Schiavo rumblings

[Chris]

I don't see why this is an issue. The law is clear; the decision is in the husband's hands.  Whether the parents, legislature, or President agree with it is irrelevant.

[shmokes]

acrimony

Is that your BIG word of the day?

No, that was perserverence.  Acrimony was my medium word of the day.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It would appear that the GOP is far out-of-step with mainstream America on this issue.

- 70% of Americans say it is inappropriate for Congress to involve itself in the Schiavo case.

- 67% of Americans

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This whole "culture of life" B.S. is really turning my stomach.

Wasn't it Herman Goering that said "When somebody speaks to me of culture, I take out my revolver"?  Nice. And you wonder why people can't agree on this don't you?

fredster, at least you are consistent in missing the point, w/ a Godwin to boot! You are getting better...

This ISN'T ABOUT A CULTURE OF LIFE...IT'S ABOUT HYPOCRITICAL EVANGELICALS CO-OPTING A PERSONAL TRAGEDY TO ERODE STATE'S RIGHT.

Btw, it's seems a majority of Americans agree with me on this...(see above). The Federal Government should STAY OUT. Furthermore, I don't think you've articulated where you stand on the issue of Federal courts overstepping state supreme courts on this issue?

As an aside, the majority of Americans also now agree with me on the Iraq War as well. With a majority believing it hasn't made us safer, nor was the war worth the cost.

You have no point, the facts do not support your "argument" (and I use that term loosely), you are simply wrong. I can not be any more pointed and/or clear.

As far as we (citizens) are concerned, we have no right to decide whether Terri lives or dies. We are not doctors, Congress people are not doctors, our President is not a doctor. We have not seen the facts. One thing we CAN decide on is at what level should this case be handled...State or Federal?

If, as it seems, the majority of Americans believe the federal government should NOT intervene, then what the GOP is doing is WRONG. If they are wrong, yet they have continued, then their actions are callous. If they have continue pushing said callous legislation, with no majority support from the public, then it can be concluded that their actions have been wrong-headed and politically motivated. That makes my argument, from the beginning, correct.

We'll see what happens from here on out. I'd put my money where my mouth is. Would you? I'm willing to bet that the midnight "Palm Sunday" legislation that Bush just signed with his mighty "God Pen" will be struck down as unconstitutional and the decision will be left to the Florida Supreme Court, which has already decided, but may have to review on appeal. (Not sure on that last bit)

Where *do* you really stand on that? Might you even, *gasp* agree w/ me? (even after wrongfully insinuating that people "don't agree w/ me on this?")




mrC

[fredster]

Godwin's law is only envoked if the comparison isn't correct.  Looks like a similar quote, word for word.  Looks like an accurate comparison to me.  But I guess I am not allowed to do this because I'm not Professor Churchill.

You have no point, the facts do not support your "argument" (and I use that term loosely), you are simply wrong. I can not be any more pointed and/or clear.

Right. And you are right without question.  Might as well just give up, because you have "facts". You have only opinions Mr.C. Only opinions. To be pointed and clear on my end, you are simply being a poltical hack.  Where is my basis for that?  You keep weaving in all the things you hate about Bush's administration into a thread that has nothing to do with it.  You are using  logical fallacies to prove your point, and they are in order:
Bandwagon fallacy, Appeal to motive , argument from repetition and many more.
 

What are the facts?  How about this quote -
"Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together last night to give Terri Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life," Mr. Bush said, his first public comments since the latest legal and legislative wrangling. "This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life."

That's a fact. It's a word for word quote.

Now when it suits you I see that you have opinion polls. Nice. They don't mean anything to you unless you agree with them.

We'll see what happens from here on out. I'd put my money where my mouth is. Would you? I'm willing to bet that the midnight "Palm Sunday" legislation that Bush just signed with his mighty "God Pen" will be struck down as unconstitutional and the decision will be left to the Florida Supreme Court, which has already decided, but may have to review on appeal. (Not sure on that last bit)

Maybe. Last ones were held unconstitutional. I guess the point is the Husband will come out and air his case finally. 

This was handled poorly by the husband. He has a mouthpiece out there talking for him. If it were me, I'd be out there talking to the media and sounding it out. He now needs to be showing us just how passionate he was about this decision.  If he had done that from the time the parents were out there he'd have won this opinion poll.

I say that if she said she didn't want this, then the plug should be pulled. If there is a question, then we can't undo it once it's done.  A mother is crying for the life of her daughter, MrC. That's the issue.

