I heard, but have no confirmed, that the husband can't divorce her under Florida law. And, of course, he won't get the benefits from the insurance policy until she's dead. I agree, I don't think he's the person to be making these decisions. Way, WAY too many conflicts there.

I support a person's right to die, but there should be some documentation of their wishes, before a court intervenes and pulls feeding tubes.

But hey, we live in a country where the highest court in the land has said that it's legal for a full term baby to be decapitated on his way out of the birth canal, so it's hardly a surprise that people are comfortable with knocking off a disabled woman.

I'm with you, Ace.

The thing about this case that puzzles me the most isn't Michael Schiavo's behavior.

It's the Florida judicial system's behavior.

How can so much evidence of guardian neglect be ignored? How can so many common, widely prescribed medical tests NOT be ordered? How can Greer's ridiculous decisions not get overturned by higher courts?

Would these same people cheering her murder been cheering if the "husband" had blown her head off with a .44?

If not, what is their argument? ? Aesthetics? That it is messier? But surely a quick death is less cruel than starvation. I am not arguing either way on the ethics, but to pretend taking life is not talking life...that is sickening.

A very well written, thoughtful post Ace. I too have serious doubts about Mr Schiavo's role in this versus her parents.
Starving her to death is simply monstrous. She will experience the extreme discomfort and pain of being starved. Maybe she doesn't process it real well intellectually, but like any other dumb animal she'll be desperate for water and for food.

How utterly despicable JB

This website is most disturbing. The domain seems to be owned by the same people who run terrisfight.org:

www.zimp.org
www.zimp.org/stuff

If even 1/3 of this information is true, evil is truly at work here.

I'm watching George Felos on Fox News right now and it's about to make me ill. The Senate, he says, should "wear their shame in public and recant" for the way they have treated Terri Schiavo, and he's calling out the Democrat senators to "do the right thing" and vote against the bill. He's calling on all watching to call their Senators and demand they "allow" Terri to die. No doubt many will heed this liberal battle cry and do so.

It's moments like these that I fear all is lost. But I keep reminding myself that the night before the Presidential Election, I felt the same way and was overjoyed with the outcome. I pray the same happens here.

Well-written, Ace.

This guy's actions are puzzling and to me, beyond reprehensible. Consider this article Schiavo's actions are simply not those of a loving, concerned husband. I'm sorry to say that, since I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but dammit, this guy is sick.

I find this just stunning. How can we do this when there is any controversy whatsoever - that a person could be starved to death, with no real evidence of her wishes. This, over the objection of the people who gave her life and stood by her, unlike her so-called husband. Michael Schiavo is committing murder. And what a way to go.

I'm sick.

Thank you Ace for your insightful comments.

http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/2005/03/whats-really-driving-death-train-for.html

Here's why greer and the Fl. court system is so determined to kill her. Apparently there's biiiig bucks in guardianship fraud.

Penitent Blogger:

Love that name.

I just saw that attorney on Fox, too. I noticed two interesting things:

1) He kept saying that the US and Florida Congress were trying to "force medicical care on his client's wife." Something along those lines. Interesting how he worded it that way. If he's so fervently true to his cause, then why word it in such a way? He went to warn all Americans that you could be next. The Republican zealots in Congress, lawmakers, could go to an ill loved one of yours and force medical care on you.

What? Removing a feeding tube is not giving medicine. If this guy were the least bit consistent, then he would say that the Court has ruled the removal of nourishment from a living being. Perhaps not cogent, but alive. Remove the food, she dies. No one is forcing medicine on this lady, it is they who are depriving nourishment from her. That's really important, this little word play this fucker made. It just shows how even he feels the need to spin the physical process because it gives peple the willies when they hear it the way it actually is being performed.

2) Then he went off rattling off Democrat law makers, calling on them to rise to the noble occasion, marshall their constituents (I heard Boxer's name) and blah, blah blah.

This is political. And it was this fucker that made it so. Those trying to get her feeding tube kept in were simply trying to protect life. If that's political, then I think our society has just dropped down a notch.

I guess we grow moonbats by the barrell here in Florida, also. The only good thing I noticed was that the man lacked a Southern accent. Hopefully, he's a transplant.

Look on the bright side, libertarians: this is as close as a male will ever be to having abortion rights.

Ace-
I agree with you completely and have since day one. I will take it one step further...

