Posted on 01/22/2006 11:35:40 AM PST by LouAvul
I dispute that. I think they were all lying.
However, show me the proof that Terri gave "informed consent" to be free of a feeding tube, and I'll let you have that one.
What she supposedly gave oral consent to was to have other life-support withdrawn, because those movies and the grandmother were on ventilators and other machines. At the time she made her alleged statements, a feeding tube was considered ordinary treatment, not life-support.
Thus, there was no longer clear and convincing evidence as to what she would want to be done with a feeding tube. The movies didn't reference it and the law hadn't been changed.
I think present Supreme Court nominee Alito will hand you a lot of changes- on a silver platter. This month,I'm sure all thoughts turned to Terri Schiavo when that child in Massachusetts was caught in the middle of a fight to have her life support removed so her abuser wouldn't be charged with murder.
Your culture of death will no longer being tolerated. There will soon come a day when it is no longer shrouded in your non-existant right to absolute privacy.
Give us a few years. I'm quite sure an estranged ex-husband, with non-existant evidence and questionable motives will no longer have the right to starve his first wife to move onto his second.
Sorry if that screws up your future plans.
Well, that makes it okay, then. And it was okay to MURDER HER TOO.
Sounds like a typical romance to me. In 2003, the spin was that due to her religious beliefs Jodi could not marry a divorced man but she could marry a widower. What religion says that MURDER is okay? I'm think Senator Jim King's religion - the religion of the almighty dollar.
Michael Schiavo should be glad there was a Judge Greer for him to keep in his pocket. It took a village to MURDER TERRI.
What kind of straw man argument is that? Of course, he has the "right" to marry whoever he wants. It's also our right, and certainly mine, to pass judgement on both of them and hope that, in the end, he gets exactly what he deserves. What will that be? Maybe one day that nutbag George Felos will be arguing his new wife's right to pull his plug.
Oh yes, after reading Wolfson's report on what the family testified they would do to keep this poor woman 'alive', I'm quite positive the court made the right decision. Her family was quite the morbid lot.
It would rather depend who the individuals were. When one of the three is the plaintiff, and the other two have evident reasons to support the plaintiff, then their testimony doesn't bear that much weight with an intelligent man.
It bore the weight with the courts. Oh, but I do forget, 'we' don't like Greer do we...I guess 'we' don't support any of the other courts that refused to intervene as well
So saying, you casually dismiss Terri's family members' and friend's testimony--while you just as casually treat the plaintiff's self-serving testimony as unquestionable
Let's see. One side advocated letting her die in peace, after reports from doctors that actually examined her (no 'Nobel Prize' nominees in that group I'm afraid...). Her family on the other hand advocated chopping off body parts if necessary to keep her alive. Of course she wasn't using said body parts but damned if I'd let some ghoul chop off body parts of someone I once loved just to say that person was 'alive'.
No, he did not decide to "let go." If that were anywhere near true he would've divorced Terri. As it is, he didn't "let go" but pursued her death to the bitter end.
Objective fact which you can interpret any way you wish. But don't say he decided to let go. That's just flat wrong.
Death worshippers (death for others) could never have a real wedding sanctified by God.
You know what's really frightening to me is that the alleged "Christian" supporters of Terri Schiavo, are so incredibly irrational in the face of facts. That's much too Taliban-like for my tastes, and heaven help us if such types ever get in positions of power. They are as irrational as the far-left Dems (Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan types) are.
It's death worshippers not death lovers.
Dear ol' billbears have YOU ever gone without food and water for 24 hours? Or 48? Try it. Tell us then how "peaceful" it is.
No. Learn to read, and then do it, carefully. The progression of argument was this:
You appear to be making an assertion of incontrovertible fact. By what means do you know that this fact is incontrovertible?
Perhaps you spoke to her directly? Personal knowledge of another's stated wishes is of course the strongest basis on which one may assert knowledge of incontrovertible fact. Was this how you knew? No, it wasn't. So how do you know?
Answer: you know because Michael Schiavo said so. Which naturally raises the question: on what basis does Michael Schiavo's say-so represent incontrovertible fact?
The strongest basis on which to take Mr. Schiavo's testimony as fact is, of course, if other witnesses agree, and no witnesses disagree, with his testimony. That is, if the consensus of all witnesses agrees with Mr. Schiavo's statements, then one is naturally justified in assuming his statements to be true. So do all the witnesses agree with Mr. Schiavo?
