|
Author
|
Topic: The Inconvenient Woman
|
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 23, 2004 12:23 PM
  
Where are those stalwarts of women's rights when a woman really needs them?  Florida Supreme Court to Americans....you have the right to die and we have the right to kill you...preferably when you can't fight back.  Thursday, Sept. 23, 2004
Florida Supreme Court: It's OK for Schiavo to Have His Wife Killed More: Legalized Murder: Terri Schiavo and Death by Starvation In the nation's most prominent right-to-life case, the Florida Supreme Court today struck down a state law that has hindered a man attempting to have his brain-injured wife put to death.
The Democrat-dominated court decided unanimously that the Republican-passed law keeping Terri Schiavo alive violated the separation of powers between the judicial branch and the legislative and executive branches. "Lower courts had ruled that Michael Schiavo could have the tube removed, but the Legislature passed the law to overrule the courts. Gov. Jeb Bush then used the law to order the tube reinserted," the Associated Press reported. Mrs. Schiavo, 40, who lives in a nursing home in Clearwater, can breathe on her own but needs a feeding and hydration tube to stay alive. She has left no "living will" or other written instructions. Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, say she wanted to live and could be helped with therapy that her husband, who is living with another woman he wants to marry, has denied her. Left-wing feminist groups have been curiously silent about the notorious case. Do so-called National Organization for Women and similar groups think it's OK for men to kill women who are inconvenient?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/23/115603.shtml
IP: Logged |
Isis
Newflake Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009
|
posted September 23, 2004 12:35 PM
Yeah, I just read that, I've been following that story for a while. I think that Michael Schiavo is - well a bad person, to put it nicely. Her family wants to keep her alive, take care of her, and they should be able to if they're willing, but for him to force the issue which IMO is only so that he can gain access to a good deal of money and free himself up to marry another woman, well it's despicable. Although I must admit I don't see the point in the feminists getting involved, because I don't see it as a feminist issue, but rather as a family law issue and personal rights issue. An individual should ALWAYS have the right to live, unless they have set something up in advance that indicates the opposite. The assumption should be for life when in doubt, not death. Where is the ACLU when you need 'em? They should be arguing for her right to live in the absence of a living will dictating otherwise IMO. I mean, if the right to live isn't a civil liberty, I don't know what is. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 23, 2004 12:48 PM
It seems that for feminist groups, opening a door for a woman is a violation in that it implies she isn't capable of opening it for herself.Noticing that a woman is a woman is outrageous to their unisex notions of society. All marriage is rape, unless it's a homosexual couple. But actually killing a woman is a no harm, no foul situation that doesn't merit comment. The ACLU is not going to get involved in a "right to life" of an innocent person issue because it strikes too close to their abortion on demand stance. Oh, they will get involved but the stance the ACLU will take is that you have the right to be killed. I doubt you will find the ACLU on the side of life....unless it's a convicted murderer who is going to be put to death. IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted September 23, 2004 12:53 PM
As offensive as it may be, the Florida Supreme Court probably ruled as precedent permits.I'm pretty sure that most states designate the spouse as "the offical decision maker" regarding an incapacitated husband or wife; but I'm also about as sure that in most states you've the right to divorce a spouse that's either physically or completely mentally absent (as a number of Drs say re: Terri), though I could be wrong on that one.
It seems that Michael S's only possible motivations for refusing to do so are that he either genuinely and passionately believes that his wife wouldn't have wanted to live as she is or that there's the potential for a hefty cash payout if she dies.
I don't know much about the case, but from what I've heard it seems like the latter's more likely - and I'll have to say that if that's the case (and given that he apparently wants to move on with his life), a decent person should just divorce her and give rights of medical control back to her parents. And Isis seems on the money here: It's more a matter of family law than of feminism. IP: Logged |
ozonefiller
Newflake Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted September 23, 2004 01:16 PM
I don't know about you guys, but if I was in Terri Schiavo's position, I would rather die then to burden my family and love ones with this!IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 23, 2004 01:45 PM
A very nice summary proxime. I think you're right on most points but the area of disagreement would center on the issue of consent. Absent any document, living will, do not resuscitate form or bracelet, the courts should never come down on the side of legal execution. There is much possibility of fraud, collusion or self interest inherent on the part of someone who declares you have to take his word for it, who may have a financial stake in death.He surely should divorce her and let her family assume responsibility for her. He already has children with another woman. Ozone, if you would rather die, then do the right thing now and file a do not resuscitate document or living will setting forth your wishes. IP: Logged |
ozonefiller
Newflake Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted September 23, 2004 01:54 PM
I did, through the military.The VA has the copy to the document! IP: Logged |
quiksilver
unregistered
|
posted September 23, 2004 09:19 PM
I would agree that to let this man decide the even grimmer (than is already) fate of his wife is unthinkable. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, one should always err on the side of life over death. The fact that this is even debatable seems mind boggling to me. And yes, why the silence from the ACLU? Taking the life of any human being is the highest of crimes. And to those of you who are thinking, "What about war?" I would say that killing still is a crime in this case as well. It is always a crime to take another life. However at the very least, in the case of war, the specific parties involved are aware of and prepared for the eventual worst outcome. They sign up for it, after all. "What about the innocent civilians in the crossfire", you ask? Well, that is also a crime. "Why is it legal, you may ask"? I guess that's why they call it "National Defense". Killing/murder is permissible only when the intent to defend is present.... in my opinion....IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
