An open post to Mark Schiavo
Tom Barrister
other people.
Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
And please don't feed us the "She didn't want to live like this,"
baloney. For one, I seriously doubt that she ever said that to you or
to anybody else. You never brought that up in the first seven-plus
years after she collapsed. Why not? If that was her wish, you should
have had the figurative plug pulled back in 1990 when it happened.
Certainly no later than 1992. Why did it take you seven years to
remember that?
I'll tell you why. Because she never said it, Mark. It's your cop out.
You couldn't take it anymore. You couldn't handle the stress of the
situation any longer. So you decided to get rid of the inconvenience.
You claim to love her. You have a weird way of showing it---starving
her literally to death. And I understand that there's another woman in
your life. Terri's being alive isn't convenient for that situation, is
it? Better off killing the old girl off and getting it out of the way,
right?
But it wasn't that simple, was it? Many others were opposed to it,
most notably her parents. So why didn't you turn Terri's custody over
to them and be done with it? Then you could do as you please with the
other woman. Would your conscience bother you then?
Let's assume that you're doing this because you simply can't stand to
see her in this state anymore and that there isn't any ulterior motive
involved with the other woman (or women). Don't you understand that
there are still people who love your wife and want to see her continue
to live? Why can't you turn her over to them? They'd take care of
her. Assign guardianship to them.
Instead, you've gotten stubborn about it. You're bound and determined
to have her killed off----and make no bones about it, that's exactly
what you're doing. This isn't a case of a person who has no brain wave
activity, who will die within seconds or minutes of a heart-lung
machine being disconnected, and who won't even know that it happened
because his/her brain is already dead. We're talking about a person
whose body is still functioning with the aid of feeding. True, she has
to be cared for, but so do millions of other people. Many elderly
people are that way. Most infants are that way. Should we kill all of
them, too?
Please don't feed me the "She's in a persistent vegetative state." If
that doesn't matter to her parents, and if the state and/or private
sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all
responsibility, why would it matter to you?
I see that some experts think that she might be in a minimally
conscious state. Shouldn't that be looked into? Why are you so
insistent about killing Terri off? You've waited fifteen years. Why
would another few months matter?
I understand the the courts have ruled that you're her guardian and can
decide matters such as removing her feeding tube. But just who
appointed you God here to decide whether she lives or dies? What's she
guilty of? Not being able to function normally on her own account? If
so, how about killing off all the learning-challenged people? How
about killing off all the elderly who need care? Why not end the lives
of all infants under the age of two? Most of those can't care for
themselves, either.
What's the hurry, Mark?
I've read that you haven't left her bedside since the feeding tube was
removed. Is that supposed to be a final gesture of love? Or are you
staying nearby to make sure nobody sneaks her food or water until she
dies of a lack of both?
Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace. Far
from it. It will make things worse. You won't understand that until
after she's gone though. But trust me on this, Mark: I've been through
your situation twice with loved ones who were (in each case) in
supposedly irreversible states. I wanted to take the easy out like
you're doing. But I stuck it out both times. Once it worked out well
and the person came back to us and lived a reasonable life for a few
more years. The other time it didn't and the person passed on. It's
tough, but in retrospect, I realize that I made the right decision both
times. You haven't----yet. You seem so obsesed with ending this that
you won't listen to anybody who has an opposing view. You won't just
turn your wife over to your parents and be done with it. They'll love
her. They'll care for her. If they pass on while Terri's still alive,
others will gladly continue her care.
In other words, Mark, you're not going to be out anything or
inconvenienced in any way by turning Terri over to your parents. By
not doing so and forcing her death, you're alienating not only Mr. and
Mrs. Schindler, but literally millions of others. I doubt anybody
would be majorly angry at you if you let Terri's feeding tube be
reconnected. But I shudder to think of all the people who will be very
unhappy with you if she dies from your imposed starvation. Or what
those people might do.
If none of the above makes any sense to you, remember your marriage
vows that stated:
"....to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to
cherish, till death do us part"
"Better or worse", Mark. Not just "better". "Sickness and health".
Not just good health. In other words, you were supposed to stick it
out, even though times are bad. Not get rid of what you probably
perceive to be a problem and/or inconvenience because things aren't all
that rosy.
Oh, and "till death do us part," doesn't mean that you're supposed to
hasten her death. Because you're essentially her executioner here.
And it just doesn't make sense to me no matter how its sugar
coated----it's still murder.
Tom Barrister.
c-bee1
"Tom Barrister" <tombar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
> other people.
>
> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
15 years' worth? 23 judges? rofl
>
> And please don't feed us the "She didn't want to live like this,"
> baloney. For one, I seriously doubt that she ever said that to you or
> to anybody else. You never brought that up in the first seven-plus
> years after she collapsed. Why not? If that was her wish, you should
> have had the figurative plug pulled back in 1990 when it happened.
> Certainly no later than 1992. Why did it take you seven years to
> remember that?
Sounds like another bushbilly lie to me.
>
> I'll tell you why. Because she never said it, Mark. It's your cop out.
> You couldn't take it anymore.
And her friends' copout too, eh?
What a pathetic brain-dead hater. Maybe we will luck out and someone in
your family will eventually teach you a little compassion. It's obviously
way too late for common sense.
dave
person.
"c-bee1" <c-b...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:mQN0e.101914$r55.71295@attbi_s52...
c-bee1
"dave" <da...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:esqdnUcAU7q...@gbronline.com...
> Another "sharp as a marble" right-wing loon - he wrote his post to the
wrong
> person.
lol I thought maybe there was something I didn't know.
krp
"Tom Barrister" <tombar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
GET HELP TOM!
Brian F. Nevercene
tombar...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
>other people.
>
>Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
>
>And please don't feed us the "She didn't want to live like this,"
>baloney.
Can you imagine anyone who would want to "live" like this? Although I
suppose a few sickies would enjoy the notoriety of getting a 97 IQ
President wound up over them.
