Terri Shaivo thread

[JUGGERNAUT]

Dude, you've completely misunderstood the teachings of the church.

Artifical insemination is a sin because it's the act of conception outside the act of consumating the love between a man & a woman. The Church is not against technology or science. Many Cardinals owe their life to such things.

Seeking to error on the side of life in Terri's case is simply upholding the sanctity of life.

 

To those who advocate killing Terri or feel a need to justify that by claiming she's already dead I will remind you that the celeb status of this case has really reached this status only now. Men & women I capitol hill weren't even aware of the particulars in the case.

 

So where is the harm in allowing Terri to live a little longer while a congressional investigation attempts to uncover all the facts & arrive at a recommendation on the case? The process will insure that every stone conceivable has been overturned & looked at to insure that the right decision is the best decision. This would actually help to exonerate Michael if death is the right choice.

 

As it stands now no matter how you try to spin it an adulterous husband having reaped the $ he could from his wife's condition now seeks her death & cremation so that he can move on with his life. Contesting his desire are Terri's parents, her brother, her sister, her relatives, her parishioners, her closest life-long friends. They want to keep Terri alive until a unanimous consensus decides there is no hope.

In support of Michael's efforts the plurality of judicial decsions have ruled in his favor.

 

A little more than 40% of Americans are troubled by that.

[JUGGERNAUT]

We have created a tangent to this in the general discussion of divorce rights by incapacitated spouses on the grounds of adultery.

 

This is limited in scope & does not in way suggest the absurd notion of legalizing shotgun weddings under such circumstances.

 

IMHO, adultery is the one common denominator that clearly demonstrates a spouse has broken the vows of marriage. I believe that in the case of adulter the incapacitated spouse's right to sue for divorce should be proxied by family members. It clearly can not be placed in the hands of the cheating spouse. In the absence of family members that proxy would be passed to the state.

 

Now I have a hypothetical for those of you representing the less than 60% seeking her death.

If Terri had been able to sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery using her parents as a proxy would you still be advocating she should die?

You can assume that in the process of filing the divorce the state would have stripped Michael of guardianship rights until the divorce was finalized.

At which time the state would have awarded those rights to her parents.

 

To me this is the biggest travesty in this case. An adulterous spouse earning the right to kill & cremate his wife. If Michael had been true to hear it would have made his argument that she sought her right to die in these circumstances more believable. But adultery is a form of betrayal

& betrayal is rooted in deception & lies. That's just common sense.

[Steff]

We have created a tangent to this in the general discussion of divorce rights by incapacitated spouses on the grounds of adultery. 

 

 

 

 

No.. we haven't. You have. Some of us care more about her than her husband and who he's sleeping with.

[JUGGERNAUT]

No.. we haven't. You have. Some of us care more about her than her husband and who he's sleeping with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure you do Steff. The words you've posted in this thread are obviously dripping with tears over your concern for Terri. We need more people like you in this world. What better way to control the population then to allow adulterous husbands the right to kill & cremate their wives?

 

I'm not surprised you avoided the questions on the subject. Why not just go the Mark McGuire path? We shouldn't talk about the past. Let's talk about the future. :rolly

Edited March 22, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Steff]

Sure you do Steff.  The words you've posted in this thread are obviously dripping with tears over your concern for Terri.  We need more people like you in this world.  What better way to control the population then to allow adulterous husbands the right to kill & cremate their wives? 

 

I'm not surprised you avoided the questions on the subject.  Why not just go the Mark McGuire path?  We shouldn't talk about the past.  Let's talk about the future. :rolly

 

 

Mainly because it's none of my business. None of this is. I don't care to play God and question people's morals or what they do in their bedroom. IMO, it's sad and hypocritical. But you wear it well.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Mainly because it's none of my business. None of this is. I don't care to play God and question people's morals or what they do in their bedroom. IMO, it's sad and hypocritical. But you wear it well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that the right of an adulterous husband to kill & cremate his wife is a question of people's morals or what they do in their bedroom?

It's the law Steff. Spouses in all 50 states have the right to sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery & based on the division of property, assets, & children in such cases the court takes it pretty seriously. Much more seriously then it being a question of people's morals & what they do in their bedroom.

