Monday, March 28, 2005
Next question...
Sorry Laura and Amy, I don't have the time to back you both up completely. I'm sure Chris will give me a lot to work with myself. I eagerly anticipate your response to my post, Chris. Don't let me get all high and mighty about how I was 100% right by your silence.
From Chris' comments to my original response to his reaction to my Terri Schiavo post:
The question I have asked, which has yet to be answered is this: Why does Michael Schiavo feel so strongly about this now, and not fifteen years before?,
I do not know what right-wing media outlets you are listening to whose main line of discourse in this civilized debate is to demonize Michael Shiavo in any way possible, but I would like to answer your question you want so much answered, which I hinted to at a degree on my original response.
Michael Schiavo did not feel strongly about this 15 years ago because Terri Schiavo's heart attack had just occurred. He then waited 7 years caring for her at her bedside hoping for some kind of recovery. A right-wing talking point is that he's a bad man because a restraining order was filed against him during this time, but that was because he was making strong and repeated passionate demands that her hair was combed right, etc... that she looked as beautiful as possible. If you think it is legitimate to bring this private issue into the realm of political debate, you better understand the humanity of everyone involved, and we can speculate based on our own personal values about what the parties are thinking. If you are so upset at Amy bringing her thoughts about trusting husbands in a different way than parents into this discussion, than you can stop throwing about phrases like Michael's 'selective adamancy' or 'selective responsibility' with no base? Michael Schiavo was waiting 7 whole years for her to get better. I knew about this Shiavo issue for a while, and I believe the real legal fireworks over her right-to-die began in 2000. This isn't an all of sudden strong feeling he has. This was an evolution of acceptance to Terri's condition that her parents have not adopted. I hope your awareness of this controversy did not emerge with the Republicans last-ditch legislative tactics, because if Michael Schiavo can be criticized for feeling strongly about Terri's right-to-die now, than you should be tearing your hair out that Delay and Frist have decided to weigh in on their deep thoughts and completely appropriate opinions over this personal matter.
Now there are some issues I'm following involving money from lawsuits and conflicts between Mr. Shiavo and the Schindlers over that, and I can't understand the complexities of this all, but I cannot make the cynical leap to believe that one of the parties involved is fanning this controversy for the primary purpose of money, so I would not like that to be brought into the discussion. Have you followed the news long enough to know that Michael Shiavo was offered a million or so dollars to cede guardianship rights, and he refused? I don't think money is an issue at all.
I do know that Terri Schiavo had a severe problem with bullemia, which primarily deals with severe issues of bad body image. I cannot be on the couch in the late 1980s with Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo to hear their discussions, but just maybe, do you think, them both knowing her condition, they might have had some discussions about severe health consequences of her ailment, and these discussions had an intimacy that did not exist between Terri and her parents? Do you also think, that if there is any essence of Terri left, the thing she would most want is not to be forced to live as an involuntarily moving vegetable, with no control over any of her bodily functions (including the gross ones). And if Terri and Michael had never had a discussion about what would happen if she was in a persistent vegetative state, don't you think that Michael Schiavo who was likely to personally know more than anyone in the world about Terri's condition, her fears and her wishes? Would keeping a bullemic alive to where she appears in the most unnattractive way possible, both physically and mentally, really the proper course of action?
I mean what are you arguing about here? Are we not allowed to take this personally or analyze this from a personal level?
So you can address this seperately or incorporate it into your response. This is one of the most repulsive issues for Republicans to fan the flames of and it would be really sorry if you found some twisted logic to justify it. But I await your post. I just wanted to point out what I know about the case, and hopefully my perspective helps answer your question.
From Chris' comments to my original response to his reaction to my Terri Schiavo post:
The question I have asked, which has yet to be answered is this: Why does Michael Schiavo feel so strongly about this now, and not fifteen years before?,
I do not know what right-wing media outlets you are listening to whose main line of discourse in this civilized debate is to demonize Michael Shiavo in any way possible, but I would like to answer your question you want so much answered, which I hinted to at a degree on my original response.
Michael Schiavo did not feel strongly about this 15 years ago because Terri Schiavo's heart attack had just occurred. He then waited 7 years caring for her at her bedside hoping for some kind of recovery. A right-wing talking point is that he's a bad man because a restraining order was filed against him during this time, but that was because he was making strong and repeated passionate demands that her hair was combed right, etc... that she looked as beautiful as possible. If you think it is legitimate to bring this private issue into the realm of political debate, you better understand the humanity of everyone involved, and we can speculate based on our own personal values about what the parties are thinking. If you are so upset at Amy bringing her thoughts about trusting husbands in a different way than parents into this discussion, than you can stop throwing about phrases like Michael's 'selective adamancy' or 'selective responsibility' with no base? Michael Schiavo was waiting 7 whole years for her to get better. I knew about this Shiavo issue for a while, and I believe the real legal fireworks over her right-to-die began in 2000. This isn't an all of sudden strong feeling he has. This was an evolution of acceptance to Terri's condition that her parents have not adopted. I hope your awareness of this controversy did not emerge with the Republicans last-ditch legislative tactics, because if Michael Schiavo can be criticized for feeling strongly about Terri's right-to-die now, than you should be tearing your hair out that Delay and Frist have decided to weigh in on their deep thoughts and completely appropriate opinions over this personal matter.
