PDA

View Full Version : Sanctity of Marriage vs. Terry Schiavo Case



Shwicaz
03-25-2005, 03:25 AM
An interesting little 'tangent' conversation/debate came out of the Terry Schaivo case yesterday.

I was listening to talk radio last night, and reading the paper today, and I saw/heard something that I found interesting for discussion.

Remember the whole 'sanctity of marriage' people who came out during the gay marriage debate? They called marriage between a man and a woman 'ideal', and that allowing gays to marry would violate the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

George W. Bush, himself, used the phrase as well, IIRC.

So, what's the problem?

Well, I (and some people on the radio and in the editorials) wondered where was that belief for the Schaivos? Terry Schaivo is considered the next of kin of her husband. Because they are married, he is considered her guardian, and able to make any decisions concerning her, right?

Yet, Congress, Jeb Bush, and even George Bush, himself, wanted to take away his 'sanctified rights of marriage' concerning his wife and they tried to take custody of her themselves.

Where was 'the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman' then? I thought it interesting that these people spent so much time talking about how marriage between a man and a woman is so 'sacred', yet the government tried to intervene itself between this 'sacred' married, heterosexual couple. I guess marriage (and the decisions a legally married couple make) aren't so sacred when they disagree with the viewpoint of the administration.....

I found it ironic, anyone else?

Jamie Howdeshell
03-25-2005, 04:08 AM
I found it ironic, anyone else?

i think the proper term may be "mind-bendingly hypocritical", not ironic.


but yeah, i see where you're coming from.

it's a good thing we also "erred on the side of life" just before the iraq war started.
:roll:


:wink:

Shane W
03-25-2005, 05:31 AM
I found it ironic, anyone else?

i think the proper term may be "mind-bendingly hypocritical", not ironic.


but yeah, i see where you're coming from.

it's a good thing we also "erred on the side of life" just before the iraq war started.
:roll:


:wink:

Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

james michael
03-25-2005, 05:37 AM
you make a really good point ron, but i dont think theres anything sacred about marraige anymore, in any capacity... at least not in america...

Shwicaz
03-25-2005, 05:39 AM
you make a really good point ron, but i dont think theres anything sacred about marraige anymore, in any capacity... at least not in america...

that was sort of my point. :wink:

In these days when the government tries to come between the vows of husband and wife, or when they try to tell husband and husband that they can be legally married here but not here, and in the days where Liz Taylor got married half a dozen times, and Britney Spears gets married, and then gets an anullment all withing 24 hours, I sometimes wonder what it is I was hoping to aspire to by being married.

It certainly hasn't become much to 'live up to' over the past decade or so, has it?

Taxman
03-25-2005, 05:45 AM
Like so many things in current politics, it is all about character assisination. The people who are most hardcore about keeping this woman alive have painted the husband into a monster. Some have even claimed that her condition is a result of a murder attempt (this in the last few days). That is how you get to this place. The marraige has no sanctiity because he is a complete scum bag. I think you can apply this concept to many other political debates.

William Satterwhite
03-25-2005, 06:13 AM
Yeah, that's the second thing that stood out to me about this whole situation (the first was how the Republicans are totally going against conservative principles in this matter and have just about totally lost me now). It also really gets me how some people who claim to be looking out for this women's interests are doing so by attacking the man who she loved.

Patrick J
03-25-2005, 06:24 AM
Wellllll,

This is a truly unique case.

I'm gonna say this as a person who does believe that Terry Shiavo should be allowed to die, and a person that believes in Euthinasia, that's my belief, my opinion.

However, I'll admit the parents could make a point that Michael Shiavo's marriage to Terry could be null and void, if only because he does have a common law wife with whom he has 1, maybe 2 kids, and therefore should not have any standing in making life and death decisions for wife.

I'm not saying that, but I can emphathize with the parents if that was thier opinion. And again, while I do belief that Terry Shiavo should be allowed to die, I do still have my misgivings about this decision because personally I think it sets a bad precedent, I don't like the idea of life and death decisions being based upon heresay in ANY kind of case. Regardless, she should still be allowed to die.

Shane W
03-25-2005, 06:35 AM
Wellllll,

This is a truly unique case.

I'm gonna say this as a person who does believe that Terry Shiavo should be allowed to die, and a person that believes in Euthinasia, that's my belief, my opinion.