--
"What the fuck is wrong with you???" - Moderate Mammel
<BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> once again shows his
inate inability to understand a situation.
JustMe
news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> other people.
>
> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
The thing that bugs me the most about the case is this:
After Mark took up with the other woman, and had two children with
her, WHY didn't he just turn custody of Terri over to her parents?
Why was it so important to keep custody of her? Obviously he has
moved on with his life. He says the money has nothing to do with it.
Then what is his motivation? He obviously has another family unit
thing going, so why not just let go of her and let her parents care
for her?
Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care, why
not let them do it?
krp
"JustMe" <not...@never.comma> wrote in message
news:2FT0e.14207$DW.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
>> other people.
>>
>> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
15 YEARS a HURRY?
> The thing that bugs me the most about the case is this:
> After Mark took up with the other woman, and had two children with
> her, WHY didn't he just turn custody of Terri over to her parents?
Because he CANNOT just do that! This is NOT a table he can give away but his
WIFE!!!!!!! There are LEGAL obligations, and the LAW (that pesky thing) does
NOT allow him to just give her away. Not even to her parents. That law has
been around for near a thousand years. IF you stopped being an overly
emotional lunatic you might see WHY that law exists in almost every state,
not to mention nation.
> Why was it so important to keep custody of her? Obviously he has
> moved on with his life. He says the money has nothing to do with it.
> Then what is his motivation? He obviously has another family unit
> thing going, so why not just let go of her and let her parents care
> for her?
Let's get some things straight here. Michael Schiavo remained faithful
to Terri for almost a decade AFTER her affliction. The relationship with the
present woman in his life is only a few years old. So it isn't like he just
abandoned Terri and went off happily screwing every female he could find.
> Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
> if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care, why
> not let them do it?
BECAUSE HE CANNOT! And for TOTAL LACK of ANY evidence to the contrary - he
made a promise to her and is keeping it!
EVEN being so completely demonized!
JustMe
"krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JOT0e.11619$Ax.7898@trnddc04...
> Because he CANNOT just do that! This is NOT a table he can give away but
his
> WIFE!!!!!!! There are LEGAL obligations, and the LAW (that pesky thing)
does
> NOT allow him to just give her away. Not even to her parents. That law has
> been around for near a thousand years. IF you stopped being an overly
> emotional lunatic you might see WHY that law exists in almost every state,
> not to mention nation.
> ----------------------------
Please tell me what law exists that doesn't allow him to divorce her and
turn
over custody to her parents. That's the ONLY point I was making. He's
obviously moved on, with this new relationship, so why not just let go?
You're the one going apeshit about this - not me. I asked a simple
question.
c-bee1
"JustMe" <not...@never.comma> wrote in message
news:2FT0e.14207$DW.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
> > other people.
> >
> > Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The thing that bugs me the most about the case is this:
>
> After Mark
Who?
> took up with the other woman, and had two children with
> her, WHY didn't he just turn custody of Terri over to her parents?
> Why was it so important to keep custody of her? Obviously he has
> moved on with his life. He says the money has nothing to do with it.
> Then what is his motivation? He obviously has another family unit
> thing going, so why not just let go of her and let her parents care
> for her?
>
> Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
> if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care, why
> not let them do it?
They sound to me like kneejerk wackjobs who would accidentally kill her.
zuz...@webtv.net
>responsibility for her care, why not let
>them do it?
wishes are fulfilled. It's a simple concept that, unfortunately, morally
bankrupt people with no sense of honor or obligation just don't get.
Megan
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com
Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22
"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."
- W.H. Murray
yaffa...@aol.com
JustMe wrote:
> "krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:JOT0e.11619$Ax.7898@trnddc04...
>
> > Because he CANNOT just do that! This is NOT a table he can give
away but
> his
> > WIFE!!!!!!! There are LEGAL obligations, and the LAW (that pesky
thing)
> does
> > NOT allow him to just give her away. Not even to her parents. That
law has
> > been around for near a thousand years. IF you stopped being an
overly
> > emotional lunatic you might see WHY that law exists in almost every
state,
> > not to mention nation.
> > ----------------------------
>
> Please tell me what law exists that doesn't allow him to divorce her
and
> turn
> over custody to her parents.
The same law that says if you make a vow, such as, say, for instance,
maybe, a marriage vow, you keep it. Does "in sickness and in health"
ring any bells for you? Michael Shiavo is her husband and is trying to
carry out what may be his last obligation to his wife. The same law
that makes me confident that I can trust my husband to do the same
thing for me, as I will for him.
That's the ONLY point I was making. He's
> obviously moved on, with this new relationship, so why not just let
go?
He may have moved on but that doesn't mean he has left or should leave
or ignore his obligations to his wife. And, again, I would hope that
if the situation arises, my husband will be as strong for me as I hope
I can be for him in the face of the lies and slander of his in-laws,
and the unwarranted interference of institutions and governments, state
and federal, trying to prevent my or my husband's wishes carried out.
yD
rjr...@aol.com
Bravo, Tom. You've took the words right out of my mouth but did a much
better way of expressing it than I could of. Thank you for writing this
post. Too bad Mr. Schiavo will never see it.
ravinwulf
wrote:
His motivation is that he is a decent guy who made a promise to take
care of her and he doesn't believe she'd want to be kept alive in her
present condition. Furthermore, her greedy parents are using her to
raise money; perhaps he simply doesn't want to see her used and abused
in that manner.
Regards,
ravinwulf
EnEss
> "krp" wrote:
>> Because he CANNOT just do that! This is NOT a table he can give away but
> his
>> WIFE!!!!!!! There are LEGAL obligations, and the LAW (that pesky thing)
> does
>> NOT allow him to just give her away. Not even to her parents. That law
>> has
>> been around for near a thousand years. IF you stopped being an overly
>> emotional lunatic you might see WHY that law exists in almost every
>> state,
>> not to mention nation.
