UPDATE (April 5th): This thread is now closed. For further responses and comments, please use this thread, instead.
The following topics have now (as of 5:30pm Tuesday, pacific time) been banned from this thread:
1) Evidence or arguments intended to prove that the Schindlers are badly motivated or bad human beings. This includes any further discussion of them selling an email list or wanting an inheritance or anything like that.
2) Evidence or arguments intended to prove that Michael Schiavo, his lawyers, or Judge Greer are badly motivated or bad human beings. I think y’all know the sort of thing this includes.
3) Nazism and comparisons to Nazism, or reasons why comparisons to Nazism are inappropriate.
I will delete any further posts including any of the above subjects.
Since the post about Terri Schiavo’s CT scan now has over 400 comments, which is a bit of a huge file, I’ve decided to close comments on that thread. People who want to respond to a comment in that thread, or who want to make a comment on the Schiavo case in general, may do so in this new thread.
Please don’t post here to suggest that Michael Schiavo, or Judge Greer, are evil people who are conspiring to murder Terri. Please refrain from comments suggesting that the Schindlers are evil people, as well.
To get things started, I’ll quote in full the most recent (as of this moment) two posts from the thread I’m closing, both of which I thought were excellent.
Susan wrote:
Thank you, Barbara, for your clear formulation.
It seems to me that the people who want that feeding tube re-connected take one of two positions, and sometimes both:
- They think Terri has a duty to live that transcends what she would have wanted, as you say, or in the alternative, a duty to follow the speaker’s position on this instead of her own, and/or
- They think the court was wrong about what she wanted, for a variety of reasons, either that Judge Greer is a vulture or that Michael Schiavo has evil eyes or whatever.
Both positions can be defended, but I’d like to see a defense up-front.
As for thinking the court was wrong, I donno. I disagree with a lot of court decisions (especially when I lose!), but that’s the way we do things here, and for obvious reasons we don’t re-litigate things just because the loser is unhappy with the outcome. All the appellate courts are convinced that Judge Greer did a responsible job. I’d invite skeptics to read the Second District’s first opinion on this matter. What’s the theory here? That all the state and federal judges who’ve reviewed this are vultures? This wades us deep into conspiracy theory, deeper than I personally wish to go.
If you think Terri has a duty to live regardless of what she thinks, or that your opinion is to be preferred to hers, I’d be interested in hearing why.
A minute or so later, Sally posted the following. Since it was posted so quickly, I think it may have been intended to be a response to an ealier post of Susan’s, but it’s nonetheless an apt reply to Susan’s point about the courts.
Sally wrote:
I think the difference, Susan, is that I have less faith than you do in the courts’ ability to determine Terri Schiavo’s wishes. The court is relying on eyewitness testimony about conversations that happened many years ago. People’s memories are notoriously selective, not because they’re consciously distorting anything, but because we remember things by slotting them into certain narratives, and we tend to select out the memories that don’t fit into those narratives. Michael Schiavo and his brother and sister-in-law believe that Terri would want to die, and it seems likely that they’d select out any memories that would contradict that narrative.
I realize that all we have to go on here is hearsay, but it makes me nervous. It would make me nervous in any court case: I’m really wary of convictions based only on eyewitness testimony, too.
And secondly, the courts don’t float above society: they’re subject to the same prejudices as everyone else. And one of those prejudices is a widespread belief that some lives are not worth living, that some people are just empty husks who are a burden on society, that medical care is a zero-sum game, and if we keep those people alive, we’re taking treatment away from someone more deserving. When judges weigh evidence, they have those prejudices in the back of their minds. I don’t have a lot of faith in the courts as neutral actors here. And given that they are biased, in the ways that everyone is biased, I tend to think we should err on the side of not killing people.
You DID have sausage for breakfast didn’t you Susan?? ;)
Susan wrote
I have found new respect for you Susan. There have always been zealots. There always will be. True justice has always been acquired by compromise between two extreme positions.
I’ve been heartened through this to find disabled rights activists, very left of center, lining up to their huge chagrin with the right-to-life crowd. Many of them are gay.
I came across a very well written article from the very right point of view that said all the “right” things about this issue – until the author started the abortion rant. I wrote and asked her to pleae not make this as all-or-nothing abortion issue. When you try to grab it all you always lose. She rewrote that article. One thing at a time.
I can tell you I was on one of the biggest steering committees in New England during the whole abortion debate. I testified to Congress two weeks before I delivered a child. I can tell you that not one single person that I knew ever conceived of any such thing as abortion on demand right up till the delivery date and abortions without parental – or even DSS – notification for 12 year olds. For myself, I don’t believe in abortion. I’ve had to consider it once, but my moral code and my God tell me that it is wrong for me. That doesn’t mean that my standard should be yours.
Yesterday I read an “obituary” of Terri that CBS had accidentally posted before she died. It was the most mean spirited and demeaning thing I have ever read written about an innocent human being. Just a few minutes ago I found a better one –
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152041,00.html
I know its Fox, but they do sometimes try to get it right. I think this time they did. The piece is a beautiful tribute to someone who must have been a wonderful human being that I would have loved to know.
Its full of memories of childhood parties, her excitement over her first date and first kidd, little things in her life. Probably as close as anyone can get to ever truly understanding what Terri might have wanted had she been able to speak for herself. This part in particular makes me think that this would not be her choice:
Perhaps you disagree. This is America. I might not agree with you, but I’ll listen to why you disagree and literally die if I must for your right to disagree with me. In my family we’ve been doing that here for nearly 400 years.
There must NEVER be another Terri – no matter what it takes. I know that all but the most radical of us on my side of the question support even in our own families the right to make hard choices when truly needed to end a life. None of us would ever insist that someone in agony, waiting to die withoout hope or even hope of hope, should be kept endlessly alive. We also will not accept a society that allows the starvation death of a human being under nearly any circumstances.
To us, it is one small, tiny step from Terri to granny in the nursing home that is kind of helpless but hardly dying, just on a feeding tube exactly like Terri’s. Some nursing homes these days are actually using these to save on personnel costs – quicker than hand-feeding. I can assure you – and you are up against a whole lot of folks that make up a huge chunk of the electorate that actually votes – if we have to turn the legal system on its head to prevent it, no judge is ever again put out a death order like this.
Nearly all of us except those few vocal radicals that have entered this are willing to talk, to work together to find a solution that everyone can live with. Without making it simultaneously an abortion issue.
What we will not do is just go away saying “the court decided, the law was upheld.” Some things are not for the courts to decide. This is one of them.
Brad, you’re a rascal.
When all is said and done, I do feel for Mary Schindler. She really believed what she said about Terri, and I’m sure she’s heartbroken. In fact I feel for all these people, whose private grief has been so public, and who were used by so many for their own purposes. Michael, his new lady, their children, Terri’s parents and sibs, and all her friends.
You know, much is made of how Michael became an “adulterer”, but I can only say that if something like that had happened to me in my 20’s, I could only be glad if my young husband had succeeded in at least trying to rebuild his life under these difficult circumstances. I certainly don’t get any pleasure out of the idea of him putting his own life, and his desire for a family, on hold all those years.
