posted
Like I said in the breakroom the other day. I'm writing a living will and I want it to say..."But please don't starve me to death, just walk in and shoot me in the head. It will be so much more humane." Oh but that will never happen b/c that is murder and this is not. Right.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope the autopsy shows that the right choice was made.
Farmgirl, I was surprised by that too--I'd had the impression that 3 days was the longest a human could survive without water. Maybe it's because she was almost completely inactive?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit my post so that murder is out of it? Her parents were denied access to their daughter's bedside in her final hours. I’m sure they’re simply morning and not blaming Michael in the least for their loss.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, do whatever you want to do. Dag just suggested everyone to back off a little and show respect. And that's exactly what I'm going to do.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grief for the family. It’s a shame that Michael won’t ever be charged with murder until the final judgment day. Hopefully some kind of new legislation will come out of this so that this kind of torture won’t be allowed in the future without express written consent. I’m also hopeful that this will energize the nominations for judges so that Bush’s nominees will get through and the liberal courts can changed into the interpreters that they are supposed to be instead of the legislators that they are being. It’s just a shame that Terri had to be the sacrifice.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice that it says body. Huh.... interesting. I bet that means she was already dead. Well, gee.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think this is a horrible thing no matter how you look at it. I think we'll see some things in the next few days that will alter the way we see the case.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, jebus just likes to troll. The recent rise would indicate that he is either unemployed or not in school (or seriously procrastinating in either).
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
"Brother Paul O'Donnell, a spokesman for Bob and Mary Schindler, Schiavo's parents, said the couple was with their daughter's body and praying."
But further along it the article, it said:
"Thursday morning, O' Donnell said that Schiavo was in her final hours of life, and police have prohibited her blood relatives from spending time with her.
"O'Donnell, one of the family's spiritual advisers, said that her parents and siblings were "begging to be at her bedside...but are being denied."
"Michael Schiavo was Terri's guardian and controlled who may visit her and when."
Posts: 113 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I’m also hopeful that this will energize the nominations for judges so that Bush’s nominees will get through and the liberal courts can changed into the interpreters that they are supposed to be instead of the legislators that they are being."
Liberal courts? *blink* Jay, do you still -- after everything we've shown you so far on this issue -- think it was liberal courts who decided this?
For that matter, what "legislation" do you think the "liberal" courts were doing? The courts interpreted existing law.
C'mon, man. Prove to me that you can think for yourself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megan, As KrabbyPatty pointed out...the CNN article that you linked to said that the parents were not allowed in the room in her final hours. He kept them out. The part that you quoted from the article was talking about after her death (note it said they were with her body)
The Fox article and the CNN article don't contradict each other...the first part of the CNN article is just talking about a different time period (post death).
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my, that is absolutely horrible that police prevented her parents from being there in her final moments.
That is absolutely sickening to me, why would Michael not let her parents be with her? What purpose is served by leaving the parents outside begging and calling police in to prevent them from sitting and praying with their daughter?
My heart goes out to her parents, I hope they find a way to have peace about this somehow.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the animosity between her husband and her parents I think I can understand why he would bar them from the room when the moment came. I'm not saying he should have done it, but I understand.
Needless to say, I hope she and those she leaves behind find their peace.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
How about the original finding of allowing Michael to be the guardian despite him having a new common law wife? Who on earth can think he’s in it for her best interests? If nothing else he should have been found guilty of adultery or polygamy.
How about the courts ignoring the facts that there was a chance if she would have gotten the proper treatment whatever the slight chance it might have been? We have a guy here at NASA who was declared brain dead after a car wreck, but received the proper care and miraculously recovered enough that he was able to get his degree. He still has troubles, but he’s alive. There are countless cases like that. Sure they’re unlikely, but they do happen. Michael didn’t give her a chance.
How about that the laws passed by both federal and state legislatures to save her life were ignored and overruled? 100% ignored. They were going to kill her no matter what seemed to be the attitude.
