The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

[Guest MikeSC]

A clean divorce from his wife and whatever funds are left from the malpractice settlement.

He's had numerous chances to get a clean divorce from his wife. He didn't take it. Obviously, that's not what he's seeking.

 

 

 

Don't sit there and pretend that he's been a good husband. He has a common law wife and two kids.

And just how much of this malpractice settlement is he going to be getting? Considering most of the funds have been squandered already, I doubt it would be enough to justify going through this process solely on the basis of receiving a rather unimpressive sum of money. You're saying that he has absolutely no care about the best interest of Terri Schiavo here?

I am saying that it is criminal that the FL Court ruled itself as Terri's guardian AND as the judge of the case and simply accepted Michael's claims as to her desires.

Why you never seem to question why he stays married even though he has a second common law wife and two kids is baffling.

Because then he still has an impact on Terri's status and what happens to her.

And his desire to have an impact on the life of a wife after thei marriage has been effectively dead for years is baffling. Don't sit there and say it's the goodness of his heart because his whole "common law wife and 2 kids" disproves that nicely.

Once he gets that divorce, that's it. He doesn't have any right to make a decision for her. He's kept his marriage to her so the parents wouldn't get primary rights over their daughter and thus keep her alive until she's nothing more than a stump with eyes.

Shame she's not that. And it's a shame he is so determined to make sure his wife is dead. I don't blame her parents for hating his guts.

Considering all you said, where the fuck does he get off claiming to have spousal authority? He's made an utter mockery of the entire institution of marriage.

Mockery of the entire institution of marriage? Perhaps I missed something here, but did Michael definitively cheat on Terri while she was still in perfect mental condition?

Utterly fucking irrelevant.

 

The vows to have that whole "in sickness and in health" line.

Or did he go to find a new life companion only after years of suffering through Terri's condition and realizing he was never going to get her back to where she was ever again?

He had two options. Either allow her parents to take over and he could stay faithful.

 

He wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

You know how when a spouse dies, the husband or wife does an appropriate amount of grieving then, many times, try to move on? Sometimes, they even find someone else to marry and spend their lives with.

The spouse isn't dead and her family has BEGGED him to let them take care of her.

 

He sacrificed his marriage by his actions.

Mike, this is the same type of situation. Terri has provided him no comfort whatsoever in fifteen years.

Ah, so it's OK to cheat on your spouse when they're incapacitated, eh?

 

Ah, marriages-of-convenience.

She can't talk. She can't move. She can't satisfy him sexually -- which, if you're talking about the insitution of marriage, should be a necessary criteria anyway.

Wow, you hold women in such high regard.

 

Seeing as how she couldn't "fulfill" her duties --- then the marriage, using your definition, IS OVER.

Even with Terri by his side, it would still be like Michael is alone. He can't move on and try to find a new companion? Try to start a new life besides pining for a person that's never going to mentally improve?

Then you do the honorable thing and DIVORCE her. You didn't see Christopher Reeves' wife fucking random dudes. It's because she took the vows seriously.

 

Schiavo did not.

In my opinion, he cares about Terri.

Because cheating on an incapacitated spouse DEFINITELY indicates caring for a spouse.

He wishes to see her improve but, unlike her parents, he is a realist. He realizes that's never going to happen. Going by what he said, she once wished that she would never be in the vegetative state she currently is.

He refuses to allow anybody to try to feed her. And her "vegetative state" is in doubt.

In order to make this so, he would HAVE to stay married to her. He would have to STAY married to her to, in essence, preserve the sanctity of marriage -- following through with the desires of the spouse.

The same desires he ignored for seven years?

 

Wow, what a guy.

And I believe that with NO indication, one way or the other, that this is an impossible decision to make.

But see, it seems as if there has been an indication. Michael, and two relatives of Terri Schiavo, have said she made it clear she did not want to live on life support.

No, it was two members of MICHAEL'S family, not Terri's.

Even if you think Michael had something to gain by this -- what the hell would Terri's own relatives gain with her death? They wouldn't receive a penny! Why would they make something like this up besides just being bastards for the sake of being bastards?

Which member of the Schindler family made the statement?

You have Michael and two Schiavo relatives saying Terri explictly say this.

The Schiavos are MICHAEL'S family. The Schindlers are TERRI'S family.

Have the parents ever heard her say explictly that she DID wish to live on life support if she were ever paralyzed without the ability to do much of anything?