>> ----------------------------
> Please tell me what law exists that doesn't allow him to divorce her and
> turn
> over custody to her parents. That's the ONLY point I was making. He's
> obviously moved on, with this new relationship, so why not just let go?
Obviously, he could surrender guardianship if he wanted to. There's no law
that requires a person to serve as legal guardian for someone.
But this question has been addressed many times. Mr. Schiavo--and the name
is Michael, not Mark--has said that after what Mr.Schindler testified to in
court, Mr. Schiavo could not in good conscience turn over guardianship to
him or anyone else.
Mr. Schindler testitfied that no matter what happened to Terri, he would do
everything possible to keep her alive. If one or both legs became gangrenous
and had to be amputated, he would order it done. If her heart stopped
beating again, he would order it restarted again. If she developed any
problem that required surgery, he would consent to the surgery. Probably, if
the doctors found a tumor in her breast, Mr. Schindler would insist Terri
have a mastectomy and follow-up w/ chemo-therapy and radiation!
Why? Because, Mr. Schindler said, in his view the most important thing is
keeping Terri alive at any and all cost because having her alive "makes them
happy."
Mr. Schiavo said when he heard this, he was at once revolted and terrified.
He finds it an extreme disrespect of Terri's memory and the person she was
to use her body like an exhibit in a museum and an object to derive what he
sees as some kind of twisted, perverse pleasure from, keeping her on display
so they can look at her and say, "See! Terri's still alive! Now I'm happy!"
Mr. Schiavo has said over and over this argument can't be about the
Schindlers and what makes them happy, and it's not about what he wants or
what makes him happy either. He said the only thing it has ever been about,
or should be about is doing what's right in the name and memory of
Terri...following her wishes as she indicated to him before her brain
injury.
If he divorces her and turns over guardianship to the Schindler family, he
will lose all control over what is done to Terri's body, and given what the
Schindlers have testified to what lengths they would go to to keep her body
alive, that is not something he's prepared to accept.
> You're the one going apeshit about this - not me. I asked a simple
> question.
Yeah, well that's "krp" for you. This is the way she reacts to every
discussion. She always puts every other word or every few words in all upper
case so it appears that she's screaming hysterically, usually over things
that in no way merit such extreme responses. I've asked her to quit doing
this and told her how weird it is to come off that way, but she ignores me
and does it anyway. My advice is, when reading her posts, just ignore the
emphasized words and pretend you're reading normal text. The screaming thing
is just some sort of idiosyncrasy and should be ignored. I often I agree w/
her positions on things, but the upper case thing she does is just weird.
...and very annoying.
NS
(add sbc before global to email)
Kris Baker
<rjr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111763394....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Barrister wrote:
>> The following represents my views. It may or may not
>> represent those of other people.
>>
>> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
>>
>
> but did a much better way of expressing it than I could of.
> Thank you for writing this post. Too bad Mr. Schiavo will
> never see it.
>
Uhhhhh.....who the hell is Mark Schiavo?
Kris
You've just been trolled by cattlovvr, methinks
EnEss
> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
> other people.
>
> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
The man's name is MICHAEL, not MARK.
I'm snipping the rest of your text w/o comment. If you can't get the name
right of a prinicple person who's part of a news story that's been front and
center almost 24 hrs a day for the last week, I see no point in wasting time
givng you answers that you don't show the ability to process and remember.
No offense....Tim. Or is it Ted? Or Todd?
Kris Baker
"Tom Barrister" <tombar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> other people.
>
> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
Folks, this has cattlovvr written all over it.
Who the hell is MARK Schiavo?
Kris
Giving it a 2.3 on the Troll-O-Meter
rjr...@aol.com
He did? How long have you lived with him to know that?
>
> > Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
> > if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care,
why
> > not let them do it?
>
> BECAUSE HE CANNOT! And for TOTAL LACK of ANY evidence to the
contrary - he
> made a promise to her and is keeping it!
He did that too? How did you get into the room w/o being family to hear
that? Or are you going by what *he* has told the press?
>
> EVEN being so completely demonized!
Are Florida laws different then? Because my husband married his first
wife when he was 19 and she was almost 18 - a baby on the way. Her
parents signed over guardianship to him without a problem.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
<tombar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those
of
>other people.
>
>Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
>Tom Barrister.
I need only read that far Tom.
I have a number of things I'd like to say to you that would be less
then polite, so I will just say this. According to the law of the
United States of America, this is none of your business.
--
Scorp
rjr...@aol.com
zuz...@webtv.net wrote:
> >But if her parents were willing to accept
> >responsibility for her care, why not let
> >them do it?
> Because that's not what Terri wanted and her husband is making sure
her
> wishes are fulfilled. It's a simple concept that, unfortunately,
morally
> bankrupt people with no sense of honor or obligation just don't get.
>
> Megan
How do you know this? Where you there when he supposedly promised her
this or are you just going by what he has told everyone??
rjr...@aol.com
Then why did he wait a *decade* to say this? He said he had forgotten
about it until recently! LOL. Gimme a break!
rjr...@aol.com
I have no idea! LOL. Was this addressed to me?
rjr...@aol.com
LOL! In other words, you make a good point, Tom. But I'm going to
nitpick about a first name to avoid answering any of these questions!
rjr...@aol.com
He can't write a letter to a public forum because it's none of his
business, but you can comment on it and other posts regarding Terri and
that's fine? Am I correct on this?
Messalina
Tom Barrister wrote:
> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those
of
> other people.
>
> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
Thats "Michael," dear.
Mez
Messalina
> if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care,
why
> not let them do it?
>They sound to me like kneejerk wackjobs who would accidentally kill
her.
Actually, they had her for three weeks a few years ago and couldn't
handle it. Its a nice thought in theory, but these are not young
people.
Mez
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
I never said he couldn't write a letter to a public forum. He can
piss in to the wind all he wants, but it will have zero effect on the
outcome of this situation. I was only pointing that out since the
poster seems to feel he's "doing something".
