It seems to me that the only relevant moral issue here is what Mrs. Schiavo wants, not what you or I or the courts or the Congress or anyone else wants.

Mr. Schiavo's position is that this is what she would want, based on discussions the two of them had. I know that my wishes are that if I ever fall in to a vegetative state like that, I do not want my body to be maintained; I would prefer a lethal injection, but if the laws of my state don't allow that, I would want my feeding tube to be removed and/or any other life support apparatus disconnected.

The court ruling allowing the feeding tube to be removed is a finding about what Mrs Schiavo would want done, and it is prescribing a course of action based on her expressed wishes.

Certainly, there are other cases in which people should Not be removed from life sustaining medical intervention. Follow this link to more clear-cut cases of when life sustaining apparati should Not be disconnected; cases that are more important for Congress and the President to be doing something about:

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php

Until there is more clear cut evidence in the Schiavo case that she is in fact brain dead, I do not believe that your opinion has any basis in reality.

How many more times does this need to go to court to satisfy you, SSM? This case has been heard six separate times, including witnesses from both sides, and the courts backed the husband. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean there hasn't been a fair hearing.

As many times as it takes to get the message across that euthanasia is WRONG. If you were the husband Res Ipsa, how many times would you refuse to allow Terri to get the physical therapy that might prove the difference between needing a feeding tube to only needing to be hand fed? 1.7 million?

Whether Euthenasia is wrong is not really the point. The point is that marriage is undermined when judges and Congress step in to usurp the decisions a husband makes for his wife, knowing what his wife's wishes were for. We might as well not have marriage vows and the legal institution of marriage if it can so easily be tossed aside by politically-motivated lawmakers.

More to the point is what the person in question wants: not the decision the husband makes for his wife, but the husband as the wife's spokesman when she is unable to voice her own decisions (and vice-versa, of course).

As far as euthenasia being right or wrong: my body and my life are mine, not yours smm, and if I leave explicit instructions to disconnect my body from life sustaining apparati after I have been in a vegetative state for a year, then you have no right to keep my body alive so that you can make political hay out of my predicament. That decision is mine and no one else's. {Republicans are always going on about property rights - the idea about a right to control my own body shouldn't be that big of an intellectual leap.}

Obviously, if I was in that situation, I wouldn't be able to speak for myself, so it would then be up to my closest family member (my spouse, if I had one) to speak my wishes for me. Obviously, it would be better if I left a will or some other legal document explicitly stating my wishes.

Did you bother to go to the web site I listed in my first post? It discusses the case of a 6 month old boy who was removed from life support AGAINST his mother's wishes - where's the outrage? Oh yeah, he was black and poor.

Also, it would be nice if W had put as much effort into reviewing the cases of the people who were executed under his authority as governor of Texas. Whether murderers should be executed is not something I'm going to debate: perhaps they should be. The problem is that human beings; ie. juries and judges, are not infallible - it's possible for innocent people to be sentenced to death; therefore, until humans become infallible, we shouldn't be executing people, because there is always the possibility that they may later be exonerated.

check this out:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/

This circus show that the republicans are making out of one family's tragedy has nothing to do with respect for life, and everything to do with marketing their brand to their target audience. Respect for life wouldn't be so eager to start wars in which tens of thousands die, and thousands more are left homeless.

rb said:

"It discusses the case of a 6 month old boy who was removed from life support AGAINST his mother's wishes - where's the outrage?"

You continue to prove that your opinion has no basis in reality. You know the main reason that the Schiavo case got so much press was because the mainstream media was upset that the Schindlers wanted to keep Terri alive. That's not what happened in those two other cases you attempt to obfuscate the issue with. In both of those case, there was very little press from the mainstream media because they advocate the culture of death. How much press do protestors of the death sentence get? Almost non-existent. Where is the mainstream media on the issue of how many unborn children are slaughter in abortion factories daily? Out to lunch. Where was the mainstream media on all the slaughter Saddam Hussein perpetrated on the very people he was suppose to be protecting? Move along, nothing to see here. Where is the outrage indeed. Where is your outrage? Are you even outraged about the same thing consistently or is your outrage just at the Republican bureaucracy? I've seen your handle out and about. It consistently shows up bashing the Republican party and that's about it. Every opportunity you see to blather on about how the Republicans in general and President Bush in particular can't do anything right.