News flash:

 

If you want to kill somebody --- which, make no bones about it, that is precisely what you advocate --- you have to prove she said it.

 

And you can't. You have a statement allegedly made by Terri with no ACTUAL corroboration.

Have they ever made this clear in court? You have one side saying she DID make her side known on an issue like this. You have the other side not even hearing a word about it while Terri was alive.

They don't HAVE to make it clear. You don't have to make it clear she DIDN'T want to die. It's Michael's job to prove she wanted to die.

 

And he hasn't.

And that some doctors and nurses who have examined her or have dealt with her are saying she very well might not be in a PVS means that this is simply barbarism.

Of course, there are other doctors and nurses that have the opposite opinion as well.

Which makes the courts refusing to actually HEAR the case downright evil. Rather than hear both sides, the courts simply went with one side.

She hasn't a neurological exam IN THREE YEARS.

What's more likely? That the condition of her brain has IMPROVED over the past three years, or that it has stayed the same and possibly even WORSENED?

Then why not do it before you starve her to death?

Sure, there's always a chance her brain might be improving itself. But it's a slim chance. A tiny chance. A chance that, for all intents and purposes, just isn't helpful. It would go against every single historical trend of medicine. And we haven't even seen Terri show any improvements in her behavior or physical stature that indicate that such a process has happened.

There are doctors and nurses who both state she has consumed liquid and foods such as gelatin and pudding when given it.

Life is supposed to mean something. And it CLEARLY does not any longer to a wide swath of the country.

Many in this country just don't want to see Terri live a meaningless life consisting of sitting in a chair without a cohesive thought in her mind, possibly even being held there against her own will.

 

Painting it that way, perhaps life DOES mean something to them.

No, this is simply advocating murdering people when their existence ceases to be convenient.

Which is REAL shaky. He is DAMNED determined to see her die --- to "honor the wishes" that he seemed to forget about for seven years.

Again, he could just be damned determined to see her die TO honor her wishes.

The "wishes" he ignored for 7 years.

You say that he's unfaithful to the concepts of marriage -- then, when he actually DOES try to stay faithful to them, you say his attempts are a sham.

Starting a family with a new woman --- yes, that is being exceptionally unfaithful to the entire concept of marriage.

How could he possibly win you over with his intentions at this point besides shunning any fundamentals of gaining a normal life and instead choosing to kneel by his 15-year paralyzed wife 24/7.

He has two options:

 

Divorce his wife or not fuck a second woman.

The seven year gap in forgetting her wishes seems odd to me too, but I don't think we know for sure he never mentioned the idea for seven full years. It may have just became a central issue after seven years of her paralysis instead.

Considering that her parents fought this from the first moment he said this --- no, it was NEVER mentioned.

And at what point do you ask who has her best interests at heart? At what point do you state that a marriage that IS dead, and has been for years, holds far less sway than the ties of biological parents.

Again, I bring up the case of a deceased spouse. Even if that husband or wife has died years ago, and the person has since moved on with their lives, they STILL have caring feelings for them.

One small difference:

 

Terri isn't dead. The courts and Schiavo are actively seeking to kill her, but she is not, in fact, dead.

For all intents and purposes, Terri IS dead to Michael.

Or, in simple terms, fuck the incapacitated.

She offers nothing more than a deceased person would. Yet, even though he has moved on with his life, he could still have caring feelings for her. He could want to see the best done for her, even if he has moved on with his life.

 

It's almost the same situation.

Except it's not the same.

 

Hell, let's even say you're right --- she doesn't feel anything.

 

How is keeping her alive hurting her?

I can only hope that justice truly exists and Terri can find somebody in the next life who does care. She, sadly, struck out horribly on Earth.

Too dramatic.

You hope to ignore reality by dressing it up in pretty language.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

 

38 pages from the State of Florida.

 

one sample

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating.

If Michael Schiavo is such a scumbag for dating another woman, what does that make the Schindler's, who actively encouraged him to do so?

[Boon 0]

He has two options:

 

Divorce his wife or not fuck a second woman.

 

Just wondering- do we even know that he didn't try to divorce her? It seems to me that once it became obvious that she wasn't recovering and he would want a divorce, I don't know how she could sign the papers. Maybe I'm missing something- if somebody knows how one can get a divorce w/o the other's consent (assuming that she could not speak, write, etc.) how can it be done? I'd like to know.

 

How is keeping her alive hurting her?