[rest of comment deleted. I think it's too speculative and too accusatory. sorry.

but I think everyone can figure out where kimmber was going with that.]

You know, I don't even know why I deleted that. I think I just am a bit worried about libel suits. I know it's a remote possibility, but I haven't even yet had the forethought to have a warning that "opinions expressed are not endorsed by the siteowner." Not that I think that would make a lick of difference anyway.

I just thought it was a bit too unsupported of a suspicion, and therefore unfair, and therefore, um, potentially litigible.

I hope you understand, Kimmber.

Allah, most merciful.

How do you do it? Short, and utterly hilarious.

But I must ask you, most merciful One: Does that make all of fundamentalist Muslims libertarians?

The parents have already said multiple times that they wouldn't pull the plug even if it was Terri's wish. Why exactly should two people who have testified in court that they would ignore your wishes be allowed to make decisions for you?

As for the husband, he turned down $1+ million on multiple occassions to let this thing go. Maybe it is just as simple as he knows his wife wouldn't want the feeding tube.

Frankly the fact that the parents spread false rumors about him abusing her, combined with their openly admitting they would ignore her wishes to keep her alive makes me think they aren't fit to even be involved in this fight.

Right now, somewhere in San Quentin, Scott Peterson is cursing the fact that he simply didn't maim Lacy enough to leave her in a similiar condition...

Hey guys... did the original court ruling actually order
that the tube be removed? Or did it simply declare that the Schindlers had no legal standing to stop the removal, should Michael Schiavo decide to remove it?

I was under the impression that the court never ordered that anything happen. I thought that the 1:00 deadline was simply a stay, in which Michael was prohibited from removing the tube (as opposed to a court ordered time of removal).

That said, what is the legal basis for stopping the subpoena? It seems, to me at least, to be a completely separate legal issue. Judge Greer has presided over a case where the family and Schiavo have been fighting over legal rights to control Terri's fate. Fine. That's settled.

All of those baseball players yesterday have the right to control their own fate as well, but it didn't prevent Congress from issuing subpoenas to them.

The only way I see there being any "overstepping of bounds" on the part of the Congress is if the court had previously ordered the removal of the tube. I don't see how a court could have the authority to do that to begin with.

Where am I wrong? (Sorry if my post is a little incoherent.. I'm pretty busy at work and don't have time to think these things out right now!)

I have such mixed feelings about Terry Shiavio. The tragedy about this case is it has become so political and everyone claiming Terry as their poster child. When something becomes this political, lines are drawn and everything becomes black and white. When in reality this case is very gray.

Furthermore, I am uncomfortable with congress getting involved in a marriage. I do feel that both the left and the right have twisted the facts to serve their agendas. I cannot even begin to speculate about Michael Shavios motives. I did hear him interviewed a number of years ago about why he did want to give up custody … he felt Terry’s parents were unrealistic about her mental abilities and treated her like a doll for them to dress up. I do recall he was very devoted for a number of years but slowly came to the realization that Terry was no longer truly alive. From what I understand there is only about $50,000 left from the settlement. But like I said I cannot even speculate.

I recently spent the day in a high school for severely handicapped. It is difficult not to reexamine the meaning of being a human, what is consciousnesses and joy after this experience. I agree removing the food source of a fellow human being seems cruel. However if you are brain dead I am not sure it is any different than removing a respirator. Terry’s brain injuries have affected her ability to swallow, which is an automatic response like breathing.

I had to make the decision about removing nutrition from someone I loved as result of cancer not a brain injury. To say it is not easy does not even cover it. My prayers for all those involved. Thank you Ace for the thoughtful post.

Allah, that was pretty funny black humor.

Really, though, jack, Michael can't quite take the money, ever, or else it'll just PROVE that he's the cocksucker in all this.

And really, everyone, can you really blame CedarASS for taking another cocksucker's side in this fight? No need to flame him, unless you kick a dog that eats cat shit, too. CedarASS just can't help himself.

My, though, what a flame war this has become. I was wondering on my way to my meeting this morning whether ace was even going to touch this. I'm almost sorry he did. The threads on this everywhere are just total heat without any light whatsoever.

Bottom line: Michael Schaivo is a cocksucker, every single person justifying him, or worse helping him, are serious moral midgets, and our judicial/political system is showing the limits of its usefulness.

This is a dark day for American morality, and the only thing we can do is make the best of "the time we are given."