Yeah, it grieves me that the plug was pulled on a 6 month old child that would not have lived to see its second birthday if it even lived to see its first. Perhaps you are right that the hospital should have eaten the cost to keep the child alive since the mother could obviously not afford to ever pay them back. But that's not what you appear to be upset about. Since you can so obviously channel Terri's soul to KNOW that she wants to be starved to death, how about channeling her husband's soul to figure out if he's telling the truth?

SMM wrote:
"Since you can so obviously channel Terri's soul to KNOW that she wants to be starved to death"

The point I was making in talking about what I would like done for me if I am ever in a vegetative state is that it is MY decision to make- you are certainly entitled to believe that euthenasia is wrong, and to leave instructions that you are to be left on life support indefinitely, but you have no right to decide for me.

The relation to Terri's case is that she should have the same right to choose to die with dignity (or not) that I want for myself. As her closest relative, her husband, has testified, and as the courts have found over and over (in contrast to my death penalty example, with a vigorous legal argument from the other side), before she entered this state, Terri made it clear that she would not want her body to be maintained in such a state.

So I have a question for you: if Terri (or anybody, for that matter) had left specific, written, notarized, legal instructions that if she reached a certain clearly defined physical state, that she would want to be removed from any life sustaining apparati, including a feeding tube - would you then agree that her wishes should be followed?

Or do you think it is up to you, or up to the government, to make this personal decision for others?

In your (smm) last post, you mentioned death penalty protesters - is it correct to infer from this that you oppose capital punishment?

You also ask where the media was when Saddam was committing his worst atrocities: they were faithfully following the US policy (Republican AND Democrat) of overlooking our own human rights violations and those of our allies. At the time that Saddam was committing his worst atrocities- using chemical warfare against Iran, gassing the Kurds, etc. - he was our ally, and so his human rights violations were overlooked, forgiven, winked at, whatever, by both the "liberal" media and the US government - which at the time was composed of a lot of the people who hold high positions in the current government.

here is an interesting source of information about US relations with Saddam at the time of his worst crimes:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm

SMM also made this point, which I would like to respond to:

"Are you even outraged about the same thing consistently or is your outrage just at the Republican bureaucracy? I've seen your handle out and about. It consistently shows up bashing the Republican party and that's about it. Every opportunity you see to blather on about how the Republicans in general and President Bush in particular can't do anything right."

Thanks for remembering my name - I've only used it here, and I haven't posted here in quite a while - mainly because it seems to be impossible for me to write short posts, thus I start to spend far too much time writing and have to cut myself off (I don't know how people manage to blog and have a life at the same time.)

You may recall from an old post of mine I said something to the effect that "Democrats' compassion for people doesn't begin until the umbilical cord is cut, and Republicans' compassion ends once that cut is made."

So I'm criticizing both sides there.

I also condemn Palestinian suicide bombers AND Israeli policies of firing missiles into apartment buildings.

I condemn human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, and terrorism in every case, whether they carried out by enemies of the US or by the US and/or our allies.

One label that is applied to people who believe as I do is that we "hate America", or that we are "the blame America first crowd."

I do not hate America; it is because I love and believe in America that I demand that we do a better job of living up to our ideals, that we do not attempt to fight evil by becoming evil.

As a citizen of a democracy, I am personally responsible for the actions of my government; therefore it is my moral obligation to speak out when my government is involved in committing atrocities and/or supporting oppressive regimes and attempt to change my government's policies.

I am not responsible for the actions of countries not supported by my government.

As I said, I condemn the atrocities committed by others, but my first responsibility to make sure that I, and the government which represents me, am/is not involved in repression and atrocities.

As far as democrats and republicans go, there's not a whole lot of difference between them as far as I can see. If it makes you feel better, I'll tell you that I loathe Bill Clinton for contributing to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, for launching missiles (several times) to distract the media from his personal affairs, for giving up US sovereignty (vis a vis labor and environmental laws) to the WTO, for being as stubborn and mindless about abortion as the NRA is about guns, and so on.

In general, though, you won't see me "bashing" democrats here very often because my impression is that most people here are already aware of democrats' faults.

I could stay over on my side of the lunchroom, where we all talk about how evil the republicans are - instead of coming over here to your side of the lunchroom where everyone talks about how evil the liberals are.

But I don't. I post here because I am interested in having a dialogue with those who disagree with me - because I am interested in finding what we CAN agree on, and moving forward. I imagine that even many wingnuts love the Constitution as much as I and my moonbat friends do - and I am interested in trying to find ways that we can work together to promote those shared ideals, despite our differences.