However, I'll admit the parents could make a point that Michael Shiavo's marriage to Terry could be null and void, if only because he does have a common law wife with whom he has 1, maybe 2 kids, and therefore should not have any standing in making life and death decisions for wife.

I'm not saying that, but I can emphathize with the parents if that was thier opinion. And again, while I do belief that Terry Shiavo should be allowed to die, I do still have my misgivings about this decision because personally I think it sets a bad precedent, I don't like the idea of life and death decisions being based upon heresay in ANY kind of case. Regardless, she should still be allowed to die.

That's the point I was trying to make a couple of days ago, but was shot down with "Well, you can't ecpect him to go that long". Personally? No, I don't. Legally? That's a whole different ball of wax.

Good post.

William Satterwhite
03-25-2005, 06:44 AM
Wellllll,

This is a truly unique case.

I'm gonna say this as a person who does believe that Terry Shiavo should be allowed to die, and a person that believes in Euthinasia, that's my belief, my opinion.

However, I'll admit the parents could make a point that Michael Shiavo's marriage to Terry could be null and void, if only because he does have a common law wife with whom he has 1, maybe 2 kids, and therefore should not have any standing in making life and death decisions for wife.

I'm not saying that, but I can emphathize with the parents if that was thier opinion. And again, while I do belief that Terry Shiavo should be allowed to die, I do still have my misgivings about this decision because personally I think it sets a bad precedent, I don't like the idea of life and death decisions being based upon heresay in ANY kind of case. Regardless, she should still be allowed to die.

That's the point I was trying to make a couple of days ago, but was shot down with "Well, you can't ecpect him to go that long". Personally? No, I don't. Legally? That's a whole different ball of wax.

Good post.

Does anyone know what the timeline is here? When did he decide to pull the plug (so to speak) and when did he hook up with this other women? If he made that decision and then moved on with his life, he can't be faulted because the matter has been dragged out for so long in court.

yskitch
03-25-2005, 07:05 AM
i feel bad for both sides in this one...on the husbands side, he should be allowed to make the decision, he is her legal guardian (like someone already mentioned)...but the parents are the parents, they are losing thier child (who may have actually been lost some 15 years ago when this accident happened)...as for how the governemnt is trying to step in...that makes me mad...the government is supposed to pass laws for all people, not just a single person like they did.
i have also read and heard that there are republican groups, as well as religious groups that are unhappy with the government stepping in...so it isn't just all republicans or all members of the religious community up in arms about the decision...just loud ones

Shane W
03-25-2005, 07:12 AM
Wellllll,

This is a truly unique case.

I'm gonna say this as a person who does believe that Terry Shiavo should be allowed to die, and a person that believes in Euthinasia, that's my belief, my opinion.

However, I'll admit the parents could make a point that Michael Shiavo's marriage to Terry could be null and void, if only because he does have a common law wife with whom he has 1, maybe 2 kids, and therefore should not have any standing in making life and death decisions for wife.

I'm not saying that, but I can emphathize with the parents if that was thier opinion. And again, while I do belief that Terry Shiavo should be allowed to die, I do still have my misgivings about this decision because personally I think it sets a bad precedent, I don't like the idea of life and death decisions being based upon heresay in ANY kind of case. Regardless, she should still be allowed to die.

That's the point I was trying to make a couple of days ago, but was shot down with "Well, you can't ecpect him to go that long". Personally? No, I don't. Legally? That's a whole different ball of wax.

Good post.

Does anyone know what the timeline is here? When did he decide to pull the plug (so to speak) and when did he hook up with this other women? If he made that decision and then moved on with his life, he can't be faulted because the matter has been dragged out for so long in court.

Again, the difference is the moral vs legal side.

Jamie Howdeshell
03-25-2005, 11:55 AM
Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

it's a great point. such screamingly blatant hypocrisy should always be noted.

care to tell me why you think it's not a great point?

or should i expect an oh-so-witty dismissal (aka concession of my point) and yet another avatar/sig change?

:wink:

Blake Sims
03-25-2005, 11:56 AM
Ron you avatar is so fucking hilarious

Shwicaz
03-25-2005, 12:01 PM
Ron you avatar is so fucking hilarious

I find him quite fetching, indeed. :wink:

Shane W
03-25-2005, 12:02 PM
Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

it's a great point. such screamingly blatant hypocrisy should always be noted.

care to tell me why you think it's not a great point?

or should i expect an oh-so-witty dismissal (aka concession of my point) and yet another avatar/sig change?

