Jump to content

Terri Shaivo thread


JUGGERNAUT

What should be done for Schiavo?  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. What should be done for Schiavo?

    • Pull - Remove the feeding tube which would result in starvation
      31
    • Kill - Dying of starvation is a painful process. We can not rule out that Terri has active pain receptors still working in her brain.
      10
    • Pump - Keep the feeding tube in place
      23


Recommended Posts

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:45 PM)
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.

 

 

 

:rolly

 

 

 

:dips*** smiley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 599
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:45 PM)
He has two kids by another woman now.  I am not sure if they want to marry or not.

 

 

He's been with her for 9 or 10 years, IIRC.. and in the begining Terry's parents supported and encouraged him to move forward with the relationship - per their website entries from years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 06:48 PM)
He's been with her for 9 or 10 years, IIRC.. and in the begining Terry's parents supported and encouraged him to move forward with the relationship - per their website entries from years ago.

 

So, Terry was in this condition, still married to her husband, he has an affair, has 2 kids outside of his marriage and now wants to unplug Terry so he can marry this other broad? So, can't he just divorce Terry and hand her over to her parents since for some reason they think she's gonna recover?

Sorry, I know nothing about this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 02:16 PM)
Keeping her alive, at worse, provides no benefit to Terri.

 

this is an interesting point. there are certainly those who believe that this woman is still a cognizant human being, with videos of her showing emotion as evidence. point granted for this issue (although i by no means believe this to be true). i can't imagine there are too many ways to live much worse than being paralyzed and unable to communicate with anyone, whle lying motionless in a bed for 15 years. if she's conscious of what's going on around her, this sounds like an absolute personal hell. do people really think ANYONE would prefer a situation like that to no longer existing? it's johnny got his gun, sans fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 01:45 PM)
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.

 

The only time a court order to place Terri back on a PEG tube was issued was contingent on an appellate process. Look it up. Or just read the Federal judge's opinion issued today where he says the same damn thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Staff is resorting to name-calling. Very typical from her kind.

When she doesn't have anything logical or factual to state to support her obviously biased opinion that's her typical route.

 

So childish an act in such a serious thread.

 

Here's the fact's mam:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

But the Schindlers immediately filed suit against Michael Schiavo, claiming that he had committed a fraud on the court. Pinellas Circuit Judge Frank Quesada granted the Schindlers' motion for an emergency injunction and ordered Terri's feeding and hydration tubes reinserted two days after they were removed.

 

Michael appealed Quesada's order to the 2nd DCA, which transferred the case back to Judge Greer in the probate division. In its decision, the 2nd DCA gave the Schindlers another chance to prove that Judge Greer's ruling was in error -- but only if they could prove that Terri's condition could improve with a new medical treatment.

 

Both of those decisions denied Michael the right to remove the tube. :rolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:45 PM)
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.

 

Yeah, they aren't American, so they are lying. How convient. There are plenty of AMERICAN sources out there.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/20/schiavo/

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010102.html

http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=110797

http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/201874

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:59 PM)
I see Staff is resorting to name-calling. Very typical from her kind. 

When she doesn't have anything logical or factual to state to support  her obviously biased opinion that's her typical route.

 

So childish an act in such a serious thread.

 

Umm go back a few where you incinuated she was a swinger...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 06:59 PM)
I see Staff is resorting to name-calling. Very typical from her kind. 

When she doesn't have anything logical or factual to state to support  her obviously biased opinion that's her typical route.

 

So childish an act in such a serious thread.

 

 

:rolly

 

So typical are your type to baffle people with absolute bulls*** and the f***ing unabomber's manifesto-like posts so as to cover your ass when you're wrong.

 

:rolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:25 PM)
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.

 

artificial insemination(sp? one of these times I'll look up the spelling :D ) is not allowed. I have some friends that looked into it. the reason is that doctors will harvest several eggs to increase the odds of success, and the church is concerned with what happens to all the harvested eggs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SS, you're a little slow today I guess. I already posted a LAW link to Schiavo & identified two decisions that ruled against Michaels desire to remove the tube.

 

I would think a LAW link trumps mainstream news articles. :rolly

 

As for the swinger comment

1) I already identified it as a sarcastic remark removing any insinuating I considering one

2) I'm not surprised according to your ethical beliefs that you would equate blatant name-calling with asking a question.

 

For those who care more about the facts & less about this sparing between a social moderate who leans toward conservatism & the social liberals who feel a need to jump in this again is the most comprehensive link on the case I've found:

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

 

It chronicles everything including his relationships & something that has not been talked much about here: The right for this case to be decided by jury.

