scott might have been a citizen under
> Scottish/French/Cuban
>
was it not a matter of timing too? one of the points made was that he was a citizen of Illinois under Illinois law at the time he was living there. but he didn't know it or make the claim at the time. and in that he would have been a US citizen under US law at that time. after moving back with his master to Missouri the federal courts were able to wash their hands of the case. sorry you missed your chance to be a free US citizen while in Illinois, too late.
"But in the end, the Missouri Florida judges courts were committed to doing the wrong thing." Terri was disenfranchised in the exact same way the alive, sensing unborn are disenfranchised for their executions under 'a woman's right to choose a serial killer' ... dehumanizing/disenfranchising is the club preferred by evil. Those human's using such an club are serving EVIL.
PS- thanks for posting this great read!
BTTT!
They meant well.
Familiar words to describe most atrocities in the world, both today and in history.
Well-intentioned "leaders in their own minds", grab power, then they dehumanize all obstacles to their personal dreams of "perfection and a perfect Utopia".
Slaves were first labeled "not human - inferior", Jews were labeled "not human - inferior", Terri Shiavo was labeled "not human - inferior" along with all others similar to her, unborn babies are labeled "not human - inferior". Who else? Who's next? Christians (the "radical evangelicals"), "illegals" (we have to watch our own thinking), You? Me? - - -
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
I would hold the same; she had no right to transfer the power over her life to anyone else, except by an act of wrongdoing. No court, much less in any civil proceeding, has the real authority or obligation under the principle of inalienable rights to recognize her purported "wish" to be starved to death, a truth which is confirmed by traditional laws against suicide.
If people are going to accept that article as an argument for keeping her intubated, then they oughta drop the arguments about Michael Schiavo being a scumbag, or a lack of evidence of her intentions, etc. Because the author would hold that her intentions/desires do not matter.
One of the astounding and grievous things about this case was the sheer compounding of evils through various actions of M.S. and the court itself. I have never seen anything like it. So imo that observations of the reprehensible behavior of Michael Schiavo, or a lack of evidence of her intentions, etc are entirely appropriate. With regard to her intentions, which although they should not be dispositive, how unclear, paltry and unconvincing the evidence that she wanted to be starved to death turned out to be, and as if that should be the standard of proof of fact authorizing an execution in the first place! And finally, for your appreciation, the final decree of the probate court said nothing about a feeding tube. The court ordered all means of nutrition and hydration to be withheld, even feeding by 'natural' means.
Cordially,
I really liked this article, and I'm not half way through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.