 

Well, it's hurting her if she didn't want to be alive, but I don't think that's your point. It's probably hurting everybody that's close to her, the burden being put on the family for so long, emotional and financial, etc. Yes, I know the rebuttal will be, "How can you put a price on a life?" but then the issue becomes that of the family, not the courts or the government. Back to my point- the gov't should have never gotten involved.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I can only hope that justice truly exists and Terri can find somebody in the next life who does care. She, sadly, struck out horribly on Earth.

 

If it makes you feel any better, within the next week, Terri Schiavo will walk though the pearly gates. Walk. Something she has not done on her own for 15 years.

 

At least that's what I believe and hope for.

[SuperJerk 0]

Someone needs to remove the feeding tube from this thread!

 

**rimshot**

[Slickster 0]

The man has turned down over $11 million that he could have received had he given up custody. Instead, he has stayed married to her to see that her wish to not be kept alive unnaturally (after all hope is lost) is fulfilled. THAT's why he didn't do anything for the first seven years; her brain wasn't totally gone yet and there was a minute chance of recovery.

 

You've said that through his actions he is not giving her her "dignity." As if being a breathing vegetable is somehow a dignified way to exist! You realize that her parents will stop at nothing to keep her alive and have said so in court. She could be stuck in that bed with a feeding tube with all of her functions based solely off reflex actions for another THIRTY YEARS before she dies. Is that dignified, Mike, being kept alive by machines with no chance of escape?

 

And what is it with you and your abnormal phobia of common-law marriage? Michael Schiavo has been a loyal and caring husband for Terri; in the first thirteen years of her care (despite being totally bedridden) she received not ONE bedsore. A nurse who worked with the Schiavos during the 1990s has called Michael a "nightmare" because of his exacting demands for Terri's treatment. And I'm sure that spending all that time with a wife who can't even swallow food, much less recognize him, hasn't exactly made him the happiest man in the world. He basically spent over a decade mourning for Terri; isn't there a time to move on?

 

But no, Mike, you're right. Damn him for caring for Terri every day over a decade! Damn him for wanting to have children and not be lonely anymore! And damn him for not giving up custody so his wife can be a medical oddity for years to come.

 

-=Slick

[The Czech Republic 0]

They really should have let a neurologist see her first, but if it's true that she's as brain-dead as they say, I don't think she's gonna hop out of bed and say "So, what did I miss?"

I must admit, I'd mark out if that happened.

I've always wondered how the media would cover the Second Coming myself. On-site comprehensive team coverage?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Drudge would be all over it.

 

Don't ask why Drudge would be around past the rapture though (if you believe in the rapture)

[NYU 0]

I hate when you respond to every single sentence in my post, because I then feel the need to respond to each one of those posts. And thus, I'm on the computer for hours when I have no intention to be.

 

Oh well.

 

Don't sit there and pretend that he's been a good husband. He has a common law wife and two kids.

 

After years of having to cope with the realization that his wife was never going to come back to him.

 

The deceased spouse argument all over again.

 

I am saying that it is criminal that the FL Court ruled itself as Terri's guardian AND as the judge of the case and simply accepted Michael's claims as to her desires.

 

Once a case is taken to court, this is how the court system works. In the eyes of the law, Michael has the ruling over Terri over anything else. Seeing as how he's the life partner, the decision should come down to him over the biological parents. It's a shame this couldn't have been worked out privately, but you can't go back to the past.

 

And his desire to have an impact on the life of a wife after thei marriage has been effectively dead for years is baffling. Don't sit there and say it's the goodness of his heart because his whole "common law wife and 2 kids" disproves that nicely

 

He still has feelings for her, even if he doesn't sit there and talk to her as if he was talking to a wall.

 

Once again -- deceased spouse argument.

 

Shame she's not that. And it's a shame he is so determined to make sure his wife is dead. I don't blame her parents for hating his guts.

 

Fine. I forgot to include that she has the ability to breathe and blink.

 

He's determined to make sure his wife dies because this is what he said she wanted. According to him, the parents are going completely against her wishes. Why is he expected to just step to the side and allow that to happen? Because he moved on with his life and met another woman after YEARS of pining over his wife?

 

Utterly fucking irrelevant.

 

The vows to have that whole "in sickness and in health" line

 

You say it's "completely fucking irrelevant" that Michael was faithful to his wife during marriage. I say that's bullshit. I think it points a gaping hole in your theories that he didn't care about preserving the sanctity of marriage. When the marriage was actually ALIVE, he stayed faithful to her. When the marriage became nothing more than a FIGUREHEAD -- and it became a figurehead from the point where everyone realized Terri was never going to get better from her current state -- he took a few years to grieve before deciding that he needed to move on with his life. As the Schindlers said he should! Oops.

