Posted on 03/03/2005 9:24:10 PM PST by Ohioan from Florida
I see you've already taken the bait. Good luck with that.
My reference to money was in response to another post.
Blame the husband. Typical social service propaganda.
Husbands have rights as well!
He could move on with his life very well, in the same manner that you did. He could divorce Terri, but he won't. He's obviously moved on, but he still wants to control her.
I'm sorry for your tragedy. You did the only thing you could do. You had to look out for your children. You're right about no one knowing the misery you've been through. It would be beyond horrible.
However, I don't understand how it applies to this case. Are you saying you should have done things differently? Are you saying you wished you would have remained married to her?
Again, sorry for your despair.
I haven't given you an emotional response. But yours is very emotional. I suspect that all the facts to be had in this case wouldn't change your mind. Because of your emotional experience with your wife, Terri must be a bad one too and not worth her parents struggle.
I'm sorry for your experience but it has nothing to do with this woman who has suffered abuse and neglect.
Again you are assuming she has a mind and can reason.
Nobody knows. just assumes.
The right to make personal family medical decisions as I am advocating is not socialist. Socialism is those imposing their will to prohibit people from making personal medical decisions as you are supporting.
Thus I am against your stand.
Yes, I agree. Husbands definately have right too.
You had every right to do exactly what you did, period. I'm against Socialism, so I don't understand what you are saying when you talk about socialism in regard to this case.
Perhaps, but to suggest that a husband should be able to move in with another woman, sire to children by her, and pledge to marry her, without forfeiting his rights as husband, is to make a mockery of marriage.
I suspect that with the litigation he is unable to proceed with a divorce. We never hear his side of the issue except the emotional ganging up accusations of neglect etc that come from those supporting her and her parents. I suspect he has a whole different version of the proceedings and I would like to see it presented if you may provide me with a link to his side of the story.
If Terri had a living will then I would have never even entered into this debate. The simple fact is, she didn't. I'm not imposing my views. She has a right to life. It's that simple. We cannot ignore the fact that here is a severely disabled woman who obviously interacts with her family. We have no right to insist on her death if she hasn't got a living will. Have you never been around anyone who was disabled in this fashion? She reminds me so much of the children I've worked with on occasion. These people have dignity, although you don't seem to care too much about giving them that.
Terri's parents offered Schiavo a deal. Give them guardianship of their daughter and he could keep the money. He said no. This is Michaels attitude:
September 27, 1999 Deposition, Michael Schiavo
Q. Have you considered turning the guardianship over to Mr. and Mrs. Schindler?
SCHIAVO: No, I have not.
Q. And why?
SCHIAVO: I think that's pretty self explanatory.
Q. I'd like to hear your answer.
SCHIAVO: Basically I don't want to do it.
Q. And why don't you want to do it?
SCHIAVO: Because they put me through pretty much h*** the last few years.
Q. And can you describe what you mean by h***?
SCHIAVO: The litigations they put me through.
Q. Any other specifics besides the litigation?
SCHIAVO: Just their attitude towards me because of the litigations. There is no other reason. I'm Terri's husband and I will remain guardian
This man HAS moved on. He's lived with another woman for 10 years and they have 2 children.
The DCF claim that unsealing the document Greer plans to unseal would compromise witnesses. The 11-page document doesn't. Further, it makes reference to a 30+ page confidential report, and explains why that report is required to remain confidential.
Bearing in mind that this is George "I don't want anyone feeding that girl" Greer we're talking about, what do you think he's planning to unseal?
BTW, I may well be wrong, but my personal hope is that DCF lawyers are smart enough to "briar patch" Greer.
You are embittered and have absolutely no idea if Terri's situation is anything truly like the one you describe.
You say others have no right to interfere. Take your own advice.
We follow this case to the letter and we know the facts better than you. It is YOU who act on emotion while you happily, or should I say miserably, accuse others. Not only myself, but others have posted known facts to you that argue against these horrible conditions Terri is forced into by Michael and Greer. You ignore everything that is factual, and come back claiming a similar personal experience.
I know a waste when I see one. I just told you the Schindlers get their legal help pro-bono. That means free. What a waste to tell truth to someone of your attitude.
You are still railing about wasted money, when only your poor victim Michael has lyingly wasted money he promised for her care, in a years long effort to starve and dehydrate her to death, something society puts people in jail for doing to animals, and something that would not be done to death-row murderers.
You can read his side of the story every single time you read something that the mainstream media has put out about this case since 2000. Before that I don't know. Provide yourself a link. It's called google.
It looks like you're getting lots of replies from every direction.
Bottom Line: No one would be jumping on his case about anything, if he had NOT choosen to eliminate his wife. Had he NOT started this court action, we'd all be off posting against or for political positions.
Husband wants to kill his wife. Do you advocate husbands being allowed to freely eliminate their spouses, without Family, friends or others caring or asking questions of motives?
Why do you suspect that? Seriously, I'm curious what would give you that perception. The parents have openly suggested that Michael should divorce Terri, and I can think of nobody who would have any standing to refuse (other than Michael, of course). Do you have any reason to believe the litigation is preventing Michael from divorcing Terri, other than a believe that any reasonable husband in this situation would divorce if able?
Somewhere I see a woman involved in half of what you are saying....... does she have no morality interfering in a mans marriage? Or is it all the big bad husbands fault?
Nope.
You are right about Jodi. She bears half the responsiblity as well as Michael for the BS they've put Terri through.
oh yes, the mainstream media...... they are truely credible and always present ALL the facts on both sides don't they?
"I suspect that with the litigation he is unable to proceed with a divorce"
No. He doesn't proceed with a divorce because then the courts would be legally required to award her part of the marital estate, her parents would be able to get her some therapy and she would eventually be able to communicate that it was "dear hubby" who put her in this condition in the first place after taking out a huge life insurance policy on her which he now cannot collect on until he is allowed to starve/dehydrate her to death.
And yes, I know that's a run-on sentence but it's late and I don't feel grammatical correctness is necessary here.
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.