The party of life.

Will anyone in the MSM investigate Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer? Or will they (as Chris Wallace did on Friday morning) just call Congress 'disgusting' for intervening?

My own steady movement to the political right ... a 25 year process ... just hit a guard rail, and I'm certain that's not uniquely me.

ghost:

If your move Right depends on killing the helpless it was a mistake to begin with.

I don't really care one way or the other about Terri Schiavo.....But I do notice that one party is trying to keep her alive and one party is trying to kill her.

Do the Dems even realize that they are putting themselves in that position? Don't they realize what will happen when the bulk of the electorate comes to reflexively think of Dems as "the party that wants to kill people"?

It doesn't, OJ, but I have a fairly strong anti-authority, libertarian streak, and an acquired distrust of true believers. Eric Hoffer was one of my heroes way back in the 60's.

Watching a system under stress can be revealing, and I've been watching the religious Right's response to the Schiavo case with great interest. To be blunt, the Left's hysteria about a "Christian Taliban" seems a tad less paranoid to me now. Your comment yesterday that the Schiavo battle is about creating a better society, not about liberty and personal choice (I paraphrase), was chilling. I caught a whiff of the mindset that Hoffer and Koestler warned me about. I'm still not a slippery-sloper, but I know which way the wind blows. And I do a passable impression of a canary in a coal mine.

So who is paying to keep her alive then?

ghost:

Libertarianism is about the self. It's ultimately Left.

Liberty would protect her. It's license that's killing her.

ghostcat,

I think the woman's parents and siblings have raised enough legitimate questions as to what her condition actually is, her husband's stewardship over her medical care, his motives in wanting to pull the feeding tube, and what she herself would want, that this is not just a simple right to die case. Indeed, if the Schindlers are to be believed, what we are witnessing is a judicially sanctioned slow motion murder.

I don't know if the Schindlers are right or telling the truth, but it seems to me that dismissing their objections and questions out of hand gets us dangerously close to the edge of the cliff (thank you, Mr. Cohen). I don't think that having society as a whole demand of Mr. Shiavo and Judge Greer "justify this" takes us as far out of the meadow as turning our faces away and hoping for the best.

Bart, let's say that some kid's parents are killed and the kid has no surviving family. In other words, no one to pay the bills.

Should we let that kid starve to death?

Why not? We wouldn't want to hurt your bottom line, would we? Does life mean nothing to you, in and of itself?

Carl -

I am of at least two minds about this specific case. To me, it is a great tragedy, no matter how it plays out. But it (like the case of the other OJ) has taken on symbolic importance that dangerously distorts perceptions and judgement.

OJ -

Clever. Dangerous. Masking.

Randall, the situation is inapposite. Her husband wants her to be allowed to die. Her parents and a whole army of busybodies with their own agendas want her to be kept alive. I happen to believe that people in a vegetative state should be allowed to be put to sleep if that is what their spouses want or that is what they have indicated in their 'living wills.' The busybody union should have to be the ones forking over the bucks to keep her alive, not the taxpayer and not the insurer.

When these clowns are forced to put their money where their mouths are then we'll see if they really have the courage of their convictions or if they are merely no different from the average barroom blowhard.

Her husband has his own best interests in mind. He's the least competent to make the decision.

ghost:

Rather it humanizes an inhuman practice.

I happen to believe that people in a vegetative state should be allowed to be put to sleep if that is what their spouses want or that is what they have indicated in their 'living wills.'

First off, "put to sleep?" What an accidentally illuminating way to put it.

Second, Terri never wrote a living will, and her "spouse" is raising kids with another woman. As far as money goes, are you completely unaware of the man who offered $1 million to keep her alive?

oj,

And you know what is in Mr Schaivo's mind how? Ouija Board? Oracle Bones? Crystal ball? Perhaps you have a cauldron in the basement? Long-distance ESP?

You could make a bundle on the Art Bell show.

Timothy,

Spending many of my teenage years doing telemarketing for UJA in Monmouth County has shown me the difference between pledging and paying. When somebody has put real money in a real escrow account run by a real independent trustee, let me know.

As for her husband's current behavior, how many years has Mrs. Schiavo been festering in the hospital now? She would have been dead had nature been permitted to take its course. She is never going to be able to help raise the kids or perform other wifely functions, so why shouldn't he seek them elsewhere? Necrophilia is illegal most places.

bart:

We don't know hers, we know his. He wants her dead.

He wants her put out of her misery and he wants the nightmare to end for himself and his children, a perfectly reasonable and humane viewpoint. My parents and I have identical views about this if it were to happen to us. It doesn't square with your sectarian morality but so what?

Others, for their own agendas, want a different outcome.

The what is that you don't get to kill each other just because you want to. Civilization doesn't work that way.

OJ -

Not the slightest bit inhuman, is it? Even with your interpretation.

Killing the weak is precisely inhuman.

Sounds all too human to me. I seem to recall it's happened before.

OJ,

You have some kind of illusion that this is some kind of 'Let's kill mommy and then go out for pizza, kids, OK?' situation. It is far from that. There is no reason to believe that the husband did not take every aspect of this hard issue into consideration.

In a world of scarce medical resources(after all, medical care does cost money), isn't there some place for triage?

Man is noted for his inhumanity to Man.

bart:

Actually there's evidence he contributed to her condition, but whether he's just trying to kill her for convenience in this specific case is besides the point. That the people doing the killing will always have a vested interest in the death is what matters.

There are a whole bunch of vested interests at play here, OJ. Including poor Terri's, whatever it is. I do find W's current position on this mess essentially reasonable: given all that we don't know, let's give her life, such as it is, the benefit of the doubt. I would personally add: as long as her parents, or other volunteers, are willing to pay for it. I would not want to be either her parents or her husband, giving all three the benefit of the doubt.

Bart, the man who offered $1 million has already put the money in trust with an independent legal firm, but Mr. Schiavo has refused to speak with him.

Why would Mr. Schiavo take $1 million to walk away when he can receive $2.5 million insurance money for killing her? And with that much money involved, why would you think he is doing it for his wife's good? Divorcing her and letting the parents take over is the obvious answer but one he refuses to take (because of the money).

This case is *identical* to abortion. The victim has no say. The perpetrators benefit from the killing. There are people more than willing to adopt, but they are not considered.

The government gives license to kill the unheard party precisely because she is unheard.

And the ultimate justification proffered is monetary cost.

But the only person whose life has a dollar figure is someone else's -- the precise opposite of Jesus' statement, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."