 

He had two options. Either allow her parents to take over and he could stay faithful.

 

He wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

 

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what staying faithful even means.

 

The spouse isn't dead and her family has BEGGED him to let them take care of her.

 

He sacrificed his marriage by his actions.

 

He says he's acting in her best interests and on her behalf. He believes the family is not.

 

Meeting a new woman after your wife has become little more than a potted plant does not mean that your marriage has been sacrified. It had already been sacrificed long ago. That's what happens with human nature. Marriage does not mean blind, undying -- and to a point, non-sensical -- devotion. Reason has to be included in there someplace.

 

Ah, so it's OK to cheat on your spouse when they're incapacitated, eh?

 

Ah, marriages-of-convenience.

 

Incapacitated with a broken arm? Absolutely not.

 

Incapacitated with paralysis for 15 YEARS?! The situation becomes different there.

 

Seeing as how she couldn't "fulfill" her duties --- then the marriage, using your definition, IS OVER.

 

Technically, in the law's eyes, it's not. Realistically -- it should be. But people sometimes have to go by the books instead of what makes sense.

 

Wow, you hold women in such high regard.

 

Said nothing about my regard for women. Was more about my definition for marriage.

 

But extra points in attempting to trap me in a sexist statement.

 

Then you do the honorable thing and DIVORCE her. You didn't see Christopher Reeves' wife fucking random dudes. It's because she took the vows seriously.

 

If he divorces her, he loses ALL rights to have an impact in decisions over her life.

 

He doesn't want that since he strongly disagrees in what the parents have planned for her.

 

And the Christopher Reeves situation, as others have pointed out, was simply different. Seeing as how he could talk and provide his wife someone to interact with, thus ensuring that she does not feel completely alone. Terri could not do that.

 

I can't keep continuing with this point-by-point analysis. Mike, if you desperately desire me to further elaborate, I will do so. But I think my point is now clear.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm really mad at how this has been so polarized by Republicans trying to pander to pro-lifers and Democrats trying to find another way to stick it to the Republicans. That's all it comes down to.

[SuperJerk 0]

I've always wondered how the media would cover the Second Coming myself. On-site comprehensive team coverage?

I'm sure at some point they'd cut away from Jesus for either (a) "expert analysis" or (b) viagra ads.

 

"The Return of the Savior of all Mankind is brought to you by..."

[Guest MikeSC]

He has two options:

 

Divorce his wife or not fuck a second woman.

 

Just wondering- do we even know that he didn't try to divorce her?

 

YES. That they're not divorced is proof that he never sought it. Her family fully supported him moving on with his life.

It seems to me that once it became obvious that she wasn't recovering and he would want a divorce, I don't know how she could sign the papers.

Her parents could serve as legal guardian.

How is keeping her alive hurting her?

Well, it's hurting her if she didn't want to be alive, but I don't think that's your point. It's probably hurting everybody that's close to her, the burden being put on the family for so long, emotional and financial, etc. Yes, I know the rebuttal will be, "How can you put a price on a life?" but then the issue becomes that of the family, not the courts or the government. Back to my point- the gov't should have never gotten involved.

If the gov't is not there to protect those least able to protect themselves, then what's the point of gov't?

The man has turned down over $11 million that he could have received had he given up custody. Instead, he has stayed married to her to see that her wish to not be kept alive unnaturally (after all hope is lost) is fulfilled. THAT's why he didn't do anything for the first seven years; her brain wasn't totally gone yet and there was a minute chance of recovery.

BS. Her condition has not deteriorated and he didn't even MENTION her desire to die for seven years.

 

Seven years.

 

And her condition was pretty well known after one.

You've said that through his actions he is not giving her her "dignity." As if being a breathing vegetable is somehow a dignified way to exist!

No offense, but you are in no position to rule that her life is not worth living.

 

The only one who IS in position is her --- and she is incapable of saying one way or the other.

And what is it with you and your abnormal phobia of common-law marriage? Michael Schiavo has been a loyal and caring husband for Terri

News to the shack-up honey and his new kids.

in the first thirteen years of her care (despite being totally bedridden) she received not ONE bedsore. A nurse who worked with the Schiavos during the 1990s has called Michael a "nightmare" because of his exacting demands for Terri's treatment.

