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
My fault, I am sorry. You are a good advocate for Ms. Shiavo, you are one of the more logical ones here on this issue. Sorry I jumped on you, but I guess I being a little defensive after yesterday. I am so sorry. Well, gotta pick up my grand baby.
Sorry unable to stop myself from responding. WHY is it so many people who have had to deal with a situation of withholding treatment from a DYING person (Psssst! Terri was NOT dying until the tube was removed) are not able to comprehend the difference between withholding treatment and prolonging death of someone who is terminal and killing somebody who is suffering from no terminal disease? I see this over and over again on FR.
Difference between theory and practice.
I know of what I speak. I know of many Filipino Catholics who are considered "Good Catholics" who aren't married because one was previously married.
You know...I was still wavering in what I thought about the whole situation. Your reply cleared things up...thx for posting.
Our society does not have the right to starve some of us to death if our lives aren't "of enough value"...in fact...as Americans, it should be a natural reaction to ensure that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is protected for ALL Americans.
LOL!
"I started out hostile towards Michael Schiavo but the more I studied the situation, the more I sided with him. Go figure."
Yep. Life is messy. The nice thing about you is that you admit bias when you know you have it, you are willing to change when you find evidence convincing enough, and you're trying to engage in spirited debate to determine the truth.
I definitely don't agree with you on this Terri Schiavo topic, but I appreciate your approach.
I just said there is proof out there that something happened.
And I didn't say a broken neck but broken bones in the neck and other damage. There is also evidence of other injuries to Terri's body.
However, at the beginning, she was being artificially alive, but for that feeding tube she would have died already. I used to have to hook my son up to one but it was an NG tube, because when he was on Chemo, we would not eat. (Boy, we had some fun moments with that one I'll tell you). Her dying process was interupted in my opinion.
Same here. I have to run. It's report card day at the school.
Sorry, being kept artificially alive.
I know what James says
... the body without the spirit is dead... James 2:25
I, for the life of me can't imagine someone still being in their body when their brain has ceased functioning cognitively...[snip] As to her personality, since it is based upon one's cerebral cortex and the neural networks; if these are damaged or destroyed; then, ergo, the personality is lost as well.
Do you believe that one's personality survives physical death?
Your objection then isn't with me but with those experts who have examined her first hand.
The experts disagree about the condition of her brain.
Cordially,
Is Michael Shiavo a bigamist? There seems to be 2 wives in the picture...one married in the church and one common law. Did not Mr.Shiavo abandon Terri when he started living with his current common law wife and when he sired 2 children from that union? Does this in and of itself create a conflict of intrest for Mr.Shiavo, and therefore set into question whether or not Terri's best interest is the motivating factor for Mr.Shiavo's decision? Therefore the nearest of kin would be her parents. If Mr.Shiavo does not want to deal with this any more file for divorce and 90 days later he will have only 1 wife....the common law wife.
"Well, gotta pick up my grand baby."
Keep those babies (grand or not) close to you. Their youth just flies by, doesn't it, and the time we have with them is just a vapor in a strong wind.
Thanks for the spirited conversation. I'm sorry that you were attacked yesterday. I wish you well.
I'll be sure to remember that. "Reverse and render? Why that was just an appellate court, my good man. They don't know anything about the facts of the case. We won where it counted. In the trial court!"
I believe Greer made his decision to maintain and "harden" judicial control over these kinds of decisions. The law says the husband has the right. When that law was written these circumstances were anticipated. The written codified law is, in Greers' mind, of tantamount import, not the life of Terri. She, by judicial decree, is being killed because the pretext of law is more important to Greer than to be judicial and recognize the 8th and 14th amendment rights and to recognize "the right to LIFE". This is why the dems are going nuts.
jewsforlife dot o-r-g
See #478, and #473 it refers to.
I have noticed the same. I wonder if there aren't unresoved guilt feelings. I still feel guilty about not being there when my mother died. I can only imagine how I'd feel if I had had to make a decision that caused her death, necessary though it might have been.
I stand corrected. However, I don't believe that the USSC's unwillingness to hear the case is an indictment of its import or of the decisions that went before. They simply chose not to hear it. Inferring worth or worthlessness on that front seems a bit presumptuous. Of course, as we've seen I've been wrong before, and have apparently attributed nefarious intent to Mr. Schiavo, I may be wrong and attributing the same again.
By the way, the one point you don't dispute is the length of time Greer has had the case. May I assume that I am somewhat correct in that assertion?
"From what I understand is that the money is almost gone."
He spent over 300k on one lawyer, another lawyer was around 100k. Spent it trying to kill her, as opposed to care and rehabilitation, which was what the money was for as stated by Michael Schivo.
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.