Since all the flaming the world over on the internets isn't going to help Terry, we should attempt to find a constructive vent for our anger. Those who are assisting in killing her can carry that burden on their immortal souls.

FWIW, Schiavo himself discusses his reasons in this recent nightline interview.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=584124&page=3

Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted....

Actually, Dave S, they did. Or Greer did, rather. His statement a few weeks ago on issuing the March 18th deadline was basically along the lines of "This has been going on too long, and I'm sick of it. The tube must be pulled at 1.00 PM March 18th." This is a change; all the previous orders had been more along the lines of "It's OK to remove the tube after X date."

Jack - At this point, it doesn't matter what the parents would have done. The woman is severely brain-damaged and it's unlikely she'll ever improve. It's safe to say that at this point she'll never be able to competently express whether or not she would want to live like this, so it's not an issue whether the parents would pull the tube or not. The point is that they are removing the tube because of some very, very flimsy evidence. (Her estranged husband and two of his relatives - gosh, no chance of collusion there! Not to mention that when I think of being "kept alive by machines" I think of a respirator, not a feeding tube - who's to say she didn't think the same way?) In the absence of more solid evidence - something which she indubitably wrote, or hell, even verbal testimony from somebody who is NOT either standing to benefit directly from her death, or closely related to said person - it's very scary that the judge wouldn't want to err on the side of life. Since when did death become a default setting anyway?

I pretty much agree, Ace. Even if the "husband" is doing the right thing -- I'm not personally arguing one way or the other, that's not the point I'm trying to make -- his interest is so conflicted that you just can't assume that he's acting objectively in Terri's best interest. Normally, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but the whole rest of his personal situation doesn't add to his credibility. He should not be allowed to make this judgement.

Michael Schiavo receives $800,000 upon Terri's death.

Not accusing, just stating a fact. If he divorced Terri, he would no longer be the beneficiary.

It ook Michael Schiavo 8 years to bring up that all-important conversation in which he wife apparently went into detail about what she would or wouldn't want done in case she was ever incapacitated.

Not only did Judge Greer order the tube be removed (as opposed to allowing it), he will not allow Terri to be fed orally. How is taking food by mouth a "medical treatment"?

And Terri is not "braindead", anyone who says that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

And BTW, I am not part of the 'religious right'.

As a matter of fact, I think there's far too much talk about the "sanctity of all life" when the real issue should be that a woman is being starved to death when the only "medical treatment" she is receiving is food and water through a tube. Had her husband not refused physical therapy for her, she might be able to swallow on her own.

If I were on trial for a murder I didn't commit and was looking at a death sentence, and no one was looking at evidence that prove my innocence, I'd be pretty pissed if the debate that was going on was whether or not the death penalty was constititutional.

That's how I feel when I hear people talking about the right-to-life instead of explaining that the woman is not in a fucking coma.

Never mind, John. Simply by not wanting this woman to be starved to death -- the minimum kindness we'd show to a legless dog -- you have branded yourself a Rightwing KKKhristian Theothug. Just go with the flow.

The question of whether a feeding tube is an "extraordinary measure' is debated even in orthodox Catholic circles.

See this debate in First Things

What about the cessation of artificial nutrition and hydration for the PVS victim? Is that moral? About a decade ago, when I first began thinking about this issue, I was far more reluctant to support such cessation than I am now. Two factual discoveries changed my mind. The first was that artificial nutrition and hydration were first developed only as a temporary means of helping a person overcome a temporary inability to eat or swallow water, e.g., as part of the recovery process in the aftermath of an operation. It was only in the 1970s, after some major improvements in the tubing and techniques of nutrition and hydration, that the procedure became more widespread, eventually being used routinely with PVS victims. My second discovery was that the inability to eat, and a failing desire to eat, is itself one of the classical symptoms of a dying body. An inability to eat was not, in the past, taken as evidence that a patient was "starving" to death, but only manifesting a symptom of a dying body. The word "starving" was only recently introduced as part of the polemics about artificial nutrition and hydration.

These two discoveries led me to conclude that extended artificial nutrition and hydration for the PVS patient should be considered "extraordinary" treatment, neither "ordinary" medical treatment nor, for that matter, ordinary nonmedical caring. It was only because, once again, technology had coopted the sanctity of life principle that many came to see the cessation of artificial feeding as itself a killing. Once again, what had been a legitimate omission prior to the new technology was now turned into an act of commission. The perfectly natural process whereby a dying body can no longer take food or water has been transmuted into something that has become our fault if we don't use the new technology to remedy the situation.

hobgoblin,

1) Until cedarTARD ceases spouting his hatred and bigotry I will not stop kicking that dog. He has posted many times here when I have not responded because his comments were just stupid, not malicious. But I refuse to be silent when he spouts his evil lies and hate.