And one nurse went to the police and her superiors claiming that Michael kept asking when the bitch would die and attempted to overdose her with insulin.

And I'm sure that spending all that time with a wife who can't even swallow food, much less recognize him, hasn't exactly made him the happiest man in the world. He basically spent over a decade mourning for Terri; isn't there a time to move on?

Then let him DIVORCE her and let her FAMILY take care of her.

But no, Mike, you're right. Damn him for caring for Terri every day over a decade! Damn him for wanting to have children and not be lonely anymore! And damn him for not giving up custody so his wife can be a medical oddity for years to come.

Damn him for forgetting that "in sickness and in health" line of the vows he took.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

As long as

 

1) this doesn't set a precedent for eugenics and euthanasia (why do words with the prefix eu-, meaning good or true, end up being the scariest things of all?) wth people being killed against their will because they become a burden or "undesirable,"

 

2) This isn't for the personal benefit of Michael Schiavo,

 

3) It's fully determined that's she's incontrovertibly brain-dead with no hope for a recovery,

 

then I'm okay with this decision. I feel dirty because I end up taking the side the Democrats are on. I hope this ends soon, so that the Democrats can get back to lobbying for felon suffrage or something absurd again.

[Guest MikeSC]

Don't sit there and pretend that he's been a good husband. He has a common law wife and two kids.

After years of having to cope with the realization that his wife was never going to come back to him.

 

The deceased spouse argument all over again.

Then DIVORCE her. Tell her parents that you want to let them take care of their daughter and you want to move on with your life. Her parents would have been more than understanding.

I am saying that it is criminal that the FL Court ruled itsel as Terri's guardian AND as the judge of the case and simply accepted Michael's claims as to her desires.

Once a case is taken to court, this is how the court system works.

No, the court is supposed to appoint somebody to watch out for the incapacitated person's interests.

 

The court did not do so.

 

You can't be an advocate AND a judge. It's a textbook conflict of interests.

In the eyes of the law, Michael has the ruling over Terri over anything else. Seeing as how he's the life partner, the decision should come down to him over the biological parents. It's a shame this couldn't have been worked out privately, but you can't go back to the past.

Again, you advocate making Terri Michael's PROPERTY.

And his desire to have an impact on the life of a wife after thei marriage has been effectively dead for years is baffling. Don't sit there and say it's the goodness of his heart because his whole "common law wife and 2 kids" disproves that nicely

He still has feelings for her, even if he doesn't sit there and talk to her as if he was talking to a wall.

 

Once again -- deceased spouse argument.

He's either a committed husband --- or he's not. There is no middle ground here. He's NOT a committed husband by any stretch of the imagination.

Shame she's not that. And it's a shame he is so determined to make sure his wife is dead. I don't blame her parents for hating his guts.

Fine. I forgot to include that she has the ability to breathe and blink.

Feel pain, too.

 

And consume liquids.

 

And gelatin and pudding.

He's determined to make sure his wife dies because this is what he said she wanted.

And he provided jack squat in terms of proof.

According to him, the parents are going completely against her wishes. Why is he expected to just step to the side and allow that to happen? Because he moved on with his life and met another woman after YEARS of pining over his wife?

He moved in with his new woman TEN YEARS AGO.

 

Yeah, that was some long-term pining.

 

And Terri's parents have tried to have Michael removed as her legal guardian for 12 years.

Utterly fucking irrelevant.

 

The vows to have that whole "in sickness and in health" line

You say it's "completely fucking irrelevant" that Michael was faithful to his wife during marriage.

He's lived with a woman for 10 years. They have kids.

 

I'm not sure in what world that constitutes "fidelity" during the marriage --- which, allegedly, still exists.

I say that's bullshit. I think it points a gaping hole in your theories that he didn't care about preserving the sanctity of marriage. When the marriage was actually ALIVE, he stayed faithful to her. When the marriage became nothing more than a FIGUREHEAD -- and it became a figurehead from the point where everyone realized Terri was never going to get better from her current state -- he took a few years to grieve before deciding that he needed to move on with his life. As the Schindlers said he should! Oops.

The Schindlers wanted him out of their daughter's life long ago. Her father still says Michael was responsible for the whole accident in the first place.

He had two options. Either allow her parents to take over and he could stay faithful.

 

He wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what staying faithful even means.

It means not fucking another woman while you're married.

 

Pretty damned easy.

The spouse isn't dead and her family has BEGGED him to let them take care of her.

 

He sacrificed his marriage by his actions.