If my wife's mother were to do this with my wife, I don't know if I could pull the plug. That's why I'm on the fence here.  I want to see what issue the husband has myself. He's not presenting his case now that this is in the public eye.  If it was clear beyond a shadow of a doubt there would be no issue here.

Today somebody else's plug was pulled.  Tommorow there will be more.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What are the facts?  How about this quote -
"Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together last night to give Terri Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life," Mr. Bush said, his first public comments since the latest legal and legislative wrangling. "This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life."

OMG! Bi-partisan??...backpedaling already? Majority of Dems stayed away. Those that did voted, more than likely felt compelled to vote so they wouldn't be seen as obstructionist. I can't read their minds though. Either way, to call this CHARGE into Shiavo' life bi-partisan is to COMPLETELY ignore who has led the charge, who's been talking it up day in and day out, and who has claimed Terri's cause as their own. This is a Republican thing. The bill that Bush signed, in the middle of the night after flying BACK to the WH for the sideshow, passed congress with a voice vote - ONLY THREE Republican senators were present.

When the Republican's crass powergrabs fail (which is happening on this case), they always cling to the few democrats too spineless to stand against them, and whimper, "See, it's not just us...it was bi-partisan!!" At your age, fredster, I thought you'd be able to see through these kind of political ploys. I not saying Democrats haven't force issues before (although you've shown no examples, and I know of none myself, that equate to the same debase level as hoisting Shiavo in front of the world)

That's a fact. It's a word for word quote.

Problem with you is that you think a quote from the Pres. determines what is factual. It's nothing more than *his* opinion.

Maybe. Last ones were held unconstitutional. I guess the point is the Husband will come out and air his case finally. 

Like pulling teeth...I can't get you to address the question. How do you feel about the Republicans desire to create a LAW that would allow Federal Courts to meddle in the personal affairs of the State??[/b]

I say that if she said she didn't want this, then the plug should be pulled. If there is a question, then we can't undo it once it's done.  A mother is crying for the life of her daughter, MrC. That's the issue.

Problem is, again, THAT'S NOT THE REAL ISSUE. We shouldn't be hearing about this in the news. It's their life. This is not Jerry Springer. We (the public) shouldn't be given the choice to side with one family member or another. I'm not her husband. We are not on the jury. The moment Bush signed that midnight bill, this was made a political issue about federal jurisdiction. It's not about whether Terri lives or dies, it's about WHO (Federal or State Supreme court) gets to determine whether Terri lives or dies.

Today somebody else's plug was pulled.  Tommorow there will be more.

If you support the Congressional Republicans on this, and they were to be successful, then you would have given them to power to tell you differently. Whether you like it or not. Whether you, or someone close to you wants to die or not.

mrC

[Zero_Hour]

Has anyone considered that our congressmen are simply up to their old tricks (non party specific)?

Could this simply be legislation that is there for the "feel good" factor - not that this case really has anything to feel good about - Those who brought forth and voted for the legislation can say they fought the good fight, knowing that the legislation will be nullified as unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court (which last I checked is as high as it gets judicially) was asked to hear this case, and declined - citing a previous case:

CRUZAN, BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state. - Chief Justice William Rehnquist

While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the [state capital city] telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve his or her life, it is up to the citizens [of the state] to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life and death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.... - Justice Anton Scalia in his concurring opinion

I agree that a protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions, and that the refusal of artificially delivered food and water is encompassed within that liberty interest. I write separately to clarify why I believe this to be so.... - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurring opinion.

The actions of Congress yesterday told the federal court system to not only ignore the state of Florida, but also the Supreme Court of the US and a decision authored by the  court.

Terri Schiavo's condition is heartwrenching,  but this end-around by congress is just stomache turning.

Just a thought.

[tommy]

Man you guys sure know how to depress a build your own arcade control forum , im sure theres a political debate somewhere your missing.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

A thought I just had:

May God (or Federal Marshalls) protect the Judge that rules against the "Moral Majority" and it's "Culture of life" in this case...I'm sure he'll have deaths threats a-plenty from these unabashed hypocrites.

Hypocrits? Yes. "Terri Schiavo's care was paid for by a lawsuit - the kind that many in the RNC would like to cap to prevent "abuse;" and that if her parents win this and can no longer afford to pay their credit card bills they will find it a lot harder to declare bankruptcy; it's also important to not that many Americans still can't afford, you know, medical insurance."