2) Terri is a victim of injustice. You're right that there is little we can do about it but the one thing we can do is keep her case in the limelight. We can't know who lurks here that might be inspired to do something.

3) I, too, want everyone to forget about the larger issues this case raises and focus, just this once, on the circumstances of Terri Schiavo. If they read the links Ace has provided and they still think somehow that we should starve this woman to death I want them to tell me why. This has nothing to do with the right to die. This woman is slowly being murdered as sure as the sun rises.

hobgoblin,

One last thing. Your cites are all well and good but if you have read some of the detail of this case I think you may agree that Terri is not in a PVS, or, at the very least, the way the diagnosis was ACTUALLY arrived at was outside standard practices for doing so.

BrewFan is right, the issue is that they are killing someone who is basically in the same condition as a lot of people who suffer from afflictions like Cerebral Palsy or Muscular Dystrophy, and the brain damage she suffered has rendered her mental faculties equivalent to that of many mentally handicapped people.

But she has to ber FED THROUGH A TUBE. That's it.

She's not PVS!

Because of that tube, this is being framed as removal of life support. They're just not feeding her. Period.

Look at the recent cases of people being arrested for practically starving their own children. What if one of them was mentally handicapped and had severe CP?

People would be outraged!

Brewski

kick away, man. but it's easier on the BP to ignore.

I'm also happy with any efforts to save this woman's life. Yet the article I linked was the one (I'm a FT subscriber, surprise) that got me thinking about the deeper issues here on whether there's an obligation to actually try to save Terri.

B whether or not it is immoral to let die someone who cannot eat normally (even profoundly retarded/brain damaged people will chew), it IS wrong to allow someone with a financial interest in her death to decide if she lives or dies.

Saying she may not be fed by mouth is egregious. If she can chew, she's not a "vegetable."

But Brewski, I don't have time (or frankly inclination) to read all the articles. Sometimes injustice is done, and we do ourselves no good in trying futilly to stop it. (I hate to say that, but it's the whole Iraq v. Zimbabwe intervention analysis) We can't stop all moral wrongs, but the ones we can stop, we should try.

That's why I asked in the other thead if there was a plan. And that's why here I asked if a feeding tube is an extraordinary measure.

Maybe my Catholic (almost Jesuit)tendency to see the details in simplicity is making this more of a grey area when you take a step back.

All I know is that the husband in my poinion is a total douche and cocksucker for the way he has objectively behaved. I can't read his heart, but his actions lead one to question his motives.

That's why a running series of "COCKSUCKER" posts of his pic would be so apropos.

"But Brewski, I don't have time (or frankly inclination) to read all the articles. "

Then just read this one and I'll stop nagging! Promise :)

Hobgoblin:

Let me know your thoughts on this post I made in the original thread, and reconcile this with what's being discussed at First Things. I'd really be interested in your input:

Instead of Bible-Thumping, I'm going to do some Catechism-Thumping. Note that the Catechism is the Church's interpretation and guidance on all issues of morality, life in a civil society, geopolitics, charity; in a word, everything one might encounter in almost any situation. There is some mention of God in this set of statements, but I think that the arguments or observations by the Church stand on their own merits. Read them as an atheist or a person of religious convictions, regardless of your leanings, and argue with them on the merits of the case the Vatican makes. I think item 2277 sums this up perfectly.

Here's the Vatican's view on this issue. This taken from the full "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition," copyright 2000 (I believe this is the latest). This is the big, full version, not those little streamlined ones you might have read as a kid in Catholic school. Since I went through the Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults (RCIA), I was encouraged to read this version. And, typical for me, I read it twice.

This falls under the heading "Euthanasia."

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able, or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

leni -

Very good post. You have noticed that Terri Schiavo is being used as a stalking horse by the Right to Lifers to try and get Federal government control over end of life decision-making by families. Adding the Alzheimer's cases, there are easily over 200,000 of the 2.5 million deaths a year where the person has no Living Will and is no longer in possession of a conscious mind...

