Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

He not only questions Michael's morals, but also calls him a "killer and liar." How OBill is able to arrive at these conclusions without having first hand knowledge of what transpired between Terri and Michael shows his utter ignorance.

0 Replies

Quote:

Phoenix, if ethically and morally I may have a valid point; than the only reasonable course of action is for the higher Federal Courts to examine it and set a precedent, one way or another. Am I the only one who finds it absurd that the SC refuses to hear arguments, if only to clearly define their opinion for future use?

Bill, No. The USSC can't hear cases just because they are ethically or morally interesting. The USSC has to take cases based on law and the constitution. The constitutional issue in this case has been settled already by previous cases.

In the Quinlan case the courts said that a person has a 14th amendment right to deny medical treatment. If the person is unable to make their wishes known then they legal guardian can do it for them. Michael Schiavo is Terri's legal guardian. Both from the standpoint of marriage law and from the standpoint of a court ruling to that effect.

In the Curzo case the courts said the the state can require clear evidence of a person's wishes before acting to remove medical assistance. Again, this has been done. The courts heard evidence and ruled on that evidence. The ruling was appealed and ruled on again.

The USSC has no issue to address in this case. The case has followed the law as required. What you are asking is that the USSC take cases on a whim when you agree with it. What you are failing to realize is that that sword cuts both ways. If the court can take cases when you agree then it can also take them when you disagree. I prefer the method where the LAW choses.

0 Replies

Debra's been right all along. Michael Schiavo has been trying to kill Terri for years and will clean up on a book deal when she dies.

0 Replies

Well written and seemingly well reasoned response Parados, right up until you consider and necessarily convert your Strawman into a realistic metaphor. How about if Bill Clinton married Monica and started a new family a decade ago? Do you still the consensus of your peers would split 50/50 on whether or not Hillary should or would seek divorce in the event she couldn't answer for herself? Honestly, isn't that contention dangerously close to untenable? I may well be an arrogant man but I don't think that assumption does anything to prove it. :wink:

0 Replies

Bill

LOL.. and lets charge Terri Schiavo with alienation of affection while we are at it. She is obviously witholding sex from him. That is a crime isn't it?

You pick and choose your facts to bolster your case but seem to ignore the actions by her parents against Michael. They have charged him with lots of things that are not true. Their actions have hardly been above reproach yet you are only blaming the husband.

By the way. Go look up the term "straw man" before you use it against someone.

I certainly won't take issue with this statement..

Quote:

I may well be an arrogant man

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Bill

LOL.. and lets charge Terri Schiavo with alienation of affection while we are at it. She is obviously witholding sex from him. That is a crime isn't it?

You pick and choose your facts to bolster your case but seem to ignore the actions by her parents against Michael. They have charged him with lots of things that are not true. Their actions have hardly been above reproach yet you are only blaming the husband.

Were their roles reversed and Michael were begging for Terri's life while the parents prevented him from seeing her medical records, or even her and were insisting on immediate cremation despite being accused of foul play, I would be just as critical of them. That is not the case here.

parados wrote:

By the way. Go look up the term "straw man" before you use it against someone.

You presented my argument in a reduced or weakened state, refuted it, then continued as if you had refuted my actual argument. In other words you built a Strawman. If you'd like some links to Critical Thinking sites, Joe gave me some wonderful ones to study. :wink:

parados wrote:

I certainly won't take issue with this statement..

Quote:
I may well be an arrogant man

:wink:

0 Replies

Micheal's extramarital girlfriend is the one who could be charged with alienation of affection.

0 Replies

Well she'll probably be dead soon in the bosom of Jesus and we can go back to being concerned about pressing issues like the Michael Jackson trial.

0 Replies

I don't think some people on here comprehend what the word vegetative means.

0 Replies

I don't think some people comprehend anything regarding both the depth and political breadth of this issue...

Constitutional ramifications be damned...

0 Replies

Give this case it's due though, in the world of political pandering it certainly sets the new gold standard.

0 Replies

In the new world of Republicanism, the laws are only for the other guys.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

I don't think some people comprehend anything regarding both the depth and political breadth of this issue...

Constitutional ramifications be damned...

Generally, when there's an issue which involves the law on one hand, and someone's life being imminently in danger on the other, my inclination is to be more concerned with the person's life. The law can always be patched up later. I get the feeling, though, speaking of comprehension, that saying this to you is about like trying to explain the color blue to a blind person. Although you are very careful to usually couch your responses in the trappings of empathy, you show no signs I have seen of feeling any. Yes, yes, I know you claim that your motivation in starving TS to death is your tender concern for her welfare.

