|
|
| Post Number: 31
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,4:38 pm |
|
   |
Great points, Busy Bee!
| Quote | | Your arguments have gotten so weak you've resorted to quoting other websites |
But it's OK when LIBERALS cite websites. I didn't know that the all-powerful central government had made it illegal for "dissident" conservatives to also do so. Question: Since the liberal news media likes to use the words dissident and insurgent instead of street thugs, criminals, and murderers--can the right appropriate these words as well? The left seems to have copyrighted the words quagmire, extreme, unfair, and mean-spirited--can I get a reading on dissident and insurgent as well? 
| Quote | | That's the biggest non-issue of this whole case yet the religious right continues to bring it up over and over again because they've got nothing of substance left to discuss so they've resorted to personally attacking the husband and questioning his morals. |
| Quote | Just because the religious right doesn't agree with his personal decision on when he should move on with his life doesn't make him immoral.
|
Ah--if you are caught with your pants down--accuse those who ask "Why"? of conducting a "witch hunt". I'm sure WJ Clinton also felt he should "move on with his life" after the Hildebeast--I admit I probably would have grasped at moral straws to justify it as well!  Well, it worked on defending Clinton, but then, Michael Schiavo isn't President of the United States. There IS the question of insurance money, there IS the fact that at one time he vowed never to disconnect, there IS the "inconvenient" fact that he has been living with another woman, and fathered two kids. Questioning his morals? What the heck, Scott Peterson was convicted on much of the same evidence--insurance money, girlfriend on the side, desire to get rid of his "inconvenient" wife. Maybe that's part of the argument--these aren't inconveniences for conservatives--words mean things--as Clinton the Great Prevaricator once said "promises are just starting points for negotiations".
You keep bringing up the "religious right". Just who are you talking about? I brought up these points--we've already established that I'm not a particularly religious guy.
| Quote | How long do you think this should drag on? What court would you like an opinion from? What doctor would have to tell you it's true before you will believe that letting this husband act in the wifes best interest is the proper thing to do?
|
How long should it drag on? Do the tests--there's no reason not to. Better yet, have Michael Schiavo divorce his wife--he HAS in effect divorced her--he has another "family" (common-law) already--then it would be a non-issue, wouldn't it?
"What doctor would you have tell you it's true?" Any one that does the MRI and PET tests. I'm already on record as thinking she is brain dead--but killing her accomplishes nothing. Isn't it interesting, liberals wring their hands over capital punishment--rights to murderers--requiring that EVERY LAST EFFORT BE MADE TO SPARE THEM (and I don't disagree, I have no faith in the court system any more), YET THEY ARE IN A RUSH TO KILL SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. They can't even use the excuse that "it's for her own good", since they say that she is brain dead, and can't feel pain.
Have Schiavo divorce his wife, and leave us all alone.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 32
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,5:41 pm |
|
 |
busy, I'd stay out of this. I think this is between two consenting adults.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 33
|
busybee
Group: Members
Posts: 2510
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 27 2005,6:01 pm |
|
|
Stay out of what? Having an opinion and thoughts on the matter?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 34
|
Older and Wiser
Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2005,8:28 pm |
|
|
Being in a TERMINAL STATE and being DISABLED are two very different things. The problem with this case is that the terms are being used interchangably. In 1990, Terri Schiavo lost oxygen to her brain for 5 minutes from a questionable cause. The husband says that her loss of oxygen was due to bulemia causing a fluid and electolyte imbalance which culminated in a heart attack ;, the parents believe there was foul play involving the husband. Interestingly enough when the paramedics answered the 911 call and entered the home to find Terri, they stated it looked like a crime scene and notified the police. The police did an investigation but the judge sealed the results of this investigation, and to this day they are still sealed. The husband was never charged but the family and many others have lingering doubts. Questions many questions. Michael Schiavo (husband), filed a malpractice suits against Terri's Dr. for not diagnosing her problem. He did receive 1 million dollars. $700,000 was earmarked for her care and $300,000 went to him directly. The parents were upset because their daughter did not receive Occupational, Physical and Speech Therapy as Michael promised he would obtain after receiving his windfall. Michael first petitioned