Our family had involvement with an Aunt whose husband and only daughter predeceased her. She had cancer, too, and was very firm she wanted to live independently but not a day as a vegetable (she was a nurse)...but the cancer spread fast..one day she was fine and the next it hit her brain and after the crisis was no longer "aware". She left no Living Will so we had doctors determined to keep her on life support despite her wishes to us and friends. It took 8,000 dollars to a lawyer, more in expedited court costs, and what the judge went with was a letter from her written 2 years before when her husband died expressing relief he went without knowing what hit him, and she never wanted to die like some people she had nursed.....losing everything slowly....The aunt had stopped eating and drinking on her own weeks before the cancer got into her brain. When she was pulled off artificial respiration, feeding, and the drip meds but for saline and morphine...she defied the doctors by breathing on her own....they thought respiratory failure would happen in days. She lasted a week and a half and died from heart failure caused by electrolyte imbalance and dehydration - though cancer was the cause on the death certificate. The bills largely wiped out the estate she wanted to leave to local charities.

Unfortunately, death gets us all. I do know few people would fight to exist like Schiavo's body has existed for one year, let alone 15 years. I also know the country cannot afford to adjudicate and prolong 200,000 and soon 2 million Schiavos given the rise in life expectancy and Alzheimers with hideously expensive Federal legal costs (if the RTL crowd forces the prolongation of life of any sort at any cost)

Sonetka -

I guess since you know it isn't that simple a decision, to put it in a context of what you would do or what most young women would do if that fate awaited them. If you were very, very unlucky, it could happen to you today. A mostly dead brain, 15 years in a nursing home bed. Some people fighting to keep you alive for another 30-40 years in the same condition at all costs. People who religiously believe that life, any measure of life is so precious that any amount of pain inflicted on a patient, any loss of dignity is worth it. People who say that they would want her to have open heart surgery as long as the taxpayers footed the bill and they didn't lose their own house or church paying for it. A Right to Life fanatic father that declared in a court statement that that all her limbs should be cut off to keep her alive if she developed a thrombosis condition in her limbs.

But I imagine you have asked others and even of yourself - as many people have.....Would you want to live like Terri Shiavo's body has existed for the last 15 years? For 30 more years? I have only met one person, a very religious one - that answered they would want to be kept like that indefinitely.

JohnfromWuzzadem -

You say you are not from the Religious Right, but the mythical 800,000 dollar life insurance policy taken on a 25-year old young gal was a rumor started by them. You state it as fact. Nor is there any money left from the lawsuit at the hospital that unfortunately for them and Terri, saved her life by heroic measures following her heart attack. All Schiavos medical care - some 100K a year - is picked up by the taxpayer funds for indigents for the last 4 years, who have also picked up over a million in Florida's court expenses for legal and expert testimony.

You say you are not a RTL believer, yet only they, albeit with cleaner language, insist "She is NOT in a fucking coma!!".

The basic distinction is not whether euthanasia is right v wrong. As a Catholic, I have to accept that euthanasia is wrong (and I do).

Rather, the issue is at what point does ordinary medical care turn into extraordinary means of holding on to life.

The Cathechism (which is the best one to refer to and one that I have at home from RCIA last year) specifically enjoins euthanasia, as you point out, but at the same time does not demand extraordinary methods to prolong life.

It's an undeniably grey area at what point a feeding tube becomes extraordinary. After all, it's just mashed up eggs, veggies, and water getting pumped down there. nothing fancy.

But when does that simple "force feeding" (as the person isn't chewing) become something beyond what's necessary for moral law?

My guess would be the potentiality for conciousness (as in an unconcious person on a feeding tube after surgery v. a brain dead person).

I really don't have an answer. Not even for myself. And the Church is silent on this grey area, precisely for the same reason -- it's a judgment call.

I am 100% behind ace in saying that Michael Schaivo's judgment is too suspect to allow it to rule in this case. Aside from that, I can't say what's "right" or "best"

Rightwing KKKristian Theothug? I hope you weren't talking about all us Christians. ( although I must admit that that is a very funny name ) Compliments to Ace on this site. I'm new to it and I've been following some of the links you've suggested but I keep coming back here.

Ahha. You see, John, you (and I) are now in the "religious right" because we disagree with Cedarford. And since Ace tends to agree that she's not in a coma, wow, he's in the RR and he's not even religious. I guess we're all either pawns of the religious right, or RR operatives working to "try and get Federal government control over end of life decision-making by families. "

It never occurs to doofus here that maybe we're simply interested in saving this woman from being murdered and protecting her rights. No, it's all part of a big agenda, don't you see?

