Member Rara Avis
I believe I recall someone stating categorically that if information came from a certain web site, it was not even worth considering.
Tim, when you know someone has lied to you in the past, you learn to accept what they say only if it can be corroborated. When corroboration repeatedly fails, sooner or later you stop listening entirely. I'm not sure that means what they say is not worth considering, but at some point it becomes no longer worth the time and effort to consider. I think without some measure of objectivity, credibility is bound to suffer.
I don't think you need to be a lawyer to be able to see the corruption in the Schiavo case.
And I believe you do, Denise.
Case in point, most of your arguments assume the family of Terri has a legal standing. In my layman's opinion, I don't think that's the case. Not legally, not historically, not even Biblically. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife." Presumably, and I certainly think legally, that works for the woman as well. Terri's family never stopped loving her, but when she chose, of her own free will, to marry Michael Schiavo, their guardianship passed to him. That is the very foundation of marriage. "And they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." I don't think it was ever a matter of who was right or who was wrong, Denise. I think it was a matter of who had the legal right to decide. Like it or not, Terri chose Michael to speak in her stead. I think THAT, and not the right or wrong of the decision, is what was decided in court.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer either. All I really know about our legal system is that law and justice aren't synonyms.
Can anyone answer my previous question because I honestly don't understand it? What would the reasoning process be like to arrive at the conclusion that something is cruel and unusual for a criminal, and therefore illegal, but the same treatment is acceptable, and therefore legal, even desirable, for a disabled person? Because I don't get it.
Nor are you likely to get an acceptable answer, Denise, so long as you insist on inserting your own definitions into your questions.
Let's change your question slightly and shift the bias to the other side.
Why is something considered cruel and unusual for a criminal, but is acceptable for the toenails you clipped the other night?
You insist on labeling Terri a disabled person, Denise, but others believe that the real Terri died long ago, even though her living flesh, just like your living toenails, continued to survive. I'm no more a doctor than I am a lawyer, so I clearly can't know the truth. I only know that, when experts can't agree, someone has to decide. Honestly, I'm glad it didn't have to be me.
In short, Denise, your question has no answer, because it's the wrong question. It assumes everyone has already agreed on an answer to the REAL question, and clearly that agreement is very far from being reached.
Personally, I don't think there was a substantive failure in the legal system. If Terri sat up in bed and refused medical treatment (and a feeding tube IS medical treatment, unless of course you routinely install them on friends and family rather than cook for them), I would be horrified if our system didn't recognize her wishes. Terri could no longer sit up and say that, of course, but she did once say, "I do," effectively instilling her voice on her spouse. Did she make a bad decision in marrying Michael? In trusting him to speak for her? Maybe she did. Still, it was nonetheless her decision to make.
I would really and truly like to know the truth. I've heard accusations and allegations from one end of the spectrum to the other, but all are from such patently biased sources that I can't help but question their credibility. I've yet to see anyone even try to be objective. I don't know the truth, and sadly I too often feel that's because no one is willing to tell the truth. They seem much more concerned with proving themselves right.