So maybe it’s time for healing, hopefully out of the spotlight. The mob will move on – the mob always does. A month from now some new “outrage”, real or fancied, will be the talk of the town, and no one will remember this one. At least that is my hope.
In regard to the current discussion I do have to say that the “will of the people,” a.k.a., democracy, is no longer a part of our society. And most attorneys are to blame (sorry Susan)! Talk about people who think they know everything and look no further than the courthouse steps.
In California we have passed propositions against: (1) providing social services for illegal immigrants and (2) gay marriage (and if a gay marriage amendment can pass in one of the most liberal states then what does that say?), among other propositions, only to have them struck down as unconstitutional.
If it is voted in by the people then that is democracy and no where in the constitution (and those that want to argue that our founding fathers were considering gay marriage in the constitution when they were passing laws against sodomy or oral sex, even for heterosexuals, are just not thinking straight) does it guarantee benefits for illegal immigrants or gay marriages. And these same people are trying to ignore the second amendment!
But that Christian history and American legal writings are ALL – until the 1970’s based on the idea of wife as chattel – property. A concept that we have rightly done away with. Even the guardianship laws are based on that concept.
That viewpoint has always been contradictory to that of many of our Native Americans, where the wife holds the property, the house and the children as part of her clan and family.
And is that view appropriate in a day and age when more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce, most within 5 years?
I know one thing. Terri and Michael had been married just about 5 years. She was very close to her family. The LAST thing I think she would have wanted is this horrible animosity over her between her husband and her birth family.
Well, Gino, this isn’t the forum for a civics course, so I won’t attempt one. Suffice it to say that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and that other laws which conflict with it cannot be enforced. It was never intended by the Founders that this be an unfettered “democracy.” But if you didn’t learn this stuff in school, it’s probably too late to teach it to you now.
Hey, load up that gun! I’m an NRA member myself, just to show that people aren’t always so easy to categorize. (grin)
Well, I would say it is in our best interest that even a proposition voted on by a majority, needs to pass the test of being Constitutional.
Now, whether you take the approach of a strict Constitutionalist ( it says what it says, no more, no less) or the approach that it is a living, breathing document ( interpreting what the founding fathers would say to modern situations), well….that is a WHOLE other blog !! LOL
But, a blog i would LOVE to see !
And THEIR latest absolutely looney-tunes idea is apparently to send teachers to school armed the guns. Search google for NRA
Wow, I would too, Brad!
But only for people who passed high school civics in the first place!
My favorite is Thomas Jefferson. A Strict Constitutionalist of the strongest. But then, as President, he had the opportunity to make the Louisiana Purchase, thus making this nation a continent. NO WHERE in the Constitution did it say that the federal government had this power!
Fortunately, his principles weren’t as strong as his common sense.
Judge Greer was elected. And in fact re-elected in the midst of this controversy. His opponent made a very big deal about it and lost anyway.
Oh, well, you’ve convinced me! I see the error of my ways now. Next time there’s a case like Terri’s I’ll go all out for plugging in a tube and keeping it in regardless. In the meanwhile I’ll clamour for more executions (preferably without any more tedious appeals or the expense of lethal injections). Once we’ve got that out of the way we can start looking around for activist judges – who mostly started out as lawyers – but it will take a while to get round to all the lawyers. Come to think of it aren’t all judges inherently activist?
I am so done with this comparison, particularly since no one seems to be asking the inverse of either Bush. The overwhelming majority of death row inmates are conscious, completely capable of feeling pain, fear, and misery, and unquestionably interested in staying alive. Terri not so much. Plus, we didn’t kill Terri. Terri’s bulimia-induced heart-attack killed her. Then Terri’s advance directive to end life support caused her caretakers to allow her heart to stop permanently.
…This is like asking a pro-choice anti-war activist why he cares so much about Iraqi babies when he can’t even be bothered to harass a rape victim who wants EC.
It’s a lousy comparison. A bad analogy. There are good reasons to differentiate between the two situations. Repeating it won’t change that.
A judge CANNOT make law ! The term activist judge refers to judges who make rulings based on what they feel the law SHOULD be.
Why ever would you do that? And I haven’t heard all but the most radical of the radical suggest you MUST plug in a feeding tube. Just that once you have done, you cannot remove it to starve someone to death.
If you look at the Quinlan case – the basis that gives any of us the right to not do just exactly as you suggest – she was in a long term coma on a ventilator. The parents wanted to unplug the vent. All the way to the Supreme Court later, they got to do so. However, they did NOT get to deny her food and water. Since she was in a coma, she would not have been able to be fed in any way except through a tube. Lived 9 more years. Died still in the coma.
Had the Supreme Court had any intention of allowing her to be removed from food and water and actively killed, they surely could have allowed that. But they did not. Probably because back in those old days it was rightly defined as a basic human right rather than “medical treatment.”
Susan…VERY interesting ! I had never considered the Constitutionality of the purchase.
I am argueing with myself, trying to justify it, and so far I can’t !
I may have to ask a friend of mine who is somewhat of a Constitutional geek.
Oh OK Brad – we’ll excuse the judges who make rulings based on what WE feel the law should be (even if it isn’t).
A couple tangential things in response to commentary:
Brad – with regards to MA trying to legislate against judges CORRECTLY interpreting laws, lets hope they fail miserably. My husband and I have gay married relatives in MA (his mother and her spouse).
Robin – you state that life is viable at 20 weeks gestation, but as a pregnant woman whom just went through another pregnancy less than two years ago, I can tell you that every bit of research I’ve found on the internet as well as every GYN specialist/doctor I have spoken to (last pregnancy had 3), real viability, or the time my husband and I put it that we could ‘exhale’ is 26 weeks. I’d hate for people to walk away with information that was incorrect inadvertantly, that they would attempt to use as ammunition in the ‘other’ pro-no-choice/pro-choice battle.
And lastly, Gino, you speak about ‘neo-libs’ and their desire to abolish the death penalty to a persons right to make life-ending decisions. Most liberals I know haven’t been screaming to pull the plug on Terri for ANY reason, other than it has been established that this was HER CHOICE. The logic is consistent with liberal positions. I also heard this last night on the news. One of her state issued guardians post Schiavo (I’ll try to peek about later for the fellow’s name) gave some information I hadn’t heard until just then. He spoke of the evidence used to establish Terri’s wishes. Apparently on two seperate occassions she went through end of life periods with relatives (on Michaels side I believe) that were intubated in various ways to sustain life. In both cases she vehemently stated she would never want to live that way. It was this vehemence that resonated with Michael when it became evident that the state she was existing in would not be getting any better, and at best would remain status quo (that doesn’t consider the potential amputations she likely would have had to have faced later in life). Anyways, the courts found that and other evidence compelling enough to make the decision that this would have been her choice. You do liberals a great disservice when comparing their beliefs to murderers instead of the reality, which is personal choice activists.
Across….I’m not sure what you are referring to. My intent was to say, I thought obviously, that judges are SUPPOSED to rule on what the law actually is. Did I imply they should rule based on what I think it should be?