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Man you guys sure know how to depress a build your own arcade control forum , im sure theres a political debate somewhere your missing.

Does this cheer you up?

[tommy]

I thought i was going to get away with that one for second. 

[Chris]

Has anyone considered that our congressmen are simply up to their old tricks (non party specific)?

Could this simply be legislation that is there for the "feel good" factor - not that this case really has anything to feel good about - Those who brought forth and voted for the legislation can say they fought the good fight, knowing that the legislation will be nullified as unconstitutional?

I strongly believe this may be the case.  It's a Republican win-win.  They get to be on the side of "life", and if the judges rule against them they have more ammo in the war against "activist judges".

--Chris

[Chris]

This was handled poorly by the husband. He has a mouthpiece out there talking for him. If it were me, I'd be out there talking to the media and sounding it out. He now needs to be showing us just how passionate he was about this decision.

[fredster]

But it's just not her choice.

Chris, if it were your child you might not agree.

Why should he?  Public opinion shouldn't deciode this case.

And you are right.  But it is in the court of public opinion now because he didn't want to play. A lot of people are stirred way up, like it or not.

MrC

OMG! Bi-partisan??...backpedaling already? Majority of Dems stayed away.

What backpeddling? That was a quote from Bush.

MrC, let's define "spineless" as those Dems like Kerry and his bunch that didn't say yah or nay and stayed home getting their hair and nails done.  Doesn't that upset you that your former "man" isn't going to make any stand on this issue?

At your age, fredster, I thought you'd be able to see through these kind of political ploys.

I believe I said it was about 5 times. That's what politicians do. It's everything they do.
Let them do their thing.

You should be ashamed of your boys backing down from the fray. 

I can't get you to address the question. How do you feel about the Republicans desire to create a LAW that would allow Federal Courts to meddle in the personal affairs of the State??

They do it all the time. They did it with the Bankruptcy law didn't they? Clinton passed the law to prevent states from having to recognize gay marriages.  The tort reform bills, over and over. Nafta stopped states from enforcing trucking laws.  What's so different about this? Megans law, all of this kids names laws, what is the freaking difference?

Problem is, again, THAT'S NOT THE REAL ISSUE. We shouldn't be hearing about this in the news. It's their life. This is not Jerry Springer. We (the public) shouldn't be given the choice to side with one family member or another.

Yes it is. Terri's momma and daddy got them all stirred up and started a grass roots movement. Isn't that what you are trying to do against Bush? You should take notes dude.

What specific text of this law upsets you?  If it's not right, well that's what we have balance of power in the Consitution for.  The supreme court will shoot it down if it needs to be shot down. Have some faith in the system dude.  I know you are upset about Bush and all, and I share your pain, I was the same way when Clinton ran wild in the white house.  But we lived through the indignity of it.  I'm sure you'll live through this.  It will be okay.

And Shmokes,  You've got "perserverence".  But I'm sure a nice shot of antibiotics and some cream will take care of it.   Really, you should keep up with your shots. 

[Chris]

But it's just not her choice.

Chris, if it were your child you might not agree.

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant.  The law is very clear on the subject.

[jbox]

Godwin's law is only envoked if the comparison isn't correct.

Actually that is incorrect. The point of Godwin's law is that it is only 'correct' to compare genocidal facists to other genocidal facists.

[DrewKaree]

Offering poll results stating that the majority of America agrees with you?  I'm all atingle waiting for the explanation of how you came to this conclusion.

The poll was of 501 people.  44% of the people questioned replied that they haven't followed this case closely (16% not so, 28% NOT AT ALL)

The second question characterizes her treatment as "life support".  If almost HALF of the people haven't followed this case closely, how would they know the specifics of this case?  She's NOT on life support.  She has no machine working to keep her organs functioning.  The hospital believes her to be unable to swallow, therefore WILL NOT feed her anything because they don't want to be sued for causing her death (and since there has already been one lawsuit, they are acting in the best interests of the hospital).  This is why she is on a feeding TUBE.

Her parents have had legal action taken against them by Mr Schiavo and cannot request anything pertaining to her care of the hospital because of their request to allow her to be given food that she may swallow, tests they wished to pay to have performed to ascertain certain conditions, etc. 

Your very own poll, skewed as it is, shows a marked downward trend of "those that agree with you" after only a week went by.  Perhaps people asked these questions are starting to educate themself on the subject?

