Posted on 03/21/2005 7:50:03 AM PST by Pendragon_6
Lets see, first Michael Schiavo beats and strangles his wife Terri, leaves her lying unconscious on the floor until her family arrives to get her to the hospital.
Then Michael Schiavo sues the hospital for $20 million because he needs the money to get his poor wife therapy.
Then Michael Schiavo pockets the money, denies his wife the care he said she needed and finally, claims she really wants to die.
Michael Schiavo killed his wife Terri's cat, melted down her wedding ring and then took up with his girlfriend and lives with her today with their children. Does this sound like a loving husband who really cares about his wife's wishes?
And what do we get on the tube every hour on the hour: “persistent vegetative state” as though any of the talking heads who ghoulishly proclaim Terri's life isn't worth that of a convicted serial killer sitting on death row (for 20 years, while due process goes on).
Michael Schiavo's supporters claim he loved his wife Terri enough to take a nursing degree so that he could take care of her. I think he got that nursing degree so he could inject her with insulin and hasten her death and his complete claim to all the money he won in litigation.
Just take a gander at the sworn testimony of an attending nurse: Carla Sauer Iyer (affidavit* below) but let me save you some time and report a quote of Michael Schiavo's after visiting his still living wife: "When is that bitch gonna die?"
Hmmm. Loving husband or man so afraid of not only not getting the money (what's left of the $20 million) but the prospect of facing a jury for his attempted murder, a charge which is possible as long as Terri lives. Sounds like motive to me.
Michael Schiavo says Terri said she never wanted to be kept alive on machines. Okay. Even if that was her statement (which there is absolutely no corroborating testimony and quite the unusual statement coming from a young, newly married woman still in her twenties and full of life); Terri is not being kept alive by machines!
Terri has a feeding tube from which she gets food and water. Had she had the care and therapy she was entitled to, there is every chance today Terri would be divorced from that louse and feeding herself just fine.
About that “loving husband” crapola: what husband do you know evinces his marital fidelity and love by living with another woman, having children with that woman and dumps his wife in a hospice while waiting for her to die? What loving husband kills his sick wife's pet? What loving husband denies his wife's family visitation?
I ask these questions because the media morons are still stuck with their new term: “persistent vegetative state” and are oblivious to the actual facts of this tragic case.
Continued
No, it isn't. Remarriage after divorce (to the Catholic Church, that is "living together") means you can't receive the sacraments -- you can't make a valid confession, because unless you leave the second (civil) spouse or live together as brother and sister, you show no purpose of amendment, i.e., no inclination to discontinue the sin. A sin you have no intention of not continuing (as opposed to trying, failing, and trying again) cannot be absolved.
OK then.
Mind you, the internal contradictions of Roman Catholicism have always been amusing to me.
"Personal attacks are entirely a different matter."
Agreed. The less the better. But, I will permit someone to vigorously attack, and root out, the premises upon which I base my thought.
It actually helps me to better understand any prejudices and biases I may have. I may not change those prejudices or biases, but I am better for recognizing and accepting them as such.
What passes for thought, often, is only the ability some have of making weakly founded thoughts appear magically on the screen, through the transmission of brain function to fingers to keyboard to post repository.
Only one court has ruled on the facts of the case. The other courts and judges have ruled on process.
It has been demonstrated time and time again, where persons have been duly convicted, and where the appeals courts have upheld the convictions of same, that in some instances the initial findings have been erroneous. To wit, the duly convicted person was in fact innocent of the chage, but were convicted regardless, and cleared by dint of DNA evidence.
Under your scenario, these persons should still be imprisoned, because there were so many courts and judges that ruled the cases outcome was right and proper.
All the Congress has done is allowed a review of the facts of the case by another court. Article III section 2 allows the Congress to do this.
I don't believe I made any statement as to what I may or may not have believed...your mileage may vary.
Again, you are assuming fault upon him without knowing for a fact what was in his head.
When I signed the DNR I actually FORGOT my wife's living will wherein she already said she didn't want to be resuscitated. It wasn't until several months after the funeral when I came across it and remembered. I was glad I didn't violate her wishes.
"What makes her so special and set apart from other families going through these heart wrenching decisions?"
There is no objective documentation of her wishes. The judge has CHOSEN to rely on the WORD of a man with clear conflict of interests as a guide to her intentions. His conflict of interests involve living with another woman and bearing children by her [so that he is NOT truly Terri's husband] and would inherit a large amount of money on Terri's death for those children.
Dis Terri REALLY say that she would choose to be starved to death if she became disabled and was unable to express her wishes?
Point well take. By the way that was beautifully said. :-)
But, basically accusing Ed of possibly sleeping with somebody else before his wife was dead was disgusting. Also accusing me of murdering my son, because I disconnected his life support was vile as well. That is not right. Accusing someone of being a liberal because they dont agree with you? I can deal with that one ok.
Reminds me of a passage from one of Donald Westlake's novels -- two gangsters talking: "You want me to kill a little girl? I can't do that!" "God kills little girls all the time -- you think you're better than God?"
It's so sad that you feel justified in engaging in ad hominems instead of rational discussion. Perhaps you lack the confidence to engage in debate rationally and dispassionately?
Oh well, it's not everyone's cup of tea.
Oh, just for clarification, I do NOT believe in euthanasia - I believe in cryonic preservation. If you want to ridicule that; I'm always willing - I have some nails and a wall over here.
From what I understand is that the money is almost gone. Also, I understand he was offered millions to walk away. Just because he is living with someone does not make him a bad man. I just dont see it. My wishes are that I do not be kept alive like that. And if removing my feeding tube is the only option, then I have instructed by children to have it removed. I refuse to burden my children with my care when there is no quality of life there for me.
Not really. It is well-established in the rules of evidence that hearsay carries much more weight if expressed when it is first an issue than years later.
This doesn't seem to be the comment of somebody wanting to bring more light than heat to the conversation. What, you don't have enough controversyon your hands but you have to start a little side fight on whether or not Catholicism has internal contradictions -- after you repeatedly, incorrectly, but firmly posted something that isn't true about the practice of the Catholic Church?
Do you want to discuss Schiavo or are you so interested in fighting that any old fight will do?
"I don't believe I made any statement as to what I may or may not have believed...your mileage may vary."
You are absolutely correct. You merely stated something you had heard, you did not say you believed it. Please accept my apology. :)
he had the ring melted and made into one for himself? well sheesh, why didn't someone mention that before? that sounds like an act of love to me, to keep the ring with him forever. otherwise, it just gathers dust in a drawer. i don't get that point being against him in the least.
In Catholic terms, he is in exactly the same position now as he would be if he divorced Terri -- a married man living with a woman not his wife. Two unmarried people living together does not involve breaking marriage vows.
And Michael doesn't seem too concerned with the Church's prohibition of pulling feeding tubes from someone not otherwise dying.
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.