--
Scorp
EnEss
> zuzu22 wrote:
>> >But if her parents were willing to accept
>> >responsibility for her care, why not let
>> >them do it?
>> Because that's not what Terri wanted and her husband is making sure
> her
>> wishes are fulfilled. It's a simple concept that, unfortunately,
> morally
>> bankrupt people with no sense of honor or obligation just don't get.
> How do you know this? Where you there when he supposedly promised her
> this or are you just going by what he has told everyone??
He testified to this in court, and had 2 other witnesses testify to similar
conversations they remembered having w/ Ms. Schiavo in which she indicated
the same type of sentiment--no tubes and mechanical and artificial measures
if I'm incapacitated and there's no hope.
The judge heard all the testimony and determined it was credible. This is
the approrpiate venue for such decisions to be made. The judge has had years
and years of experience listening to people testify on the witness stand and
a judge develops a good sense of recognizing credible testimony when he or
she hears it. In his opinion, Mr. Schiavo's testimony and the testimony of
the witnesses who went on the stand in support of him was very believable to
the judge.
You can believe it or not, as you choose. But your opinion, or mine for that
matter, is entirely irrelevant. You didn't hear the testimony, thus you are
in no position to judge...nor are you in any position to second-guess the
interpretation of the judge in this case. That's the job of the appellate
judges, and in this case, none so far have found fault w/ any of his rulings
or the process he allowed to get to where things are now.
Ms. Schiavo (and her parents) have had more due process regarding what will
happen to her than any other incapacitated person in US history.
In a case like this where there's an insurmountable dispute, someone has to
be a final arbitrator. And if it was me in that nursing home unable to speak
for myself, I'd rather it be an educated and well-trained judge who's taken
a liberal amount of time to review all the medical evidence and hear all the
testimony to arrive at a decision, than to leave that decision up to you, or
Jeb Bush, or Tom Delay, or Bill Frist, or the delusional Randall Terry. Any
day of the week.
If you want Bill Frist making your private healthcare decisions for you if
you should be incapacitated, good luck to you!
Phoenix
rjr...@aol.com says...
Recently! Like maybe a decade ago. Give ME a break!
And where has Michael ever stated that he "forgot about it", hm?
Or is this another bit of shit you people throw at the wall and hope it
sticks.
bel
Bo Raxo
Why can't this be a private family matter, between Michael, the medical
team, and nobody else?
Conservatives whine that they want to defend the sanctity of marriage -
fine, defend it here.
Mrs. Lorraine P. Bilek
marriage to Terri? I guess that taking a commom-law wife doesn't count
as violating the sanctity of marriage.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message...
> Conservatives whine that they want to defend the sanctity of marriage -
> fine, defend it here.
No... conservatives need the money of the fundamentalist christian fanatics
and televangelists in order to fund their programs for worldwide aggression
and domination (see: PNAC). They will do anything (see: faith based initiatives)
to maintain their support base of the television brainwashed masses of so-called
"christians". (note: the little 'c').
John R Rybock
wrote:
>"Tom Barrister" <tombar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
>> other people.
>>
>> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The thing that bugs me the most about the case is this:
>
>After Mark took up with the other woman, and had two children with
>her, WHY didn't he just turn custody of Terri over to her parents?
>Why was it so important to keep custody of her? Obviously he has
>moved on with his life. He says the money has nothing to do with it.
>Then what is his motivation? He obviously has another family unit
>thing going, so why not just let go of her and let her parents care
>for her?
>
>Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
>if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care, why
>not let them do it?
>
First off, his name is Michael.
Secondly, early on, there was a deposition. In the questioning, it was
asked of the parents how far they would go to keep her alive. They
asked what if she developed diabetes? Would they amputate a limb to
save her? Yes was the reply. The right arm? Yes. And then if the left
needed to be cut off too? Yes. How about the right leg? Left leg? Yes
and yes. So there's this picture of Terri, torso and head only. What
if she then needed open heart surgery to stay alive? Then they'd give
her the sugery. So, the image is a woman cut down to a torso and
having that cut open.
After that deposition, and that image, Michael apparently decided that
there was no way he could voluntarily give them guardianship if that
was the sort of thing they were willing to put her through. While they
have since backed off of those statements, I don't think Michael feels
they have Terri's interests and wishes in mind.
Poe
I think I saw this movie... isn't this the one Kin Basinger backed out
of (forget the name of it)? :-X
G W Shrub
"Tom Barrister" <tombar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
> other people.
I doubt it represents the views of anyone whose IQ exceeds that of warm
pudding.
GW
Bo Raxo
"Mrs. Lorraine P. Bilek" <Lorbi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1111784944.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Is that what M. Schiavo wants? To preserve the "sanctity" of his
> marriage to Terri? I guess that taking a commom-law wife doesn't count
> as violating the sanctity of marriage.
>
Well, that's a private family matter, isn't it? It's not illegal for him to
live with another woman - it's a private matter.
I never said he wanted to preserve the "sanctity" of his marriage - I said
CONSERVATIVES want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. They want to
defend it as an institution - fine, defend it here. Let him make a decision
about his wife's medical care without interference from the government or
others.
Unless conservative whining about the "sanctity" of marriage is really just
an excuse to oppose things they find objectionable, like same-sex marriages.
But heck, that would make them hypocrites, though it would explain the
apparent contradiction.
Bo Raxo
G W Shrub
"John R Rybock" <ryb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:du19415rp7mv4frnp...@4ax.com...
> After that deposition, and that image, Michael apparently decided that
> there was no way he could voluntarily give them guardianship if that
> was the sort of thing they were willing to put her through. While they
> have since backed off of those statements, I don't think Michael feels
> they have Terri's interests and wishes in mind.
I believe they'd be happy to have her freeze dried and mounted in a case.
They could tour her around and collect donations. After all she looks a
little more human than a grilled cheese sandwich, and a priest did just
compare her to Madonna (the one without the pointy bras and the SM clothing
line).
GW
Poe
today? It looked like she was propped up, with sunglasses on, etc.
