Editorial denies Schiavo case justice\nThe staff editorial, "Interfering in family affairs," (IDS, Tuesday) misrepresented and ignored important facts of the case of Terri Schiavo.\nMrs. Schiavo is not "in a vegetative state." She is conscious; she responds to voices, obeys commands. She used to be fed by a spoon, and she swallowed on her own. Watch a video of Terri at www.terrisfight.org.\nTerri Schiavo is not on life support. She is only fed through a tube, most likely for the convenience of the health care workers.\nConsistently, the editorial appealed to the "family." Who is Terri Schiavo's family? Michael Schiavo has moved on. He lives adulterously with a girlfriend and has a child with her. Not only this, but he has denied Terri therapy that many doctors believe could rehabilitate her (see "Legalized Murder" by Phil Brennan, www.NewsMax.com). He has abandoned his wife. \nTerri's parents want to care for their daughter. So why is Michael so intent on Terri's death? Wouldn't divorce be easier? He says he wants to honor his wife's desires, but might Terri's medical trust fund ($750,000), which he stands to inherit, be relevant? It would appear that Michael Schiavo is not content merely to abandon his wife and live with another, but he wants her money too, and he doesn't want to wait for her to die.\nMichael Schiavo wants to starve his wife, the woman that he promised to love, honor and cherish, in sickness and in health, until death. We should all be outraged. But far worse than this is that the courts are willing to turn a blind eye and to let a helpless, innocent woman starve. \nWhat should Jeb Bush have done? I agree that a governor should not intervene lightly in judicial matters, but when judges are willing to allow such an incredible injustice as a man denying his conscious wife food and water, a governor must step in or he is useless. \nWhen the weak and defenseless are not protected, we are all at risk.\nEric Wilson\nGraduate student
Shift gender responsibilities \nI would like to hope that Elisha Sauers' article, "The new-age nuclear family" (IDS, Oct. 7) suggesting that polygamy is a way for feminist women to be relieved of personal responsibilities was merely written in jest. Surely a college undergraduate would realize that females are not the only ones with careers and children. Sauers makes no mention of men facing the decision to have a career or spend time with their children. If women face the problem of too many responsibilities between work, children and chores, why wouldn't they have their husbands help with the domestic duties? Why do women need to open their marriage relationship to other women, while men are allowed to assume no responsibility in the family, as Sauers suggests?\nSauers exploits women's rights and the hard work of those who came before us to propose that an illegal action is the easy solution to the struggles modern women face. Illegal, you say? Yes, that's right. Sauers failed to mention that polygamy is illegal. There is a specific prohibition against "marrying one who is already married." As Sauers mentions, Tom Green is a polygamist currently in jail for marrying five women. How can this man contribute to his family when he is in jail? Isn't suggesting polygamy as the answer for women to have less stress in their lives an oxymoron? The real issue isn't whether women should choose polygamist marriages.\nThe issue is whether modern women can learn to expect and demand an equal partnership. If partners share child-rearing and domestic responsibilities equally, the problem of only women balancing a career and family would become obsolete.\nMandy Ryan\nJunior
