What is the use of sustaining a body for its own sake?  The human body is a vehicle for the soul to remember God.  It’s so weird to see so-called religious folks trying to keep this soul imprisoned in a non-functional body.  It is a severe expression of materialistic religion.

I see the body as more than a vehicle to remember God; it is also a vehicle to encounter God and express him to others. 

I think some of the resoning behind the push to save this woman is that there is debate over whether her body is truly non-functional or not.  I’ve seen evidence from both sides, and I am glad I am not the decision maker.

It is an interesting concept to refer to a soul as being trapped in a body. Taken to its logical extreme (which is always a bad idea), it make the act of murder one of liberation.

Unatural Logic…

I have to comment that the logic surrounding Michael Schiavo’s decision to “honor” his wife’s wishes through starvation seems shady at best. I mean, why starvation? What is the rationale behind starving this woman to death rather than utilizing the latest in technology, i.e., sometype of lethal injection or something that would actually allow this woman to die painlessly and quickly…

I suppose the logic is somewhat along these lines:

1. Injecting her with a letal substance would be murder.
2. Withholding food and water would allow her to pass with dignity.

*Nevermind the fact that a parent who withholds food and water from their child would be found guilty of murder should that child die from malnutrition.

Logic? You people want logic?

When was the last time you ever saw at least 19 different judges in at least six different levels of jurisprudence AGREE with each other? Now take that to the next level and add the word “unanimously”.

Three court-appointed guardians agreed Terri has had exemplary care at the hands of Michael Schiavo, and one judge called him “a nursing home administrators worst nightmare”.

Nobody is “starving” Terri Schiavo - she is being dehydrated. Lack of nutrition will take at least 30 days to cause a body to perish, lack of hydration will take only around 10 days.

Every doctor appointed by the courts to examine Terri Schiavo agrees - and here is that pesky word again - unanimously she is in a persistant vegitative state.

One of the judges - Judge Greer - actually determined for himself Terri’s level of consciousness. The result - he found few actions that could even be counted as responses among hundreds of “demonstrations” performed by a doctor brought in by the Schindlers.

The Schindlers have utterly failed to prove the actions Michael Schiavo is attempting to enforce are not also those of Terri. Over 15 years they have been unable to produce one shred of evidence beyond “we say so”.

The Schindlers have used deception and baseless allegations to try to strengthen their position, Michael Schiavo has never done so. Further, the courts have never failed to note the diligence displayed by Michael Schiavo in obtaining therapy and care for his wife, even now. Contrary to published reports, Terri is not uncomfortable. Court documents reveal she is receiving medicine for any pain that may still register, and she is receiving lip balm and artificial saliva to keep her mouth moist.

15 years with no change in mental capacity, people. The horse has been beat to glue. She isn’t coming back as she once was - ever. Like it or not, Michael Schiavo is carrying out his wife’s wishes. For four years when he saw a glimmer of hope he did disregard those wishes, which is his right and I argue proper given the circumstances. Now, we have far too much evidence at hand to continue with the charade Terri will get better. The evidence is overwhelming she will not.

If we want to find a “bad guy” here, then I nominate her parents, the Schindlers. The courts have found them to be less-than-innocents in this situation, and after talking to counselors and health care professionals with expertise in such matters, I know why.

The people I have spoken to claim there is “unfinished business” between Terri Schiavo and her mother vis-a-vis bulimia. The experts claim many cases of bulimia are triggered in women by their mothers, specifically domineering, overbearing mothers. If this is true, then it would explain Mary Schindler not wanting to let Terri “go”. She is seeking forgiveness from a daughter that can no longer give it.

If this is true - and I in no way represent it to be anything more than an interesting theory - it fills in a lot of “holes” in the Terri Schiavo case. We will never know if it is truth, as Mary Schindler will never tell us if true. Terri cannot tell us if this is true, and Michael Schiavo will never tell, as he probably didn’t know what was going on between his wife and Mother-in-Law.

All I know is that Michael Schiavo has never been found to be anything other than exemplary in his care for his wife, and I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt in all things because of that fact. If he says this is his wife’s wish - I believe him.

Lets see, yes, he has been exemplary hasn’t he? He hasn’t even married the woman with which he has fathered children with while still married to Terry Schiavo. What a guy!