Everything about this that the courts did was ugly, uncaring, and just plain biased. So why is it that since I’m conservative that means I can’t think for myself? I kind of find that a tad bit insulting. Yet, if I do any kind of personal attacks like that I get bamboozled and labeled. I’m seeing a bit of bias here. Interesting.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was Michael with her in her final moments? Was anyone that cared about her?
If he was there and wanted to avoid a scene or confrontation, then I suppose there might be a glimmer of understanding, though I still think it's petty and malicious of him. If he wasn't there, then it was downright viciousness on his part, to let her die alone and not let her parents be with her.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's disappointing that can people become so polarized over an issue that they have no option left except to restate their opinions in louder and more obnoxious ways.
So, let's just leave Jay to his opinion. He's obviously right and nothing that anyone says will have an impact on someone who's so self-righteous about their opinion.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, if it offers you any comfort, yes Michael was with her when she died. He and her parents had been alternating visits for some time now and they were asked to leave when his turn came. It was shortly after that she died.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really bothers me that people are so willing to assume that Michael is a horrible person without any knowledge of the history of his and Terri's relationship with her parents. I'm certainly not willing to make that assumption, and think that particularly now both he and her parents ought to be left well enough alone.
Edit: I also don't think that this should ever have become a political issue.
posted
I'm not saying he's a horrible person, I'm saying the act of prohibiting parents from being with their beloved daughter by force is wrong.
Even if there are problems between them,I would hope they would both, out of respect for Terri, set those differences aside in this situation.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why is it that since I’m conservative that means I can’t think for myself? I kind of find that a tad bit insulting. Yet, if I do any kind of personal attacks like that I get bamboozled and labeled. I’m seeing a bit of bias here. Interesting.
It is interesting, as sort of a case study of how your own biases can blind you. After all, here is Jebus being roundly criticized, and called a troll, for obnoxiously expressing opinions contrary to your own, and all you can see is that people are picking on little old you.
Maybe the key is here: "Yet, if I do any kind of personal attacks like that . . ." The true personal attacks by liberal trolls have always been called as such. And so have the personal attacks by conservatives. If you want respect, maybe the answer is not to do any kind of personal attacks.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: How about the original finding of allowing Michael to be the guardian despite him having a new common law wife? Who on earth can think he’s in it for her best interests?
Jay, this is precisely the problem here. Eleven separate court cases have reviewed this, and all of them agree that he's entitled to be her guardian. You disagree.
That does not make the courts incompetent, or "activist," or unable to correctly interpret the law; it simply means that you disagree with or don't understand the law.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, jebus just likes to troll. The recent rise would indicate that he is either unemployed or not in school (or seriously procrastinating in either).
Whereas you just like to go into a thread where fans are discussing how Star Wars could have been better and call it "NERDity".
Trolling is doing something with the sole purpose of causing trouble, which I rarely do, it's just always interpreted as such.
quote: Icarus, jebus calls himself a troll.
Indeed, but that would be a little thing called humour. Joking around. Making fun of oneself.
posted
Thanks for showing your bias Icarus. I assume Jebus is adult enough to defend themselves. Not my job. Tom on the other hand attacked me, as he loves to do, and usually no one but me calls him on it. So wait… you say “If you want respect, maybe the answer is not to do any kind of personal attacks.” Yet Tom is the one who personally attacks me, yet you’re yelling at me? Whatever……
Now, back to the topic at hand…..
Tom, I could care less if every court in the land found it the same way. It was wrong on every level. Our courts are out of control. They have zero accountability and show it in most of their decisions. They’ve quit interpreting law and continue to ignore what they don’t like. I’m hopeful that this killing of an innocent American will help reign in their arrogance.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they did interpret law. And accurately.
Now if you believe that the wishes of someone in a similar state cannot be legally determined by hearsay and that in absence of signed documentation otherwise that person should be kept alive at all costs, work towards legislation that says that. I anticipate quite a bit of it in the very near future. And if it passes, the courts will follow it because it will be the law.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Terry's death is sad, but not much more sad than the last 15 years of her "life".
I do not confess to what side of the issue I take since to be honest I am not so sure. Would I fight to preserve the life of my child--with my own life I would!