He says he's acting in her best interests and on her behalf. He believes the family is not.

And they have disagreed.

 

For YEARS.

Meeting a new woman after your wife has become little more than a potted plant does not mean that your marriage has been sacrified.

Yes, it very much does.

It had already been sacrificed long ago. That's what happens with human nature. Marriage does not mean blind, undying -- and to a point, non-sensical -- devotion. Reason has to be included in there someplace.

"In sickness and in health".

 

There isn't WIGGLE ROOM there.

Ah, so it's OK to cheat on your spouse when they're incapacitated, eh?

 

Ah, marriages-of-convenience.

Incapacitated with a broken arm? Absolutely not.

 

Incapacitated with paralysis for 15 YEARS?! The situation becomes different there.

Nope, it's NO different.

 

If you say "in sickness and in health", it means IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH.

 

Not "inconvenient sickness".

Seeing as how she couldn't "fulfill" her duties --- then the marriage, using your definition, IS OVER.

Technically, in the law's eyes, it's not. Realistically -- it should be. But people sometimes have to go by the books instead of what makes sense.

Then Michael should stop starving his wife to death and let her family take over.

Wow, you hold women in such high regard.

Said nothing about my regard for women. Was more about my definition for marriage.

 

But extra points in attempting to trap me in a sexist statement.

You said that if a woman can't fuck you, then it's not really a marriage.

 

Really, that is a beautiful sentiment.

 

Truly.

 

But, don't worry --- feminists don't give two shits about her, either.

Then you do the honorable thing and DIVORCE her. You didn't see Christopher Reeves' wife fucking random dudes. It's because she took the vows seriously.

If he divorces her, he loses ALL rights to have an impact in decisions over her life.

Which makes sense, since he "moved on" and all...

He doesn't want that since he strongly disagrees in what the parents have planned for her.

 

And the Christopher Reeves situation, as others have pointed out, was simply different. Seeing as how he could talk and provide his wife someone to interact with, thus ensuring that she does not feel completely alone. Terri could not do that.

Unlike Terri, Reeves actually WAS on life support.

I can't keep continuing with this point-by-point analysis. Mike, if you desperately desire me to further elaborate, I will do so. But I think my point is now clear.

Yes, it's perfectly clear.

 

Marriage is only legit if the wife will fuck the husband. If she's incapacitated, the husband doesn't have to honor his vows.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

As long as

 

1) this doesn't set a precedent for eugenics and euthanasia (why do words with the prefix eu-, meaning good or true, end up being the scariest things of all?) wth people being killed against their will because they become a burden or "undesirable,"

 

2) This isn't for the personal benefit of Michael Schiavo,

 

3) It's fully determined that's she's incontrovertibly brain-dead with no hope for a recovery,

 

then I'm okay with this decision. I feel dirty because I end up taking the side the Democrats are on. I hope this ends soon, so that the Democrats can get back to lobbying for felon suffrage or something absurd again.

And you know --- you KNOW --- it WILL be use to justify euthanasia.

-=Mike

..."No, it won't."

"Funny, the people who wrote the civil rights acts swore it wouldn't end up as a quota system..."

[The Czech Republic 0]

As long as

 

1) this doesn't set a precedent for eugenics and euthanasia (why do words with the prefix eu-, meaning good or true, end up being the scariest things of all?) wth people being killed against their will because they become a burden or "undesirable,"

 

2) This isn't for the personal benefit of Michael Schiavo,

 

3) It's fully determined that's she's incontrovertibly brain-dead with no hope for a recovery,

 

then I'm okay with this decision. I feel dirty because I end up taking the side the Democrats are on. I hope this ends soon, so that the Democrats can get back to lobbying for felon suffrage or something absurd again.

And you know --- you KNOW --- it WILL be use to justify euthanasia.

-=Mike

..."No, it won't."

"Funny, the people who wrote the civil rights acts swore it wouldn't end up as a quota system..."

That's the only problem, I don't want to see a case where an elderly person, say, your grandmother or grandfather, takes a fall or has a mild stroke and someone just elects to euthanize them rather than rehabilitate them and possibly add years to their lives. I guess we'd all best write our living wills!

[Guest MikeSC]

As long as

 

1) this doesn't set a precedent for eugenics and euthanasia (why do words with the prefix eu-, meaning good or true, end up being the scariest things of all?) wth people being killed against their will because they become a burden or "undesirable,"

 

2) This isn't for the personal benefit of Michael Schiavo,

 

3) It's fully determined that's she's incontrovertibly brain-dead with no hope for a recovery,

 

then I'm okay with this decision. I feel dirty because I end up taking the side the Democrats are on. I hope this ends soon, so that the Democrats can get back to lobbying for felon suffrage or something absurd again.