Another question refers to the federal courts saying they don't have jurisdiction because it involves Florida law only.  Not only did Zero Hour lay out the fallacy in that statement - "In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings" - it also explains why this case is even being argued.

If Schiavo HAD presented "a clear and convincing evidence standard", this wouldn't be open for debate.  Saying his wife said something while watching TV years ago is your clear and convincing evidence standard? 

The legislation passed is to REQUIRE something of this nature to be put into WRITING, so that situations with as much murkiness surrounding them as THIS one does could be made clearer.

The law in this case is anything BUT black and white, which is why there is as much discussion as there is surrounding it. 

And the grandstanding is being done by both sides.  Calling it a power play by one side or another is ignoring that fact. 

Thankfully, once this is all resolved, someone can make a decision long overdue on Stephen Hawking.

[GGKoul]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/?GT1=6305

There has to me a more humane way to do this then to starve the poor girl who has suffered enough.

[DrewKaree]

But to use those methods opens up the possibility of Schiavo being tried for murder.  This way is considered a "medical assessment", wherein the fault would lie with anyone BUT Schiavo, he would be considered "following the medical recommendation". 

It's a CYA thing.  Someone figure out why they can't do an autopsy on the woman - there's questions surrounding her physical well being while married to Schiavo that an autopsy would reveal the answers to.

[saint]

Putting the points on both sides of this issue aside....

CNN/Gallup poll showing 56% think pulling the tube was correct based on 909 respondants (number of respondants per ABC, link below).

But the ABC poll was also interesting showing 70% think that the matter should not have been acted upon by Congress, based on 501 polled.

edit: Utah poll added
Poll in Utah of 400 respondants who said 69% do not think the feeding tube should be reinserted, and 73% think the final say should belong to the spouse.

Now whether the polls accurately portrayed the facts, whether or not you think the poll respondants were informed on the matter, and regardless of what the right thing to do is or isn't, I think those numbers pretty much show that the majority are not in favor of keeping this woman alive.

--- saint

Offering poll results stating that the majority of America agrees with you?  I'm all atingle waiting for the explanation of how you came to this conclusion.

The poll was of 501 people.  44% of the people questioned replied that they haven't followed this case closely (16% not so, 28% NOT AT ALL)
.

[menace]

I find it absolutely apalling that they now discuss her lifespan as a matter of weeks before she starves to death.  Would an assisted suicide be less humane than that??? I sincerely doubt it.  I agree her suffering should end and the husband should have the right to decide in this instance but to let her starve for 2 weeks is NOT the way to end this.

[DrewKaree]

If the results include the same amount of people who haven't followed this case closely, if at all, then I still stand by the same point.  The questions asked are leading, and may not pertain to the case at all, while using the response of people who have no knowledge of what's going on to somehow show agreement of something they may not even be aware of.

An equal number of people are agreeing simply based on their pro-life views, I would guess.

General question:
If Terri had put in writing her wishes, I would support Schiavo's case.  Since she didn't, isn't it at least a BIT reasonable to look into it, and perhaps, based on this case, enact legislation to ensure this situation is finally addressed?

[shmokes]

I think that if Terri had put in writing that she WANTED to be kept alive then we should consider that.  If not, keeping her alive in her state is horrific.  People like that should be put out of their misery by default, save special circumstances -- not the other way around.  Bush had it backwards, I think, when he said that this is a complicated issue, so we should err on the side of life.  Life in a vegetative or near vegatative state, unable to move, unable to eat or drink except through a tube (or by being spoon-fed if Drew's baseless belief turns out to be true), unable to speak or read, unable to even call for a nurse in any way, is no life at all.  Erring on the side of life has a nice ring to it and all, but in a case like this it is simply erring on the side of morbid cruelty.

[DrewKaree]

Life in a vegetative or near vegatative state, unable to move, unable to eat or drink except through a tube (or by being spoon-fed if Drew's baseless belief turns out to be true), unable to speak or read, unable to even call for a nurse in any way, is no life at all.  Erring on the side of life has a nice ring to it and all, but in a case like this it is simply erring on the side of morbid cruelty.

I hear ya brother.  I'm starting the fight to end Stephen Hawking's life next week.  First I'll remove the speak-n-spell, though.

[shmokes]

I assume you're joking and understand the vast difference between Steven's and Terri's situation. 

[Chris]

Life in a vegetative or near vegatative state, unable to move, unable to eat or drink except through a tube (or by being spoon-fed if Drew's baseless belief turns out to be true), unable to speak or read, unable to even call for a nurse in any way, is no life at all.

