Well said.  I particularly like it at the end where you said that people need to be consistent with their arguments and rationale behind them.  That is one of my biggest pet peeves.

i don’t do rocket science or legal jargon - i read novels for a living, remember - but it seems to me that the case is about more than jurisdictional matters.

but here’s the thing that bothers me, and which no jurisdictional argument can really touch : the judge has decided it is legal to starve this woman to death.  they aren’t cutting off life-support to a brain-dead individual here.  terri schiavo is cognitively disabled but otherwise alive.  she has to be fed.  and now, even if she were to sit up and say “i want a happy meal,” it would be illegal to give it to her.  (mind - one could argue that it should be illegal to give anyone a happy meal.  make it a cucumber.  if terri schiavo ate it, she would be in contempt of court.) this decision is not a “mercy killing.” it is not “putting terri schiavo out of her misery.” it is starving a mentally disabled woman to death.  pedophiles and serial killers who are condemned to death are given an injection that works in 3 minutes ; terri schiavo’s death sentence could take 15 days.  where is the mercy in this killing?

and before we go down the all-too-familiar road of blaming zealous christian conservatives for difficult social issues, i’d like to point you to this site : http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Should_Terri_Schiavo_Live_or_Die$.asp

finally, as to letting local authorities deal with local issues.  judge greer has consistently refused the validity of terri schiavo’s advocates.  he has refused to consider her parents’ request for a change of guardianship.  they appealed his decision, and the case moved into a different court’s jurisdiction.  i would suggest the issue of the rights of cognitively disabled people is far more than local.  thank god there are people, worldwide, fighting zealously for terri schiavo’s life, but take god out of the equation if you like.  it’s not right for one person to decide to starve another to death. 

aristotle said law is reason without passion.  in this case, what stands for law has neither passion nor reason, and its blindness has nothing to do with justice.

Ruzmari, your medical facts are wrong.  Terri is far more than mentally disabled; she meets the medical definition of “vegetative state.” The idea that she can sing and dance and do a broadway number is, to be frank, conservative propaganda. I’ve read enough medical opinions on the subject of her actual condition to convince me of this.

And your arguments about justice and passion are heartfelt, but misplaced. Dan is correct: the federal government subverted the principles of the constitution for a political agenda.  Bush signed into law a bill that names the parents. It’s so sickening that I can barely begin to think about it.

Are there no political parties left that promote individual and states’ rights?

Just kill her already! She has no cerebral cortex. Large portions of her brain are gone, replaced with CSF. She is no longer capable of consciousness.

I would prefer it if she were given a lethal injection, but that probably isn’t going to happen.

Starving her to death would seem to be cruel, but given her lack of consciousness, she won’t suffer at all in the traditional sense of “suffering”. You could bludgeon her to death and it won’t make a difference.

I think Dan’s issue (and certainly mine in this situation) isn’t about whether Terri deserves to live, but that the hypocrites driving this latest phase of the case are the same people who balk when a Federal court overrules a state law that they like (a law against sodomy, for instance). These people claim that the Federal court should stay out of their business, until a situation arises that the state/local courts consistently make a decision not in the hypocrite’s favor. Then they are screaming for the Federal government to intervene.

Romy, I too am troubled by the fact that Terri’s death is being brought about by starvation, not by removing life-sustaining machines. This is different than when my father had to force the hospital to remove my grandmother’s intubation tube after her second massive stroke. This is denying something that every person on this earth must have to survive. I don’t like it at all, but it’s not my decision to make. I believe that if Michael Schiavo is making the wrong decision, he will get his judgement. It is my responsibility to pray for mercy for Terri, wisdom for her guardian and the courts, and comfort for her parents. I feel compassion for her mother and father—they want so much for their daughter to be alive again, and they are deluding themselves in the process.

I too have to say that I do not trust a Federal Government that picks and choosen when it will follow the laws that We The People have already laid out for it to follow.  I am also extraordinarily skeptical of this current Administration due to our recent experience with it.  They will lie, cheat and steal to further their own power base.  I do not believe that they are motivated by any religious or even ethical beliefs whatsoever.  Their actions have shown me clearly that they are power mongers who are only motivated by gaining more political power.  They are willing to destroy every check and balance that this country has in place to further that goal.  They will manipulate any and all situations, including this one.
There’s no question here that this particular case if filled with troubling ethical and emotional issues.  This is also a situation that comes up in hospitals on a regular basis.  Not every family member is pleased with the decisions that are made by the guardians of the incapacitated individual.  Sadly I believe that even if this woman had left written, signed, witnessed and notarized directions telling her husband that he was the only one to make decisions and that she did not want to be in any kind of vegitative state this Federal Government would STILL be doing exactly what they are doing.  Because this is just another form of campaigning for them.
Sorry Dan, I ranted in your comments.

Everyone else was so much more eloquent than my original comment, but I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading them.  Very valid points.  The idea that any lawmaker decided that parents have more say than a spouse gets my blood boiling.  Everyone needs their own living will, or at least mine’s resting in various blog comment servers.

see what i miss when i don’t read you for a day or two…

beautifully put Dan.  in a similar vein, when a federal judge ruled several weeks ago against California’s ban on same-sex marriage, the zealous regressionists (as you call them—i LOVE that description!) were quick to paint the judge as yet another San Francisco activist judge.  it wasn’t until a few days later that i read that this particular judge was himself a member of the Grand Ol’ Party, was appointed by a GOP governor (Wilson) and is a Catholic.  funny how the zealous regressionists choose to ignore all that when it didn’t suit their needs.