[KevinTheOmnivore]

You can then go find something supporting that she in fact did receive an MRI, which she hasn't. Bottom line. If Michael Schiavo wanted to allow more extensive testing, he could. He instead wants the plug pulled. He wants the woman dead, he wants to move on. Not necessarily an entirely selfish impulse, but still a selfish one at that.

Furthermore, when was the last time she received rehab? How much was permitted at the hospice? When was the last time she was even brought outside for that matter? Her teeth brushed?

You say she got it. The Schindlers began raising questions over her therapy back in 1993, after Michael had won the malpractice suit. So what did this extensive rehab consist of?

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Ya know, I can understand Mikey's objections, since I imagine objection is his knee-jerk response to what his in-laws have put him and his wife thru for the past 7 years. Of course that is being sympathetic to his point of view, and assuming he is not, in fact, a gholish monster, which I think is consistent with his actions for the first 8 years of this ordeal.

He would object to an MRI out of spite? That's a reasonable argument to you?

PRESUMPTOUS COCKBITE! (damn I hate using that up already) I'll have you know the day I turned 16 was a Sunday, and guess where the first place I ever drove by myself was? My parents were not church goers, but I was. But you didn't know and didn't care, so you should've kept your damn mouth shut.

You're the one who went off on my "merciful church," or whatever. You clearly hate religion, hate Christianity, and don't even want to see her faith, or her family's faith brought into the discussion, right?

You're right, I don't care.

but in the original post...

then later

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth Kev, explain it if I'm misunderstanding.

I never implied that the Pope's opinion, or the Church's opinion on the matter should hold weight over the law. You knew that too, but you wanted to be a little cockbite yourself.

I only mentioned the Church's stance in order to clarify what Goat had said. What the Church says shouldn't have a bearing on the case, and the Church's position on euthanasia, persistent vegetative state, etc. can't hold the same weight as neurological study and expertise.

However, if you're going to analyze what the living intentions of Terri Schiavo may have been, I think her personal belief system would be pretty relevant, no? Whether she be a jew, a quaker, a muslim, a Budhist, whatever.

Fuck you. I am not the one saying she's a vegetable. I've never met her. I've not seen the (carefully edited) videos, and I CERTAINLY don't think I'm qualified to decide what life is (un)worthy.

"You know what I don't get? Since when do we cherish life as a state of simply breathing and digesting? I mean, hypothetically, do we keep someone alive as a brain in a jar, if we have the technology, just because we can, even if we still don't know enough about the working of said brain to know if it's functioning at whatever arbitrary level it needs to be classified as "human life"?"

It sounds to me like life only means life when it produces some kind of contribution to society. This, IMO, IS in fact a slippery slope. I'm not going to go down the Nazi Germany hyperbole crap that some of the Right-to-lifers are pulling, but I believe that one of the crucial roles of government is to protect those who are inable to protect themselves, those who are not being properly protected by the system as is. Like Hubert Humphrey said, " It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

This is what essentially makes me a liberal, what can be done with government of the people being used for the people. I know that's a bit sappy and preachy, but it's the truth for me.

I just respect the rulings of every judge who's spent (I would HOPE) more time reviewing this case and with access to more relevant facts than I.

And what of the judges and juries that denied civil rights to African Americans in the south throughout the 19th and 20th centuries....?

The fact that you cannot see that official dogma of the Vatican and the beliefs of an individual may not be entirely congruent baffles me.

Nor did I say they should be. All I was saying was that her faith, as well as her family's faith, might be relevant. I know it would be relevant for me and my family.

Also, it wasn't until May 98 that Mikey filed petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed, so I disagree with your remark that he stopped being her husband over a decade ago. I don't know what he did with the $1 million, but is it inconceivable that $1 million was exhausted between 1990 and 1998 on the care and experimental therapy Terri received? That's the thing that bothers me most about this issue really - the villification of Mike and anyone who sympathizes with his viewpoint.

To my understanding, he spent much of the money on legal fees. He has a new family, and two new children. He has lived with that woman for ten years. I'm gonna assume some courtship went on, no? To me, he revoked his vows. But that's me.

I think it should not be a national ban, and if California wants to let gays get married, fine by me. Wow, what a refreshing tangent.

It would be even more refreshing if you answered the question.

January 24, 2005 the US Supreme Court declined review in the Terri's Law case. I'm not sure why they declined. Personally, I think they should have taken it up, but I'm not on the US Supreme Court.

The Schindlers and their representatives would argue that there is a fair amount of evidence that has never been truly evaluated. I think it's fair to say that judges may have passed on this in the past due to the controversial nature (see every headline everywhere) of what has traditionally been a very private family matter.

Also, two days after that denial in 2001, another judge ordered that Terri's feeding tube be reinserted. The courts have flopped around on this matter, too. We can agree on one thing, that the Supreme Court should've heard the case.

Nice slippery slope. But it's irrelevant - as Crash is not a Judge, and his opinion on what should be done with someone who has not left a living will matters as little as mine or yours, especially when said person isn't even someone any of us personally know.

I think the overall public's perspective on what constitutes a valuable life is important. Legislatures pass right to die laws, and governors sign them, no? None of these people are judges, but they can all effect how we value the young, elderly, disabled, and weak in our society.

It's also quite possible (gasp! No way!) for judges to capitulate to popular pressure, btw.