Kim…I was not giving my opinion on the gay marriage issue, as this is not a gay marriage blog. I was only pointing out that there is recourse against judges.
One, these powers are reserved to the states, and it is fundamental in federalism that the central government has only limited power to intervene. This is why the states are called the “crucibles of democracy”.
Two, we do not have a democracy. We have and have always had a republic, however democratic it might be.
Brad my love,
Trust me. The Louisiana Purchase wasn’t Constitutional.
I could tell you that I’m a “history professional” but the fact of the matter is that I hold a Master’s Degree in American History from UC Berkeley. I’ve never “practiced.” (How do you practice history? Make some maybe?)
Jefferson is a fascinating character, by the way, full of interesting contradictions.
(Well, unless you’re a loose constructionist. Very loose. Any looser and you’d fall over sideways.)
Jan, please don’t bother us with the facts or the law. We’ve agreed by the Shouting Vote to disregard both on this thread, long ago. (grin)
Brad – no, you did not imply that judges should do anything then rule according to the law as it is.
The definition you offered of “activist” judge is clear and sensible. And, using your definition, I would not wish to see activist judges.
I had formed the view that the term “activist judge” was most often used to mean a judge who ruled in a manner contrary to the speaker’s opinion.
My 317 was meant as an ironic extension to my 312, which itself was intended ironically.
Susan…You’re making me blush !
I tend to consider myself strict, but thinking about the purchase is of course giving me fits now. Not to mention, Jefferson is one of my heroes.
Folks interested in why the Founding Fathers insisted upon a republic might want to check out that link. It is clear the Founders distrusted pure democracy a good deal.
Sorry if I misunderstood Across….Sometimes irony doesn’t easily come across in electronic form ! LOL
Acrossthepond is showing its usual analysis skills and incisive prose. This is exactly what it means. Thank you. If the 11th Circuit had intervened and ordered Terri’s feeding tube re-attached they would not have been “activist judges” according to those who favored this outcome, even though such a ruling would have flung every principle in the common law down on the ground and stomped on it.
Just as the categories “loose constructionist” and “strict constructionist” slip around according to the speaker’s preferences as to the outcome.
Susan – one way to practice history could be to re-write it until it suited your argument? As they say “practice makes perfect”.
Not that I am suggesting you’ve done that; but it’s rather like the way some of the demagogues of been dealing with the history of this case.
Brad, Jefferson is one of my heroes too!
However, consistency is not one of his most outstanding virtues.
I would say that the true definition ( although I suppose I am biased) is as I discribed above, but that people on either side of an issue will then twist it to their benefit. But, if you look at it right now, not in the context of a particular issue….I think my definition is accurate.
Well…I am off until the morning, Have a good night all….
Acrossthepond,
I don’t know what your academic background is, but your post suggests some of the most interesting issues in the study and writing of history: the extent to which our view of the present colors our view of the past, and more, our analysis of the events of the past. Not to mention the conscious re-writing of history as propaganda, which goes back at least as far as Caesar’s “account” of his wars in Gaul.
Historians strive – well, historians of good conscience strive – to avoid these biases, but it’s more difficult than you might think.
…Which, IIRC, was actually ghost-written.
piny, whatever are you talking about?
Question from a feminist:
If Michael Schiavo were in a PVS and his wife was perfectly healthy…who would be his legal guardian?
By Florida law, his wife, Snyder. Not his mother. Bet on it.
“Caesar’s” account of the Gallic wars. My Latin professor told me that it was ghost-written. I have no idea how anyone would know.
Never mind me.
I believe I am right to say there are plenty of examples of re-written history in Ancient Egypt. (names of Pharoahs chiselled off their tombs?)
I’m not sure that even Caesar thought he was writing history – I seem to recall them often referred to as Commentaries. I suspect piny is referring to some of the later books, usually attributed to Hirtius.
And, for what it’s worth, I was a mathematician; at least that’s a subject where once something is proved it stays proved.
But I fear we digress ..
Sorry, Susan, it’s a habit, perhaps judged bad. (;-)} The facts are, anyway. The law is simply fun. Reminds me a lot of using hermeneutics and Talmud to interpret Torah. Bet that’s no accident, not if it’s considered that a judiciary is the only form of government specifically sanctioned by Torah, something I wish some of these so-called religious folk would remember. (:-)}
Anyone read the last opinion in the Schiavo case where the question of “activist judge” was addressed? I’ll quote it below. Although they did not weigh in directly, the judicial dance says that because the Supreme Court let the 11th Circuit opinion stand without comment, they agree with it. This was the opinion of Judge Birch, specially concurring with the majority. Note I repeat, the Supreme Court did not feel any need to qualify this recorded opinion.
Please read the original for the full text, without elisions and including legal citations.
I suggest that if Congress, as empowered as it is in Article I, cannot dictate how the courts function, the mob outside the Pinellas County hospice has less standing, even if — or according to the Constitution especially if — some of them helped elect some of Congress.
C. Snyder, what rock have you been living under for the last generation?
Is the Pope a Catholic? Are spouses treated absolutely equally by law in all States of these United States? What century are we living in?
Three guesses. The first two don’t count.
Nice quote, Jan. Thanks! All the judges involved in this matter have been writing very well, and this is a gem even in that company!
One comment. We race horse fans and pundits out here read a denial of certiorari as approval of the lower court decision, but legally that’s not absolutely correct. A denial of cert is just that – a denial of cert. They choose not to comment. Refusal of cert cannot be cited to prove anything in particular.
I would highly recommend a careful reading of this quote to those of you who rant and rave about how “We the People” should decide everything in every detail (meaning, everyone has to agree with me), those who are all upset about “democracy” (same hidden meaning), those who think the President or the Congress should have barged into this matter, and everyone in general who flunked high school civics.
Thanks for the clarification on denial of cert, Susan. But I can’t really blame them. I mean, after all, how could the high Court possibly get it done within any kind of timeframe, not without severing the constitutionality of the Act from the request to overturn.
Thank you Susan. Just wanted to be clear on that before I denounced the assertion that feminists should have their undies in a bunch.
But Robin, don’t you see…you’re fighting against her. Not FOR her. It’s awfully presumptious to tell us that YOU know better than her husband what she might want. THIS is what upsets and scares me…this faction of people who could just as easily purport to know what I would want done. We can argue it til we’re blue in the face–a large number of us would want the tube pulled, and our spouse would know it even if we didn’t have a living will. You may not consider it “life support” but it IS medical intervention & we all should have the right to refuse medical intervention…should we not?
Hey, C. Snyder, I’m good. I entered law school when everyone assured me that I could never work in the field because “no client will accept a woman as an attorney.” (Who knew, then, that most of the people in corporate lower management, who hire me, would be women??) So I went forward anyway, screw the lot of you, finished #5 of 500 in my class (so much for male superiority) and got a job at a big firm anyhow, so screw you guys.
It was rough in those years. Male lawyers referred to me as a “girl lawyer.” My supervisor hit on me. My male clients hit on me. On and on. Who cares any more.