:wink:

If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.

Blake Sims
03-25-2005, 12:03 PM
Ron you avatar is so fucking hilarious

I find him quite fetching, indeed. :wink:

:lol:

Jamie Howdeshell
03-25-2005, 12:10 PM
If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.

you're not following my point correctly. i'm talking about the pro-life rhetoric that is being thrown around by the GOP and bush. starting a war on false/untrue/dubious/shaky (take your pick, according to political belief) pretenses doesn't seem at all consistent with all that "err on the side of life" and "culture of life" bullshit they're currently spewing. unless maybe one thinks that the iraqis somehow don't have the same rights to life that terri has.
:roll:

i believe in the principal of the death penalty, but unfortunately it's pratical application is heavily flawed. that's why i don't support it.

the reason i can maintain consistency here is because i think terri died 15 fucking years ago. the bag of meat in florida is not her. let it die.

Fourthman
03-25-2005, 12:14 PM
Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

it's a great point. such screamingly blatant hypocrisy should always be noted.

care to tell me why you think it's not a great point?

or should i expect an oh-so-witty dismissal (aka concession of my point) and yet another avatar/sig change?

:wink:



If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.
That makes no sense. I believe in personal choice. I believe that a person should be able to choose to die if they're left with little or no choices. I don't believe that the justice system in this country is infallible enough to decide when someone should be killed. I believe that if Terri trusted her husband enough to marry him then she trusted him enough to be her legal guardian and to know her well enough to be able to make the decision to end her life now that she is incapable of making her decision known. Where is the hypocrisy? It's knowing a person in a relationship vs. getting selected information on a jury - that's a world of difference in determining the situation.

Shane W
03-25-2005, 01:04 PM
Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

it's a great point. such screamingly blatant hypocrisy should always be noted.

care to tell me why you think it's not a great point?

or should i expect an oh-so-witty dismissal (aka concession of my point) and yet another avatar/sig change?

:wink:



If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.
That makes no sense. I believe in personal choice. I believe that a person should be able to choose to die if they're left with little or no choices. I don't believe that the justice system in this country is infallible enough to decide when someone should be killed. I believe that if Terri trusted her husband enough to marry him then she trusted him enough to be her legal guardian and to know her well enough to be able to make the decision to end her life now that she is incapable of making her decision known. Where is the hypocrisy? It's knowing a person in a relationship vs. getting selected information on a jury - that's a world of difference in determining the situation.

It makes sense in only the same way that connecting this case and the Iraq war makes sense.

Besides, what makes a spouce infallable? Has every marriage been perfect? Has no husband or wife tried to kill their spouce? Without written instructions, how do we know what her true wishes were? I keep hearing about how the courts have sided with him over and over again using selected information. It's exactly the same to me.

In this case of Schiavo, personally, I don't care if she lives or not, but to say that she isn't alive because of what you think life is, is silly.

Fourthman
03-25-2005, 01:12 PM
Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

it's a great point. such screamingly blatant hypocrisy should always be noted.

care to tell me why you think it's not a great point?

or should i expect an oh-so-witty dismissal (aka concession of my point) and yet another avatar/sig change?

:wink:



If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.
That makes no sense. I believe in personal choice. I believe that a person should be able to choose to die if they're left with little or no choices. I don't believe that the justice system in this country is infallible enough to decide when someone should be killed. I believe that if Terri trusted her husband enough to marry him then she trusted him enough to be her legal guardian and to know her well enough to be able to make the decision to end her life now that she is incapable of making her decision known. Where is the hypocrisy? It's knowing a person in a relationship vs. getting selected information on a jury - that's a world of difference in determining the situation.

It makes sense in only the same way that connecting this case and the Iraq war makes sense.

Besides, what makes a spouce infallable? Has every marriage been perfect? Has no husband or wife tried to kill their spouce? Without written instructions, how do we know what her true wishes were? I keep hearing about how the courts have sided with him over and over again using selected information. It's exactly the same to me.

In this case of Schiavo, personally, I don't care if she lives or not, but to say that she isn't alive because of what you think life is, is silly.

A spouse doesn't have to be infallible as the marriage contract tacitly gives the spouse power of attorney in this situation. It's something both parties have agreed to so it's an extension of choice. You know that your spouse will decide this for you should the situation arise, so not discussing it puts that power in their hands. That doesn't happen with a jury, a prosecutor and a defendant. By keeping the death penalty you make the people of the state a party to a murder - and even if the person is guilty of the same, it's draconian and doesn't alleviate the problem.