G W Shrub
"Poe" <hau...@terrible-thought.net> wrote in message
news:271d0$424488b3$4528daf3$91...@ALLTEL.NET...
> I think I saw this movie... isn't this the one Kim Basinger backed out
> of (forget the name of it)? :-X
'Boxing Helena'. Equally perverse.
GW
Kris Baker
"Mrs. Lorraine P. Bilek" <Lorbi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1111784944.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> marriage to Terri? I guess that taking a commom-law wife doesn't count
> as violating the sanctity of marriage.
>
You'd be really pissed if he crawled into bed with Terri,
and tried to screw her, wouldn't you?
Kris
krp
<rjr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111769347....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I live in Tampa Bay, so we get regular TERRI SCHIAVO doses daily on our
news and talk... WHEN he met the woman he is living with was know almost
from the day he first met her here. Nearly a decade after Terri's
hospitalization. Must I sleep in the same bed with him to know what HERE is
public knowledge?
>> > Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
>> > if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care, why
>> > not let them do it?
>
>> BECAUSE HE CANNOT! And for TOTAL LACK of ANY evidence to the contrary -
>> he
>> made a promise to her and is keeping it!
> He did that too? How did you get into the room w/o being family to hear
> that? Or are you going by what *he* has told the press?
Didn't need to. The case has been dragging on here for almost 15 years.
He says that they made a promise. The burden of proof is on those sayign
they did NOT! So the question SMARTASS is what PROOF do YOU have that they
didn't? He told the court. Her family ha shad 15 years to come up with PROOF
that she did NOT say that she did not want to be let go. So far they haven't
come close. The burden of proof is NOT on him! You see there is a legal
presumption that husbands and wifes are closest and the most intimate. They
call it "MARRIAGE." Do you want to RE-WRITE that?
>> EVEN being so completely demonized!
> Are Florida laws different then? Because my husband married his first
> wife when he was 19 and she was almost 18 - a baby on the way. Her
> parents signed over guardianship to him without a problem.
I don't know what the hell state YOU live in, in all the ones I know in
most respects 18 year olds are considered ADULTS as far as marriage goes..
If you'd like it I have a list of all the ages of consent for the US and the
world. I don't see a state in the US that requires turning over
"guardianship" for an 18 year old WOMAN! Sure you didn't mean she was almost
8 and a baby on the way? Was that Arkansas or West Virginia?
Kris Baker
<rjr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111769423.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Do you HONESTLY think that anyone who didn't love their wife,
would choose to go through this PURE HELL of the last few
years?
Would he choose to have his in-laws libel and slander him?
Think about this:
WHO is making money from this?
Not Michael Schiavo.
WHO is asking for money?
Not Michael Schiavo.
WHO is trashing the other side, and lying about everything?
Not Michael Schiavo.
Why do you prefer to believe the liars?
Kris Baker
>>
> Is it my imagination, or was Terri propped up in front of the public
> today? It looked like she was propped up, with sunglasses on, etc.
That's an OLD tape, about 2002, during the period that Michael was
trying to rehab her.
Kris
Mrs. Lorraine P. Bilek
Bo Raxo
> No, the conservatives want to preserve the sanctity of life IMO.
>
Really? Have they come out against the death penalty? Have they shown all
that much concern for the Iraqi civilians getting killed? Did they protest
when Bush I killed several thousand civilians invading Panama?
Velvet Elvis
> Are Florida laws different then? Because my husband married his first
> wife when he was 19 and she was almost 18 - a baby on the way. Her
> parents signed over guardianship to him without a problem.
Jesus Christ that's sick.
Mrs. Lorraine P. Bilek
shown all
that much concern for the Iraqi civilians getting killed? Did they
protest
when Bush I killed several thousand civilians invading Panama? >
Actually, yes, the ones I know do.
What amazes me is that the same whining liberals who protest the death
penalty for evil disgusting serial murderers and child killers (who die
comfortably by lethal inj.) have no problem seeing this woman
tortured to death. BTW I'm against the death penalty, too.
Em
Kris Baker
> No, the conservatives want to preserve the sanctity of life IMO.
>
So why do they want to cut back Medicaid, the very thing
that's keeping Terri alive?
Kris
krp
> No, the conservatives want to preserve the sanctity of life IMO.
Really? Sanctity of WHOSE life? Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago.
Larry Hewitt
"JustMe" <not...@never.comma> wrote in message
news:2FT0e.14207$DW.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "Tom Barrister" <tombar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
> > other people.
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> After Mark took up with the other woman, and had two children with
> her, WHY didn't he just turn custody of Terri over to her parents?
> moved on with his life. He says the money has nothing to do with it.
> Then what is his motivation? He obviously has another family unit
> thing going, so why not just let go of her and let her parents care
> for her?
>
> if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care, why
> not let them do it?
>
First, his nam is Michael, bot Mark.
Second, her parents do not want to tale care of her, they just do not want
her to die. When they had hte opportunity totake care of her temselves early
on in her treatment *Terri and Mark lives with them so they could help him
take care of her) they decided they couldn;t do it and sent her to a
ahospice. As a financial conservative pointed out this afternoon on Faux
news, teh Schindlers do not want to pay _anything_ towards her care.
Currently the estimated $80000 a year tab is being split between medicaid
and pro bono care from the hospice. (Theya re on the record stating that if
the feeding tube is reinserted AGAIN they want to get paid).
The Schindlers will not let Terri move in with them so they can provide some
services and reduce her costs.. They will not commit to providing her with
routine care like turning her, diapering her, or washing her. They will not
commit to donating a dime to her care. They just don't want her to die.
Larry
>
krp
"Velvet Elvis" <NOgamb...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:Ur11e.8740$S46....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Yeah IMAGINE a 19 year old boy and an 18 year old girl! SHUDDER!!!!
