From: "Gary Britt" 

Well I agree with you that you don't get what is being said from our side,
so I'll try to explain my own feelings on this which I think reflect many
people on the let Terri live side.  I think the republicans and the people
on my side do not approach this from a political point of view at all.  I
think the democrats and MSM are playing politics with the Terri Schiavo
case, and because they have no frame of reference for people acting out of
moral and/or religious beliefs instead of pure crass political motivations,
that it is therefore impossible for such democrats and the MSM to conceive
that people on my side of things from Tom Delay on down are NOT acting with
any political motivation whatsoever.  What I've just said is true, but I
don't expect people on your side to understand or believe it.

First, I would say that people on "my" side of this issue come to
my side for their own reasons, and I don't think everyone's reasons are the
same. Some may be so staunchly pro-life anti-euthanasia that this is the
issue for them.  Others may feel as I do that the following are the
problems with the Schiavo case that the legal system, especially the high
priests in black robes, have failed both the Schiavo family and society as
a whole.

There are several things wrong with the Schiavo case that should have been
resolved BEFORE the feeding tube was removed.

1.  In normal situations where husband and wife are still together and
still bonded with one another it is appropriate for them to make the life
and death decisions over the other when the other is incapacitated.  Former
spouses who have divorced no longer get to make life and death decisions
over the other.  Such a right then passes back to the parents if they are
living.   All of the preceding is how it should be.  In the Schiavo case
the
preceding is in substance not being applied.  Michael Schiavo is in
substance divorced from Terri Schiavo.  10 Years ago he effectively
divorced her and remarried.  He has a new family just like any other
divorced spouse who later remarries.  He has two children with that new
spouse.  They have lived together continuously as husband and wife for that
10 year period.  He is in fact just as removed and disconnected from his
former life as Terri Schiavo's husband as any other divorced spouse is from
their ex-spouse.  Yet in a striking observance of form over substance Terry
Schiavo continues to be allowed to make life and death decisions for his
ex-spouse, and those decisions are in conflict with the parents who are the
rightful parties in this particular case (because Schiavo got remarried 10
years ago) to make these decisions.   The Schiavo case is insanity in the
courts and black
robed wearing high priest class on this point.

2.  Even if you allow form (he didn't officially divorce her) take
precedence over substance (he did effectively divorce her by starting a 
new family and continuously living with another woman as man and wife for
the past 10 years), it is insane not to apply higher levels of scrutiny to
his actions, given the reality of the situation.  It follows then that it
is morally wrong to kill this woman Terri Schiavo over the objections of
her parents without: (a)  making sure she is in a persistent vegetative
state by ordering current medical exams, pet scans, etc.  None of which
have been done in this case either ever (in the case of a PET scan) or for
the last 10 years in the case of EVERYTHING ELSE;  (b) making sure that her
wish to be starved to death, as claimed by her EX-HUSBAND, is corroborated
by significant other evidence (which it wasn't), and that it is established
by clear and overwhelming evidence that this was her wish after giving the
exact circumstances under which she now finds herself real, deliberative,
and serious contemplation (of which there is no evidence of this kind, not
even tainted evidence from the EX-Husband).

I could write more, but the above is plenty to show why there is something
terribly wrong with High Priests in black robes deciding to sacrifice Terri
Schiavo on the altar of ideological liberalism that advocates an imperfect
life is not a life worth living, so we don't need standards like the ones
cited above; we can ignore the laws passed by the representatives of the
people which provide different evidentiary standards than those applied in
the Schiavo case; we can kill Terri Schiavo on the flimsy, uncorroborated
word of her EX-HUSBAND, and over the objections of her parents, because in
the world of ideological liberalism Terri Schiavo shouldn't want to live in
her current circumstances, and therefore what she really wants and what her
parents really want can be ignored and the right to die beliefs of the
ideological, politically motivated left can be imposed upon Terri through
the guise of the wishes of her in name only husband.

If you are serious in your question to understand "my" side of
this, then read the following artical by Eric Cohen.  He is an ethicist who
draws a real down the middle description of the facts and positions of each
side, and provides a better analysis than I of the ethical problems with
the Terri Schiavo case.  You can find it at:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/406istku.asp?
pg=2

Gary





"Mike N."  wrote in message
news:p0tf41d93gqnht9jtdulmbl2oa4doia07c{at}4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:05:06 -0500, "Gary Britt"

> wrote:
>
> >In Delay's case there was no crazy judge ignoring the law.  No spouse who
> >against all the other family members wishes wanted to kill the person so
> >they could inherit the money.  Parents, brothers, and sisters all in
basic
> >agreement for Delay case as to what the injured person wanted.  No
agreement
> >on this central element and no proof of same in the other.
>
>   I guess I don't get what "your side" is arguing about in the Schiavo
> case.  People seem to be placing a stake in their beliefs about Terri as
> though there is a larger cause (All flat-EEG cases? no. Patient's right to
> die? no   Unwritten living wills? no)   If I am understanding your
> statement above, it's not about Terri at all; it's only about the living
> and cognitive and has nothing to do with Terri except as a poster child
and
> mascot.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5