I think both sides are dealing with incomplete information.  Thus the peanut gallery judgements are getting a bit on the silly side.  I’ve seen far too much rabid ranting about how critical it is to save her, and the let her go.

My opinion is that the decision is flawed, but it has certainly has had ample opportunity to work through the courts.  There is plenty of vitrol against judge Greer but other judges have also weighed in.

It is a nasty issue complicated by emotion and national media attention.  Her life is most certainly done at this point, although she may breathe for a few more days.  It is time for all parties to step back, take a deep breath and relax for a second.

Jerry,

And what of Mary Schindler? All I have at this point is an interesting theory posited by medical professionals who have not had a chance to interview either Terri or Mary. If putting Michael’s actions under a microscope is fair game, then why is it off limits to put Mary under a microscope? After all, if one examines the facts as put forth in the courts, they believe her motives are not pure as the driven snow either.

So if one accepts the bulimia theory at face value, the could not Mary be implicated for Terri’s present condition?

Further, if one looks at Canon Law as it exists in the Catholic Church then one cannot help but see the Church - if pressed - would have to acknowledge the “marriage” was over a long time ago. The only part of the “marriage” now existing is legal, not spiritual. Michael has retained that legal part to enable the care for his wife. The irony of the situation is I believe the Schindlers could have made a very compelling case with the Pope, not the courts. Their emotions blinded them to this possibility, and more’s the pity.

So one can make a case that Michael Schiavo is living in sin, but he is most certainly not “cheating” on his wife. After all, if Canon Law recognizes there is no marriage there, then how is it possible for Michael to “cheat”? I believe the answer to that conundrum was provided by Jesus :

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

So, Jerry - how big is your rock?

My rock is big enough to have enough common sense to see that this man has not been faithful to his own wife, regardless of her condition. Which automatically casts suspicion about his character. Citing this particular quote from Jesus is a misuse of scripture, but that is a whole other argument.

I am not catholic and therefore am unfamiliar with Canon law regarding marrige. Irregardless, it is doubtful whether this man is recognizing Canon law as a Catholic, given his stance regarding ending the life of his own wife in the most inhumane way possible. Which is neither moral or Christian-like.

You can point fingers at whomever you want, my original contention was not whether or not Terry’s parents have a clear track record, my argument is that ending this woman’s life in this particular manner contradicts the notion of dying with dignity. In addition, if you click the link and read my entire post you would see that from a Christian standpoint, there is no such thing as dying with dignity given that dying itself is a result of the curse of sin, therefore there is nothing dignified about it. So the entire premise that Micheal Schiavo and his attorneys argue from is competely dissingenuous and illogical.

Jerry,

If the Catholic’s guiding law says Terri and Michael can be considered no longer married due to her medical condition, who are we to argue? Canon Law is quite specific on incapacity in a marriage. If Canon Law rules, then check your emotions at the door and admit you are wrong. I know what you want to believe, but that does not match up with reality.

Regardless, there is no such word as “irregardless”. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

Now, given that your entire post is running on raw emotion, I find it amusing you have stones left over to toss at anyone else to call them “illogical”. You seem to have an ample supply of it yourself. I am not a Catholic either, but I know how to find the Vatican’s web site and look up Canon Law for myself. It’s all there in black and white, so to speak.

But even that is not necessary if you recall the standard wedding vow - till death do we part. Define death. The Terri that Michael knew certainly died over 15 years ago. Terri was medically dead for a period greater than 8 minutes before being “brought back”. Does that meet your definition of death? I say death by any definition breaks all bargains. Physical death, brain death, or even spiritual death are recognized by nearly all faiths to break the bonds of marriage.

Except, evidently, your particular faith.

If we don’t recognize the ability of the mentally challenged to be bound by contracts, why do you seek to hold Terri to one? What you say and support just doesn’t make sense when stacked up against any real-world yardstick I can find. The heart of the matter is there is no Terri there anymore, and if that is true, then she can be held to no contract. If there is no enforceable contract, then there is no marriage. If there is no marriage, then Michael cannot be “cheating” on her, common sense be damned. Simple logic dictates this must be so.

But I do take great umbrage that you find my quotation of scripture to be less than accurate. I know it is dead on. But, since you want to go down this road tell me this :

Who is Jesus defending when he uttered that statement?

I will entertain all retractions you cheerfully offer up after you think through your illogical position.