Larry Hewitt
"JustMe" <not...@never.comma> wrote in message
> his
> > WIFE!!!!!!! There are LEGAL obligations, and the LAW (that pesky thing)
> does
> > NOT allow him to just give her away. Not even to her parents. That law
has
> > been around for near a thousand years. IF you stopped being an overly
> > emotional lunatic you might see WHY that law exists in almost every
state,
> > not to mention nation.
>
> Please tell me what law exists that doesn't allow him to divorce her and
> turn
> obviously moved on, with this new relationship, so why not just let go?
>
Because a divorce does not seever all marital obligations. The divirce judge
must find that both parties are capable of mANaging for themselves ---
impossible in this case --- to sever financial, contractual, and legal bonds
without the consent of BOTH parties.
Despite reiligious tricher rhetoric, marriage is a contrcat and it MUST obey
contract law.
Larry
ravinwulf
<Lorbi...@netscape.net> wrote:
Actually this liberal has no problem with the death penalty for serial
and child killers. I do prefer that we could give Terri Schiavo a
quick injection to ease her passage; but alas, the right wing loons
won't have that, so if this is the only way the poor woman can be
allowed to leave her permanently broken body, so be it, I suppose.
Regards,
ravinwulf
G W Shrub
> No, the conservatives want to preserve the sanctity of life IMO.
IME, they want most in the world before all other considerations and to hell
with everyone else, to preserve the contents of their wallets. They'll say
whatever it takes to do that.
GW
bessiejunejoad
bessiejunejoad
Killing Karla Fay Tucker after her Christian conversions fits in where?
Explain these to me, if you can
zuz...@webtv.net
>doesn't count as violating the sanctity of
>marriage.
There is no such thing as "common -law" marriage in Florida.
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/fl_common_law_marriage.htm
Megan
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com
Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22
"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."
- W.H. Murray
Kris Baker
"bessiejunejoad" <bessiej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111797987.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Now Kris, dont start using logic, you'll confuse these people
>
I'm sorry. I try not to. But gosh....I can't think on their level ;)
Kris
Kris Baker
"Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:d2296b$c4g$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>
>>
>
> First, his nam is Michael, bot Mark.
>
> Second, her parents do not want to tale care of her, they just do not want
> her to die. When they had hte opportunity totake care of her temselves
> early
> on in her treatment *Terri and Mark lives with them so they could help him
> take care of her) they decided they couldn;t do it and sent her to a
> ahospice. As a financial conservative pointed out this afternoon on Faux
> news, teh Schindlers do not want to pay _anything_ towards her care.
> Currently the estimated $80000 a year tab is being split between medicaid
> and pro bono care from the hospice. (Theya re on the record stating that
> if
> the feeding tube is reinserted AGAIN they want to get paid).
>
> The Schindlers will not let Terri move in with them so they can provide
> some
> services and reduce her costs.. They will not commit to providing her with
> routine care like turning her, diapering her, or washing her. They will
> not
> commit to donating a dime to her care. They just don't want her to die.
>
> Larry
Here's something the Schindlers don't want anyone to know:
Michael Schiavo and his fiance pick up Terri's clothing, wash it at home and
return it to the hospice.
Meanwhile, the Schindlers are only too busy trashing Michael and his "other
nasty woman with their two kids" as uncaring.
Kris
Mrs. Lorraine P. Bilek
I'm sorry. I try not to. But gosh....I can't think on their level ;)
Kris >
Gee, what a warm welcome to the group! How kind of you! Oh, I didn't
realize different opinions are rewarded with snotty put-downs. What a
grandiose bunch you are! Buh-bye
Andrys Basten
>to Terri for almost a decade AFTER her affliction. The relationship with the
>present woman in his life is only a few years old. So it isn't like he just
>abandoned Terri and went off happily screwing every female he could find.
Let's get some things actually straight here. Defend the man,
but base it on real info instead of just faith.
In the malpractice suit in 1992, he had to admit that he
already had two relatively long relationships with other women
(that's not a decade), which is his prerogative, but what you
said was inaccurate.
Last night one of Terri's friends said in an interview that
Terri said she and Michael had discussed divorce; however, this
woman was approached by counsel in the case not to mention
the divorce talk because it would hurt the malpractice suit
(which would mean this would hurt the award for Terri's care
too). It would certainly have hurt the 'loss of consortium'
portion but I don't see how it would have hurt the part for
Terri's care...
Info was from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7287950/
An article of pros and cons, with the pro's ending the
article. But it says,
"But by 1993, Schiavo was fighting with his in-laws, Bob and Mary
Schindler, over his wifes care and guardianship. In a deposition, the
ruggedly handsome Schiavo was forced to admit that he had already been
involved in lengthy relationships with two women since his wifes collapse.
>BECAUSE HE CANNOT! And for TOTAL LACK of ANY evidence to the contrary - he
>made a promise to her and is keeping it!
Well, no, no one could disprove that she told him that, but
the judge weighted his testimony more, since one of her friends
testified that she was against giving up sooner in the Quinlan case.
Another one has said Terri was against her friend's talk of just
being allowed to die should she be in the state Terri's grandmother
was when they visited her often.
BOTH the first friend's testimony and Michael's would not be admissible
in a jury trial, as both would be considered "heresay" evidence.
What it does say clearly is that people should leave written
documentation, living wills, advance directives, etc etc so
that if it's important for you not to be living in a helpless
state, there cannot be a fight.
Bianca
>>
>>What amazes me is that the same whining liberals who protest the death
>>penalty for evil disgusting serial murderers and child killers (who die
>>comfortably by lethal inj.) have no problem seeing this woman
>>tortured to death. BTW I'm against the death penalty, too.
>
>
> Actually this liberal has no problem with the death penalty for serial
> and child killers. I do prefer that we could give Terri Schiavo a
> quick injection to ease her passage; but alas, the right wing loons
> won't have that, so if this is the only way the poor woman can be
> allowed to leave her permanently broken body, so be it, I suppose.
>
> Regards,
> ravinwulf
Same here. These people just don't get it. So anxious to paint us all
with the same stroke rather than actually learn what we believe in.