Cedarford, I stuck up for you once, saying you may be a troll, but at least you're a well-informed troll. After this baseless paranoid ranting about your enemies' real double-secret agenda, and also that crack a few weeks ago about how a Jew would eat bacon when no one was looking or sell it, I'm thoroughly sorry I did so.

Deanna, your sarcasm detector is broken.

We're a littel less solemn and proper here (note the love Cedarford garners)

I agree with you 100%. Keep talking.

hobgoblin:

Thanks for that. Very thoughtful input. It does appear to me to be a grey area, but...

I think that providing nourishment can be categorized as palliative care (since the word carries both the meaning of relieving pain and also carries the meaninng "treatment that does not cure"); and, removing nourishment can be viewed as a willful act of omission that leads directly to death (and a painful one at that). This leads me to conclude this is an immoral act.

Add in the loving husband, and a court-ordered removal of the tube, and you've got one lethal brew of moral depravity.

KC

I'm not so sure that no feeding is "an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering "

It can be seen as nature taking its course. I'm setting aside the lovely Mr. Schaivo and the judicial system here. But the debate really is if someone cannot ever be expected to regain conciousness (or at least the ability to chew and swallow) is providing a feeding tube "extraordinary"?

hobgoblin:

I think you may be right here. This is a tough nut to crack.

But I look at it this way. This woman wasn't put on life support machines that kept her breathing, her heart pumping, her kidney's functioning, etc. She was simply fed for more than a decade, which kept her alive.

So, where in that trajectory of time did the feeding tube become extraordinary?

That's the problem I have.

And that's why living wills are never foolproof. You make one, then someone challenges it, because there are always exceptions.

You strike me as a cautious thinker and a caring person. I think I'll take your cue and try and think of her as a lovely woman, and at a later time try and figure out where the culture of life devolved into the culture of death. And how removing that feeding tube can be seen by some as gallant. The gallant Mr. Schiavo.

Again, hob, thanks. You've provided me with much to think about. I'm kind of a greenhorn Catholic, you know. Only converted 4 years ago.

KC, while I was baptized in the faith, I wasn't confirmed til last year (raised protestant, but not charismatic). You're objectively more Catholic than I.

And my contempt for Michael Schaivo is gradually becoming boundless.

Hey..See-Dub has my back! That "bacon" crack was in a sort-of-haiku (his syllables were like 12-18-4) that Cedar wrote about me!

And the ironic thing...I'm not even Jewish!

I think I will go put a "Friend of Israel" sign on my blog though. Maybe even dedicate it to him.

Thanks See-Dub. :)

Deanna, I was being sarcastic. Against like, people who hate Christians and Republicans.

Interesting, Hob.

I married a Catholic and was raised Episcopal (though I agreed to raise my kdis Catholic; marital vows you know). I converted after I was in the choir at my church. They sort of brought me in as their little non-Catholic pet. Funny thing is, to most Protestants, an Episcopalian and a Catholic mass would seem almost identical. I just got tired of not being able to take communion. So I decided to join the club.

I vowed to my wife that I'd never convert just because of the kids, I'd only do it when and if I wanted to. And after going through RCIA, you know that you're not going to go through that under false pretenses.

You're lucky. You got baptized and the rest. I didn't get to do that, since I was already baptized in the Episcopal church.

Glad to know you're part of the club, and a brilliant one at that. I find that being converted Catholic as an adult makes you more aware of the strength of the Church than cradle Catholics, because you've seen the other faiths. I know more than my wife does. She forgot most of the stuff I learned in RCIA. That big green book is something most Catholics have never read in its entirety.

Hob:

One more interesting thing to take a look at. In that big green Catechism, go to the section called "Respect for the Dignity of Persons." Look at 2284 through 2287. Powerful stuff, and puts our Mr. Schiavo and the Judge in a very interesting light. His lawyer doesn't fair too well either.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a Bible study folks, but remember that the Catechism is merely guidance. It's the Church's interpretation of moral issues, and does make for a good intellectual read, regardless of one's faith or lack thereof. To my mind, you could find similar insights from Plato or Aristotle.

Now hob:

You have to find me the passages in the Catechism that say it's OK for me to craft filthy song lyrics.

