Ace, right now I'd say that the media is doing more than approving Terri's killing - they're encouraging it.

Sure, that's harsh, but how else am I supposed to interpret the consistent and frequent misstatement of facts, the spin in favor of Michael, the constant invoking of the religions of Terri's parents and those standing with them?

It sure as hell looks like the MSM wants Terri dead. If they don't, I don't have any other way to explain the coverage.

I wonder...

How much will Michael Schiavo make off of the book rights?

You just know that a book will come from this.

Hell, he might even get a 'Movie of the Week'!

Oh wait...is it unseemly to propose such things before Terri's 'dignity' has been secured? I wouldn't want to seem presumptuous. You know, since the man has been the utter definition of grace and integrity up until now.

"Cal, take note: The judge did not order Schiavo to remove the tube:"

Ace, a note back:

It's always a good idea to check out the source documents.

February 25th order:

"ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005."

"Intellectually incurious" is a phrase I've often voiced aloud to many of my friends who take the press' word as gospel. And you know, that makes a lot of people react the same way fundamentalists react when you question any aspect of their beliefs. They just won't hear it.

If there's a religion of the left, its gospel is written on the pages of the NYT and the WaPo, and their televangelists are on the screen 24/7 on NBC.

Cal is this the best you have? Really, you're splitting hairs. Why are you so invested in this in this idea that somehow Michael Schiavo's has just stood by while the court kills his wife? Don't you understand that if Michael Schiavo didn't want Terri dead none of this would be an issue? Is that a hard concept to grasp?

BrewFan:

Perfect. Now, could you or others be so kind as to provide input on this issue for me?

For years now, this woman has been kept alive using a feeding tube. Let us suppose that extraordinary care such as expiremental treatments or new medications can at many times be morally dismissed as unnecessary and indeed reprehensible. Denying such treatment, if the odds of curing or prolonging life for a sufferer of disease are very low, and the risk of administering the remedy is high and could perhaps kill or worsen the sufferer, can be seen as just. This gives rise to a few questions:

1) Could the delivery of nourishment to Ms. Schiavo at any time, from the beginning until now, ever be categorized as extraordinary means such as the ones I outlined above? And, if so, when? At the beginning of the administering, now at the end, or sometime during the intervening years?

2) Is denying nourishment to a most-likely brain-dead but breathing, functioning human morally just?

3) Is denying nourishment to a person in a coma morally just?

I invite anyone, Cedarford, Brewfan, the good doctor, and all others to provide their opnion on this.

Is her husband telling the truth about her express wish she not be kept alive for prolonged periods artificially? If so, this IS a "right to die" case. But it's also a spousal credibility case. Personally, given what little I've seen about her pre-coma personality and attitudes, I'm inclined to believe him. But absent documentation, it's unprovable. Maybe living wills should be obligatory!

"Maybe living wills should be obligatory!"

To which rulers, federal, state, or local, ought we to consider becoming obligated? What punishments ought we to plan for their using in order to enforce the obligation? Will failing in the obligation to make a living will be a violation of the civil code or the criminal code? Will the living will or the fact of its existence or nonexistence be a matter of public record? If not, who will have the power to read the living will? Who will have the power to check for its having been written? How could people be abused by means of their living will, the obligation to make one, or the punishments that would be newly made available to enforce our writing them? Who will investigate infractions, police detectives or a new bureau?

I wonder if there ought to be a law against saying, "There ought to be a law."

Brew, you keep on inventing opinions for me. I didn't post an opinion in that post. Just a fact. You might want to learn how to recognize one when it boots you in the ass.

"But absent documentation, it's unprovable. "

Not according to Florida law and the various courts who ruled otherwise and upheld it on appeal. But no doubt you know better?

What are you babbling on about now cal? You're quoting something somebody else said. Or maybe you pulled that out of your ass? Oh sweet irony!

Bravo Lady Jessica! However, if you stretch the meaning of what the man might have meant, obligatory can mean "so commonplace as to be a convention, fashion or cliché." But that's of course not what Brian had in mind.

Cal and BrewFan: Boys, hug and make up. Your division is killing the good cause. Our assailments should be hurled at the moonbats.

Does anyone else find it wierd that the Media holds all night vigils and crying fests when the state executes a murderer, wrings its hands in despair when some despot is about to meet GI Justice, but pretty much acts like cheerleaders at the homecoming game in favor of abortions and euthanasia?

No one likes the person who lingers past their welcome at your party. Leave already so we can clean up the cans and the butts!

jmflynny - Michael's attorney, George Felos, is allegedly working on a book already. He has an older one in publication in which he claims to telepathically communicate with coma patients (and apparently they all say they want to be "let go"). You can find the book listed on Amazon.com.