[DrewKaree]

I assume you're joking and understand the vast difference between Steven's and Terri's situation.

Indeed I am, but perhaps they can do a swapperoo.  Her body for his brain.  (it's also why I threw the "speak-n-spell" in there the second time)

Here's a link of some observations and some questions referring to her treatment I'm speaking of.

[fredster]

Finally the husband has spoken to the media, and he is very very mad.

[Crazy Cooter]

I'm glad the decision for me is in my wife's hands; my wife knows me far better than my parents ever did or ever will.  I think it's horrific that a new law has been passed that potentially bypasses the person who knows me best.

That's my stance as well.  I told the girlfriend: "Give me a week, make a powerdown sound in my ear and pull the plug/tube/whatever.  If I hear the powerdown sound, I'll know it's now or never, if I don't hear it... see ya on the flip."

As far as the politics, Bush shot himself in the foot on this one (Mr. C will like this story):
News.Yahoo.Com Link

While Bush is fighting for this lady, some infant had the plug pulled (against the parents wishes) because of a law Bush passed in Texas.
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop...

[DrewKaree]

Your case speaks of a machine required to allow the patient to breathe, which couldn't be solved with therapy.

The Schiavo case has denied therapy that might allow the woman the ability to be taken off of a feeding tube, thereby eliminating the need for it. 

Her feeding tube is considered "life support" only because they won't allow her to be fed, which they think would cause her to choke to death. 

Would you be for allowing her the chance to swallow, thereby saving her life?

The end result would be the same if she can't swallow - she would die.

Which is more humane, allowing her to dehydrate/starve over a period of days/weeks, or dying in a few minutes after choking?  Why do you feel one way is a better way to die over the other?

If Michael had allowed her therapy to do so, and she wasn't/isn't able to swallow, do you not think he would have the paperwork/bills/tests saying so and trumpeting this from every rooftop? 

This reeks of something, and the only person with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

[GGKoul]

I'm glad the decision for me is in my wife's hands; my wife knows me far better than my parents ever did or ever will.  I think it's horrific that a new law has been passed that potentially bypasses the person who knows me best.

As far as the politics, Bush shot himself in the foot on this one (Mr. C will like this story):
News.Yahoo.Com Link

While Bush is fighting for this lady, some infant had the plug pulled (against the parents wishes) because of a law Bush passed in Texas.
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop...

As I said earlier.. it appears no one whats to make a bad PR move.

[DrewKaree]

ABC News deceptive in Terri Schiavo poll?

"An ABC News poll reached the surprising  conclusion that a majority of Americans think Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should remain out so she can be starved to death, but the question posed by the news network portrayed her as having "no consciousness" and being on "life support," rather than an awake, responsive patient with a feeding tube

.....Since to most people, the phrase "no consciousness" suggests a coma and "life support" suggests a ventilator or other machinery, it's not surprising that many Americans

[mr.Curmudgeon]

MrC

OMG! Bi-partisan??...backpedaling already? Majority of Dems stayed away.

What backpeddling? That was a quote from Bush.

MrC, let's define "spineless" as those Dems like Kerry and his bunch that didn't say yah or nay and stayed home getting their hair and nails done.  Doesn't that upset you that your former "man" isn't going to make any stand on this issue?

At your age, fredster, I thought you'd be able to see through these kind of political ploys.

I believe I said it was about 5 times. That's what politicians do. It's everything they do.
Let them do their thing.

You should be ashamed of your boys backing down from the fray. 

You don't find it ironic AT ALL that you're demand I hold democrats responsible for not voting, while you refuse to hold Republicans responsible for forcing this issue?

I'll take the "spineless" Dems over the soulless Republicans any day.

The Rethugs have pushed this issue precisely because it's a "no-win" for Democrats. It's not ME saying that either. It's the REPUBLICANS themselves. I *am* ashamed from the Dems that they didn't stand up, but that doesn't excuse the behavior of the Republicans. That's what you don't seem to understand. I'm just not deluded enough to think that it wouldn't have been used against them. In '06, these ethically challenged Republicans will more than likely run campaign ads like, "Senator X voted to KILL TERRI SHIAVO!!!"

Read the despicable Talking Points. How many Right Wing ditto-heads have parroted these exact words over the past 7 days? Why? Because, just like you, they care more about their party than they care about people.