Now those days seem a couple of centuries away. No one now can remember that mindset even.
Feminists? Are they under 60? Send these girls a Hello Kitty doll and tell them to email me.
So maybe, Susan, taking off from your comment on feminists, that’s the thing with the Schiavo case and the much media mentioned “culture wars”. Maybe the self-proclaimed Christian Right is trying to nullify the effects of the late 1960s and early 1970s and get their own way. They seem to have failed to notice that “the enemy” is no longer there, having grown up, and leaving this storyline for the media market, with its plenitude of journalists chasing too few facts.
Great and funny post, BTW.
Gosh, I hope so. I hope we succeed in defending this right against the “religious” totalitarians of this world, who think they know better than we do in our own case.
Yeah, well, the logical outcome of embracing these “religious totalitarians” values is to prohibit respect of advanced instructions, even when carefully documented. I mean, if you buy their viewpoint, complying with someone’s advanced instructions is being complicit in suicide which, as the eminent Antonin Scalia wrote in Cruzan, is something which justifies state intervention.
“Denouncing?” What is it with these anti-/equity-feminists? It’s a blog, not the doors of the Wittenberg church.
The question I’ve heard from feminists is not whether Terri Schiavo–or any woman whose husband was in PVS–would have the same legal standing as Michael does. The question is whether there would be the same years-long legal battle over the justice of not keeping that husband on life support and/or respecting his stated wishes. In other words, would sexism in our culture allow us to see this man’s life as more effectively over? Would we be more likely to see his condition–incapacitated, dependent–as grotesque or undigified? Would we be more likely to respect his demands? Would we be less likely to think of him as his parents’ child?
Given Sun Hudson’s end, we have pretty good proof that racial and class bias most certainly informs public response to these cases. Why not gender bias?
Jan, you’re on the right track, in my opinion!
The thing about the media….they’ve promised to talk, 24/7. Whether they have anything to say or not. So, when real news flags, they have to make up stuff. Nothing sells like controversy, so they emphasize controversy, foment controversy, and where necessary, invent some.
And of course the “Christian” right, like everyone else, wants to have their way. That doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is the Absolute Allegedly Divine Condemnation of everyone who disagrees with them. This impulse is profoundly anti-democratic (“it doesn’t matter what the law says, My Way is Absolutely Right”) and thus dangerous.
We made it through this one, thank God, and thanks to judges like the ones you quoted. So far, anyway. I hope we continue to squeek by!
piny,
Well, given hardheaded parents like these, without a doubt the thing would play out exactly as it did. I think.
I didn’t know Sam Hudson’s race. Still don’t, actually. This didn’t become a big deal because 99.99% of such cases do not become big deals. Terri’s case became a big deal because Terri’s parents posted a very well-crafted and very emotional and very misleading website, and mostly because certain religious movements took Terri’s case under their wing, sent lots of money, and because it was a slow news month.
I truly do not think gender plays into this. Race, maybe, I’ll concede that one. Pretty white girls always get more attention, as in the case of Laci Peterson. (Is this the only young pregnant wife murdered by her husband? We wish.)
piny, everyone. Send the young feminists to me. I have a few Hello Kitty dolls in my closet.
piny-sorry if my choice of word offended you, it was intended to be tongue- in- cheek (as we all tend to get a bit self-righteous when debating heated issues). i asked here because i knew there were a lot of educated and informed people here, but the statement i was addressing was elsewhere. the presumption was that i could not be a feminist & be okay with the way this case turned out because…”schiavo was being treated like a piece of property” in regards to him being her legal guardian. this is what i felt was not an issue to get one’s undies in a bunch over, as she would be his guardian were the roles reversed.
on the other hand, i think the questions you have raised are quite valid.
also-i’m not sure what an anti-/equity feminist is, so if you’re bestowing that label on me, could you please educate me?
Yeah, that’s a big shame of it. IMO, the Schindlers sold their souls to Mephistopheles and, in turn, got a huge amount of due process by buying it. What’s the hope for someone who draws the bad luck of, say, a bad circumstance or bad attorney but can’t afford the appeals? How is that equitable?
I hope someday, not today, a talented comic will be able to cast this as a sketch fighting off intrusive in-laws.
Jan,
This is what scares me about this whole business. That these nut cases will succeed in imposing their views on the rest of us.
And I’m a Roman Catholic even.
Yeah, and that’s a side that hasn’t been touched in the coverage I’ve read. In one sense, this can properly be painted as a fight between two factions of Catholicism, the Opus Dei folks on one side and the Jesuits on the other. It’s not only limited to them, but they are the prototypes. It’s basiclly the Vatican II sympathizers with the reactionaries against it. And with John Paul II fading, I worry about some of the Italian vultures in cardinal frocks circling him.
In fact, it hasn’t even portrayed the Catholic viewpoint fairly. That viewpoint has it’s own consistency, being offended by any state taking of life, including the death penalty. Like to hear George W come out in favor of that one? And, incidently, has the zealously Catholic Jeb Bush ever authorized a State of Florida execution? (I have no idea, actually, and could be completely wrong about him. Maybe he is consistent.)
Only thing with the Catholic viewpoint I think is inconsistent is their stand on birth control and abortion. I mean, birth control prevents abortions, which is some kind of ultimate evil being compared to the Shoah. Now, I dig their reasoning, that “It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature”, but, then, that’s an Orthodox Jewish position, too, who also oppose abortion. However, the interpretation of Talmud is that before 30 days there is no life, as the product of fertlization is “merely fluid”. Hence, birth control is allowed.
The Talmudic position also clearly distinguishes between human life postpartum and, say, a naturally aborted fetus, at least in its rulings on how mourning and burial should be conducted.
Anyway, it’s a mess, and this phenom of the past couple of weeks really makes me wonder if the media serves the citizenry. Heck, even Voice of America was selectively reporting at one point, arguing the Schindlers side.
Why, might you say, do I care? Because as a minority religion, you learn to pay a lot of attention to the majority religion in the country where you live. I believe that enough to have argued that our synagogue should give our kids brief classes in Christianity so they know what’s going on. My older son came home from seeing a school play one time all upset because of the treatment it gave to Jews. I needed to explain, and could, but that’s a for instance.
You don’t know much at all about Sun Hudson, because his face hasn’t been plastered all over the news; that was sort of my point. And, well, yeah: no religious group took Sun or his mom under their wing. That isn’t a matter of random chance. The evangelicals didn’t care because they’re poor black people who wouldn’t be as sympathetic, and because their plight is a direct result of hard-line conservative callousness towards the “undeserving poor.”
I know that this kind of decision is routine, but Sun Hudson’s circumstances should have given his case some notoriety. He died just a few weeks ago, right when the shit-storm about Terri was hitting its peak, right before her feeding tube was disconnected. Public concern over life support and terminal cases was at its peak.
It wasn’t just timing, either. He was terminal, but definitely not a vegetable: he was conscious and responsive. His mom wanted him kept on life support, and there were no objections from any other family members. He was taken off of life support against her wishes. And he was taken off of life support because then-governor George W. Bush made it legal in 1999 for Texas hospitals to take terminal patients off of life support if they can’t pay their bills, regardless of what they or their families want. Oh, and remember who else hails from Texas, and still holds office there?