Shane W
03-25-2005, 01:30 PM
Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

it's a great point. such screamingly blatant hypocrisy should always be noted.

care to tell me why you think it's not a great point?

or should i expect an oh-so-witty dismissal (aka concession of my point) and yet another avatar/sig change?

:wink:



If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.
That makes no sense. I believe in personal choice. I believe that a person should be able to choose to die if they're left with little or no choices. I don't believe that the justice system in this country is infallible enough to decide when someone should be killed. I believe that if Terri trusted her husband enough to marry him then she trusted him enough to be her legal guardian and to know her well enough to be able to make the decision to end her life now that she is incapable of making her decision known. Where is the hypocrisy? It's knowing a person in a relationship vs. getting selected information on a jury - that's a world of difference in determining the situation.

It makes sense in only the same way that connecting this case and the Iraq war makes sense.

Besides, what makes a spouce infallable? Has every marriage been perfect? Has no husband or wife tried to kill their spouce? Without written instructions, how do we know what her true wishes were? I keep hearing about how the courts have sided with him over and over again using selected information. It's exactly the same to me.

In this case of Schiavo, personally, I don't care if she lives or not, but to say that she isn't alive because of what you think life is, is silly.

A spouse doesn't have to be infallible as the marriage contract tacitly gives the spouse power of attorney in this situation. It's something both parties have agreed to so it's an extension of choice. You know that your spouse will decide this for you should the situation arise, so not discussing it puts that power in their hands. That doesn't happen with a jury, a prosecutor and a defendant. By keeping the death penalty you make the people of the state a party to a murder - and even if the person is guilty of the same, it's draconian and doesn't alleviate the problem.

Not in this case. In this case guardianship was granted by the courts. Thus indirectly putting her fate on the state.

xyzzy
03-25-2005, 01:31 PM
Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

it's a great point. such screamingly blatant hypocrisy should always be noted.

care to tell me why you think it's not a great point?

or should i expect an oh-so-witty dismissal (aka concession of my point) and yet another avatar/sig change?

:wink:



If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.
That makes no sense. I believe in personal choice. I believe that a person should be able to choose to die if they're left with little or no choices. I don't believe that the justice system in this country is infallible enough to decide when someone should be killed. I believe that if Terri trusted her husband enough to marry him then she trusted him enough to be her legal guardian and to know her well enough to be able to make the decision to end her life now that she is incapable of making her decision known. Where is the hypocrisy? It's knowing a person in a relationship vs. getting selected information on a jury - that's a world of difference in determining the situation.

It makes sense in only the same way that connecting this case and the Iraq war makes sense.

Besides, what makes a spouce infallable? Has every marriage been perfect? Has no husband or wife tried to kill their spouce? Without written instructions, how do we know what her true wishes were? I keep hearing about how the courts have sided with him over and over again using selected information. It's exactly the same to me.

In this case of Schiavo, personally, I don't care if she lives or not, but to say that she isn't alive because of what you think life is, is silly.

A spouse doesn't have to be infallible as the marriage contract tacitly gives the spouse power of attorney in this situation. It's something both parties have agreed to so it's an extension of choice. You know that your spouse will decide this for you should the situation arise, so not discussing it puts that power in their hands. That doesn't happen with a jury, a prosecutor and a defendant. By keeping the death penalty you make the people of the state a party to a murder - and even if the person is guilty of the same, it's draconian and doesn't alleviate the problem.

Not in this case. In this case guardianship was granted by the courts. Thus indirectly putting her fate on the state.

That's not true. He was always her guardian. The parents challenged and the courts denied that challenge. They didn't appoint him as guardian, they confirmed his as guardian.

Shane W
03-25-2005, 01:33 PM
Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

it's a great point. such screamingly blatant hypocrisy should always be noted.

care to tell me why you think it's not a great point?

or should i expect an oh-so-witty dismissal (aka concession of my point) and yet another avatar/sig change?

:wink:



If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.
That makes no sense. I believe in personal choice. I believe that a person should be able to choose to die if they're left with little or no choices. I don't believe that the justice system in this country is infallible enough to decide when someone should be killed. I believe that if Terri trusted her husband enough to marry him then she trusted him enough to be her legal guardian and to know her well enough to be able to make the decision to end her life now that she is incapable of making her decision known. Where is the hypocrisy? It's knowing a person in a relationship vs. getting selected information on a jury - that's a world of difference in determining the situation.