Give me a break fredster, people like you enable the corruption that runs rampant in this administration. Did you vote for Bush? A straight Republican ticket? If so, you are, as a citizen, required to hold them accountable for their behavior. Even moreso than ME, since I didn't elect them. But your lackadaisical attitude, and "Welp, that's politics" approach belies. This trainwreck isn't the Dems fault, and they couldn't have stopped it. If they could have, I'd certainly hold them accountable for not doing so. That said, I wish they would finally learn their lesson and just ignore the Republicans altogether. They need to stand united against this pathetic pandering, as people on your side, including you, don't seem to care whether or not the Republicans do the right thing.

I'm working, every day, to help clean house on the Dems side. Working to get more progressive, upstanding people into the body politic. I *do* hold Democrats responsible for their behavior. They are in office to do the people's bidding, just as Republicans are. The thing I continually find most disheartening is that I've got double the workload because the right let's their politicians slide. No matter how blatantly they disregard the law.

If you stood up, did your job and called these situations out for what they truly are...I wouldn't have half the angst I have for you and your side of the aisle.

mrC

[saint]

Far as I know, he doesn't have to wait for her to die to marry his girlfriend. Her current state would be grounds for a divorce in any court I'm sure, no?

not worth living. The poll question also omits any reference to the fact that Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, has been living with another woman for years, has sired two children by her, and is waiting for Terri to die so he can marry his girlfriend.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Finally the husband has spoken to the media, and he is very very mad.  If he had done this about 3 months ago, this would have been over.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/20/Tampabay/Schiavo___Come_down__.shtml

fredster,

You are so clueless sometimes, it hurts. I'm sorry. I'm usually patient w/ you but: HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO!!! HE'S BEEN TRYING THIS CASE FOR OVER 7 YEARS IN THE PROPER FORUM....A COURT OF LAW.

And NO, this WOULDN'T have been over. That's the point you cannot seem to understand. First you blame the Democrats for "not standing up", now you are blaming the husband for not being enraged soon enough? My God. This couldn't possibly be the fault of political opportunists on the right? Could it?

Furthermore, since when is a private citizen obligated to prove ANYTHING to the press?? Sure it would have helped him (as far as his media portait is concerned), but that is so far besides the point it's stupid to argue it. Legally, the Republicans have tried to take this out of his hands.

Go back to watching Jerry Springer.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Also, I'm no doctor, but for those people arguing about the possibility of rehabilitation, here's a little something they seem to refuse to acknowledge:

Here is a CAT scan of a normal brain:



Here is a CAT scan of Terri's brain



[via University of Miami Ethics Progams]


Brain matter can't be grown back.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Which is more humane, allowing her to dehydrate/starve over a period of days/weeks, or dying in a few minutes after choking?  Why do you feel one way is a better way to die over the other?

Personally, if she is going to die, I wish they could inject her with something to make it quick. Problem is, those same religious fundamentalists and "right to lifers" who are currently rallying around Terri have made that illegal in Florida.

Duh.

From my point of view, they are the reason Terri has to be "starved to death" rather than allowed to drift off to sleep like the most hardened criminals.

Shiavo is a prop for the Anti-Abortion movement. She can't die for them to be successful. Look for renewed calls for the repeal of Row V. Wade. Don't think this has anything to do with it? Think again.



mrC

[GGKoul]

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

June 18, 1990

Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Terri Schiavo

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This reeks of something, and the only person with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

I don't find it astonishing *at all* that you'd take the FOX NEWS line of reasoning on this. Just last night I watched Hannity drag out family and friends to allege that Michael BEAT Terri and caused the heart attack/coma and he doesn't want her to be rehabilitated because she'd tell on him.

Awesome. Pure heresay...they never pressed charges and given what GGKoul as posted it does look like the "people" with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

mrC

[GGKoul]

This reeks of something, and the only person with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

I don't find it astonishing *at all* that you'd take the FOX NEWS line of reasoning on this. Just last night I watched Hannity drag out family and friends to allege that Michael BEAT Terri and caused the heart attack/coma and he doesn't want her to be rehabilitated because she'd tell on him.

Awesome. Pure heresay...they never pressed charges and given what GGKoul as posted it does look like the "people" with the air freshener can't answer some pretty damning questions.

mrC

I just read the time line posted above, and it seems strange that the abuse claim came up only after the family was losing their case.  Also, if this had come up earlier, the would have filed for guardianship or never gave the husband guardianship.