And to be more specific, I suppose I’m not referring to the number of appeals Terri Schiavo’s parents exhausted. I’m wondering how we in general would feel about a man in the same state. I’m not saying it would necessarily play out differently, but I don’t understand why it’s such a ridiculous question to consider, or why you have so little respect for people who ask it.
In my opinion, this case would have been a far more appropriate target for all this psycho-religious hysteria than the case of Terri Schiavo.
This puts the Righteousness of many in rather a poor light, in my opinion.
That’s the kind of shame I was talking about. I suppose if someone has an advanced directive that says they want all possible measures for 700 days, they’re indigent, and that exceeds some administrator’s notion of too much good social will, the law overrides that, too.
Sounds like Calvinism to me. But even Calvinism has probably changed over the past couple of hundred years.
piny,
I really truly think this is a non-question. I’ve been the “victim” of sexism, and I still think it’s a non-issue in this year of 2005. To me it’s like asking if her eyes were a different color, would it have come out differently.
This case was driven by a lot of forces. But I really truly believe sexism is a non-starter.
It may be cynicism but, as a professional investor, I see a lot of cause. It’s entirely possible that W and the Republican leadership pulled during-Spring-break gimmick with Schiavo off as a diversion, to distract the public and especially the media from the huge mess that the federal budget is in, and the implications of that for economic circumstances. I don’t just mean not balanced. I mean fundamental disagreements within the Republicans about what should be spent where and how much. (Who else is there to disagree with?) W’s administration doesn’t like their budget, and they surely don’t like his, saddling as it does his successor with a budget deficit balloon. That’s good, if you think like a party hack, assuming the Democrats win in 2008. But it’s bad if you think it’s gonna be a Republican there.
So far as I know, yes. Money is the important thing.
Tom Delay, oh the demon that is Tom Delay. I live in Quebec now, but am from Texas and flew back in Nov 2004 just to vote against Delay and Bushy Boy (yes I’ve heard of absentee voting for expats, but nothing beats doing it in your home district). Texas is a strange place folks! If someone was actually ever serious about starting a “culture of life” that would be the best place to start.
Where did Robin go? And how did you guys let this one pass by:
I always knew most of the right-to-life crowd were gay and now that Robin has reaffirmed it…
Whether or not you attach any importance to views that are founded in Christian belief, you might find this
Joint Submission from the Church of England House of Bishops and the Roman Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales of interest.
For a little context:
A Bill has been put forward on Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill , which, if it were enacted, would change British law.
I believe there is little prospect of it being enacted (soon, anyway), not least for technical and procedural reasons and our apparently looming election.
The linked document is from Anglican and Catholic Bishops and puts forward their reasons for opposing it. Perhaps the most interesting parts in the current context are those in which the Bishops set forth their views of fundamental principles.
Commentary:
Perhaps unsurprisingly the Bishops stress the “sanctity of life” principle, even if they do not use the phrase. They also recognise the “self determination” principle (they also use the word “autonomy”) but do not regard it as absolute.
Assisted Dying of course is not exactly the same (in my view) as refusing medical treatment, nor is terminally ill exactly the same (again, my view) as PVS.
Even so the core issue seems to me to be the same: in deciding what the laws should be, the debate centres on the balance to be struck between these two “fundamental” principles.
As it happens, my own views on that balance are virtually identical as the Bishops’ in the context of Assisted Dying or euthanasia – which I oppose even if I start with different assumptions.
Be that as it may, I think it is interesting.
Pinky, I wanted to say that in your post #192 you brought up some interesting points on Euthanasia. Prior to reading your post I was leaning strongly in favor of Euthanasia. However when you pointed out our society’s different reactions to young vs. old suicides I had to sit back and reconsider. I am not Christian; therefore I do not think suicide is a sin. But I do think it is a waste. I guess you’ve made me think harder about the consequences of legalizing Euthanasia. Would we be placing more value on the young and healthy(frequently richer) and further dehumanize the sick/disabled/old/infirm? Wow you made my head hurt! Thanks! I have not yet come to a conclusion, but it is good to feel my outlook stretched!
jan,
Well, yes, of course. Surely no one imagines that these people care a hoot for Sun Hudson, Terri Schiavo, much less any member of either family? You are joking maybe?
You truly think sexism is a “non-issue” today? Or just a non-issue with regard to the Schaivo case?
Susan,
No, I’m not joking. I make the assertion because of the gravity with which the public is approaching the outrageous efforts applied in the Schiavo case, irrespective of their personal views. The Sun Hudson case is more serious.
I felt the need to point what I wrote out. Of course, I also waffled and said it might be cynical.
What are jokes are the politicians.
The other cynical aspect to all this is that now the Republican leadership can turn to the Christian Right and say, “See, we paid you back” and then go on to ignore them.
Jan, how right you are!!
The cynical jerks. Like they care at all.
C. Snyder wrote
Just finished dinner and a trip around the world reading what is being said. No, C. I am not fighting against her at all. One of the things my Grandma always used to tell me was “Actions speak louder than words.”
Whatever you think the right decision was, this was Mary Schindler’s precious baby girl, the child she gave birth to and raised and adored. She was not even allowed into the hospital this morning.
Felos cryed crocodile tears on my evening news that the Priest who was with the Schindler’s complained that they were not allowed to be with her in the end. “This should be a time for reconciliation. It sounded to me almost as if he expected a Thank You.
The Michael’s brother has announced that the funeral will be held at an unknown time and place specifically so that the Schindler’s can’t attend.
Michael says that he has only Terry’s interests at heart, that he only wanted her to pass peacefully. But, I sure wouldn’t want my family kept away, barred from my funeral, not allowed to be with me when I die.
I have a very hard time accepting that this would be how Terry would want her family treated. Maybe he does only have Terry’s interest at heart and just has had years of abominable advice from Attorney Felos, who at best seems to be out of touch with the feelings of the average Joe at the death of a loved one.
But, actions speak louder than words – and these don’t look like the actions of someone who is carrying out Terri’s wishes.
We can only hope :).
Amp, kind sir,
Save for intriguing and legitimate controversy regarding TS’ autopsy, I believe I’ll not visit for a while. I just wanted to shout at you:
THANKS FOR YOUR HOSPITALITY, AND GOD BLESS!!
Alan ;)
Piny wrote:
I don’t think that is a ridiculous question to ask in the least. I strongly suspect that were it a woman instead of Michael in *identical* (yes, I mean all of it) circumstances, that she would have been crucified as a heartless harlot of a gold-digger. Women’s rights and all the lipservice we pay them, we’ve really gained only the right to work and still keep the house, care for the kids, get the meals and iron the shirts for the most part. Invariably an action that would be perfectly acceptable in a man is quite off the wall from a woman.
I also strongly suspect that the outcome would have been very different if not for Mr. Felos. The things he says in some of his announcements just seem a highly unusual view of death.