It makes sense in only the same way that connecting this case and the Iraq war makes sense.

Besides, what makes a spouce infallable? Has every marriage been perfect? Has no husband or wife tried to kill their spouce? Without written instructions, how do we know what her true wishes were? I keep hearing about how the courts have sided with him over and over again using selected information. It's exactly the same to me.

In this case of Schiavo, personally, I don't care if she lives or not, but to say that she isn't alive because of what you think life is, is silly.

A spouse doesn't have to be infallible as the marriage contract tacitly gives the spouse power of attorney in this situation. It's something both parties have agreed to so it's an extension of choice. You know that your spouse will decide this for you should the situation arise, so not discussing it puts that power in their hands. That doesn't happen with a jury, a prosecutor and a defendant. By keeping the death penalty you make the people of the state a party to a murder - and even if the person is guilty of the same, it's draconian and doesn't alleviate the problem.

Not in this case. In this case guardianship was granted by the courts. Thus indirectly putting her fate on the state.

That's not true. He was always her guardian. The parents challenged and the courts denied that challenge. They didn't appoint him as guardian, they confirmed his as guardian.

Everything I have read has it as court appointed guardian.

Shane W
03-25-2005, 01:37 PM
If you believe she should be allowed to die, then you should believe that the death penalty is okay also. And by you, I mean the entire anti-war crowd.

They're two different situations entirely.

you're not following my point correctly. i'm talking about the pro-life rhetoric that is being thrown around by the GOP and bush. starting a war on false/untrue/dubious/shaky (take your pick, according to political belief) pretenses doesn't seem at all consistent with all that "err on the side of life" and "culture of life" bullshit they're currently spewing. unless maybe one thinks that the iraqis somehow don't have the same rights to life that terri has.
:roll:

i believe in the principal of the death penalty, but unfortunately it's pratical application is heavily flawed. that's why i don't support it.

the reason i can maintain consistency here is because i think terri died 15 fucking years ago. the bag of meat in florida is not her. let it die.

And you can say "bag of meat" all you want, whatever mode you want to use to avoid the point that no matter what "you" think, she isn't dead. At least not yet.

xyzzy
03-25-2005, 01:40 PM
Everything I have read has it as court appointed guardian.

You're right.

Edti: No, wait, Florida law states that the spouse of an incapacitated person is that person's guardian. So, while the courts may have appointed him guardian at some point, he was always going to be the default guardian.

andyjoe
03-25-2005, 02:41 PM
i agree with you Ron.


oh and I'm very scared of your avatar.



AJ

joespam
03-25-2005, 05:29 PM
Honestly I can see where this isn't a big hypocrisy; the people against removing the feeding tube consider it murder, at least as I understand it. In their minds its no different than pointing a gun at her and pulling the trigger, or at least no different than immobilizing someone and starving them to death.

Saving a 'life' vs the sanctity of marraige? How would that even be a question?

See what I mean?

Shwicaz
03-25-2005, 05:40 PM
Honestly I can see where this isn't a big hypocrisy; the people against removing the feeding tube consider it murder, at least as I understand it. In their minds its no different than pointing a gun at her and pulling the trigger, or at least no different than immobilizing someone and starving them to death.

Saving a 'life' vs the sanctity of marraige? How would that even be a question?

See what I mean?

Actually, I saw it as the governor wanting to step in and say that the legal decisions that this man has made concerning his wife, and the legal rights that marriage gives him to make those decisions were suddenly and completely tossed out the window because they did not agree with his legal decision/choice.

That sets a very dangerous precident, in my mind.

Seltzer Water
03-25-2005, 05:45 PM
one governor who disagreed with a legal decision was Democrat Orval Faubus who called out the Arkansas National Guard in order to prevent black children from attending public school in Little Rock despite a Supreme Court ruling

The President defied the Florida court ruling when he sent INS agents to get Elian Gonzales when the Florida courts granted custory of Elian to his family

It wouldn't be precedent if Governor Bush intervened

Shwicaz
03-25-2005, 05:48 PM
Okay, maybe it wouldn't be precident, but I still find it very troubling.

joespam
03-25-2005, 06:02 PM
Honestly I can see where this isn't a big hypocrisy; the people against removing the feeding tube consider it murder, at least as I understand it. In their minds its no different than pointing a gun at her and pulling the trigger, or at least no different than immobilizing someone and starving them to death.

