Terri Should not Die

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that Michael Schiavo is factually correct about the condition of this wife, Terri Schiavo. The facts that Mr. Schiavo puts forth are these:

1)Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. This means that only brain stem functions which cause her to breath and her heart to beat are working. The part of the brain which makes one human, according to Mr. Schiavo's lawyer and others, is “liquefied.” She is “brain dead.” Her soul is not there.

2) In her mid twenties Terri told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive by “artificial” means.

Assume the above correct. Since she is brain dead, since her soul is not there, “she” is not being kept alive by artificial means. “She” is gone, and her soulless, human less body is being kept alive. Since “she” is NOT there, how does this hurt HER?

If the feeding tube were reinserted and her soulless, human less body “lived” for twenty more years, what would the harm be, to ANYONE? Terri's parents will take ALL financial responsibility from her husband, and since “she” is gone, she would not be harmed.

If she is brain dead and without a soul, then this is like arguing in court for years over how she should be buried.

I have heard the argument that until her body “dies” her soul cannot go to the afterlife. I personally do not subscribe to this, but even if you do, when her body does die “she” will have eternity in the “afterlife” to make up for a few years. I still see no logical argument there.

The ONLY way for Mr. Schiavo to have any credibility in his argument, he would have to admit that she is NOT brain dead, and her soul IS still with her for her request to not be kept alive by artificial means to have ANY bearing. If she is aware of things and in constant excruciating pain, then her wish not to be kept alive like this at least makes some sense, but her husband maintains that she feels NO pain, and is aware of NOTHING.

One more problem with Mr. Schiavo's case. When she said no to “artificial means" did she mean food and water? Is a baby being kept alive by artificial means when his parent makes a bottle of formula to feed him? Would this same court say that it is ok for a parent to stop "artificially" keeping their baby alive with formula? Or would a parent be thrown in jail for not feeding the child?

The late actor Christopher Reeves was a quadriplegic. He had to be fed and hydrated. HE even had to have a machine breath for him. He was in some ways WORSE off than Terri. Yet had his food and water been taken from him it would have been a crime. Why? Because he could communicate in a way that others could understand. Had he not been able to attain a full enough level of consciousness he may have been starved like Terri.

NOW, let us assume that her parents are factually correct about her condition. Her parent's assertions are these:

1)Terri is in a less than full conscious state. She is somewhat aware of surroundings. She DOES feel pain. Her soul IS there.

2)She never mentioned to anyone that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

First off, if you believe the second, then even her husband has NO legal right to have her killed. The only legal loophole that he has is his own uncorroborated “conversation” which he claims to have had with her years ago.

Now, assuming that the parent's first assertion is correct, what would the harm be in starving Terri to death?

Well, her painful drawn out death would be something like murder. The harm in killing a live person who wants to live is great. What if someone, anyone, felt that YOUR quality of life does not meet their standards and decided to kill you? What if you could not communicate that you wanted to live? What if you perhaps, at one time told someone not to keep you alive under certain circumstances, but, now that you cannot communicate you have changed you mind. Would you want to be killed?

Regardless of who is correct, there is obviously a great deal to be lost if the tube is removed, and essentially NOTHING to be lost if it is left in.

Should we not err on the side of doing the least damage?

Should we not err on the side of life?

After finding that Terri is brain dead, why would the courts and Micheal Schiavo be so bent on not allowing her parents to financially, medically and physically take care of their daughter's soulless body? If the taxpayers, or Michael Schiavo were going to have to pay for her continuing care, they would have some case, but since neither the state nor Mr. Schiavo have ANYTHING to loose, it sounds kind of like the 8 year old who takes his ball from the court when things don't go his way. “If I can't play, neither can you.”

Read more about it.....


Yahoo! News - Schiavo's Health Wanes As Parents Appeal


Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Journalist Showing Bias?

Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was freed by her captors after they were paid what some have claimed to be a $1,000,000 ransom. Of course this makes the kidnapping of Italian journalists a profitable business. The terrorist now know that if funds get low, and they are unable to purchase explosives for their suicide/homicide bombers to use to kill innocents they can simply kidnap an Italian journalist and demand a million dollar ransom to keep the weapons coming in.

If the Italian government wants to place all Italians in Iraq in that danger, I guess it is their prerogative. It also places American and other coalition forces at more risk since the terrorists can now purchase more weapons. But let us not go into these issues. Instead let us concentrate on her assertions.

Perspective check: While the theory of not negotiating with kidnappers IS a sound one, if a member of my family were being held captive I would have a hard time not doing what I could to gain their release. So, my criticism of the Italian government for paying this ransom should be viewed in light of this.

Ms. Sgrena, who writes for a communist news paper in Italy, has made some ridiculous statements since arriving in Italy. "The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free the hostages is known," Sgrena said in a television interview. "The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostages, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been the target."

Let's look at two aspects of this.

First, what does she give as her reason for suspecting the troops firing on her? Well, her captors told her "...the Americans don't want you to return." and not to tell anyone she was being released because "the Americans might intervene."