 

Gov. Bush requested a right to take discovery and sought an evidentiary hearing and a jury trial. Judge Baird denied his motion. Gov. Bush then filed an appeal & the appellate court then passed it on to the FLSC "as a question of great public importance."

 

Before the FLSC, Gov. Bush argues that Judge Baird violated his due process rights.

He argued a jury trial was necc to determine Terri's present wishes "in light of the present circumstances." Those being that Michael essentially abandoned his marital relationship with his ENGAGEMENT to another woman.

 

When did he get engaged? 1996. They have had two children since.

He has remained married to Terri while engaged to another woman.

 

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

For social liberals who seem to think foul language is the best course of action to take in a debate don't. You're not impressing any one. You're actually embarrassing yourself.

Edited by JUGGERNAUT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 01:28 PM)
SS, you're a little slow today I guess.  I already posted a LAW link to Schiavo & identified to decisions that ruled against Michaels desire to remove the tube.

 

I would think a LAW link trumps mainstream news articles.  :rolly

 

As for the swinger comment

1) I already identified it as a sarcastic remark removing any insinuating I considering one

2) I'm not surprised according to your ethical beliefs that you would equate blatant name-calling with asking a question.

 

Ah so instead of name calling you just question my morality, that is soooo much more mature. If you would care to notice, I haven't posted anything to do with moral statements in this thread at all. Nothing. But that didn't stop you from incinuating that somehow I am morally challenged, mostly because I didn't agree with your point of view.

 

But that's OK, I am used to that sort of hypocracy from you now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah so instead of name calling you just question my morality, that is soooo much more mature.  If you would care to notice, I haven't posted anything to do with moral statements in this thread at all.  Nothing.  But that didn't stop you from incinuating that somehow I am morally challenged, mostly because I didn't agree with your point of view.

 

But that's OK, I am used to that sort of hypocracy from you now.

 

When you get time strip all this sparring crap out of the thread into another thread.

You made a statement relating to ethics by equating an insinuation as implied by a question to a blatant offensive remark.

 

In doing so I have a right to call into question your ethics on the matter. I specifically made reference to the word "ethics" to NOT call into question your morality. You obviously didn't pick up on that distinction & as a result resort to a quick and erroneous judgement of hypocrisy on my point. There is no need to clutter this thread any more on pointless semantics based sparring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:54 PM)
So, Terry was in this condition, still married to her husband, he has an affair, has 2 kids outside of his marriage and now wants to unplug Terry so he can marry this other broad? So, can't he just divorce Terry and hand her over to her parents since for some reason they think she's gonna recover?

Sorry, I know nothing about this case.

 

 

 

Ummm.. no. He's been fighting this fight for the past 7 years once the doctors told him there was no chance for her to improve. This after years of therapy, and mucho dinero as well. Supposedly it was Terry's wish not to live like this if there was no hope of her getting better. Once that was established is when he started the process of taking the feeding tube from her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:59 PM)
I see Staff is resorting to name-calling. Very typical from her kind. 

When she doesn't have anything logical or factual to state to support  her obviously biased opinion that's her typical route.

 

 

 

 

Where did I call you a name..?

 

Typical.. so be it. But when playing with kids I feel it's best to get down and play at their level.

 

As for my opinion.. I don't have anything to support it because I don't have an opinion as to what should happen to her.. I also have not voted in this pole.

All I've said is that it is my opinon that I wouldn't want to live like that. An opinion about me, myself, and I. I choose not to attempt to play God with others and force my opinions on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

artificial insemination & Catholicism

 

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

Reminder of where to get the DETAILED FACTS on the Schiavo case.

 

Summary of political lines of thought on this matter:

social liberals - support Michael's right to kill & cremate his wife over regardless of his being engaged to another woman & fathering two of her children

 

social conservatives - the right to life trumps the right to die in nearly all circumstances

 

social moderates - Call into question whether Michael should have remained Terri's guardian when he became formally engaged to another woman. He could not legally marry her w/out divorcing his wife & it would seem the $ he was awarded outside of Terri's medical care costs was the driving factor in not divorcing Terri at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is the difference between my ethics and my morality?

 

And what gives you the right to to question either of them? I seem to remember being taught in a Lutheran school, to judge not lest ye be judged. But you seem to have no problem judging anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you.

 

And please don't insult my intellegence with the indignant act. I know you better than that. It is obvious what you were trying to say. Hiding it as a question is a just a passive aggressive way to make yourself feel better about doing the same things you are complaining about.

 

This started out as me supporting someone's statement of fact, then I supported it with 4 different links. Then when you called someone for name calling, and I showed you doing the samething, then you called my ethics into play. It is classic misdirect. As soon as you are proved wrong, you change the subject or discredit the source. But that's OK, I am used to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is the difference between my ethics and my morality?