KC,

You can do whatever you want, you just have to go confess and be sorry.

As far as "cus" (not curse) words, I don't know of anything in the Bible or Catechism that says those are sinful. Crude, maybe, but not sinful.

Alright, I'm gone til at least Thurs.

Laters.

Not so fast partner.

How dare you have a life. Get back to your basement and start typing you heathen.

Remember, the Bible encourages us to shun human contact and embrace virtual contact.

Happy travels. I hope you have a pleasant time until Thursday. You'll be sorely missed. But before you leave, carry some guilt with you. For while you are away, I've got three kids to watch for the next 3 weeks with no wife around. Single dad thing going on.

I've been using checkbook solutions to fix some of the gaps. But single parents have it real bad. I've just been through one week and it's hell.

Damn....Cedarford (who, by the way, is a cocksucker) isnt around now? I just got done with my site template, and there is a little addition he might be interested in.

Oh well...maybe he'll check in after he gets back form Downtown Lad's loft.

They must be playing "hide the Cedar."

Or running off to Boston for a quick ceremony....

Andrea, I suspected the "Theothug" label was just sarcasm and I really wasn't offended - (however, that is a funny name) - and I do appreciate your postings. I have never been very much interested in internet forums until this Terri Schiavo thing reached a boiling point , but I'm a teacher on spring break and starving for news about Terri. Mostly I want justice . I've already contacted the Prez, the Gov., the US and Fla. Attorney generals ,my own state congressmen and every single legislator in Florida. All I can do now is sit here and read the debates and cheer for those who exhibit common sense. Anyway ,of all the sites I've been to this one seems the most balanced between the number of "Save Terri" and "Let her die" postings. I've also learned a lot of new vocabulary from Brewfan and some of the others. When I get back to my high school next week, I will have a whole new understanding of some of the conversations I overhear in my labs. :)

Deanna,

I don't normally get so carried away but I'm a bit passionate on this subject. Please accept my apologies if I offended you!

BrewFan,

I was not offended. Please, carry on.

I'm thinking of changing my blog name to "Theothugs 'R' Us."

The 1st thing that popped in my head when I heard "chemical imbalance" caused heart to stop was that it would be a very easy way to give someone a heart attack. As a pharmacist I dont think it would be too hard to O.D. someone on potassium and it not be traced..perhaps there was a Matlock or Murder She Wrote on around the time of Terri's collapse that hubby saw and it gave him an idea?

The following was a challenge given out

The following was a challenge given out [Ed. note: which has now been
slightly modified April 18, 2005] and also included below is a URL for our press
release:



From your friendly neighborhood moderator/creator of terrisjustice. See below.
We have been challenged and now I must issue my challenge to you.



Those in the pinnacles of authority [Jeb Bush and others] believe that we are
going to melt away and give up seeking justice for Terri.



The famous motto of the Zapatistas is one response of ours in this regard: Ya
Basta!



We will never surrender! We will never tire!



Challenge to you: go out and inform 10 other people what happened to Terri. Get
them signed on terrisjustice. Ask them to do the same.



This is how the grassroots grows and is the only true means of getting a true
geometrical progression realized.



If you are not for getting justice for Terri against those with blood on their
hands do not join this list. If you are a spy or have mal-intents and you try to
join or succeed in joining please leave the list or it may be that one day you
will die a horrible death not at our hands but as a result of your disingenuous
actions which resulted in karmic repercussions. This is a form of what is called
felos-de-se (a senseless or purposeful act of self-murder).



NOTE:



A great deal of lee-way is necessary, given the scope of the work, and I am
committed to freedom of expression. HOWEVER, it does sometimes become necessary
to remind ourselves of our purpose and the basic rules of etiquette when
communicating with others.



Flame wars and attacks on the character of others are not allowed on this list,
and other members of the list not involved should not be subjected to emails
containing such material - carry them on in private please if you must, or more
adult behavior, don't indulge in them at all.



We will remind once in awhile if things get a little out of hand, and any
continued offense will be dealt with by either a moderation of the posts of the
offender(s) or, when all else fails, a complete ban on those posts, especially
when several complaints have been received from offended list members.



We have never had to take action in some years of doing this, and we hope this
will never be necessary. Thank you for your support, and may your experience on
this list be as enjoyable as it is informative.



URL for press release [also contained in Yahoo! News]:



http://www.prweb.com/releases/2