 

It's neither sad nor hypocritical. It's logical. Though I'd suppose for swingers where adultery is perfectly acceptable & consented upon there may be a grey area here.

I suppose they might consider it a question of morality. Would you happen to be a member of that group by chance?

[Queen Prawn]

Take it easy Jugg. No need to start stuff like that regardless of whether she isn't or is.

[Steff]

Actually it's not the law in all 50 states..

 

I fail to see what his bedroom habits have to do with this case. That's my point.

 

And I'm sorry but I have no interest in contributing to your nasty, sick, and disgusting need to know about others lives in their bedrooms by discussing mine.

 

Your poor wife...

[Steff]

Take it easy Jugg.  No need to start stuff like that regardless of whether she isn't or is.

 

 

Oh.. I don't mind one bit. Anyone with a half a f***ing brain around here knows which side of the fidelity train I ride on.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Oh.. I don't mind one bit. Anyone with a half a f***ing brain around here knows which side of the fidelity train I ride on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You might think that's a perfectly logical statement but it's not. It implies directly that everyone around here knows enough about you to where they could make a judgement on that. Unless you're going around spreading that information to every poster on this board that's pretty a ridiculous assumption.

 

The swinger statement obviously passed over head for you. It was a question dripping in sarcasm. I could care less whether you are or are not a swinger. But I do care when you try to pass such behavior off as being morally acceptable or on par with the mainstream.

 

You're poor husband. I'm sure he takes comfort in knowing that you condone the right of an adulterous spouse to both kill & cremate their wife or husband.

 

As for my family we have talked about this in detail & both of us have come to the same conclusion. We would want a unanimous consensus that there was no hope for our near-term & long-term outlook. As long as there was some minority of doctors

who felt there was hope for our condition we would seek our right to live. This is how we are drawing up our living will. It's either all or nothing as to whether we live or die under these circumstances. No court appointed majority will rule our fate.

 

On the subject of remaining married under such circumstances we both agreed that

if the desire to make to love to another arises we would seek a divorce & annullment from the Church first. We would never allow our time together to become tainted with adultery or children born out of wedlock that arise from it.

 

===============================================

Please name one state where adultery is not sufficient grounds for divorce.

Edited March 22, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Rex Kickass]

As it stands now no matter how you try to spin it an adulterous husband having reaped the $ he could from his wife's condition now seeks her death & cremation so that he can move on with his life. Contesting his desire are Terri's parents, her brother, her sister, her relatives, her parishioners, her closest life-long friends. They want to keep Terri alive until a unanimous consensus decides there is no hope.

In support of Michael's efforts the plurality of judicial decsions have ruled in his favor.

 

20-0 is not a plurality.

[sec159row2]

Dude, you've completely misunderstood the teachings of the church.

Artifical insemination is a sin because it's the act of conception outside the act of consumating the love between a man & a woman. The Church is not against technology or science. Many Cardinals owe their life to such things.

Seeking to error on the side of life in Terri's case is simply upholding the sanctity of life.

 

 

I guess I have misunderstood and I still do... IMO if you can't artificially create life you can't artificially postpone death.... the vatican says no one person has the authority to say who should die... but the other side of that coin is who has the authority to say who lives...... 12 years of catholic education down the drain...

[Steff]

You might think that's a perfectly logical statement but it's not.  It implies directly that everyone around here knows enough about you to where they could make a judgement on that.  Unless you're going around spreading that information to every poster on this board that's pretty a ridiculous assumption.

 

 

 

Maybe it's just you with comprehension problems then...

 

I know quite a bit about those with spouses and families from the posts that they make here.. and I'd guess it's vice versa with those that bother to pay attention.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Tom Delay and the rest of these moralists: Supporting the dignity of life from conception to birth.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Dude, you've completely misunderstood the teachings of the church.

Artifical insemination is a sin because it's the act of conception outside the act of consumating the love between a man & a woman. The Church is not against technology or science. Many Cardinals owe their life to such things.

Seeking to error on the side of life in Terri's case is simply upholding the sanctity of life.