 

And what gives you the right to to question either of them?  I seem to remember being taught in a Lutheran school, to judge not lest ye be judged.  But you seem to have no problem judging anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as you. 

 

And please don't insult my intellegence with the indignant act.  I know you better than that.  It is obvious what you were trying to say.  Hiding it as a question is a just a passive aggressive way to make yourself feel better about doing the same things you are complaining about.

 

This started out as me supporting someone's statement of fact, then I supported it with 4 different links.  Then when you called someone for name calling, and I showed you doing the samething, then you called my ethics into play.  It is classic misdirect.  As soon as you are proved wrong, you change the subject or discredit the source.  But that's OK, I am used to it.

 

You involved me in your post! That gives me the right! What is obvious is my post referring to it as SARCASM. That' what's obvious.

 

When you prove me wrong, let me know. If it has any basis in logic I'll accept it.

In the process be sure to look over the entire thread to save us all some time.

As for my proving you wrong:

1) I identified a LAW.COM link that chronicles every judicial decsion including those that prevented Michael from removing the tube.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/faultstates.htm

This is a better link & simple logic proves my point.

If a state is no-fault that means any reason including adultery may be admitted for grounds in seeking a divorce.

 

If a state requires a fault grounds for divorce include cruel and abusive treatment, adultery, abandonment, and other types of misconduct.

 

Hence all 50 states recognize adultery as a grounds for divorce :rolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 02:13 PM)
You involved me in your post! That gives me the right! What is obvious is my post referring to it as SARCASM.  That' what's obvious. 

 

When you prove me wrong, let me know.  If it has any basis in logic I'll accept it.

In the process be sure to look over the entire thread to save us all some time.

As for my proving you wrong:

1) I identified a LAW.COM link that chronicles every judicial decsion including those that prevented Michael from removing the tube.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

 

Ah, I see avoid the questions you don't want to answer.

 

No sarcasm wasn't obvious. You insult people and the way they live all of the time. When it becomes a habitual pattern, you don't assume sarcasm, you assume insult. You inflamatorally phrase questions so that if they differ a shade of gray from your opinion they are murders or the like. You routinely play God and tell people how the way that people live and think are wrong, and that only your logic is right. With a history like this, why would anyone assume sarcasm?

 

Heck not to long ago you were preaching to us that if the majority of the country felt a certian way about a certian issue, that is the way it should be, because majority rules. You even sited recent polling that said 60% of the country supported Terri Shaivo's right to die. Now that position isn't convient for you, so it hasn't been mentioned.

 

Like I said, before, when it doesn't work, you change the arguement. Like I said, I am used to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 02:58 PM)
Reminder of where to get the DETAILED FACTS on the Schiavo case.

 

Summary of political lines of thought on this matter:

social liberals - support Michael's right to kill & cremate his wife over regardless of his being engaged to another woman & fathering two of her children

 

social conservatives - the right to life trumps the right to die in nearly all circumstances

 

social moderates - Call into question whether Michael should have remained Terri's guardian when he became formally engaged to another woman.  He could not legally marry her w/out divorcing his wife & it would seem the $ he was awarded outside of Terri's medical care costs was the driving factor in not divorcing Terri at the time.

 

Well, the social conservatives that you are trumpeting so loudly that signed this bill into law also signed a bill into law in Texas allowing the hospital to make that life or death decision over the wishes of the family in 1999.

 

Social Moderates would see both sides to the issue I think. They would probably feel, like anyone else who isn't blinded by ideology in this issue, conflicted. They've seen video of Terri Schiavo and felt moved. They've read about the doctor after doctor that issued the same diagnosis. They've seen the CAT scan showing mostly fluid where her brain should be. Maybe they side with the parents, maybe they side with the husband. But social moderates ought to be disgusted with the way that the politicians involved wrapped themselves up in this issue to exploit political purpose. And Social Moderates ought to respect the rule of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 02:19 PM)
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/faultstates.htm

This is a better link & simple logic proves my point.

If a state is no-fault that means any reason including adultery may be admitted for grounds in seeking a divorce.

 

If a state requires a fault grounds for divorce include cruel and abusive treatment, adultery, abandonment, and other types of misconduct.

 

Hence all 50 states recognize adultery as a grounds for divorce :rolly

 

 

 

Ahhh.. now we're "recognizing"... :rolly

 

The laws in 22 states in the US do NOT have "adultry" on their books. Reasons in the remaining states define dissolution request as anything from irreconcilable differences to mental cruality.. the point is that divorce on the "grounds of adultry" is not on the books in all 50 states, which is all I said in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...