The New Road

There are extremist freaks on both sides of the political spectrum, Jack.

And there were good people on both sides in Congress fighting to save Terri Schaivo's life. And people on both sides rejecting the pleas of her parents.

This case never should have been made a partisan issue. But, shine a light on any issue in this country today and politicians and media (and we) jump in, grab a piece of it, twist it, rip it, destroy the original message to broadcast our own. It needs to result in some serious reflection of legal guardianship laws.

Strange that you refer to the actions of the Republican party as their own crucifixion. On Good Friday, especially, the darkest day of Christianity, we remember that we must experience this day to get to the resurrection on Easter.

Egad. I forgot to answer the hatred of Michael Shciavo. I don't know him. I don't hate him. But I am disgusted by him, just like I am by Scott Peterson.

1. He said shortly after Terri collapsed that he didn't know what she would want.

2. He argued in the medical malpractice lawsuits that he needed money to care for her in her new state - obviously intending to care for her.

3. After the judgement in his favor, he stopped all therapy for her. He, as you say, "realized early on that Terri wasn't coming back from this an has moved on". He met a new woman, fell in love, had children.

4. Seven years after her collapse, he remembered that she said she wouldn't want to live this way.

Ever since then, he has been trying to kill her - um, er, let her die with dignity.

Nobody knows what Terri would want. She can't tell us. But there are people who know and love her who say she would want to live - just as there is her "husband", (co-habitating father of two) who says she would want to die.

I think HE doesn't want to live this way anymore.

I love Ann Coulter's essay on this.

I just can't stop, can I?

Just one more thing.

My mom is a Republican. She cared for my dad for 13 years. She thinks Terri should be allowed to die.

Mark's parents are Democrats. In 2000, when the election was being contested and I was pregnant with Amanda, they said, "I can't believe we're going to bring a child into this world with a Bush in the White House." Here is her comment in her hometown newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel, yesterday:

I cannot believe that we are allowing our government to take away a person's right to live. I am not only a Registered Nurse but also the mother of a child with cerebral palsy. Today, she is living on her own with three Master's Degrees from FSU.
Submitted by: Carolyn Weiss, RN
2:27 PM EST, Mar 24, 2005

Nice parting shot with the Mom thing. Obviously people are on both sides of this. Both you and your mom and are in the far minority of Americans who believe that it's the right and responsibility of the federal government to involve itself in a family matter for partisan political gain.

Though I do agree with your Mom about how she felt in 2000. It's how I felt every year since then. And this just proves that your party is completely power mad and out of control.

"This case never should have been made a partisan issue." You think so? The Republicans themselves have called the Democrats "strangely silent". So the people that are making it a partisan issue are in your party. Call them up right now and tell them to stop if you think this way.

"It needs to result in some serious reflection of legal guardianship laws." Your party has proven that law no longer matters. They've broken both the separation of powers and the ban on bills of attainder through this exercise. And now Jeb is trying to bully his way in with DCF agents in contempt of court. There is no law now. Your party has proven that. This is no longer about law. It's about power and the raw unbridled exercise of power for it's own sake.

Reading Ann Coulter, eh? Great. It's fitting I suppose. Here is a Coulter quote the rest of us can laugh at:

"Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger."

Yeah, she is a big believer in the "sanctity of life". As long as that life isn't Islamic, or a six month old black child in Texas whose parents couldn't afford the medical care.

This is how the pendulum swings. I say "do it!" Break down the door. Rescue Terri. Flout the law. Shoot the doctors. Execute the husband. Get in there and be God's right hand of vengeance on Earth.

That's the way that you will scare away all the people in the middle who believe in basic things like the rule of law, and the extremely limited role of the government in the family.

My mom is a Republican. But she thinks Terri should be allowed to die.

Mark's mom is a Democrat. She thinks Terri should be allowed to live.

Just showing how people who are members of one party can disagree with the party stance on a deeply personal issue.

Then your mother is with the overwhelming majority of Americans. And your mother-in-law sides with those who put up web sites with abortion clinic doctors home addresses and cross of their name when one of their "culture of life" sharpshooters puts a bullet in them.

If you think this a is "deeply personal issue" then why in hell do you think the government should be involved? Who gave you, or your party the right to "allow someone to die"?

The law as it exists now gives the spouse the right to make that decision for the patient.

The law is flawed here, in my opinion. The government is stepping in to try to correct the flaw because it is the government's obligation to protect the life of its citizens.

And there you go again, grouping anyone to the right of center, no matter how far, with the outer right-wing fringe. The left-wing fringe is scary too.

Section 9, Clause 3 of the United States of America reads:

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

That's all of it. I'm not taking it out of context. I'm sure you know what these terms mean. But just for the other folks that may be listening:

Bill of Attainder: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

Bill of Attainder: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

And:

Ex Post Facto Law: a law imposing penalties for an act committed before the law was passed and that was legal at the time.

You say "law is flawed". Then you say "government is stepping in to try to correct the flaw". Can you see how this is unconstitutional on it's face?

In addition this line "government's obligation to protect the life of its citizens" is incorrect. It's actually not the responsibility of the Congress, which is the body that acted here, to protect the life of it's citizens. The Congress is a policy making body. They enact laws after the fact. That's why they are called the 'legislative branch'.

The executive branch does have the ability to act in this manner. But can't because no laws have been broken. To do so would be in violation of separation of powers.

Seriously now. The framers weren't smoking crack. Our government was set up this way for very good reasons. You can't just start reworking the government because a court case doesn't come out the way you and your pastor want.

I wasn't going to stick my neck in this mess with you two but I found this very informative site on the legal history of the case - I suggest you both read it.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#timeline

my html didn't work so here's the link

It's a good compilation of what's in the case file so far. Is there something in particular you wanted me to look at?

