[PleaseNoMore]

Also, because what kind of person her husband is has no bearing in the legal issue at hand

I disagree. If her husband is a liar and has committed perjury under oath it has every bearing on his legal rights as a guardian. IF he has injured her causing her to be in her present condition it has every bearing on his legal rights in this case. Contrary to your apparent belief, spouses are not given "blank checks" when it comes to guardianship of their incapacitated spouses.

While it is a novel idea that spouses have the best intentions for their partner, that is not always the case. Until it can be determined that Michael schiavo has not:
1. Harmed Terri thus being the cause of her present condition
2. Has not committed perjury ( in either the Malpractice suit or his testimony stating that these are Terri's wishes )
3. Has exhausted all means of rehabilitation for Terri per his promise under oath to do so
4. Has conducted all transactions from her trust account in accordance with Fl. law
He should be removed as her guardian.

Not only is Michael schiavo bound by moral law to provide for this woman whom he swore to love and care for "in sickness and in health" he is bound by state law to PROPERLY oversee the care of her physically and of her trust account.

His actions and statements make his previous behavior and present intent suspect. The conflicting stories from her loved ones cast doubt on his claims that Terri wants to die.

[Gringo1]

While it is a novel idea that spouses have the best intentions for their partner, that is not always the case. Until it can be determined that Michael schiavo has not:
1. Harmed Terri thus being the cause of her present condition
2. Has not committed perjury ( in either the Malpractice suit or his testimony stating that these are Terri's wishes )
3. Has exhausted all means of rehabilitation for Terri per his promise under oath to do so
4. Has conducted all transactions from her trust account in accordance with Fl. law
He should be removed as her guardian.

"Not only is Michael schiavo bound by moral law to provide for this woman whom he swore to love and care for "in sickness and in health"


1)Prove it in court, until you do, it is only blind accusation. 13 years have past, where were you back then?

2)Morality isn't a one-size-fits-all proposition, the morality of one person isn't the same as the morality of another. "Moral Law" as you define it may not apply in Mr. Schiavos case because he is free to believe what he wants to believe(this is America, right?), and not what you or anyone else sets as the standard of being "moral".If your statement was true, then the catholic church wouldn't have the "trouble" that it now faces(isn't the church supposed to be "moral" or even "more moral" than the rest of us?). And certainly comparing your own moral guideposts to Mr. Schiavo's is at least as biased a position as everyone screams about the liberal media having.

I appreciate you arguing the legal side of this argument, it has been a breath of fresh air. All that has to be done is to prove in court what has been raised. If it can be proven, then Mr. Schiavo should not be her legal guardian and perhaps her family should be, but until that time, I have to stay with my original opinion.