It's a matter of privacy. Just as people who are pro-choice are
demonized as "pro-abortion." Nobody is pro-abortion. But if you have
to make a painful, lousy decision, it would be nice to have some privacy
in order to make that decision.
When you have to deal with the death of someone you love (or yourself,
for that matter), it would be nice to be able to make those painful,
lousy decisions in private. Then, when all hope is gone, have an
injection available to help ease the process.
Nobody is saying you have to choose to remove a loved one's feeding
tube. Nobody is saying you have to get an abortion if you're pregnant.
But how about letting the rest of us make those decisions on our own
without government interference?
Oh...and TV news (CNN, MSNBC)has been reporting increased police guards
around Michael Schiavo because of fears for his life. Lots of threats.
Culture of life, indeed.
They lost me when I saw that murderous thug Randall Terry identified as
the "Schindler family spokesman."
Andrys Basten
Andrys Basten <and...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Let's get some things straight here. Michael Schiavo remained faithful
>>to Terri for almost a decade AFTER her affliction. The relationship with the
>>present woman in his life is only a few years old. So it isn't like he just
>>abandoned Terri and went off happily screwing every female he could find.
>
> Let's get some things actually straight here. Defend the man,
>but base it on real info instead of just faith.
>
> In the malpractice suit in 1992, he had to admit that he
>already had two relatively long relationships with other women
>(that's not a decade), which is his prerogative, but what you
>said was inaccurate.
Sorry, that was in 1993, that he had to admit this in coust,
not 1992 and it was a separate disposition, .
For me, it should not matter that he had other relationships
while she was in such a hopeless state. But it was not a decade at
all, and most people who defend him know he had other relationships
before the recent one that produced two children. And that should
be moot, for the merits of the case. Except that he didn't, as
too many say, devote himself only to his wife all these 15 years.
Andrys Basten
EnEss <star...@global.net> wrote:
><rjrsj wrote:
>> How do you know this? Where you there when he supposedly promised her
>> this or are you just going by what he has told everyone??
>
>He testified to this in court, and had 2 other witnesses testify to similar
>conversations they remembered having w/ Ms. Schiavo in which she indicated
>the same type of sentiment--no tubes and mechanical and artificial measures
>if I'm incapacitated and there's no hope.
The two other very-late witnesses were own brother and his
brother's wife. You know that but didn't mention it. Judges
are not infallible. The judge did say that a question might be
why this was reported so late. Despite that and testimony to
the contrary he found this testimony "reasonable."
And on that basis, we have this case that has so ballooned.
>interpretation of the judge in this case. That's the job of the appellate
>judges, and in this case, none so far have found fault w/ any of his rulings
>or the process he allowed to get to where things are now.
Actually, they look for legal processes that were wrong. They
are not to second guess his interpretation re weighting differing
testimony.
Kris Baker
"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d22cv9$ra5$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Info was from
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7287950/
> An article of pros and cons, with the pro's ending the
> article. But it says,
> "But by 1993, Schiavo was fighting with his in-laws, Bob and Mary
> Schindler, over his wifes care and guardianship. In a deposition, the
> ruggedly handsome Schiavo was forced to admit that he had already been
> involved in lengthy relationships with two women since his wifes collapse.
>
Uhhh....why didn't you also mention that the Schindler family
ENCOURAGED him to start dating and "get on with his life".
Kris
Andrys Basten
Kris Baker <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>Do you HONESTLY think that anyone who didn't love their wife,
>would choose to go through this PURE HELL of the last few
>years?
>
>Would he choose to have his in-laws libel and slander him?
>
>Think about this:
>
> WHO is making money from this?
>
> Not Michael Schiavo.
Well, he did sue for malpractice and sued for something
like $20 million (maybe that's where that figure has come from
on another issue altogether). He -was- awarded $700,000
for Terri's care and $300,000 for "loss of consortium"
in 1992 and said to be received in 1993. In 1994, he changed
his mind about her needing to live and gave instructions to
not resuscitate and not treat any infection. The nursing
facility challenged this and he removed the instruction
and explained his reasoning for the instruction later.
At THAT point, there was a million $, and if she had
died then, there would have been almost $700,000 of the
$750,000 which he would have inherited.
His attorneys say it is down to only $50,000 as money
has been saved for court costs, and that the money
was spent for her care and for litigation. His attorneys
have billed between $500,000 to $600,00 by their own
words.
> WHO is trashing the other side, and lying about everything?
>
> Not Michael Schiavo.
Both are trashing the other side. A talk show host
told Michael's brother that most people find both sides
sincere and that this is just an awful case. His brother
said he could not say that the parents were sincere.
>Why do you prefer to believe the liars?
Actually, it's hard to know who's misrepresenting,
and outside of Judge Greer and the judges who can only
review on the basis of judicial error in the legal
processes, people question both sides but want the
tube kept in until we might know more OR until
the appeals processes are exhausted, which would have
taken another couple of months. The argument is
"It's already been 15 years" but then a few more
months shouldn't matter. But it does to Michael Schiavo.
Very much.
Andrys Basten
Kris Baker <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>Uhhh....why didn't you also mention that the Schindler family
>ENCOURAGED him to start dating and "get on with his life".
I did. I was one of the first people who posted that information.
I said, his having earlier relationships was moot, for me, but
I was correcting the misinformation that it was his first relationship
in a decade.
I think you can understand this.
--
http://andrys.com
G W Shrub
> Gee, what a warm welcome to the group! How kind of you! Oh, I didn't
> realize different opinions are rewarded with snotty put-downs...
Then you haven't been paying attention.
GW
G W Shrub
> And pulling the feeding tube on that 5 month old baby fits in where?
> Killing Karla Fay Tucker after her Christian conversions fits in where?
>
> Explain these to me, if you can
That's the 'compassionate' part of "compassionate conservative".