Now I know that someone who kidnapped me and held me for ransom would be at the top of my list of honest upstanding people in whom to trust. Come on! She thinks that it was intentional because some terrorist thugs told her so? Are all Italian journalists that naive? Considering that she writes for a communist paper which has opposed everything we have done in Iraq, is it possible that she may be letting her biases show, and does not want to let the facts get in the way of her goal? That being to make the coalition look bad.

Second, let's assume that her captors were right, and the coalition wanted to stop her so that other countries would not be encouraged to pay ransoms, and to prove that it should not have been paid for her. OK ... why is she alive to talk about this? If the coalition forces had wanted to silence her, a few dozen more bullets and the job would have been done.

Continuing to assume, for argument, that the coalition did not want her to leave Iraq, after the shooting stopped and they realized that she was still alive, why did they not kill her and the others so there would be no witnesses? Instead they called for medical help to save her life. Does this sound like people planning her demise?

The fact is that what the kidnapping (probably murderous) terrorists told her does not hold up to the facts. The problem I have is that in all the “news“ accounts I have read no one has mentioned that her story does not make sense when compared with the facts. She herself, being a journalist, has alluded that she may believe the terrorists over her own experience.

She is alive today ONLY because it was NOT the intentions of the coalition forces to kill her. Well, to be fair, it should be noted that she is also alive today because of the financial greed of the terrorists who kidnapped her, and the willingness of the Italian government to pay the ransom.

What does it say about the convictions, or lack thereof, held by these terrorists that instead of gaining a place in paradise near Allah by killing an infidel, they wanted MONEY!?

Read more about it.....

ABC News: Italian Journalist Rejects U.S. Account

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

The U. S. or World Supreme Court?

A recent trend in court rulings, including some from the Supreme Court, has been to cite international laws, or laws and precedents from other countries to decide in the way the judge or justices wanted to rule. Apparently, unable to find enough support for their opinion in our own laws and or constitution, they resort to foreign influences.

This begs the question: Is the U. S. Supreme Court misnamed? Should it be called the "World Supreme Court"?

The U. S. courts are to interpret U. S. law, and rule on its (U. S.) constitutionally. Right? Were did our founding fathers write in the constitution that our Supreme Court should rule on the international comparability of our laws?

In the most recent example of the internationalism of the Supreme Court they ruled that if an individual commits a capital offense before age 18, the state cannot impose a death penalty on this individual. Since the court could not point to U. S. laws or the U. S. Constitution to show the laws to be wrong, the majority opinion cites two proposed treaties to which the U. S. NEVER agreed, and the fact that many other countries do not execute people convicted of crimes committed before age 18. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty..." wrote Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion.

Why should a U.S. Court, interpreting U.S. Law, acknowledge “international opinion”? Does anyone remember "No taxation without representation?" If our Supreme Court is going to enforce laws passed in, for example, Sweden on me, I want the opportunity to vote on the legislature in Sweden!

If one wishes to make this argument in the legislature, to show why a law should be changed, that is fine. However, the court's job is to interpret laws, and rule on their U.S. Constitutionality ONLY!

Now don't think that I am supporting the execution of minors. I AM NOT. On this issue I lean more toward the practice being wrong than I do right. If my state had been one of the ones which allowed it, I would not have opposed the law's repeal. The death penalty is SERIOUS business, not to be taken lightly.

I have a hard time disagreeing with the ruling as a moral issue. However, as a legal issue, the court should have ruled it NOT to be a constitutional issue and then, if it wanted, spent pages preaching to the states that they should change their laws because it feels the laws to be immoral.

If they have to use foreign laws to prop up their decisions they are making three statements loud and clear...

1. They cannot find U. S. laws, etc. to make their case.

2. Their desire to rule a certain way supersedes their oath of office. (Which does NOT include enforcing international laws on the United States.)

3.They believe the U. S. citizens and legislatures, having passed the law in the first place, to be inferior to those of other countries, and subject to the laws of the superior foreign citizens and legislatures.

Are these qualities we want in our judges?

So, how do we protect the sovereignty of our nation and our laws from a judiciary so willing to show its disloyalty to our country, its laws, and its oath to uphold them? Well, I have an idea that just might work.

Now, I would think this to be self evident, but apparently some judges cannot see this so, why don't we pass an amendment to the Constitution which states something like...

”When ruling on the Constitutionality of a law, judges and justices are limited to 1) U.S. Constitution. 2) (U.S.) State Constitutions. 3) U.S. Federal law. 4) (U.S.) State law. 5)Judicial precedent based solely upon the previous four limiters.

If the case involves a foreign country then they may also use ratified treaties between the U.S. and that particular foreign country involved.”

There will be resistance from those who agree with the courts making up anything they want to rule in a certain way. However, it will be difficult to argue with the common sense of this amendment. Could a senator have much of a political future if he or she argues that judges SHOULD rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of OUR laws based on FOREIGN laws? Even if it never passes the senate, and therefore never is added to the constitution, if it gets some vigorous debate on the senate floor, it will show some senators for what they REALLY are.

The biggest problem I see is getting enough senators fired up about this to get the ball rolling. If you have any ideas as to how to do this, please let me know.

And remember to read more about it...


Yahoo! News - High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!