We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • …
  • 11
Terri Schiavo
Topic Started: Mar 21 2005, 09:11 AM (3,444 Views)
Deltasix Mar 21 2005, 10:46 PM Post #61
Me
[ * * * * * * ]
Quote:
 
Yep, let's just do as they say and never have a say that way we can all go down the drain. Oh wait, that's what's happening.


Yea.....except that according to the constitution of the United States, only the Judical Branch has any authority in these types of issues. What congress is doing is unconstituional and the idea that an excutive branch would step in is absurd.

So unless you are talking about totally revamping the constitution yea, this is how its supposed to go.

Quote:
 
I don't agree with ruling in his favour, there is no evidence that his word is even true, especially if he alread has a girlfriend (mentioned earlier - may be false, I'm not sure).


Yes there is. Court appointed doctors delcared her state to be that which is needed for the husband's wishes to be carried out. And yes, after 15 years he does now have a girlfriend.


Quote:
 
ain, why did they never try to have her communicate her own thoughts. She may be a vegetable but she's still human and perfectly capable of expressing what she wanted. There are plenty of non-verbal ways to communicate nowadays so even if she was unable to write down what she wanted, they do have the technology to get their answer other ways.


Not in her case, no. She isn't able to express her thoughts, that would be the issue here now wouldn't it? No matter if you try to get her to write it down, she cannot do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dennis Mar 21 2005, 11:43 PM Post #62
Member
[ * * * * * * * ]
Deltasix
March 21, 2005 09:46 PM
Quote:
 
Yep, let's just do as they say and never have a say that way we can all go down the drain. Oh wait, that's what's happening.


Yea.....except that according to the constitution of the United States, only the Judical Branch has any authority in these types of issues. What congress is doing is unconstituional and the idea that an excutive branch would step in is absurd.

Wrong. Congress did nothing except to extent the Federal Court's jurisdiction to the case, which they are allowed to do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RagingFuryBlack-ZNS Mar 21 2005, 11:57 PM Post #63
Member
[ * * * ]
The Balrog
March 21, 2005 10:43 PM
Deltasix
March 21, 2005 09:46 PM
Quote:
 
Yep, let's just do as they say and never have a say that way we can all go down the drain. Oh wait, that's what's happening.


Yea.....except that according to the constitution of the United States, only the Judical Branch has any authority in these types of issues. What congress is doing is unconstituional and the idea that an excutive branch would step in is absurd.

Wrong. Congress did nothing except to extent the Federal Court's jurisdiction to the case, which they are allowed to do.

no, what they did is unconstituional. They are not alloud to interfere with the orderly process of the judiciary branch. In this case, the Florida courts made their ruling, and the US congress wished to bypass this ruling. This is therefore interfering with the process of justice and orderly operation. The highest supreme court will wind up ruling this law unconstitutional...and therefore overturn anything this supreme court judge does.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dennis Mar 22 2005, 12:03 AM Post #64
Member
[ * * * * * * * ]
 They by-passed it becuase it was outside their Jurisdiction. The Congress decides their Jurdisdiction. They changed it. They are allowed to do that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User Mar 22 2005, 04:08 AM Post #65
Deleted User

 It's clear that half of you didn't even read the article, but oh well.

Quote:
 
"This is about Terri Schiavo, not the government, not President Bush and Gov. Bush," he said. "They should be ashamed of themselves."


That about sums it up.

1) People ignorant of medical science have no business making such decisions.
2) She informed people she didn't want to be kept alive in a situation like this.

Those that want to keep her alive are being foolish and cruel.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Special Forces Mar 22 2005, 12:09 PM Post #66
Member Avatar
Baja
[ * * * * * ]
 Well if it is true that she does want to die, she's going to die in pain. You try not eating or drinking for 7-10 days. It's painful. Whoever said that starving yourself isn't painful is dead wrong. The feeding tube is giving her hydration and nutrition. If you take someone off of nutrition and water it is torture.

There was a testimonial by someone on one of these shows 60 Minutes type show about a woman who was on a feeding tube, and they took it out to kill her and she said she wen't throught the most painful time of her life. I don't know how she got better but she was good enough to tell her story.

Anyway, Phrank where did that quote come from and who is "he" and "they?"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deltasix Mar 22 2005, 03:43 PM Post #67
Me
[ * * * * * * ]
Quote:
 
Wrong. Congress did nothing except to extent the Federal Court's jurisdiction to the case, which they are allowed to do.