Now there are some issues I'm following involving money from lawsuits and conflicts between Mr. Shiavo and the Schindlers over that, and I can't understand the complexities of this all, but I cannot make the cynical leap to believe that one of the parties involved is fanning this controversy for the primary purpose of money, so I would not like that to be brought into the discussion. Have you followed the news long enough to know that Michael Shiavo was offered a million or so dollars to cede guardianship rights, and he refused? I don't think money is an issue at all.
I do know that Terri Schiavo had a severe problem with bullemia, which primarily deals with severe issues of bad body image. I cannot be on the couch in the late 1980s with Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo to hear their discussions, but just maybe, do you think, them both knowing her condition, they might have had some discussions about severe health consequences of her ailment, and these discussions had an intimacy that did not exist between Terri and her parents? Do you also think, that if there is any essence of Terri left, the thing she would most want is not to be forced to live as an involuntarily moving vegetable, with no control over any of her bodily functions (including the gross ones). And if Terri and Michael had never had a discussion about what would happen if she was in a persistent vegetative state, don't you think that Michael Schiavo who was likely to personally know more than anyone in the world about Terri's condition, her fears and her wishes? Would keeping a bullemic alive to where she appears in the most unnattractive way possible, both physically and mentally, really the proper course of action?
I mean what are you arguing about here? Are we not allowed to take this personally or analyze this from a personal level?
So you can address this seperately or incorporate it into your response. This is one of the most repulsive issues for Republicans to fan the flames of and it would be really sorry if you found some twisted logic to justify it. But I await your post. I just wanted to point out what I know about the case, and hopefully my perspective helps answer your question.
Comments:
<< Home
Well said Jonah! This has been a really enjoyable debate so far - keep it going!
Lyon, I must ask you for your opinion. Why are politicians getting involved in this issue in the first place? No one is disputing the underlying legality of being able to choose to remove someone from life support or feeding tubes, so why the intense interest in this one case? As I'm sure you know, Delay himself was part of a family decision in the 80's to remove his ailing father from life support, so why is he speaking for the republican party on this issue?
The whole thinks reeks, and it disgusts me.
Erin
Lyon, I must ask you for your opinion. Why are politicians getting involved in this issue in the first place? No one is disputing the underlying legality of being able to choose to remove someone from life support or feeding tubes, so why the intense interest in this one case? As I'm sure you know, Delay himself was part of a family decision in the 80's to remove his ailing father from life support, so why is he speaking for the republican party on this issue?
The whole thinks reeks, and it disgusts me.
Erin
# posted by 
: 10:06 PM
: 10:06 PM
Jonah,
The past two weeks are not the first time I've heard the name Terri Schiavo. She's been in the news before, but I'm willing to grant that you've hooked into the story before I have. But yes, I have heard the one million dollar offer to Michael Schiavo.
What I would like to know is, when did I ever mention money? I never once said that money was an issue. Just because you heard it on conservative radio, doesn't mean you heard it from me. The "right-wind media outlets" I get my news from are MSNBC and CNN. I hardly ever watch FOXnews, and never listen to Rush Limbaugh.
I do happen to like a few conservative weblogs: powerline, instapundit, and the iraqi weblog iraqthemodel. If you would like to malign me with these fine media outlets, then I invite you to the task. But none of them have had their main line of dicourse being the demonization of Michael Schiavo. And I don't understand why the illusion that I'm some sort of card carrying member of the Limbaugh Legions persists.
Why is asking why somebody wants to pull the plug on someone else an invalid question? Who's demonizing who here?
And your answer to my question raises a couple of new ones:
What does Michael Schiavo's acceptance of Terri's condition have to do with Terri's wishes?
The answer I guess is irrelevant, if you believe the only purpose of asking it is to demonize Michael Schiavo.
Another question I have, while we're on the topic of money, is how are you unable to make a cynical leap in the Schiavo case, when you have made a cynical leap about the motives of half of the entire nation? Maybe not selective adamancy, maybe selective cynicism.
What does bulimia have to do with anything?