And you know --- you KNOW --- it WILL be use to justify euthanasia.

-=Mike

..."No, it won't."

"Funny, the people who wrote the civil rights acts swore it wouldn't end up as a quota system..."

That's the only problem, I don't want to see a case where an elderly person, say, your grandmother or grandfather, takes a fall or has a mild stroke and someone just elects to euthanize them rather than rehabilitate them and possibly add years to their lives. I guess we'd all best write our living wills!

The irony:

 

Even with a living will, they can be overridden.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well that's not cool.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

then I'm okay with this decision. I feel dirty because I end up taking the side the Democrats are on. I hope this ends soon, so that the Democrats can get back to lobbying for felon suffrage or something absurd again.

8 out of the 9 Republican appealate court judges are on your side, if that makes you feel better. And only 2 out of the 3 Democrats.

[MrRant 0]

The only part that will suck about her dying is that there will be about another month of "news" stories about living wills, etc that will further fuck up my TV and general news viewing.

 

To be honest, this story/situation means absolutely nothing in the everyday fabric of life as most people who think ahead have a living will setup and if they don't, oops for them as the responsibility falls upon their custodian.

 

And Mike has completely lost his fucking mind. Again.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The case you cite is also misleading, but that's par for the course.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3094518

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlaw...upport_sto.html --- written by one of the people who WROTE the Texas law, so he knows what he's talking about.

http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/03/20/4103/

 

Sun also required a respirator. Terri does not.

 

Nice try.

Doesn't exactly work, I'm afraid, since the basis of your arguement is that life is so gosh-darn important and it's a crime against all humanity when someone comes in and takes them away.

 

And your response still doesn't disprove my point that there suddently wasn't a bunch of Reupbulicans in Washington pushing the edge of what they can legally do in the interest of saving a life.

 

If somebody is going to claim that they should have a voice in their spouse's decision, then they should honor their marriage vows.

 

If they abuse their vows, then the family who IS NOT cheating on the patient should be given precedence over the man who IS cheating on the patient.

 

There's no legal binding to wedding vows.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

BTW, just to clarify, the memo --- yes, this is a true shocker --- appears to be a fraud. Apparently, what happened to Rather didn't teach a lesson.

 

http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/03...ate_part_i.html

 

 

Why not actually TEST for PVS, since there are doctors who have examined her and said that she is not a PVS case?

 

Bullshit. They've looked at videos and looked through her records. Anyone with eyes could look at the X-Rays and look at the fucking facts and tell that there's not just some sort of minimal braindamage there.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He had two options. Either allow her parents to take over and he could stay faithful.

 

He wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

And there's nothing illegal about it. It means he's not the most honorable man in the entire world, but how important it is comes down to the Court of Public Opinion. Just like the same Public Opinion that wasn't as concerned about the President getting BJs as they were about him lying about it (and rightly so.)

 

Then you do the honorable thing and DIVORCE her. You didn't see Christopher Reeves' wife fucking random dudes. It's because she took the vows seriously.

 

Schiavo did not.

 

First of all, Christopher Reeve at least had a working thought process still. And how do you not know that if he was allowed to do carry out his wishes earlier, he wouldn't have wound up in this situation?

 

The Shindlers and the people who have turned this case from a family matter into a national circus have stalled for time for years and years and years. If what's happening now could have happened 7 years ago, he would have met his new partner as a single man.

 

And of course, the funny thing is how you've bitched in the past about how divorce is ruining marriage, and here you're advocating it.

 

As much as you can complain about him being an awful husband, the flip side of the coin says that the same parents you feel are right haven't been challenging his status as the person who makes the decision. They've been trying to play a game of seeing if they can wait him out. They waited and waited and have finally run out of time.

 

They've basically fillibustered the issue as long as they can, and while it's a subjective issue, I can't blame the guy for not wanting to relinquish control after such a tactic.

 

Then why not do it before you starve her to death?

 

Using phrases like "starve to death" carries with it certain emotions that only fuel the fire. It is also misleading. Do the research, listen to the doctors, not the politicians or some blogger's political spin. She is not aware. And don't quote the Shindler's doctors who say she is aware and can be cured. Most of the doctors they reference have never actually examined her.