The Sun case is tragic. Unfortunately I think the whole thing was over before anyone could hear enough about it to take any action. People are not heartless. Medicine is sometimes though, particularly when the parents are viewed as underclass. God syndrome on the part of the docs, no true medical explanation of the child’s condition, counseling, etc.
I worry right along with you about that 10 day law – 10 days on a vent is not unusual. I was on longer than that in a coma. Lots of patients are. Does this apply to everyone, or just people with no money? And what about people on Medicaid?
I’m not sure I’m ready to throw all the blame at Bush – surely the state legislature holds a good chunk. We’ve had a problem in this country in medicine for a long time though where the big special interests – right to die, hospice, pharmaceuticals, nursing homes, insurance companies – are a big lobby. Nobody has been talking for Joe Average for a long time. Not since the Hilary-medical reform fiasco. A governor is only as good as the people behind him. I can easily envision a scenario where the impression given in trying to get the bill past the governor’s desk was very different that the results in practice.
Jan wrote:
Better go take a look at what the Christian Right is saying. Brothers Bush have spent every single penny of political capital that they have with these folks by acting while not really acting at all. Lost lots of other folks too.
Actually, I think this is a career destroyer for Jeb. And George might find himself having more trouble than he thought getting action on anything. He’s got both sides really PO’d with this. If he was gonna sign the bill, he should have gone riding down with the US Marshalls, took custody (like the police are going to stop him) and just said no. At least then he would have had only half the country mad.
That is truly unfortunate. About the one good thing that I can say about our local schools is that they do a decent job of explaining all of the various winter holidays in a reasonable way that is sensitive to all the children. Don’t ask me about the rest – you do NOT want to get me started on just exactly how much nothing you can buy for nearly $11,000 (no that is not a typo) per child per school year. 45 minutes per day in elementary of history, science, social sctudies, geography combined They no longer teach spelling at all and the children start using a calculator for their math in grade 2. We took my grandchild out midwinter and homeschool her.
pseu,
You truly think sexism is a “non-issue”? today? Or just a non-issue with regard to the Schaivo case
Well, I think it’s a non-issue in the Schiavo case.
As to the rest of the world, it’s a non-issue in the world I live in. Really. But that doesn’t mean it’s not an issue elsewhere; quite the contrary.
And if he had, more than Clinton, far more than even Richard Nixon, there would have been grounds for impeachment if he had. Clinton dallied around using and being used by a woman. Richard Nixon tried to sway an election and used his office to dodge charges when he got caught. If, hypothetically, W did this, he would have been in clear clear violation of Article III.
This was not a problem with the public schools, nor should they teach anything about Christianity, in my opinion. As I said, it was a for instance. The case in question was my son’s first serious introduction to the “Jews as Christ killers” theme of the Gospels, although here presented in the form of a play.
It is the responsibility of our community to teach about Christianity. We do not do it out of love for Christianity but out of caution and, frankly, fear. This Schiavo and Christian Right stuff has a lot of Jews worried, and rightly so, despite their supposed support for Israel. A mob that can influence a Congress, a President, or hypothetically a judiciary can also make Christian values the law of the land. And despite what you might think they are far from Biblical values, at least according to the Hebrew text and our traditions (Talmud).
Our public school has done quite fine by us, and I abhor the concept of home schooling. Sure, they don’t teach enough and the standards have slipped, not the least because of their fear that they will be penalized if their students don’t do well. (Two years ago an insufficient number of NY State students passed the Regents maths. What did they do? They loosened the criteria by throwing out test questions the greatest number of students had difficulty with, after the fact.) That meant my ex-wife and I had to supplement my kids education with stuff of our own, especially teaching them to teach themselves. They are fine.
My older is in his first year at Harvard and doing exceedingly well. My younger is academically fabulous. Both are also great athletes and great people. And they are also excellent students of Hebrew and Torah. Pardon my pride.
Y’know, where the heck is Mel Brooks when you need him, eh? I can just imagine all this done to a Mel Brooks plot line. I mean, if he can satirize the Crucifixion and the Inquisition, why not?
As far as the situation involving Mrs. Schiavo, it is reached final game, meaning regardless of what we post concerning her situation, and it was her situation…not the husband’s…not the family’s….her’s and her’s alone. All they did was play a small part to a grander scene.
In truth, I hope this situation brings to light something no one really likes to think about. There was a lot of speculation from everyone concerning her wishes…but that’s all it was: speculation.
I had a brief argument with my wife, spurred by a comment I made to her concerning situations similar to this. We are the only species of animal on the face of the earth that extends life beyond the ability of being self sufficient. We actually have companies for the sole purpose of housing and maintaining quality of life for those either too old to tend for themselves, or suffering from either a natural or un-natural defects, rendering them unable to care for themselves.
Disregarding our political, religious, and medical views, this actually goes against the core laws of nature: survival of the fittest. Of course I expect to get a serious barrage of negative feedback, but look around you. Nothing in our lives is natural. We force our surrounding habitat to change for our comfort, we destroy natural flora and fauna to raise forests of concrete and steel.
Every other species adapts to the environment. In the species that run in packs, herds or flocks, the strength of the group is measured by it’s weakest member. The sick and lame are left behind for the survival of the pack.
I know you are going to say “Teri was no animal”, but I beg to differ. Regardless of what anyone says, pro-life or not, we are still animals. We live, breath, eat and die. These are natural actions, not learned or taught. Any one person that says they would never resort to instinct to survive would be lying, and anyone that says they would rather die than to suffer is telling the truth.
We build our world, always considering ourselves immortal, not realizing the only real legacy we leave behind are the concrete and steel forest. Our families may live on, but 5 or 6 generations from now all we will be is a footnote on the family tree.
Never suggest an artificially prolonged life is a good quality of living. It’s a miserable way to live. I see my grandmother make that struggle for self sufficiency every day, and she’s in her 80’s. As harsh as it may sound, I hope nature wins in the end with quickness, instead of subjecting her to more humiliation by having even the simplest of tasks performed for her.
Hello,
Just a short note form Holland.
Here euthanesia is legal. That was heavily critized by foreign countries, like the USA
(btw how many innocent die per minute over there by gunshots?)
But that’s another topic…
What I personally find a very sad thought is the way that Terri died. Especially when compared to death-penalties. (which we do not have over here)
I find it so hard to see a woman starve to death, where a criminal gets a quick shot and dies a quick and easy death.
Especially when she said she didn’t want to live this way.
I really hope she found her rest.
Rest in peace Terri.
(the reply above is my single opinion, obviously I can not speak for the whole of netherlands…)
I am absolutely convinced that the removal of Terri Schiavo’s gastrostomy was the correct decision. Condolences to her family at this very difficult time.
Robin….
Maybe she wouldn’t. However, as you can see from the quote, the world obviously revolves around the way YOU want to be treated.
Jan Theodore Galkowski Says:
Unfortunately some on the right are saying just exactly that. Note that I did not say “he should have done …..” but “if he was going to…he should have” As far as I am concerned, if he – and the Congress – were going to get involved then they should not have done so at the 11th hour. The folks who think they should have kept their noses to home are mad and so are the folks who think they should have done more. Lose-lose situation. I don’t think that any of them were ill-intentioned or “politicizing,” just too little, too late.