Really? Sepearation of powers would have somthing to say about that now wouldn't it?

Congress is voting on the Judical Brach's ruling. If you can find me the passage of the US Constitution that states they can, post it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RagingFuryBlack-ZNS Mar 22 2005, 06:07 PM Post #68
Member
[ * * * ]
PhranK
March 22, 2005 03:08 AM
It's clear that half of you didn't even read the article, but oh well.

Quote:
 
"This is about Terri Schiavo, not the government, not President Bush and Gov. Bush," he said. "They should be ashamed of themselves."


That about sums it up.

1) People ignorant of medical science have no business making such decisions.
2) She informed people she didn't want to be kept alive in a situation like this.

Those that want to keep her alive are being foolish and cruel.

thats the most intellegent thing ive seen in this whole thread. Well said :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gogf Mar 22 2005, 06:29 PM Post #69
Indescribable
[ * * * * * * ]
PhranK
March 22, 2005 03:08 AM
It's clear that half of you didn't even read the article, but oh well.

Quote:
 
"This is about Terri Schiavo, not the government, not President Bush and Gov. Bush," he said. "They should be ashamed of themselves."


That about sums it up.

1) People ignorant of medical science have no business making such decisions.
2) She informed people she didn't want to be kept alive in a situation like this.

Those that want to keep her alive are being foolish and cruel.

But PhranK, you're not realizing that her husband could be lying. Sure, he's her legal guardian, but he now has children with another "wife." If she was conscious, she would have divorced him, and her parents, who want her to live, would be her guardians.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RagingFuryBlack-ZNS Mar 22 2005, 07:14 PM Post #70
Member
[ * * * ]
Gogf
March 22, 2005 05:29 PM
PhranK
March 22, 2005 03:08 AM
It's clear that half of you didn't even read the article, but oh well.

Quote:
 
"This is about Terri Schiavo, not the government, not President Bush and Gov. Bush," he said. "They should be ashamed of themselves."


That about sums it up.

1) People ignorant of medical science have no business making such decisions.
2) She informed people she didn't want to be kept alive in a situation like this.

Those that want to keep her alive are being foolish and cruel.

But PhranK, you're not realizing that her husband could be lying. Sure, he's her legal guardian, but he now has children with another "wife." If she was conscious, she would have divorced him, and her parents, who want her to live, would be her guardians.

i was just watching the CNN report on this whole thing, and heres something to swallow:

During the first 3 years after she entered a persistant vegitative state he was at her side 24/7. After the malpratice lawsuit he was granted abotu a million dollars which was placed in a trust. All that money is now gone, invested in her healthcare. He has no monetary stake in this. Another point: take this example.

You can love and care for more than one person. I love my mother, and i love my girlfirend. I care for them both, but i dont have intimate relations with my mother. See what im saying? He can easily love his wife(terri) as a mothery figure and care for her without losing love when consumating with another woman.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elius Mar 22 2005, 07:56 PM Post #71
Member
[ * ]
 The way I see it is that the Husband's argrument isn't about what's best for Terry, but it is about what's best for him. Death isn't going to help Terry. To say it would is to say an oxymoron. Terry's death, though, would be the easy way out for the husband. Think about it. As long as she lives, he is in part tied down there. If Terry died, he would be free from that situation. Consider that and there is a lot that the husband would gain from her death.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RagingFuryBlack-ZNS Mar 22 2005, 09:34 PM Post #72
Member
[ * * * ]
Elius
March 22, 2005 06:56 PM
The way I see it is that the Husband's argrument isn't about what's best for Terry, but it is about what's best for him. Death isn't going to help Terry. To say it would is to say an oxymoron. Terry's death, though, would be the easy way out for the husband. Think about it. As long as she lives, he is in part tied down there. If Terry died, he would be free from that situation. Consider that and there is a lot that the husband would gain from her death.

actuially he would gain absoloutly nothing from her death. Thers no pending lawsuits, no life insurance...nothing to inherit, nothing to collect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gogf Mar 22 2005, 09:37 PM Post #73
Indescribable
[ * * * * * * ]
RagingFuryBlack
March 22, 2005 06:14 PM
Gogf
March 22, 2005 05:29 PM
PhranK
March 22, 2005 03:08 AM
It's clear that half of you didn't even read the article, but oh well.

Quote:
 
"This is about Terri Schiavo, not the government, not President Bush and Gov. Bush," he said. "They should be ashamed of themselves."


