Posted on 03/28/2005 5:12:30 PM PST by Maurice1962
You bet, she doesn't even appear mentally disabled but rather paralyzed to the point she's unable to speak coherently. I could be wrong but that's how it looks to me. At the very least she is aware of her surroundings and not a vegetable.
How much do you think he will earn off the book and movie and TV rights after her death...since he is still the legal guardian????? I would bet it will be a better bet than the Schindler deal. The man has no morals, why should he go for the lesser amount of money.
Are you coming on every Terri thread to spout your drivel? It's getting old. You don't have a clue about "dignity" or "humanity." Anyone who thinks it is ok to starve a person to death is sick. She does not have a terminal illness. Nothing was ever written down. Everything is hearsay - why choose death over life in a case that has such reasonable doubt?
Now, please go away and go over to DU, where you'll be in better company with all the sickos over there.
I would not want for my grown child (son or daughter) to live as Terri Schiavo is existing.
If the spouse decided to let them go, I would abide by their wishes. I might even encourage them to let go, rather than to encourage my child to hang on in the state that Terri Schiavo exists in.
It wouldn't matter to me if the spouse had gone on to make a life for himself/herself by finding someone new. The point is that Michael Schiavo was extremely dedicated the first YEARS of Terri Schiavo's incapitation. The Schindlers have fought against this decision for YEARS.
I wouldn't want it for myself. I wouldn't want it for my wife. [She's made it clear she doesn't want it for herself, too.]
Baloney! You didn't get that line of crap from George Washington.
Michael could have divorced Terri any time after 1993. If Terri had an honest guardian, that person would have filed for divorce on her behalf. Given that Michael has openly renounced his marriage vows, I would expect such a divorce would have been granted.
Maybe this is Michael's atty or maybe it is Michael. Just because Michael was never charged, etc. doesn't mean he is not guilty.
I'm confused though. If someone has the right to life and liberty, etc.,are they therefore not allowed to waive those rights? And thus...have the right to die (again, assuming that is what she would have wanted) just as much as they have the right to live?
Just wondering.
"Michael cannot have children with Terri. She's a vegetable - remember? What did you expect him to do, stand faithfully by her side until she dies? When will that be - 2040? Later? Sooner? The man wanted children. Ain't the first time a man has shacked up and had kids with a woman. Won't be the last."
The BS meter is rocketing off the scale regarding the above statement.
any person who would choose the name "sponge worthy" wishes they were.
Didn't you guys watch Sienfeld?
Correlation with Terri's case and the Nazi’s euthanasia files
Divorce is not taboo. There are situations where divorce would be considered right and proper. I doubt any real Catholic would suggest that a woman whose husband had openly moved in with another woman, fathered children by her, and pledged to marry her, should not seek a divorce.
What sets the Catholic Church's position on divorce apart from some others is that divorced Catholics are not allowed to remarry. Since Michael and Jodi clearly do not care about doing what is right by the Catholic Church, I wouldn't think that should matter to them. And if Terri had ever recovered enough to want to remarry, she could have sought an annulment and could probably have gotten one under the circumstances, especially given that--unlike her husband--she is childless.
No, he can go on with his life. I have no problem with that. But the moment he did he should have lost the power to control the outcome of Terri's life. He walked away from being her husband in spirit, now we need to make sure that the law reflects the same.
He can't, he is legally blind.
Therefore she is no longer his wife.
YOU would not want it for your son or daughter. YOU would not want it for yourself or your spouse. Terri's family IS NOT your family. Whatever your personal feelings about quality of life issues and under what circumstances YOU would choose death for your family have nothing to do with it.
But, Michael WAS NOT dedicated to her for YEARS. He began dating and had a SERIOUS relationship just a couple of years after her accident. He was a tyrant about making sure her OUTWARD appearance was such that people would THINK he was taking good care of her. Terri's nurses tell a different story about Michael's dedication. They have little to gain by coming forward and a couple have lost their jobs for doing so. These nurses don't know each other and some work at different facilities, but all tell a similar story.
Had Michael been Mr. Love and Dedication as you assert, he would NOT have argued with the doctor about withholding antibiotics. He would've had the metal shunts removed from her head AS HER DOCTOR TOLD HIM TO DO. He would have had a MRI and a PET scan done, STANDARD PROCEDURE for assessing the severity of Terri's brain damage. He would have allowed her to continue therapy and allowed her to at least have the curtains opened to allow some sunlight in, to have music in her room. That he denied her these very small acts of compassion is very telling about his level of dedication.
Cindie
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.