Do I think the Congress and the President should have something to say on this issue – you betcha! We have similar situations arise all the time. Most of the time the family – by which I mean the parents, husband, sibs, etc., seem to manage to come to some joint conclusion. Once in a while it ends up in court, and as we have seen that can go terribly, horrendously wrong.
That said, this is a battle that has gone on for years and been in the news periodically for years. One of the biggesst problems I think we have as a society is band-aid, patchwork “solutions” turned into “law.” This is a big issue for all of us, not new by a long shot and there has been plenty of time to put forth a well-thought out law that would addressed the issues adequately and reasonably satisfactorily to everyone.
I agree the public schools should not teach religion other than in the most superficial way. It is nearly impossible to teach about any of the societies we expect our children to learn about without mentioning religion, whether that is Roman mythology, or something more current. It is virtually impossible, for example, to provide an adequate understanding of both sides – NA and European – of American colonization without mentioning religion.
The whole “Jews as Christ Killers” theme makes me want to scream! If you read through the New Testament (ignore everything other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – all the rest is Paulian) it is abundantly clear that Christ was a Jew in opposition to Rome. Very unfortunate that your son first confronted this horrifying propaganda unexpectedly at a play.
I do not blame you in the least for your fear. My grandchild’s father and his family are Jewish, not particularly religious, and they simply see no need to teach – or even share – any part of their religion and culture with her. They see my daughter and I as “Christian” and thus feel no responsibility. Meanwhile, we are not particularly “Christian.” My family has been here a very long time so there is a bit of dozens of cultures/attitudes/religions/regions/politicals in our family history – including Judaism as a matter of fact, my Grandfather’s family. We try very hard to acknowledge and honor all the people that “came before” so simply ignoring the question is not something that we would consider. Thus, we are left to try to deal with her very valid questions – “Why doesn’t Daddy celebrate Christmas?” – from our own limited knowledge.
I think this whole Christian Right thing is frankly propaganda being perpetrated by some of our media. Unfortunately, there are radicals in every religion, including Christianity. It has seemed to me for a very long time that much attention is given to the really off-the-wall Christian radicals to paint the whole idea of having any religious values as just slightly to the side of bonkers. Just as all Muslims are not terrorists, all Christians are not radically right wing. What’s the old saw? Tell a lie long enough, often enough and loud enough and it becomes the truth.
Don’t let the reports that you are seeing in mainstream media fool you – many of the people who were very upset at what was done to Terri Schiavo in the name of her “wishes” are specifically not Christian or right-wing. Susan says that the legalities were followed. She’s the expert there, so I will accept her word.
From a medical point of view, what has been done in this case virtually from the get go is so far from the normal standard of care as to be abuse. There are huge numbers of people in the medical fields other than hospice care that are appalled. Were any of us to provide “care” in the manner that seems to be acceptable in Probate Court, we would lose our licenses. And of course the disabled – invariably very liberal, left wing – rightly very upset to see the life of one of their own ended in this way solely because of an ill-defined mental state and a feeding tube.
No pardon required. Wait till the grandbabies arrive – talk about pride! My children are older than yours – Smith, NAU, UNM. I’ve always lived in more rural areas than you do, though. I have not been happy with the publics for a very long time. Over the years I have had to teach spelling because the teacher couldn’t spell, algebra because the 7th grade algebra teacher had to copy the answers out of the answer key when illustrating on the board and have a war to get them into Latin as a first language rather than a year long hodgepodge of Spanish/French/German. Grandchild’s mom went to Smith at 16, so resources available to that kind of child just were never available.
Public schools have changed though since either yours or mine were in primary. Our biggest problem is that we are dealing with a very bright child that in grade 2 reads on a near adult level (she went into kindergarten reading) and sucks up mathematics like she does Cheerios. She just seems to have an instinct for math – invented division on her own one afternoon. We happened to be in Boston right on time to hear the Harvard President’s comments about women on the news. You would not believe the outrage – she is still mad as all get out.
I do not know if the schools here cannot deal with that or will not deal with that, but she became so bored that we were truly worried and felt it terribly unfair to subject her to another round of school after an already long day. Private schools that are set up to deal with that simply don’t exist in this area, so homeschooling was the only remaining choice. Those few early years when they are so excited about learning are too precious to lose, and I have both the experience and time. We haven’t heard “I’m bored!” once and she has done about two years worth of work since January, so it is working for us.
I contacted NOW and asked what their position was wrt to Schiavo. Here is their response:
Robin…
Robin, you can think they SHOULD have a say. But you need to understand that, the way the constitution is set up, they DON’T have a say. If you think they should, you need to push to ammend the Constitution.
Jan,
Well, congratulations on your fabulous kids! You’ve obviously done a great job. (So far. Game’s not over!)
Of course, everyone who passed high school civics (which, to view some of the posts here, must be a harder course than I thought) knows that the President does not have the power, under the Constitution, to ride down to Florida with armed force and abduct a private citizen against her will. (Talk about tyranny!)
Happily for the republic, almost everything in this very messy case was done correctly. The exceptions to that statement are easy to identify. Both the law passed by the Florida legislature (“Terri’s law”) and the law more recently passed by Congress were unconstitutional; however, the courts did their job, and declared that fact with dispatch. What involvement the President did engage in was improper, if not illegal. Fortunately it had no effect.
Also, the rules about when you must introduce evidence were bent way over for the Schindlers, who were allowed to come back again and again with ever nuttier theories. Usually litigants are not allowed to do that: you have one shot at saying your say, not an infinite number of chances to file new motions and new arguments. The court – that is, Judge Greer – showed commendable patience with these people. If you or I went into almost any court and behaved that way, they’d throw us out on our ear. There’s certainly an argument that Greer thus prolonged the agony, but he was trying to be fair. And he was probably moved by the obvious distress of the Schindlers, as who is not.
We did well, in difficult circumstances. The courts followed the law; Terri’s wishes were respected, just as though she had been a competent adult. She and her wishes were treated with respect in the face of pressure from any number of people, even people very close to her, who were anxious to treat her as an infant or as an object to be fought over without regard to her own desires.
I have to agree with martin that Terri’s death could have been cleaner. (Probably not less painful for her; she didn’t feel it, in all likelihood. But less painful for her family.) But martin, we’re not ready here – yet – for the level of honesty which prevails in the netherlands. My son-in-law grew up there, and he says, “You have to understand about the Dutch. They are willing to, even eager to, talk openly about things which everyone else does but doesn’t want to admit.” Perhaps – probably – this is a healthier approach, but we’re not quite there yet. Thanks for the input!
[Post that struck me as being a personal attack on another poster, deleted. –Amp]
Susan,
I agree that the law that Congress passed was unconstitutional.
But I am not aware of the law that the state passed. What was that law and why do you say it was unconstitutional?
I am not argueing the other side, I am just ignorant of the law you are referring to.
A couple of years ago – you can find the details on abstract appeal – the Florida legislature passed a law purporting to intervene in this case, ordering the re-attachment of Terri’s feeding tube. Which was done.
