I think, therefore I am?

For the past few weeks, the media has bombarded the American people with the story of Terri Schiavo. Depending on one's side of the ideological spectrum, it is either a noble fight to save a life or a battle to protect legal jurisprudence and individual rights.

In reality, the Schiavo case presents a tragic situation caused by the inability of the U.S. government to define where life begins and ends. Individual interpretation is destined to conflict on questions that are literally of life and death.

It is darkly ironic that those on the right and left can have such disparate views on life and death. Conservatives can rally around cases like Schiavo and even bomb abortion clinics, but in general harden themselves to war, seeing it as an inescapable reality.

Liberals generally open themselves more to the pain of victims during wartime and yet easily turn callous to heart-wrenching situations, hiding behind legal precedence and the Bill of Rights.

Some states hold laws that allow for abortion, while deeming one who kills a mother and her unborn fetus is guilty of a double homicide. Schiavo presents yet another case where tragedy has been exacerbated by the lack of distinction.

Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, argue that their son-in-law, Michael Schiavo, is unfit to be Schiavo's guardian because he now lives with his girlfriend and their two children, although he never formally divorced his wife. On multiple occasions courts have ruled against this petition, and Schiavo's husband has remained her guardian.

Michael has been called an idolater who is selfish and biased against his wife's well-being. But can we expect him not to move on after his wife has been in a vegetative state for 15 years? Although he swore "until death do us part," Schiavo surely cannot fulfill the roles a wife plays.

In high school, I volunteered as an aide at a school for mentally and physically handicapped teenagers. The most heart-wrenching days were when I helped those who were in near-vegetative states. It was often overwhelmingly depressing to see not only a mind trapped in a handicapped body, but consciousness trapped within a handicapped mind.

I can't imagine what it must be like for Michael to see his wife in such a state for so long.

Conservatives have asked why Schiavo's husband didn't divorce her, turn guardianship over to her parents and marry his girlfriend if he has his wife's best interest in mind. His life would be much easier. Had he divorced his wife in 1998, Michael would have walked away with at least a few hundred thousand dollars from the $1.2 million settlement the family won concerning medical malpractice relating to Schiavo's original injuries. Now he'll get nothing.

Ultimately, there is no logical reason for Michael to remain married and expect to maintain guardianship of his wife, so it seems likely he is acting as a husband who believes he is carrying out his wife's wishes. I am continually appalled by the hypocrisy of those who have claimed he is a terrible person without meeting him when they turn around and say doctors, judges, lawmakers and the public need to visit his wife before passing judgment on her mental capacities.