Answer: no. So on what basis does one conclude that Mr. Schiavo's testimony is to be treated as fact, and any conflicting testimony is to be treated as falsehood?
Answer: one is now reduced to the unfortunate task of deciding which of two conflicting testimonies is true. One of the best sources of confidence in testimony is if the witness is disinterested--for example: if the witness stands to gain or lose nothing by the outcome of the trial; or if the witness's testimony would produce an outcome that the witness doesn't wish. For example, if her priest believed Schiavo's expressed wish to be tantamount to the mortal sin of suicide, but was forced to admit that such was her wish, then this would carry weight. If an ex boyfriend who had attempted to murder her in the past were to testify that she desired death, this would be highly suspect. So, was the testimony in this case disinterested?
Answer: no. The principal witness in this case is Michael Schiavo himself, who was seeking the outcome of his wife's death, and who had undertaken political activity to legalize her starvation in the first place. This is hardly a disinterested party. His corroborating witnesses are his brother and sister, clearly also not disinterested parties.
On what basis, therefore, do you assert that Mr. Schiavo's testimony is indisputably truthful? There can be only one answer: you wish to believe it.
By contrast, I do not claim to know for sure what Terri's wish was. Her family and friends weren't disinterested either, obviously. I find the Schiavos' testimony less credibly than the Schindlers', but in fact the correct decision doesn't require that one believe the Schindlers either. Given the conflicting testimony, and the clear biases of the witnesses, one has no choice but to err on the side of not taking life. Just as we would rather see a guilty man acquitted than an innocent man executed, so we must keep the woman alive without sufficiently compelling evidence of her wishes.
In Florida law a verbal statement is considered just as binding as a written statement in these matters, and Terri made them to three different people all on different occasions.
There you go making statements as if they were indisputable facts. Three parties, who are biased and closely related to each other, claim that she made this statement. More than three witnesses, including at least one non-family-member, claim that she made the opposite statement. This leaves me uncertain which is correctly representing Terri's wishes--but, mysteriously, it leaves you completely without doubt. You have the makings of a very religious man: tenacious clinging to blind faith is a plus in many religions.
I certainly hope so since, like three quarters of Americans, I wouldn't want to be forced to be kept alive like that.
If there's any doubt on the matter, we'll go ahead and snuff you just to be on the safe side. Better to err on the side of death, I always say.
www.ourfight4terri.com (reference book of court transcripts, exhibits and medical records).
Guilt. I guess he figured he'd make it up to her if she survived. I'm not saying it was premeditated. I suspect it was an accident or a crime of passion. Nonetheless, no one has yet answered my question. Exactly when did Terri tell Michael, after he received his settlement, that she would rather die?
I can answer that one. He felt guilty. He didn't mean to hurt her, but I think he did just the same. Consider yourself lucky if you have never been abused before.
Judge Greer ran an illegal campaign in 2004 but who's counting? He broke so many laws to get to the death order state.
The TRUTH ABOUT JUDGE GREER at www.judgegeorgegreer.com
"I don't want anyone feeding that girl." and NO TESTS, NO NOTHING. She was treated worse than an animal.
That's right. Here we are now at that pivotal part of the discussion where you say I am an evil DUer because I should allow someone's body to die. Many parents make the same decision when their babies are born with Anencephaly but these babies could easily be kept alive with today's technology. This is where we need to draw a line between allowing God to take what's his and technology allowing our "bodies" to cheat death. I do not believe a living human should be put to death. I also do not believe that someone who has been decapitated should be kept alive due to the fact that we have machines that can replicate all other normal body functions. If you have no brain then you have no life and your soul has already gone to heaven. That is my belief and I don't see why god would want my "body" to remain on earth while my soul was in heaven. I would not feel this way if Terri had a chance to live the kind of life she could enjoy and participate in. It is obvious that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive if she was unable to comprehend whether she was alive or not. Perhaps the true crime was inserting a feeding tube into a person that would never be able to have a cognitive existence.
And one cannot question a court's decision, of course. Greer's decision, Roe v Wade, Dred Scott, Kelo v New London--whatever the courts decide is true, right and above any further criticism, ever.
I'm impressed. You'd make a good Catholic--you've got the requisite respect for the pronouncements of the magisterium--but you'd make a lousy intellectual. They have a nasty habit of thinking that it's permissible to discuss things, and even to criticize past decisions of courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.