However Michael Schiavo filed suit alleging that this intervention of the legislature into one private case was in violation of both the Florida and the federal constitutions. This allegation was upheld through the various channels of trials and appeals, and the law was invalidated.
Thank you Susan.
As for high school civics, I have to say, I don’t think they explained the Constitution nearly enough. What it means, why it was written the way it was, who contributed, and in what way. What were the arguments and disagreements, and compromises that went into it.
I bought my dad a dvd called “The Founding Fathers” that delves into all of that, i need to borrow it back !
I’m figuring out why Jay is anxious, and now I am too.
It has become clear from the discussion on this blog that there are certain people whose real position – though they are understandably wary of being this honest – is that regardless of your personal beliefs, you should not be permitted to make the choice Terri made.
In other words, these people know very well what Terri wanted, but because that’s not what they think is right, they want to impose their very different views on her, and, by extension, on all of us. Because. Because they’re Right or they have a direct line to the Almighty or whatever.
So where does this kind of reasoning stop? It doesn’t. If your personal views about your personal death – which, after all, affect no one but you – are to be subject to the opinions of people like this, nothing’s off limits, it seems to me.
This isn’t Christian, not by any stretch of the imagination. Can anyone imagine Jesus of Nazareth as this kind of dictator? Whatever else you can say about him, it is clear that he treated everyone with respect, reserving his ire only for those who didn’t do so, who took advantage of the powerless.
Let’s hope the basic good health of the republic withstands the very dangerous mindset which came out of hiding in the Schiavo case.
If Terri was an atheist…would the last few weeks have been different?
I think the overwhelming poll data and the identity of the people on both sides shows that this is not just a right-left issue or even a evangelical Christian issue.
Judge Greer is a conservative Republican and an evangelical Christian.
What we really have is an opportunity for the, ahem, fact-based community, on both sides of the aisle, to come together and drive the nitwit fantasists out. Unofrtunately they have the limelight right now, but that light is showing some pretty spectacular warts. Any issue that can finally push Jesse Jackson out of the arms of his few remaining deluded supporters is maybe not so bad after all. Indeed, it’s probably inevitable that he would end up on TV weeping next to Randall Terry, who publicly calls for (and occasionally receives) abortion doctor murders. Jesse has always liked being in on the kill; remember how he got his start, pushing his way forward to make sure his picture was taken cradling the corpse of Martin Luther King, Jr., and then taking his bloody shirt on a publicity tour? They’re a match made in heaven.
I note also the astounding hypocrisy of the save-Terri brigade. Nearly all of them, when faced with an awful choice like this in their own lives, have chosen just as Mr. Schiavo did. The Franciscan Brothers of Peace, who have been by the Schindlers’ side in recent weeks, a few years ago decided to have the feeding tube removed from their own leader. Tom DeLay pulled the plug on his own brain-dead father. The “good doctor in the Senate” whm Robin thinks so highly of, Bill Frist, signed off on this action many, many times. Even Mr. Schindler previously pulled the plug on his own mother.
So: there are hypocrites, some motivated by unimaginable grief, and some motivated by who knows what; and then there are the cynical opportunists, like President Bush, who rushed home from his beloved ranch, a step he wouldn’t take for war or tsunamis, to sign that bill that he now wishes he’d never seen. I say get rid of the lot of them. I would even be willing to stomach voting for a Republican, maybe, if I could find one who wasn’t a total scumbag. I’m still looking.
Thank you very much, Susan. But it almost is, in the sense that once set off into college they are pretty much in command of what’s going to happen. The hardest part of my job as a parent over the past couple of years has been learning that they have excelled and have superb scholastic skills and self-discipline and it is clearly working, so I need to back off and not be so intrusive. I still try to talk to them every day, not to check up but just to be there. Of course that doesn’t work with my older son, since he has his own schedule and commitments and things. We generally only talk once a week. They come to me and their Mom for advice, but I constantly need to fight the urge to intervene more.
Amen, Susan. I think of Dobson and his ilk and some of his more extreme compatriots who talk of imposing the death penalty for adultery and that kind of thing. First of all, their interpretation of the Bible — even if one accepts the English translation as normative, which it isn’t — is way off. That’s scary and really irritating. Secondly, it’s the old “artistocrats of England who want to take power away from the king and people using religion” game again with them. Same game is played by the orthodox Jewish religious hierarchy in Israel, making stands which their supreme court eventually overrules, and the Knesset then tries to overturn.
Y’know, that could be it, too. The reason Israel ostensibly doesn’t have a constitution (they have a “Basic Law”) is because the religious claimed “Why do we need a constitution when we have the Torah?” Maybe Dobson and company want to make the Bible a big amendment to our Constitution or think it takes priority. Apart from the separation of church and state questions, and the important roles of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and others (just a few trivial things there), my question is which Bible? There are many, and they do not at all say the same thing. We also know the Bible no longer says the same thing it did at the time of the historical Jesus. (Why? Talmud quotes the Torah text frozen at that time in many of its judicial determinations as proof. In about 120 instances those quotations don’t agree with the best text we have now.)
Robin, that’s how law works. Even before Talmud, that’s how we got the seemingly endless rules in Leviticus.
Yeah, Robin, but it’s everywhere. My parents, for instance, still very much believe the Christ-killer thing and consider whatever John Paul II said on it to be merely political correctness.
Yeah, the boredom. We know that well. You know your schools better than I do, so I can only respect your decision. At least you are involved. Part of the problem with performance of kids and with schools is that a lot of parents aren’t.
Susan, yeah, this whole thing had to be an a huge job and I greatly respect him for it. Of course, never know what the future will bring, but Judge Greer will be remembered in history at least for this. A giveaway on the part of some of his critics is that they slam him without appreciating the least bit things like the rules of evidence you pointed out, and how the number of times the Schindlers corporation approached the bench without criticism from it.
Great apologies for the double posts. There seems to be a threshold at which WordPress just slows to a crawl and you can’t tell if something’s been submitted or not. I had a bunch of responses collected in a single post, then concluded it was too big for WordPress so I split it up. Alas, in the splitting I got some things in twice.
Sorry.
[Don’t sweat it, it’s no big deal. Double posts deleted. –Amp]
Senator Lautenberg has written a letter to Rep. Delay.
Via atrios.
The relevant current laws were indeed put together over an extended period. Clearly they are not satisfactory to everyone. Frankly I think that’s avain hope. In the long run the best you can do, I suspect, is have laws satisfactory to most – and, hopefully, respect for the laws from nearly everyone.
I hope you do not end up with bad laws as a result of this tragedy. I fear you might because there are so many ingredients already present that could lead to it.
There’s been plenty of that.
Yup. When I studied abroad in Siena, five people in my ten-person program believed it. Young, college-educated, generally progressive New Yorkers.
And, Melanie, thank you. Like I said, Rivka at “Respectful of Otters” has made these arguments more eloquently. You should definitely go check out her blog. Also, google “Harriet MacBryde Johnson,” and see if you can find anything she’s written on the subject online.