But, would I sustain my childs life if I knew that child would never be back? Would I fight to maintain them in a condition of limbo, as a warm, breathing entity for my self serving needs?
Nobody wants their child to die, but understanding that life is eternal and that there is a heaven(Which Catholics do believe), and that she will be free or pain, of afflictions and in the arms of her Savior, would or should we deny her the right to go there. Or should we go to whatever length to keep her between this life and the next?
To me, her body lived on, she did not.
Another perspective: I wonder in amazement the amount of money that was spent by all perspectives in this. Her parents for 15 years of life support. The media for all the hype. The courts for all the time.
Now imagine how much attention, time and money we have put towards sustaining life in those third world countries where tens of thousands die of hunger each week.
No, I do not suggest that we should have let Terry die a long time ago in order to spend the time and money elsewhere, I just want to put things in perspective.
In America, evidently, one single life still counts. Jay said a "murder" was committed against someone who could not have a chance of a normal life. Who is guilty of murder for those that starve to death who had a chance at a quality life while we stuffed ourselves with pizza and cry foul?
I guess I had a hard night under the bridge. I need a bowl of soup.
I died years ago. My feeding tube is the soup kitchen on the corner of 4th and Main.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:PC, the relevance of this to my point that Jay only notices those who disagree with him is . . . ?
It had nothing to do with Jay. I dismiss anything Jay says immediately and without remorse. I was just explaining why I called jebus a troll- which you referenced in your post. Perhaps I shouldn't have addressed it specifically to you.
quote:Whereas you just like to go into a thread where fans are discussing how Star Wars could have been better and call it "NERDity".
Trolling is doing something with the sole purpose of causing trouble, which I rarely do, it's just always interpreted as such.
I consider what I do not so much trolling "being a general asshole." Which I love to do.
quote:Indeed, but that would be a little thing called humour. Joking around. Making fun of oneself.
I know, I enjoy your humour. The purpose of my original comment was to explain to scottneb your perceived insanity. I also wanted to get under your skin a little bit.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My bad about the CNN article. I confess that I was in a hurry this morning and didn't read the whole article through; I had just decided to look for another perspective than fox, and that was the first thing that struck me about the two articles.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My heart goes out to TS's family, Michael Schiavo, her parents, extended family, etc. They've been put through a horrible ordeal, only made worse by the people on the outside trying to exploit this case for their own ends.
quote: How about that the laws passed by both federal and state legislatures to save her life were ignored and overruled?
Jay - You seem to think that once a law is passed it is magically immortal and indestructible. The job of the courts is to uphold and overturn laws as they see fit. More than 60% of the American people disagreed with Bush and others trying to pass legislation to screw with judicial rulings. We have severe separation of powers issues going on here.
But what I'm more curious about, is how you would have reacted in the last generations to those crazy reactionist judges forcing integration of the schools. I mean, come on, those damned liberal judges on the benches force all those evil black kids to go to school with the pious, good, white kids. If that is the sort of injustice you're stemming your arguments from, you need to check yourself.
Personally I think the courts are the last line of defense against our sometimes out of control Congress and President. They seem to think of the courts as their battlefield, their enemies when they want more power, and their pawns when they are fighting each other for power.
I'm sad that Terri Schaivo is dead, but perhaps some good can come from her death in the form of settling this damned argument once and for all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about that the laws passed by both federal and state legislatures to save her life were ignored and overruled?
The federal law was not overturned, overuled, or thwarted. It granted review. It also enabled, but did not compel, the courts to grant a stay in the order to withhold nutrition.
This makes it clear that the federal courts did not disregard Congress, and also that Congress did not "interfere" with the courts. Congress exercised it's legitimate authority to define jurisdiction. The courts exercised this jurisdiction.
quote:More than 60% of the American people disagreed with Bush and others trying to pass legislation to screw with judicial rulings.
This is, of course, irrelevant to how the courts decided the issue once the law was passed.
quote:We have severe separation of powers issues going on here.
Not really. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives Congress the authority to determine jurisdiction for the federal courts.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Rest in peace, Terri.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and nothing that anyone says will have an impact on someone who's so self-righteous about their opinion.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