 

I guess I have misunderstood and I still do... IMO if you can't artificially create life you can't artificially postpone death.... the vatican says no one person has the authority to say who should die... but the other side of that coin is who has the authority to say who lives...... 12 years of catholic education down the drain...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll need to check the Catholic Cathechism. I don't think it's cut & dry like that.

I think there are exceptions for spouses who want children but prove to have fertility problems. It's definitely unacceptable for non-spouses & persons outside of the marriage. Surrogate mothers would be included in that.

[JUGGERNAUT]

20-0 is not a plurality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You clearly misunderstood. There were 20 decisions in all (counting Mon/Tues).

Not all of them were in favor of Michael. If they had been we would never have reached 20! (simple logic). :rolly

[Steff]

===============================================

Please name one state where adultery is not sufficient grounds for divorce.

 

 

 

Arizona, California. Colorado, FLORIDA...... to name a few

 

 

http://patriot.net/~crouch/50states/

[southsider2k5]

You clearly misunderstood.  There were 20 decisions in all (counting Mon/Tues).

Not all of them were in favor of Michael.  If they had been we would never have reached 20! (simple logic).  :rolly

 

Save your :rolly because Wino is dead on right.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1536773,00.html

 

Mrs Schiavo's case has been the subject of more than ten court decisions in seven years, all of which have backed her husband Michael's wish to let her die. Nearly 20 Florida state judges have ruled in favour of Mr Schiavo, and the US Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear the case.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Maybe it's just you with comprehension problems then...

 

I know quite a bit about those with spouses and families from the posts that they make here.. and I'd guess it's vice versa with those that bother to pay attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No the problem is yours. First your assumption that what is posted is truthful. Secondly

the probability that any one is going to discuss their acts of adultery behind their spouses back here are pretty small. It's simply ridiculous to suggest such a notion.

All you can say is that you arrive at some general basis of what posters believe or disbelieve in by the nature of their posts. Any notion to extend that knowledge to a real world sense is foolish. You need first hand real world experience with the person for that sense.

[Rex Kickass]

There have been 20 judges that have reviewed this case. Not a single judge has ordered the reinsertion of the PEG tube for any other reason than to allow appeal. Every single court decision has agreed with the findings of the original judge involved, including the appellate courts of Florida and the Supreme Courts of Florida and the United States.

 

20-0 is not a plurality. It's unanimity.

[Steff]

You clearly misunderstood.  There were 20 decisions in all (counting Mon/Tues).

Not all of them were in favor of Michael.  If they had been we would never have reached 20! (simple logic).  :rolly

 

 

 

Wow.. have you even bothered to read the case ruling history...??

 

You are so wrong.

[Steff]

No the problem is yours.  First your assumption that what is posted is truthful.  Secondly

the probability that any one is going to discuss their acts of adultery behind their spouses back here are pretty small.  It's simply ridiculous to suggest such a notion.

All you can say is that you arrive at some general basis of what posters believe or disbelieve in by the nature of their posts.  Any notion to extend that knowledge to a real world sense is foolish. You need first hand real world experience with the person for that sense.

 

 

 

I think I'll take the word of strangers before I take your posts filled with bulls***, half truths, and total disregard to fact checking.

[LosMediasBlancas]

Hey guys I know very little about this case and don't really care to read 50 pages.

One question though: Is her husband dating and looking to remarry?

[JUGGERNAUT]

Save your :rolly because Wino is dead on right.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1536773,00.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Steff, that link has dead links when it comes to the actual divorce law in the states.

A 2 line addendum concentrating on whether a state has no fault divorce or not does

not suffice as evidence to the contrary.

 

SS, let me see if I got this straight. I am suppose to consider an article from the UK that doesn't even know many decisions were rendered as the gospel truth on the matter? That might seem logical to you but it doesn't to me.

 

I will look up the details of the decisions myself. I'm sure to find at least one judge declaring she goes back on the tube because otherwise she wouldn't be alive today.

[southsider2k5]

Hey guys I know very little about this case and don't really care to read 50 pages.

One question though:  Is her husband dating and looking to remarry?

 

He has two kids by another woman now. I am not sure if they want to marry or not.