Terri's death wish or Michael's?

[wvernon]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43401

Schiavo contradicts himself in Larry King interview

 

[loribee59]

oboyoboyoboyoboy....

did he shot himself in the foot, or what?!

 

[wvernon]

Yes, I love it...

 

[Glaz]

For the 'Worldnet daily is not a reliable news source' zombies, the WND article links directly to the CNN transcript, which states:

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

 

[wvernon]

For the 'Worldnet daily is not a reliable news source' zombies, the WND article links directly to the CNN transcript, which states:

Thank you, I thought about posting this but I figured I'd wait until someone said it.

 

[Glaz]

Thank you, I thought about posting this but I figured I'd wait until someone said it.

Well, I am sure as soon as they see "WND" in the OP they will immediately stop and post "Worldnut Daily is not a reliable news source" and then not pay any attention to the actual article. Predictability is a wonderful thing sometimes.

 

[awesome liver]

if you were married to someone and you loved them for all the time, and suddenly she (or he) should suddenly suffer a horrific incident as they obviously have, and knowing full well that the brain-death is permanent (goes to science and what part of the brain is irreparably harmed), would you truly be showing love of prolonging an endless vegetative state or allowing the shell of a body to die? would i have been married to her, i'd be doing the same thing and damn anyone who wants to deprive me of a government granted right of guardianship where my interests are forever linked to hers.

 

[loribee59]

damn anyone who wants to deprive me of a government granted right of guardianship where my interests are forever linked to hers.

Um, sorry, Michael's legal guardianship ended when he had a relationship with a woman who bore him two children all the while he is still married to Terri. He broke several Florida laws doing this. So, he really doesn't have "legal" rights over Terri no matter how he justifies or rationalize to anyone.

 

[Glaz]

if you were married to someone and you loved them for all the time, and suddenly she (or he) should suddenly suffer a horrific incident as they obviously have, and knowing full well that the brain-death is permanent (goes to science and what part of the brain is irreparably harmed), would you truly be showing love of prolonging an endless vegetative state or allowing the shell of a body to die? would i have been married to her, i'd be doing the same thing and damn anyone who wants to deprive me of a government granted right of guardianship where my interests are forever linked to hers.

Ok, but what about his contradiction?

 

[ZACTAK]

if you were married to someone and you loved them for all the time, and suddenly she (or he) should suddenly suffer a horrific incident as they obviously have, and knowing full well that the brain-death is permanent (goes to science and what part of the brain is irreparably harmed), would you truly be showing love of prolonging an endless vegetative state or allowing the shell of a body to die? would i have been married to her, i'd be doing the same thing and damn anyone who wants to deprive me of a government granted right of guardianship where my interests are forever linked to hers.

I don't think showing her love would be to deprive her of food and water. As said throughout the House's "debate," there are laws in Florida that make it illegal for a person to starve an animal. If they deprive her of food and water they are saying she is less than an animal, and those priorities are not right. Also, we do not really know what her wishes truly were. What if she wanted to live artificially? It is better to err on the side of life than on the side of death.

But I do agree it is not the governments place to say whether my spouse can live or die, it is an affair that is private and should be kept on a family level.... because you are exactly right, Michael Schiavo is the guardian of Terri, not her parents. I know my opinion is sort of crazy, but I do not believe starvation is the correct way to euthanize her.

 

[awesome liver]

Um, sorry, Michael's legal guardianship ended when he had a relationship with a woman who bore him two children all the while he is still married to Terri. He broke several Florida laws doing this. So, he really doesn't have "legal" rights over Terri no matter how he justifies or rationalize to anyone.

she's dead. he believes her to be dead. her body is sustained by artificial means. the state has been sustaining death. what laws did he break by having kids outside of wedlock?

 

[Glaz]

her body is sustained by artificial means.

Her body is sustained by food, just like yours. Now, what about the OP?

 

[awesome liver]

I don't think showing her love would be to deprive her of food and water. As said throughout the House's "debate," there are laws in Florida that make it illegal for a person to starve an animal. If they deprive her of food and water they are saying she is less than an animal, and those priorities are not right. Also, we do not really know what her wishes truly were. What if she wanted to live artificially? It is better to err on the side of life than on the side of death.

it's inhumane to mistreat an animal because its a creature that's exclusively under your control and there's a natural law that dictates that we're above barbarism and acts that fall in line with that. we're not comparing her to animals. she was a fully functioning human being but is no longer the case. a human is more than the sum of the parts of a body. it we are more than the genes in our chromosomes, more than the blood that runs in our veins. we are civilized. but above all else, we think. all animals have similarities but humans above all possess the ability of cognitive thought processes that makes us rise above animals. this decision of life and death is more than taking of a life. it is the hard fought decision to pull the plug on a life that no longer resembles human life. it is a civilized decision wrought with emotions. animals kill indiscriminately for the sake of food and territory. this is a case of death and dignity.