Buster my friend, it is easy to nitpick on words and terminology in an informal argument that seems to be going nowhere, given that you insist on arguing that Michael Schiavo is not cheating on his wife and my original contention has nothing to do with his infidelilty. As I stated in my previous entry here and on my blog, my contention has nothing to do with Canon Law or Michael Schiavo cheating on his wife, although it is humerous that you seem to be sure that Terry is absolutely dead and is merely a shell of her former self. Yet you then state, “if” that is true. Either it is or it isn’t, which one is it? Shouldn’t your statement be “Since” that is true?

I for one choose not to make such a call given that I am one who understands that not even modern medicine can determine to an absoute certainty that she is dead. Wouldn’t it make sense to err on the side of life rather than death?

Once again, my original contention is this, if she is to die with “dignity” then why die in the most undignified of ways? And again, from a Christian standpoint, dying with dignity is an oxymoron, there is nothing dignified in death given it is a consequence of sin.

In addition, regarding your mis-use and obvious misunderstanding of utilizing judgement, citing the incident of the women who was to be stoned is a poor example in this particular situation. My guess is your point to me is that people shouln’t throw stones at glass houses, right? So I guess in your mind no one can call sin a sin since that would mean we are judging? I am going to spare this blog the long diatribe I could go on regarding judging self-righteously unto condemnation vs. judging righteously based on the truth of God’s word. I will simply say this, the passage you cite is more about forgiveness rather than judging. You are way off with this one.

Update time, Jerry :

Terri’s Parents Cash Out !

Gee… who called it? Who was saying we should be looking at the Schindler’s? You remember who that was, Jerry?

"Now, given that your entire post is running on raw emotion...”

And who was running on raw emotion again? ‘Hoosier Daddy’?? Dear Buster, have some level of dignity about yourself man. I mean, damn, we are debating about life and death here not who’s going to win the NCAA finals
.
Sad indeed.

In so far as this article, it says nothing of the Schindlers intentions, but rather, is a sweeping indictment of our system of capitalism, where even in the most delicate of circumstances there are going to be opportunists in the wings waiting to capitalize off of the emotions of the people.

Yet again, you miss my point as mentioned before, my contention has nothing to do with the Schindler’s integrity, but with the rationale to murder this woman in an inhumane way and pass it off as humane. Pointing out the moral flaws of one group doesn’t justify the moral flaws of another.

A little common sense and decorum is in order here.

Jerry,

It is painfully obvious you will refuse to recognize even the most basic truth of this situation as you will only sit in judgment of some, but not all. No matter what you like to call it, that is not righteous judgment. It is self-evident proof that your judgment is flawed. That being the case, you do not have the standing to be criticizing the actions of others.

Like it or not, bulimia has a predominant cause. More often than not that cause is psychologically rooted, and medical research has proven there is a link to the mother as a causal factor of bulimia. Let me break it down so you can understand :

There is a very good chance Terri’s mother caused her bulimia.

You want inhumanity? What sort of mental abuse did Mary Schindler heap upon her helpless daughter to trigger the bulimia? The medical records are quite clear Terri had a substantial weight loss before her heart attack. Did pressure from her mother cause this weight loss? It appears so. Like it or not, there is a link of circumstantial evidence that Mary Schindler caused Terri’s heart attack.

If that is not inhumane, then tell us all your definition of the word.

You persistantly and stubbornly bury your head in the sand when confronted with anything resembling proof the Schindlers may bear any responsibility for Terri’s condition. Further, you lash out at Michael Schiavo in the absence of proof for your perceived definition of “adultery”. I challenged you to define death, you did not do so. You have offered no evidence at all to back your assertion of adutery.

Also, you completely mischaracterize a news story by twisting and contorting the facts to condemn the world rather than the people who triggered the events - the Schindlers. The “opportunists” would not have the opportunity were it not given them by the Schindlers. You conveniently omit this one fact to bolster your argument. That you consistently downplay any negative dealing with the Schindlers is also self-evident proof of your flawed judgment.

These are not rational, logical acts.

If you wish to discuss “inhumanity”, then you must address all cases on an equal footing. You consistently refuse to do so. Therefore, you have no standing to comment on the “moral flaws” of another. Based on the evidence I have outlined here, there is no other logical conclusion to be reached - your judgment is flawed, and you are wrong.