That about sums it up.

1) People ignorant of medical science have no business making such decisions.
2) She informed people she didn't want to be kept alive in a situation like this.

Those that want to keep her alive are being foolish and cruel.

But PhranK, you're not realizing that her husband could be lying. Sure, he's her legal guardian, but he now has children with another "wife." If she was conscious, she would have divorced him, and her parents, who want her to live, would be her guardians.

i was just watching the CNN report on this whole thing, and heres something to swallow:

During the first 3 years after she entered a persistant vegitative state he was at her side 24/7. After the malpratice lawsuit he was granted abotu a million dollars which was placed in a trust. All that money is now gone, invested in her healthcare. He has no monetary stake in this. Another point: take this example.

You can love and care for more than one person. I love my mother, and i love my girlfirend. I care for them both, but i dont have intimate relations with my mother. See what im saying? He can easily love his wife(terri) as a mothery figure and care for her without losing love when consumating with another woman.

So you support polygamy?

The point is that if she was conscious, they would be divourced, and so he wouldn't be her legal guardian to begin with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RagingFuryBlack-ZNS Mar 22 2005, 10:37 PM Post #74
Member
[ * * * ]
Gogf
March 22, 2005 08:37 PM
RagingFuryBlack
March 22, 2005 06:14 PM
Gogf
March 22, 2005 05:29 PM
PhranK
March 22, 2005 03:08 AM
It's clear that half of you didn't even read the article, but oh well.

Quote:
 
"This is about Terri Schiavo, not the government, not President Bush and Gov. Bush," he said. "They should be ashamed of themselves."


That about sums it up.

1) People ignorant of medical science have no business making such decisions.
2) She informed people she didn't want to be kept alive in a situation like this.

Those that want to keep her alive are being foolish and cruel.

But PhranK, you're not realizing that her husband could be lying. Sure, he's her legal guardian, but he now has children with another "wife." If she was conscious, she would have divorced him, and her parents, who want her to live, would be her guardians.

i was just watching the CNN report on this whole thing, and heres something to swallow:

During the first 3 years after she entered a persistant vegitative state he was at her side 24/7. After the malpratice lawsuit he was granted abotu a million dollars which was placed in a trust. All that money is now gone, invested in her healthcare. He has no monetary stake in this. Another point: take this example.

You can love and care for more than one person. I love my mother, and i love my girlfirend. I care for them both, but i dont have intimate relations with my mother. See what im saying? He can easily love his wife(terri) as a mothery figure and care for her without losing love when consumating with another woman.

So you support polygamy?

The point is that if she was conscious, they would be divourced, and so he wouldn't be her legal guardian to begin with.

where did i say that? point out in that post where i say i support polygamy?

He is not married to his girlfriend.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alvinonline Mar 22 2005, 11:13 PM Post #75
Member
[ * * * ]
 Terri did not sign a "Living Will" noterized and witnessed. This whole idea that she wants death is just hear say. They may be telling truth or lying.

And even if she did make such a wish for death statement at that earlier time, she may have changed her mind later or now. I suppose that even if one has made a proper "Living Will", one can change their mind and tear it up. In this case there is no way to know her true desires now or just before her unfortunate condition started.

There are convicted murders on death row who strech it out longer than Terri has. If they can get apeals and delays to stave off the judgement day, an innocent person should not get the bum's rush.

Some say "Kill her, the judge said it was OK".
Judges have been wrong before.

The more I hear about this situation, the more something stinks to high heaven.
I think Terri should be kept alive till this thing can be looked into once again with a little more care to makeing all the circumstances shine in the light of day.

Life is a mysterous wonderfull gift and so easily lost. Once gone, you don't get a second bite at the apple.
So, I can't understand the wish by some that Terri be killed by slow starvation.
You are not allowed to put dogs and cats away in that manner.

From what I have seen of her on video, though certainly not in the best condition, she does not look like just a vetgetable laying there.
I saw eyes open following motion and an undeniable attempt at smileing when hugged.

Someone not to be denied bread and water at the very least seeing as how I have absolutely no idea of what she really wants.


<add>
Terri is not on "Life Support".
Her heart is beating on it's own, her lungs are breathing without any artificial aid, and her other bodily functions are all in working order.
She just can't get the food/water down without the tube.
From personal experiance, I know about "Living Wills" and how the end comes. It is not from denial of food or water.
</add>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • …
  • 11