Saving a 'life' vs the sanctity of marraige? How would that even be a question?

See what I mean?

Actually, I saw it as the governor wanting to step in and say that the legal decisions that this man has made concerning his wife, and the legal rights that marriage gives him to make those decisions were suddenly and completely tossed out the window because they did not agree with his legal decision/choice.

That sets a very dangerous precident, in my mind.

Ah. I was talking about the people supporting ol' Jeb and his ilk, rather than the governor.

Why would a politician being hypocritical to support his own (or his party's) needs or aims suprise you? What suprises me is that knowing who runs 2 branches of government that the courts are facing down the challenge and denying the appeals.

And, to be a total and complete douche, how is this different from the governors who recently went against state law and issued Gay Marraige permits? A decision I applauded, to be sure, but how is this different?

Shwicaz
03-25-2005, 08:09 PM
And, to be a total and complete douche, how is this different from the governors who recently went against state law and issued Gay Marraige permits? A decision I applauded, to be sure, but how is this different?

I didn't applaud it, because it was against the law, and I felt that it set forth a very negative public perception.

I was lucky enough to live in massachusetts, where it has been going through both the legislature and the courts for over a decade. We did everything legal and by the book here in Massachusetts.

When the mayor of San Francisco (or whomever it was) started issuing marriage licenses, my first thought was "What the fuck are you doing?" and I have the same reaction here.

In both cases, we had individuals who tried to ignore the laws. And in both instances, I was disgusted.

Andrew j
03-25-2005, 08:17 PM
I see this entire case as one of those "what if" questions you joke about with your friends but never ever think it would happen. It's a freak of nature and of course people are going to have split opinions.

I can completely identify with the parents. Would I want my daughter's life in the hands of a man who has moved on with his life and had other children in another relationship. OF COURSE NOT! They should and I would if I was in their situation be doing the exact same thing and I would be a little proud of my country for standing up with me.

But legally they have no case and what congress is trying to do is not what should be done. The husband is the one with the decision making power and the courts should respect that.

Jamie Howdeshell
03-25-2005, 09:03 PM
And you can say "bag of meat" all you want, whatever mode you want to use to avoid the point that no matter what "you" think, she isn't dead. At least not yet.

you still haven't disputed my point about the blantant hypocrisy.

denny, you can say it doesn't relate all you want... but answer this question.

why didn't the culture of life crowd (aka bush and his ilk) "err on the side of life" when it came to iraq?

Angel of Distraction
03-25-2005, 09:40 PM
I found it ironic, anyone else?

i think the proper term may be "mind-bendingly hypocritical", not ironic.


but yeah, i see where you're coming from.

it's a good thing we also "erred on the side of life" just before the iraq war started.
:roll:


:wink:

Jamie, I keep see you repeating this as if you think it's a good point.

Better than yours. I don't even see a point here, just some smarmy sarcasm.

Angel of Distraction
03-25-2005, 09:45 PM
My quick opinion: Schiavo's parents are holding on to this for their sake, not hers. I know it is difficult, I've been down similar roads before and let's just say it didn't make me particularly sociable. But she's not gonna wake up. She has a half life, maybe not even that. It's time to let her go. If they really want what's best for her, they'll do that. WHat they need to have done is tell the press to fuck off, since they're having such a good time making a personal tragedy into a profit margin. This is exactly why I don't do that anymore.

Marissa
03-25-2005, 10:16 PM
My quick opinion: Schiavo's parents are holding on to this for their sake, not hers. I know it is difficult, I've been down similar roads before and let's just say it didn't make me particularly sociable. But she's not gonna wake up. She has a half life, maybe not even that. It's time to let her go. If they really want what's best for her, they'll do that. WHat they need to have done is tell the press to fuck off, since they're having such a good time making a personal tragedy into a profit margin. This is exactly why I don't do that anymore.

Michael Schiavo on why he won't turn over custody to Terri's parents even turning down offers of millions of dollars to do so:

"And another reason why I won't give Terri back is that Mr. Schindler testified in court, at the 2000 trial, that he would to keep Terri alive he would cut her arms and legs off and put her on a ventilator just to keep her alive. So why would I give her to a man that would do that to you?"

I think you're right about the parents' motives. I feel very sorry for them since they've had fifteen years to try to come to terms with the loss of their daughter and they just can't let go.