"If it makes you feel better, I'll tell you that I loathe Bill Clinton for contributing to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, for launching missiles (several times) to distract the media from his personal affairs,"

So you'll tell me what you think I want to hear? Oh how gracious of you. Am I suppose to be impressed at your being a half-hearted pro-lifer? Pro-life until it conflicts with your personal choice, like making out a living will. What you are really doing with a living will is making your family into potential killers, foisting responsibility for more atrocity upon their shoulders. How nice, how considerate of you.

And how ironic that Res Ipsa makes the following comment:

"The point is that marriage is undermined when judges and Congress step in to usurp the decisions a husband makes for his wife, knowing what his wife's wishes were for. We might as well not have marriage vows and the legal institution of marriage if it can so easily be tossed aside by politically-motivated lawmakers."

Oh, BTW reality based. I think it's shameful of you to blame Clinton for contributing to the death of those Iraqi children when the blame should rest squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein who purposely withheld their nourishment and medical aid to his own benefit. With your sentiment running that way it's no wonder you find it hard to get away from the "America Hater" moniker.

No harder than it is to get away from the "you're a poopy-head" moniker.

People will resort to name-calling when they choose to, and I’m not losing any sleep worrying about it. However, it does get in the way of reasonable discourse, of debate, of trying to reach a consensus about what our representative government should or should not do. Feel free to call me names or to ridicule me, but be aware that when you do, it only undermines your position and makes mine appear more reasonable.

My previous post was not an attempt to to impress you or to be gracious; it was a response to these questions you raised:

"Are you even outraged about the same thing consistently or is your outrage just at the Republican bureaucracy? I've seen your handle out and about. It consistently shows up bashing the Republican party and that's about it. Every opportunity you see to blather on about how the Republicans in general and President Bush in particular can't do anything right."

To summarize my previous response:

I am most outraged about injustice, terrorism, and other violations of human rights.

I am equally outraged at these things regardless of who commits them: my country (democrats or republicans), another country, my country’s enemies, my country’s friends, groups that don’t represent a specific country, or individuals.

As a citizen of a democracy, I am responsible for the acts of my government, and that it is therefore my moral duty to demand that my government not support injustice, terrorism, and/or violations of human rights.

Other countries often engage in these practices, often more egregiously than my own country; I condemn any and all instances of this – yet my primary responsibility is for the actions of my own government, which derives its legitimacy from the consent of myself and my fellow citizens.

I certainly find fault with many of the actions and policies of the Republican party in general, and President Bush in particular – but I also find fault with many of the actions and policies of the Democratic Party in general, and President Clinton in particular.

{Thank you, smm, for answering my question about a living will; now that I know your position, I am able to discuss it with you- although I’m not going to in this post. I’m still waiting for your position on capital punishment.}

“Oh, BTW reality based. I think it's shameful of you to blame Clinton for contributing to the death of those Iraqi children”
So now we’re in the curious position of smm, who would presumably describe himself (herself?) as a conservative, defending Clinton, while I (self described as “progressive”) point out his (Clinton’s) deficiencies:

In May of ’96, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, speaking on behalf of the Clinton administration was asked on 60 minutes about the 500,000 children who have died as a result of the sanctions. She did not dispute the figure, nor the cause; she said that it is a price we are willing to pay.

For more details (about the effects of the sanctions, not sec. Albright), look here:
http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html

The following is an excerpt from the URL above:

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."

The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."

Reality Based,
Read other posts of mine in other comment threads if you want to know my view on capital punishment. I was not calling you any names though, merely pointing out why you may be hearing yourself being called the names you claim to have been called. I'm so glad that you re-iterate that you did not find any fault with Saddam Hussein's actions in starving to death a half a million Iraqi children. It makes my point for me. Try asking yourself if those children would have starved if the dictator had complied with the U.N. resolutions quickly enough to have the sanctions lifted. You could also try asking yourself why he didn't give them the food that would have gone to the other half a million of his fellow citizens that he killed outright.

smmtheory,
It would be nice if you at least read what I wrote before you disagree with me.

(1) At no point did I address (or re-iterate) Hussein’s culpability or lack of it; I did, however, address why I feel that it is my duty as a US citizen to demand that my government not support terrorism, injustice, or disregard of human rights regardless of what other countries or leaders do.

