Posted on 03/21/2005 1:30:36 PM PST by cainin04
On #3 I say that he is "married" to someone else. He is indeed in a common law marriage. Take that for what it is worth.
I firmly believe Michael Schiavo's real motivation here is to avoid being charged with abuse he committed while Terri was still healthy...and possibly with causing the health crisis that left her disabled. It's the only thing that explains why he won't relinquish her care to someone else, even when offered money. Her body contains evidence against him, so it must be destroyed.
Her unfaithful husband is unavoidably and hopelessly conflicted between her true interests and his own, and the state judge is clearly biased and unwilling to listen to or hear of those allegations...therefore, it provides the opportunity for a different venue...in this case a federal court.
Our most basic unalienable right is the right, endowed by the creator on all mankind, to life. That is codefied into our law. If the state process is flawed and not providing for it, then a federal court should hear it. Some may well considere this to be "Federal intervention". I say, that since it is being done to protect her unalienable right to life from corruption and conflict of interest IMHO, then this is reason for intervetnion if there ever was one.
I believe that Terry will live. I have that faith that God will indeed intervene.
You may very well be correct. I have heard those charges and accusations, but I have no factual evidence to support it. That is why I did not mention those things in my artical.
Please post some sources. I agree entirely with you, but I have some liberal colleagues who demand references everytime I say something like "Her husband is estranged" or "Doctors have said that she is responsive". Of course, they believe everything they read in the NY Times!
I've said all along that we the public do not have the facts on this case. The few that you list support my theory that this is more about money than anything else.
Anyone, except of cours the ACLU, who believes that the husband cares about his wife or that she told him that she did not wish to be on any life support measures is naive.
This guy stands to make millions of dollars over this. The fact that she could come home should be enough to convince anyone that if her family wishes to care for her then they should.
I'm surprised that the parties could not compromise on this. The only explanation is that the husband's desire to cash in on his wife's story is the real truth.
Regarding Congress getting involved or not, I must admit that I don't think Congress should supercede the states in matters such as this...but on the other hand this passed unanimously in the senate and had overwelming support in the house and the the president's support.
In other words, in this personal incident, they are doing the right thing.
I've been doing alot of research on the details of the Schiavo case (unlike Rush and Hannity who were clueless when I tuned them in this afternoon.
It's disengenuous to imply that Terri is suffering like a healthy person would suffer without food. The hyperbole in this case has obscured the fact that feeding tubes are removed on a regular basis in this country--without fanfare because the family is in agreement.
By the way, I'm not defending Michael Schiavo.
All of this info comes from the speeches on the House floor last night. I simply took notes as I listened to it. I do not have access to lexis nexis, but all you would need is a transcript of what was said last night on the floor or a copy of the CSPAN tape. Perhaps www.house.gov has that info.
Also, the Noble Prize nominated doctor that I was referring to will be on Hannity's radio show in the next segment.
"The fact that feeding tubes are removed everyday" does not mean that it is unjust in this case. There are people who would know no difference, Schiavo would.
"The fact that feeding tubes are removed everyday" does not mean that it is not unjust in this case. There are people who would know no difference, Schiavo would.
Florida does not recognize common law marriage. Even if it did, he is still married to Terri.
Just a time out here to engage in the time-honored Freeper past time of bashing Hannity.
He really is a robot. He keeps arguing with callers about stuff that is easily checkable with an internet connection and half a brain. I can't believe that somebody who makes a living discussing the news isn't as informed as the average FR cubicle jockey.
When I disagree with him, it makes me nuts. And when I agree with him, it's even more annoying because he doesn't do the argument justice.
Yes, but we can drop Tom Delay's comments about "people wouldn't do this to a dog" and so forth.
How offensive to people who let a loved one go this way. How offensive to the people who have instructions in their wills ordering just that.
I think many Freepers are motivated more by a desire to punish Michael Schiavo (understandable)than a desire to determine Terry's wishes. The two are separate issues.
Feeding tubes being removed on a regular basis for other cases does not justify starving this woman to death in this case. Might as well do CRAK because everyone else is doing it...
I guess DeLay doesn't care enough not to offend people who starve their loved ones to death by removing their feeding tubes...
Ok, so if his new wife were to become ill like Terri, would he have any say on what happens to her?
I don't know much about Michael Schiavo and I really don't care about him one way or another. All I know if that a woman who many doctors say is not in PVS is going to be starved to death!
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.