Posted on 03/20/2005 6:06:29 PM PST by Former Military Chick
No way you're gonna get a straight answer to a straight question.
I just saw on Fox news that Mikey basically told the president to mind his own business. I don't blame him, I hate it when the authorities step when when I'm trying to kill someone by starvation.
Mind your own business while I'm killing my wife.
I keep reading about this case and I can't believe it's gone as far as it has. It stinks to high heaven.
I am a physician and would appreciate the opportunity to review her bone scan. The links I have seen do not work, do you have a link?
You are a liar; I've never said anything CLOSE to that.
So far you've called me an ass and a liar, but you've not answered my questions.
What's the matter, calling it like it is making you uncomfortable?
I didn't say you "said," I put you in the same company as. Big difference.
I have to admit, I'm enjoying the fact I've upset you while reducing you to claiming something I didn't say.
Is this the best you can do? Or, do you just want to admit you can't justify your position?
Here's a handy hint for you: most people don't want to discuss ANYTHING with somebody who starts off by lying about them.
You fall into that category; but carry on.
Calling me a liar isn't a refutation of what I said about you.
What was it I said about you? Or, did I merely describe you as one of those comfortable with the idea of "Terri slipping away?"
As much as you rant, I don't have to refute a lie, period.
Shame on you! He just "forgot" "her dying wish" until after he got the malpractice awards.
He's scum.
Wrong on that!
Silence right now would be a great virtue for you!
Because, to phrase it in his loving, caring manner, he didn't expect the "bitch" to survive this long without the treatment that he purposely withheld.
I looked back through your posts, and I notice you are fond of "asking questions."
Well, I asked you questions, why not answer them?
You keep harping about "the rule of law" and how this will "destroy the GOP," and "law of unintended consequences."
Are you also ignoring the consequences that may flow from Judge Greer's ruling? What about Judge Greer going ahead with having the feeding tube removed even after a Congressional subpoena? Nation of laws, remember?
I asked you questions after lumping you in with the right to die crowd. However, it appears you used this as a convenient out to avoid answering inconvenient questions.
Now, you've again resorted to name calling by tossing out the charge of "ranting."
If I was wrong in putting you in the right to kill crowd, then why don't you say so? If you do belong to the right to kill crowd, then why not try to support that position?
Because I am not going to defend myself to a liar.
No stop posting to me.
Terri is Catholic, I'm not sure what religion, if any Michael professes. Seems to me he professes the religion of EGO and convenience (i.e. kill the burdensome disabled wife, move on to a new family, etc...).
But that aside, although Catholics don't really belive in divorce, he is committing adultery with this new woman and therefore has abrogated the marriage covenant.
Also, I would think the Church would look upon divorce as opposed to murder as the lesser of two evils.
I, too, would be in favor of her "right to die" under a few conditions:
1) She had expressed her wish to be starved in writing AND she is terminally ill.
2) Absolutely everything had been done for her (therapeutic efforts 15 or so years ago just don't cut in in light of recent advances in technology). Particularly efforts to help her eat "naturally".
3) Michael is indeed the loving husband he claims to be. Becoming involved and having children with another woman while your wife is disabled does not demonstrate that you have her wishes and best interests at heart.
Even under those circumstances, I would support terminating her feeding extremely reluctantly, as I just can't wrap my brain around the concept of taking affirmative steps to starve a person to death, unless they are terminally ill and the person's entire family supports it, not just a spouse who has already moved on with his life.
Bottom line, he should divorce her, not kill her. He absolutely has the legal right to do so but refuses. This is the fact of this case which bothers me the most. She has people ready, willing and able to care for her but he refuses to let them do it. It is indeed a sad situation.
Oh please, she's already called me a liar. Now you jump in?
Go back through and read my postings very carefully.
From her questions, it lead me to believe she was in the "right to kill crowd." However, I did my research, and she is actually playing the "above the fray" game.
So, it comes down to, what is her position, and can she defend it? She cited "rule of law" in one of her posts. However, Judge Greer has clearly violated the "rule of law" by ignoring a Congressional subpoena.
Howlin also goes on about the "law of unintended consequences." That cuts both ways, because there are most certainly unintended consequences that can flow from Judge Greer's ruling.
Now, since I'm a liar, an ass, and do nothing more than rant, Howlin wants me to stop posting to her. I guess I made her a bit uncomfortable when I asked her position on this. But, I'll stop making her uncomfortable. After all, she is uncomfortable enough, what with straddling the fence like she is.
ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM! ;o)
I happen to have a lot of doubt about Michael's side of the story. The big reason is that he has shacked up with another woman, and has two kids with her. That makes Terri awfully inconvenient for him. To be honest, George Felos also gives me the creeps.
I also think that the folks supporting Terri have acquired a HUGE case of groupthink and have tossed out some unsubstantiated allegations that could come back to bite Free Republic and the conservative movement in general. Making false accusations will not help Terri or the effort agaisnt euthanasia. It will only be used against the right-to-life movement down the road.
People who want to get the facts straight and to deal with this situation rationally are not the enemy, and quite frankly, I resent seeing decent folks labeled as "pro-death" because they are not marching in lockstep. And to be blunt, there are other matter that need to be dealt with - at least one P-3 squadron is having a hard time finding the spare parts it needs to get its aircraft ready for a deployment. What do you think the maintenence personnel on that squadron think of this?
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.