(2) The Iraqi children I referred to did not starve to death; they died from diseases that resulted from the destruction of Iraq’s water and sanitation infrastructure in the “first” Gulf War and the sanctions which prevented the rebuilding of that infrastructure.

You wrote “I'm so glad that you re-iterate that you did not find any fault with Saddam Hussein's actions in starving to death a half a million Iraqi children. It makes my point for me.”

I can’t figure out what your point is- please state it.

A while ago, you asked me if my outrage was consistent, or merely aimed at Republicans.

I would like to ask you the same question, because I believe it is a very good question.

Are you outraged when the US or its allies commit acts that you condemn others for?
Do you feel that the US should have to abide by the same rules that you expect other nations to abide by?

Whether the children died from disease or starvation makes little difference. Not only is it off topic, not only do you choose to blame the U.S. and its allies, but you also refuse to acknowledge that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a human rights abuse.

My point is, was, and always has been since my first post in this thread that your opinion has no basis in reality.

My question was actually whether or not you even got outraged about the same thing consistently, and you have demonstrated that this is not the case. You rail about the human rights abuses that you perceive have been perpetrated by the U.S. and its allies, EXCEPT when it comes to starving to death a mentally disabled person.

Yes, I'm outraged about human rights abuses whether they are committed by the U.S., her allies, or her enemies. I'm outraged because nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody should be purposely starved to death. Apparently, you cannot even work up that kind of outrage. You would instead get outraged if they did NOT starve her to death, right?

And I'm suppose to be impressed?

smm:

If your goal was to get me to shut up and stop trying to engage in intelligent debate with those who disagree with me, then you have succeeded. Pat yourself on the back.

I have stated my position as clearly as is possible, provided links to additional data, and attempted to respond to the points you have made.

You clearly haven't bothered to check any of those links - you haven't even bothered to read what I've written before you respond with a few sentences, the gist of which is invariably "you're a stinky poo-poo head", or, to quote you directly:

"My point is, was, and always has been since my first post in this thread that your opinion has no basis in reality."

Clearly, you find this word play on my alias to be frightfully clever- I find it to be not so much wrong as it is empty: if you followed it with some well reasoned arguments, backed up by some sort of data or references, then it might serve as a useful introduction.

You questioned the consistency of my position, I patiently attempted to explain it to you, several times - and I often had to repeat myself because your responses indicated that you hadn't grasped what I had written.

I politely asked you to clarify your position with these words:

"So I have a question for you: if Terri (or anybody, for that matter) had left specific, written, notarized, legal instructions that if she reached a certain clearly defined physical state, that she would want to be removed from any life sustaining apparati, including a feeding tube - would you then agree that her wishes should be followed?

In your (smm) last post, you mentioned death penalty protesters - is it correct to infer from this that you oppose capital punishment?"

Your "answers" to my questions were:

"What you are really doing with a living will is making your family into potential killers, foisting responsibility for more atrocity upon their shoulders. How nice, how considerate of you."

and

"Read other posts of mine in other comment threads if you want to know my view on capital punishment."

You and I clearly have different reasons for posting comments:

mine is to attempt to understand those who disagree with me and to present my understanding of the truth as clearly as possible, because I believe this to be the duty of citizens of a democracy: to actively seek the truth and to participate in influencing the actions of government.

yours appears to be to "win" a battle of witty one-liners with your "opponents".

I have no time to play that game.

Actually, I was sticking to the topic in the summation of Justin's post and demonstrating that I thought you were across the line that shouldn't be crossed.

Then you went off on a tangent. Like when I said it's not clear that she's brain dead and you said basically that you would want to be euthanized if you were in that same situation.

Remember, you said it was your body and your choice about what you would want done with it. So in this conversation, they are my words and my choice about how and what to respond to from your side of the conversation.

You see atrocity in one area, but ignore it in other areas. When I point that out you respond with a litany of things you get outraged about. But it's still a selective list, highlighting one atrocity but ignoring another that is similar. I can't help it if I can't operate in your reality.

I can't help it if you want to criticize the government for using the death penalty for criminals but ignore the state sanctioned death of an invalid by cruel and inhuman means. All I can do is point out the hypocrisy.

>> Res Ipsa: "The point is that marriage is undermined when judges and Congress step in to usurp the decisions a husband makes for his wife...."

No, unfortunately for Terri, her court-appointed guardian happens to be the husband. He is under no obligation to continue to act as her guardian. The patient's brother, father, or mother, or even another unrelated person, could have been so appointed by the court in the first place, or subsequently.