0 Replies

The Republicans have shown again that while they preach conservatism and anti-government intrusion into our lives on economic issues, they will take any means to insert themselves and government into our private lives.

Unless, of course, I want to buy a .50 caliber machine gun.

My sister cannot marry her partner of 3o years, but they can both receive a nice tax break on their high income jobs. We cannot have universal health coverage for US Citizens but we can stop the world if enough rightwing votes are at stake to write an unconstitutional law that forwards the Republican social agenda.

While simultaneously phasing out Social Security for the bottom tier earners, they attempt to set up an investment shelter for the upper middle earners, protecting their base while dumping the poor. Please pass the compassion.

America will wise up to the fact that if they continue to vote in favor of this phony social agenda that rewards them with economic disadvantages they will end up broke with none of the social protections they thought were promised.

Joe(yeah, we're pro-life, but first this tax cut for the bond traders)Nation

0 Replies

It has long puzzled me how the Republicans can pander to the lowest common denominator and somehow convince so many voters to see it their way.

0 Replies

There's one aspect of this case that doesn't quite make sense to me. It's about motivations. Terri Schiavo's parents raised her from birth. They took care of her and protected her a long time before her husband met her. They, and her brother and sister are related by blood.

Let's say that her husband believes they are misguided, and that he is in the right. Nonetheless, no matter how misguided, the family is clearly motivated by love, and horrified at seeing TS starved to death. The family is willing to and wants to care for her. Even granting for the sake of argument that she did make some comment to her husband years ago about life and death, there isn't really much knowledge of what she would want in this case. Why would Michael Schiavo not just say, "Look, I've moved on with my life. If you want her, take her, but don't expect help from me?" Is his relentless, long crusade to see her die, despite her family's screaming objection, motivated by pure love? This strikes me as really odd.

0 Replies

Bill wrote:

My only judgments of Michael are for his treatment of Terri's parents. He blocked their access to her medical records and fought for the right to cremate Terri without autopsy. Doesn't such bizarre behavior strike you as odd? Why would he demand immediate cremation?

Again, these are subjective judgments, Bill. From what I have read, and if I believed all the scuttlebutt, I might very well assume that Michael WAS an abuser, and possibly had a hand in causing Terri's present state.

If so, why was why was there not an investigation, years ago? Why were not the police informed, fifteen years ago? All this "stuff" is coming out now, IMO, is Terri's parents' attempt to keep their daughter alive.

We all could speculate till doomsday. According to someone that I know, the reason that Michael did not want to provide rehabilitation for Terri, was that he was scared that she would regain her cognition, sit up, point to Michael, and say, "You did this to me"!

This is a tragic case. But emotion should not be a part of it. Law should!

Basically, it is very simple. A woman is in a vegetative state. Her husband is the legal next of kin, and legally has the right to determine whether a feeding tube should be removed. He wants it removed. The law is satisfied. Period.

0 Replies

Bill,
Where did I reduce your argument? I gave an example that showed how part of your argument didn't work. You are not the epitome of "reasonable". I used an example to show how 'reasonable' people can be split in a number of ways.

Examples are NOT strawmen. I didn't change your argument or mispreresent it.

When you take an extreme opinion that only YOU are reasonable. It hardly requires a strawman to knock the stuffing out of that argument. Your opinion is not the only reasonable one. I pointed that out. I used examples to show that reasonable people often disagree about what is 'reasonable'. If you want Joe to mediate whether my argument was a straw man or not. I will be happy to let him.

By the way, feel free to keep misrepresenting my argument. If it makes you feel better to stuff your own straw man that's fine. I can take care of myself, your misrepresentation of my statements and your argument.

0 Replies

(Tipping my hat to parados and Phoenix -- great job of both employing logic and resisting baiting.)

Brandon, as others have said it's speculation, but that would all be very consistent with the idea that he is convinced that she wouldn't want to live like this. If he turns her over to his parents, she will live like this indefinitely. If what she wanted was to not live like this -- much less for 15 years -- seeing that wish through to the end is the loving thing for him to do.

Not saying it is definitely so, saying that in terms of speculations, it certainly makes sense.

0 Replies

Poor woman.... Crying or Very sad

Regardless of what your position is, no one can not feel sadness at this whole thing. (is that correct grammer? It seems weird....)

It would be nice if things like this never happened. I am just feeling sad today regarding this because for all intents and purposes, a woman is lying in a hospital bed being starved to death. And for all your nay sayers, I know she is not the only one who is sick and dying but right this minute, she is in the spotlight for being the one to die publically. Sad

That just sucks. It's a good thing she has no idea (hopefully) what is going on.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know