 

One small difference:

 

Terri isn't dead. The courts and Schiavo are actively seeking to kill her, but she is not, in fact, dead.

 

The intangibles that make her unique have all checked out. The lights are on, but nobody is home. She's a corpse with a heartbeat.

 

 

Some people may disagree, but coincidentally, some people tend to make irrational and stupid opinions, too.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

By the way, as an effort to provide relief in this thread, I'm hence ignoring Mike until he actually provides a fact.

 

That part where he kept going on about shack-up honeys and pussy on the side while no-selling the posts about the Shindlers encouraging him to date to reply to posts made afterwards just shows how hard he's sticking his fingers in his ears and telling people they're wrong.

 

But it has been damn entertaining to watch him advocate divorce and what basically comes to a court filibuster. I guess that's why they call them values, because their value goes up and down as you need them to prove a point.

[tommytomlin 0]

I just like how his opinions on this completely subjective matter just happen to match perfectly the views of Congressional Republicans.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If it makes you feel any better, within the next week, Terri Schiavo will walk

 

Oh wow that's great!

 

through the pearly gates. Walk. Something she has not done on her own for 15 years.

 

At least that's what I believe and hope for.

 

Ah crap, I thought you were serious.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

CBS News Poll

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/...ain682674.shtml

 

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO TERRI SCHIAVO NOW?

 

Re-insert tube

27%

Do not re-insert

66%

 

 

SHOULD CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT BE INVOLVED IN SCHIAVO MATTER?

 

Yes

13%

No

82%

 

 

WHY DO YOU THINK CONGRESS GOT INVOLVED?

 

They care about Terri Schiavo

13%

Trying to advance political agenda

74%

 

 

CONGRESS JOB APPROVAL

 

Approve

Now

34%

2/2005

41%

 

Disapprove

Now

49%

2/2005

44%

 

 

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN DECIDING LIFE SUPPORT CASES

 

Federal government should decide

9%

State government should decide

13%

Government should stay out

75%

 

 

WILL CONGRESS' ACTIONS THIS WEEK MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO INTERVENE IN THE FUTURE?

 

Yes, and concerned about it

68%

Yes, but not concerned about it

9%

No

17%

 

 

Party Identification

Republican

44%

Democrat

29%

Independent

28%

[redbaron29 0]

While this is one of the few times I actually DONT have a definitive opinion on a current event... and I usually agree with conservatives more often. I don't know all the facts and have heard conflicting stories from, she will never recover, to there are special needs children in school worse off then her. Personally while I think the right to die issue is a spouse, there is something her husband is not telling us. Why is this guy so adamant that this chick die. If he has a new woman and whatnot why doesn’t he just divorce her? I sure Terry wouldn’t blame him for it granted the circumstances. There is something not right about this.

 

In a more lighter, and I am going straight to hell moment, when this story first came out all I could think about is the Monty Python dead parrot sketch with the husband in place of the customer, and the dad in place of the shopkeeper.

 

Husband: The plumage don't enter into it -- it's stone dead.

Father: No, no--it's just resting.

Husband: All right then, if it's resting I'll wake it up. (shouts into cage) Hello Polly! I've got a nice cuttlefish for you when you wake up, Polly Parrot!

Father:(jogging cage) There it moved.

Husband: No he didn't. That was you pushing the cage

Father: I did not

Husband: Yes, you did. (takes parrot out of cage,shouts) Hello Polly, Polly (bangs it against counter) Polly Parrot, wake up. Polly. (throws it in the air and lets it fall to the floor) Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

Father: No, no it's stunned

 

I realize that there is an importance in life or death issues, but this kind of sheds light on how absurd some of these arguments are. Makes you wish she would just shout out either “Save Me” or “God damn kill me already.”

[The Czech Republic 0]

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO TERRI SCHIAVO NOW?

 

Do not re-insert

 

SHOULD CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT BE INVOLVED IN SCHIAVO MATTER?

 

No

 

WHY DO YOU THINK CONGRESS GOT INVOLVED?

 

Trying to advance political agenda

 

 

CONGRESS JOB APPROVAL

 

Disapprove

 

 

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN DECIDING LIFE SUPPORT CASES

Government should stay out

 

WILL CONGRESS' ACTIONS THIS WEEK MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO INTERVENE IN THE FUTURE?

 

Yes, and concerned about it

 

Party Identification

 

Republican

just thought I'd chip in

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

That parrot sketch thing was just plain EVIL, man