Okay, so the law was followed. The trials have gone on for years. I will concede that. Both sides have been heard. I just wish that since we don't know what she would have wanted, that her husband would have divorced her and walked away - that he would have given her custody to her parents instead of petitioning the court to make the decision (based on his testimony & wishes) have her die.

It's just sad. Sad. Sad.

So just because he doesn't believe as you do you think he should have walked away.

Let's talk about a hypothetical. Let's actually discount the notion that, as you believe "he has been trying to kill her", and say that he honestly believes that this is what she would have wanted. At what point would you ask that he walk away?

If he is telling the truth, which is something that we have to assume in the U.S.A., then what possible justification would you claim to ask him to walk away?

I don't assume he's telling the truth. I assume her parents and family are telling the truth. I think that if both sides knew this woman, the dispute never would have gotten to this point.

We have the benefit now, because of this case and others like it, of making our wishes known to our family and friends. Let's say, hypothetically, that something were to happen to me today to put my family in the same position. Mark and my mom & brother & sister would need to agree on my treatment, or cessation of treatment, even though Mark would have the final decision. I would hope that he would honor all opinions. And if he had no hope for me, but they did, I would want him to divorce me, find a new mother for my kids and move on and to let my family work with me toward rehabilitation. If everyone involved agreed that there was no hope, I would want them to let me go. But if one willing and able person retains hope, let life win. What is the harm?

I don't see how you can be so judgmental.

I give both sides the benefit of the doubt. And in the case of the law that means that the decision went to Schiavo. I don't know these people from Adam, so I have to err on the side of those who have for 15 years, which is, unfortunately, the court system.

You, on the other hand, decide that he is untrustworthy out of hand, and then judge that he is unworthy to make the decision. You cite some reasons, but all of these are easily explained away if you give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But you come from this judgmental "he has been trying to kill her" viewpoint and are blinded by it.

Why do you feel it so necessary to sit in judgment of people?

The whole family is suffering here from the loss of a loved one. Must certain members of the family endure your scorn as well. Would you tell Michael Schiavo to his face that he is a murderer?

If you would, then I ask you, who made you God? Who gave you the right to sit in judgment?

If you wouldn't, then I don't understand the conviction of your previous statements.

We have laws so that someone can sit in judgement when there is a dispute. I think the judge got it wrong. Am I not entitled to that opinion?

I don't know if the husband is a murderer. Terri's family seems to be considering that option, and from what I've heard from their side, I'm considering it, too. Why not? Why should I believe him? I think the family is credible. Obviously the judge thought the husband was credible.

As a general aside, I wouldn't say anything here about someone that I wouldn't say to them.

You obviously don't need my permission to do anything.

Why should you believe him? Why is his not holding your opinion grounds for him to be untrustworthy?

I'm just amazed by the fact that you would walk up to a grieving man who is about to lose his wife and accuse him of murder. What part of the good book does that move come from?

Ok, did a little reading up on the whole bible verse thing since it seems so appropriate here.

Obviously there is this one:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to  you."

A perennial favorite. One of your favorite lines about the speck and the plank comes soon after.

I'm kinda partial to this one.

"Do not judge and you will not be judged.  Do not condemn and you will not be condemned.  Forgive and you will be forgiven."

Then there is this:

"You, therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the others, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

This one is nice:

"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.  Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

And then my personal favorite:

"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy.  But you - who are you to judge your neighbor?"

Literally, God's way of saying, "Who made you God?"

Then there is this passage:

"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Which I think puts your would be suggestion to Michael that he should get divorced in an interesting light.

I think this verse bears closer scrutiny:

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to  you."

Let's look at what we have so far. Starting with Judge Greer. Based on the facts admitted into evidence he judged Michael Schiavo to have knowledge of Terri's wishes. Over thirty-two other judges have agreed with him. Well over twenty different legal actions have tested the facts of the case and the judgment. Not to mention the legal scrutiny of uncounted scads of lawyers. He has judged on the facts, and thus he himself will be judged on the facts.

Now there is you. Based on hearsay, suspicion and personal bias you have judged MIchael to be a villainous murderer. Thus, based on hearsay, suspicion and personal bias will you be judged.

As he says:

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to  you."

I'm glad to see you're reading the bible.

That's how I started, too. Finding words as weapons to discredit my dad, who was religious, because I found the idea of religion so unpalatable.

Once you can get past the part of judging all believers as hypocrites there is some really good and interesting stuff to learn in there.

Bravo.

I don't know why Jacqueline but this condescending comment from you really annoyed me.

I've read the bible several times, taken classes on it and was religious, at one point I even considered myself "born again" in high school.

But the bible is at the heart of why I left the church and eventually religion all together. I continued to study the bible even as I was loosing my faith and it never pulled me back in. Its a excellent reference that I still turn to, a great piece of history, but don't for one second assume that being exposed to its pages is going to bring someone closer to your "God".

I'm certainly not expecting Jack to have a Damascus moment simply by opening the book. I'm just glad to see he hasn't completely refused to read it, as has been his stance in the past.

Not true, Jacqueline, Jack's not only picked it up in the past, but i'm sure he'll pick it up again in the future.. Being an atheist doesn't mean he doesn't read the bible or any other book of religious thought. I've never known him to refuse to read any book. He is one of the most well read people I know.

You don't know him very well. You've put him in a box and comment on his blog accordingly. Don' assume you know him.

Just because he's critical of Christians on his blog, doesn't mean he hasn't read the bible, or that he doesn't have good friends who he respects who are Christian.

You're right. Sorry bout that.