"Would keeping a bullemic alive to where she appears in the most unnattractive way possible, both physically and mentally, really the proper course of action?"
This opens a completely unrelated can of worms that distract from the right to die case. You may be accurate that this would violate her neurotic behavior, but very few neurotics find their behavior desirable, just difficult to break with. You can trust me on that.
What am I arguing about here? Just a few issues, secondary to the federal intervention, which I have already expressed skepticism about.
Allow me to remind you the first phrase I uttered on this blog:
"I'm not sure that intervention on the federal level is the right thing to do". It was not my intent to engage in this debate on that level; I don't understand why you seek to draw me in as an antagonist on this point. I have already ceded it.
Believe me, I'm not upset that Amy brought up her thoughts, I was just responding honestly to what I believe had gone unanswered.
Take this, for example: "Are we not allowed to take this personally or analyze this from a personal level?"
Why would you take this personally if it is a private matter unrelated to us?
But should you analyze this from a personal level? Sure. Am I not allowed to find fault with the analysis, though?
One last thought, before I go to bed:
"This is one of the most repulsive issues for Republicans to fan the flames of and it would be really sorry if you found some twisted logic to justify it."
This is not one issue. The Schiavo case has brought numerous issues to the fore in public discourse. You use the term "fan the flames", but it is unclear what you mean--federal involvement, public involvement, public discussion. If it's the federal involvement issue, then I have already maintaned my skepticism of it. The other two, or others still, I see no reason why logic has to be twisted except in an effort to squelch varying opinions.
At any rate I can't keep up against the tag team too much longer. Make another republican friend, dammit!
Goodnight,
Lyon
Post a Comment
The past two weeks are not the first time I've heard the name Terri Schiavo. She's been in the news before, but I'm willing to grant that you've hooked into the story before I have. But yes, I have heard the one million dollar offer to Michael Schiavo.
What I would like to know is, when did I ever mention money? I never once said that money was an issue. Just because you heard it on conservative radio, doesn't mean you heard it from me. The "right-wind media outlets" I get my news from are MSNBC and CNN. I hardly ever watch FOXnews, and never listen to Rush Limbaugh.
I do happen to like a few conservative weblogs: powerline, instapundit, and the iraqi weblog iraqthemodel. If you would like to malign me with these fine media outlets, then I invite you to the task. But none of them have had their main line of dicourse being the demonization of Michael Schiavo. And I don't understand why the illusion that I'm some sort of card carrying member of the Limbaugh Legions persists.
Why is asking why somebody wants to pull the plug on someone else an invalid question? Who's demonizing who here?
And your answer to my question raises a couple of new ones:
What does Michael Schiavo's acceptance of Terri's condition have to do with Terri's wishes?
The answer I guess is irrelevant, if you believe the only purpose of asking it is to demonize Michael Schiavo.
Another question I have, while we're on the topic of money, is how are you unable to make a cynical leap in the Schiavo case, when you have made a cynical leap about the motives of half of the entire nation? Maybe not selective adamancy, maybe selective cynicism.
What does bulimia have to do with anything?
"Would keeping a bullemic alive to where she appears in the most unnattractive way possible, both physically and mentally, really the proper course of action?"
This opens a completely unrelated can of worms that distract from the right to die case. You may be accurate that this would violate her neurotic behavior, but very few neurotics find their behavior desirable, just difficult to break with. You can trust me on that.
What am I arguing about here? Just a few issues, secondary to the federal intervention, which I have already expressed skepticism about.
Allow me to remind you the first phrase I uttered on this blog:
"I'm not sure that intervention on the federal level is the right thing to do". It was not my intent to engage in this debate on that level; I don't understand why you seek to draw me in as an antagonist on this point. I have already ceded it.
Believe me, I'm not upset that Amy brought up her thoughts, I was just responding honestly to what I believe had gone unanswered.
Take this, for example: "Are we not allowed to take this personally or analyze this from a personal level?"
Why would you take this personally if it is a private matter unrelated to us?
But should you analyze this from a personal level? Sure. Am I not allowed to find fault with the analysis, though?
One last thought, before I go to bed:
"This is one of the most repulsive issues for Republicans to fan the flames of and it would be really sorry if you found some twisted logic to justify it."
This is not one issue. The Schiavo case has brought numerous issues to the fore in public discourse. You use the term "fan the flames", but it is unclear what you mean--federal involvement, public involvement, public discussion. If it's the federal involvement issue, then I have already maintaned my skepticism of it. The other two, or others still, I see no reason why logic has to be twisted except in an effort to squelch varying opinions.
At any rate I can't keep up against the tag team too much longer. Make another republican friend, dammit!
Goodnight,
Lyon
<< Home