the court to remove the feeding tube that Terri had since her loss of oxygen episode in 1998. And the legal battle started and continues till this day. Michael had Terri in Nursing Homes and for the last 5 count them 5 years she has been in a Hospice. First of all, I don't know about the State of Florida but in Minnesota, a person is appropriate for Hospice if they have a year to live or less, not longer. Terri Schiavo was not terminally ill as is the guideline for being on Hospice. She was simply severely disabled. All of her body functions were healthy including her digestion and it is very interesting to me that Michael Schiavo's attorney keeps stating that during the last 15 years that Terri has been incapacitated she has never had a bed sore. My point exactly. An unhealthy or compromised patient would not have the same outcome. Secondly, friends of Terri's have stated during interviews that she was going to divorce Michael because he was so controlling. Prior to hearing that I have watched him extensively on various programs and I thought he was unbelievable controlling to the point of getting upset with Greta Van Susteren and Larry King when they did not agree with him or they asked him the hard questions. He was a lot like Scott Peterson in his demeanor, very cocky, confident but something just was not right about the guy. And thirdly, it is strange that Michael all of the sudden remembered those now infamous words Terri was supposed to have stated "No tubes for me" when he needed to come up with something for his 1998 court petition.  ? And, I especially like the "other woman" he lives with and has the two kids by. He has a life. But I think if he didn't have her locked and the key thrown away she may have the ability for rehab. The CNA's in sworn depositions have stated they fed Terri jello and gave her water that she was able to swallow and not aspirate. The Doctors. are almost evenly divided over her "vegetative state" and who wants the chance that someone would come back and tell that you tried to murder her? Oh, and lastly, he wants her cremated.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 35
|
FlyguyAL
Group: Members
Posts: 588
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2005,9:19 pm |
|
|
Older and Wiser this is a family struggle. Obvious good for debate but I think we all need to move on. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 36
|
taraindiana
Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: Nov. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2005,10:17 pm |
|
|
I read an article that said Terri's parents have stated that they would fight the removal of the feeding tube even if Terri would have had a will stating she wanted to be let go
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 37
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2005,10:43 pm |
|
|
I was watching CNN today and according to the husband's attorney there will be an autopsy performed at Michael's request. He made the decision to have her corpse mutilated after the religous right criticized the choice of cremation.
Just in case there is anyone that believes there wasn't a CT scan done here's a slide from the scan and a slide from a normal scan.
Attached Image
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 38
|
Older and Wiser
Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2005,10:52 pm |
|
|
Oh how wrong you are. This is a family matter, that is true. The Shindler/Schiavo family today perhaps yours or mine tomorrow. I agree with Mr. Hanson, this is the perfect test case. If the lawyers for Terri Schiavo would have made a better case the US Supreme Court would have taken this case. As it stands anyone can verbally say anything, hearsay. The husband, or surrogate, Michael Schiavo states that she said "no tubes for me." Did she say that or did she not say that? The only way to know is to have each individual put their wishes in writing have the document notarized. I feel that special interest groups and parties have attempted to polarize this very emotional case and make it their own. However, right wing conservatives and left wing liberals aside, can't we all just be humanists.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 39
|
Older and Wiser
Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2005,10:54 pm |
|
|
Liberal, did you also hear that in the State Of Florida if there is a cremation the law dictates that there also has to be an autopsy. Michael Schaivo did not make that decision, the State of Florida made that decision for him.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 40
|
Older and Wiser
Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2005,11:00 pm |
|
|
What is the point of the brain scan pictures? The question is about our right to live or to die and the decision each of us has a right to make. It does not matter that Terri Schiavo is in or not in a vegetative state. Did she really make a decision that she did not want to live with tubes or did she not make that decision? If she stated to Michael prior to 1990 and her incapacitation "no tubes for me" then why was one inserted in the first place? Why ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