 

[ZACTAK]

she's dead. he believes her to be dead. her body is sustained by artificial means. the state has been sustaining death. what laws did he break by having kids outside of wedlock?

If you see her as dead, then how do you define death? It is obvious that she is not dead. And it is an ignorant comment to say that she is dead, and where has Michael Schiavo said that she is dead?

Her body is sustained by food, I am sure if you stopped feeding yourself that you would eventually die... it is no different for her.

 

[awesome liver]

Her body is sustained by food, just like yours. Now, what about the OP?

in all the discussions with a loved one, it cannot be conceived that in a moment of tenderness, that a conversation of life and death was never mentioned.

 

[ZACTAK]

it's inhumane to mistreat an animal because its a creature that's exclusively under your control and there's a natural law that dictates that we're above barbarism and acts that fall in line with that. we're not comparing her to animals. she was a fully functioning human being but is no longer the case. a human is more than the sum of the parts of a body. it we are more than the genes in our chromosomes, more than the blood that runs in our veins. we are civilized. but above all else, we think. all animals have similarities but humans above all possess the ability of cognitive thought processes that makes us rise above animals. this decision of life and death is more than taking of a life. it is the hard fought decision to pull the plug on a life that no longer resembles human life. it is a civilized decision wrought with emotions. animals kill indiscriminately for the sake of food and territory. this is a case of death and dignity.

I am sorry to say, but you really contradicted yourself there. If not feeding an animal is barbarism, then how can that not also apply to a human life which is ABOVE an animal, I am not sure you are making yourself very clear on this argument.

 

[Glaz]

in all the discussions with a loved one, it cannot be conceived that in a moment of tenderness, that a conversation of life and death was never mentioned.

did you even read the article?

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

He says 'we didn't know what Terri wanted'...........

 

[PACKY]

if you were married to someone and you loved them for all the time, and suddenly she (or he) should suddenly suffer a horrific incident as they obviously have, and knowing full well that the brain-death is permanent (goes to science and what part of the brain is irreparably harmed), would you truly be showing love of prolonging an endless vegetative state or allowing the shell of a body to die? would i have been married to her, i'd be doing the same thing and damn anyone who wants to deprive me of a government granted right of guardianship where my interests are forever linked to hers.

here's what Michael Shiavo said...

[/QUOTE] KING: Why do you undergo, Michael, all that pressure. I'm back to that again. OK. It was a wish. If she's not in pain -- and by the way, she's not artificially being kept alive in that sense, she's not in a comma. She's being fed. Again, I come back to, all right. Give it up.

M. SCHIAVO: I won't give it up. Terri is my life. I'm going to carry out her wishes to the very end. This is what she wanted. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about me, not about Congress, it's about Terri.

If my wife was laying in a hospital bed handicapped i would not be engaged to another woman and having children out of wed-lock, Michael Schiavo lost his link to her when he practiced infidelity. How pious can he be to say "Terri is my life" and go home to lay in bed with another women. I am not trying to pass judgeemnt, I cant help but point out the obvious.

 

[ZACTAK]

did you even read the article?



He says 'we didn't know what Terri wanted'...........

To add to this, he did not come out and say Terri's wishes were to not be kept alive under these circumstances until 7 years AFTER she was first put on the tube. Subsequently, at that time he was dating another woman, who he now bears children with.

 

[awesome liver]

here's what Michael Shiavo said...

KING: Why do you undergo, Michael, all that pressure. I'm back to that again. OK. It was a wish. If she's not in pain -- and by the way, she's not artificially being kept alive in that sense, she's not in a comma. She's being fed. Again, I come back to, all right. Give it up.

M. SCHIAVO: I won't give it up. Terri is my life. I'm going to carry out her wishes to the very end. This is what she wanted. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about me, not about Congress, it's about Terri.

If my wife was laying in a hospital bed handicapped i would not be engaged to another woman and having children out of wed-lock, Michael Schiavo lost his link to her when he practiced infidelity. How pious can he be to say "Terri is my life" and go home to lay in bed with another women. I am not trying to pass judgeemnt, I cant help but point out the obvious.

OH NO NOT OUT OF WEDLOCK THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE! that's an entirely different argument.