Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Is the liberal/conservative divide a matter of children?
Published on March 30, 2005 By Draginol In Politics

 In the recent Presidential Election the exit polls showed something very interesting: Married people with children voted for Bush at a rate of 60% to 40%. That's landslide numbers by any means.

Which brings such to the Terry Schiavo case where some believe that the divide is amongst conservatives and liberals. But is it really? From just casual discussion with friends and neighbors it seems that the married people I know who have cihldren are much more likely to be horrified about what is happening to Mrs. Schiavo than those who do not have children.

This got me talking to my wife about this and indeed, I think that's part of the issue.  If my son married some woman and a couple years into their marriage some accident occurred that left him completely mentally disabled and the woman he married soon after moved on, had a couple kids with another man, we'd be outraged if the courts put the life and death decision in her hands.

As parents, we would feel that the decision should rest with us. If our son were in Terry's condition, I think we'd be in a better position to know what he would want. Certainly his new wife who was effectively in a common law marriage with someone else shouldn't be the one making the decision?


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 31, 2005
nobody said she was brain dead. It was determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state. Judging from the fact that most of her brain was physically destroyed (the tissue was actually gone) the doctors concluded that a) she could neither think nor feel and she could not possibly recover.


You would also conclude that my nephew is in a PVS based upon the stupid definition. Yet he responds and is a joy. He will never be a productive member of society, nor be able to feed himself, so maybe we should just starve him now.

You constantly bob and weave yet you never hit the mark. You won. Your side was able to do to a living breathing human being what others get jail terms for when done to stupid animals. So quit trying to justify your beliefs to yourself.

You won, but not every victory is a true victory.

be careful what you wish for, for you may get it. You got it.
on Mar 31, 2005
Some other Bloggers and I have been working to help an Illinois mother who is in a guardianship case where the sister simply paid lawyers ($211,000.00 so far)and the mother can not even talk with her childern. I have never seen anything like it. Don't be fooled, Judges, not you parents, are in control of your children. The Amy Joan Schneider case is a shameless example of our court and the law being in the hands of deal makers and the like. Money is the fuel that drives the court system. Mike S. had to give so much of that money back to lawyers regardless of the outcome. Nothing should be more important than human life and the right to have our children.


I know and I fully support your cause as I have stated already. That judge should be impeached, but that is for another blog.
on Mar 31, 2005
Baker Street,
I agree with you on the Parent comment. Something just takes over. Suddenly there is pitter patter and little voices about that are much more important than me. Life's greatest gift. Of course that is if you can avoid the family courts and the country's 50% divorce rate.
on Mar 31, 2005

Am I the only one who doesn't consider being starved to death over a period of 14 days to be "dying with dignity"?

The fact is, they really don't know for certain what her state of mind is. And even if they did, so what? There is no way to know for certain what she wanted and her parents wanted her kept alive. So why the angst to have her starved to death? 

on Mar 31, 2005
Am I the only one who doesn't consider being starved to death over a period of 14 days to be "dying with dignity"?


And to me, IF they really had her permission to do this, it is assisited suicide, which is illegal. This was not a dying woman being kept alive artificially. I bet there are some of us here that wouldn't last 13 days without food or water.

Either she wanted to die and the doctor helped facilitate it, or she didn't and it was imposed. Either way, food isn't "life support".

From parent's perspective, I'd deal with a terminally ill child in pain much differently than a handicapped child in terms of their "suffering". To the pro-death folks, they seem to be the same thing.
on Mar 31, 2005

Well the law states that you can remove feeding if someone is in a persistent vegatative state. The court ruled that she was. So it wasn't in violation of the law.

There's been enough doctors that have come forward to say that it wasn't clear she was in such a state and that a remarkably slight amount of medical examination (not even an MRI for crying out loud?) was done to determine that.

But EVEN if they did know she was in a persistent, vegatative state, then they have to figure out what the will of the patient was. And that too is foggy.

on Mar 31, 2005
To me, though, they could have done the usual Supreme Court cop-out and said that since no one could say for sure if it was a vegitative state, that they couldn't make an informed decision and opt not kill her. Instead, they just basically did that, and made the default death.

I think if any law should be passed, it should be that a feeding tube alone is not life support. No one on "life support" should be able to linger 13 days.
on Apr 01, 2005
"You would also conclude that my nephew is in a PVS based upon the stupid definition. Yet he responds and is a joy. He will never be a productive member of society, nor be able to feed himself, so maybe we should just starve him now."

Do you realise that I didn't define anything but merely mentioned what the doctors said?

It seems to me that you really don't know that Terri was in a PVS and somehow thought that this was just my silly idea based on some definition I made up. I certainly understand why your opinion is what it is based on that information.
on Apr 01, 2005
"To me, though, they could have done the usual Supreme Court cop-out and said that since no one could say for sure if it was a vegitative state,"

I strongly reject the idea that courts should decide over medicine. The state of a patient should be determined by medical professionals, not by judges.

A court can and must refer to medical professionals to find the state of a patient, not decide that "no one could say for sure" after the medical professionals gave their opinion.

Pi is not 3.
on Apr 02, 2005

What happens if medical professionals disagree as they did in this case? Someone has to judge.

The PVS argument was weak though.  No MRI and not PET scan? Incredible.

 

3 Pages1 2 3