GW
G W Shrub
"Bianca" <n...@chance.org> wrote in message
news:d22dd5$igd$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> They lost me when I saw that murderous thug Randall Terry identified as
> the "Schindler family spokesman."
When your spokesperson is a terrorist you have indeed lost the battle.
GW
Kris Baker
Of course. But I don't think you do, otherwise you'd quit complaining
about his current relationship.
Kris
Robin Colleen Moore
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...
Robin
I am happy to be an American. Nowhere else could a Jew with a giant
nose engage in tongue play with an African American with a fabulous
tush after winning an Academy Award on live television for playing a
Holocaust survivor and not have someone declare a holy war against us.
Bianca
>>the "Schindler family spokesman."
>
>
> When your spokesperson is a terrorist you have indeed lost the battle.
>
> GW
>
>
the news. Where the hell are the Democrats? NARAL? NOW?
And while I'm ranting, could the news cameras pull back just a little
bit and let us see how many protesters are actually there instead of
filming them in closeup so they look like there are more than there
really are?
I'm not just talking Faux News, either...
The 11th Court of Appeals in Atlanta just turned down the Schindler's
appeal.
Andrys Basten
Kris Baker <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>"Andrys Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:d22emt$efc$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <rT21e.18388$V65....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Kris Baker <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Uhhh....why didn't you also mention that the Schindler family
>>>ENCOURAGED him to start dating and "get on with his life".
>>
>> I did. I was one of the first people who posted that information.
>>
>> I said, his having earlier relationships was moot, for me, but
>> I was correcting the misinformation that it was his first relationship
>> in a decade.
>>
>> I think you can understand this.
>
>Of course. But I don't think you do, otherwise you'd quit complaining
>about his current relationship.
>
>
>Kris
I haven't complained about his current relationship. I just
said that he has one when people say he has devoted his entire
15 years to her. That he has one and that it's reported, is
not to complain about it.
I've questioned other aspects of this case though, sure.
Bianca
>
> Here's something the Schindlers don't want anyone to know:
>
> Michael Schiavo and his fiance pick up Terri's clothing, wash it at home and
> return it to the hospice.
>
> Meanwhile, the Schindlers are only too busy trashing Michael and his "other
> nasty woman with their two kids" as uncaring.
>
> Kris
Oh yeah, and the newsies don't touch that piece of information.
This information has been out there---I heard it from one of the
guardians on CNN the other night. But it doesn't play into the
demonization of Michael Schiavo, so it takes folks like us to get it out
there.
Nobody has answered my question about Michael Schiavo's 2 children by
his "other nasty woman."
Should they have been aborted???
I'm surprised and grateful that we weren't hit over the head with Terri
at Good Friday services. Made it easier to sit and pray that God takes
her soon.
>
>
skip...@gmail.com
Tom Barrister wrote:
> If none of the above makes any sense to you, remember your marriage
> vows that stated:
>
> "....to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for
worse,
> for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to
> cherish, till death do us part"
>
And that's exactly why Mr. Schiavo isn't just "divorcing" her and
making this her parent's problem.
Because, he, unlike you, is PRO-MARRIAGE, not anti-marriage. He loves
his wife and he wants to do what's best.
Your spouse in this Country, and in the eyes of G-d, is your closest
living relative. Why are you trying to destroy marriage and allow a
parent to overrule a spouse?
Personally, I wouldn't remove a feeding tube. If a person is alive,
even with no brain, and simply needs to be fed, I'd keep feeding. But I
have to believe Mark Shaiavo, because Terry loved him enough to marry
him. And that I take very seriously. I believe Mark new his wife well
enough to carry out his wife's wishes. And if he's lying, that's
between him and his Creator. Terry picked Mark, not you, to care for
her.
--
Skip
skip...@gmail.com
where?
Wait a minute! Do you really think that someone should be spared
simply because of a Chr-stian conversion? I'm speechless! Though I'm
anti-death penalty (simply because of the possibility of error) sparing
Karla Fay would because of her belief of a particular religion that
lets one off the hook for being "truly sorry" would be a horrible
thing to do!
dave
"JustMe" <not...@never.comma> wrote in message
news:PVT0e.14223$DW.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:JOT0e.11619$Ax.7898@trnddc04...
>
>> Because he CANNOT just do that! This is NOT a table he can give away but
> his
>> WIFE!!!!!!! There are LEGAL obligations, and the LAW (that pesky thing)
> does
>> NOT allow him to just give her away. Not even to her parents. That law
>> has
>> been around for near a thousand years. IF you stopped being an overly
>> emotional lunatic you might see WHY that law exists in almost every
>> state,
>> not to mention nation.
>> ----------------------------
>
> Please tell me what law exists that doesn't allow him to divorce her and
> turn
> over custody to her parents. That's the ONLY point I was making. He's
> obviously moved on, with this new relationship, so why not just let go?
>
> You're the one going apeshit about this - not me. I asked a simple
> question.
>
>
So, it appears that you don't believe in the "Sanctity of Marriage", after
all.
Betsy
"Poe" <hau...@terrible-thought.net> wrote in message
news:271d0$424488b3$4528daf3$91...@ALLTEL.NET...
| John R Rybock wrote:
| > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:40:30 GMT, "JustMe" <not...@never.comma>
| > wrote:
| >
| >
| >>"Tom Barrister" <tombar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >>news:1111727500.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| >>
| >>>The following represents my views. It may or may not represent
those of
| >>>other people.
| >>>
| >>>Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
| >>
| >>-----------------------------------------------------------------
| >>
| >>The thing that bugs me the most about the case is this:
| >>
| >>After Mark took up with the other woman, and had two children with
| >>her, WHY didn't he just turn custody of Terri over to her parents?
| >>Why was it so important to keep custody of her? Obviously he has
| >>moved on with his life. He says the money has nothing to do with
it.
| >>Then what is his motivation? He obviously has another family unit
| >>thing going, so why not just let go of her and let her parents
care
| >>for her?
| >>
| >>Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
| >>if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care,
why
| >>not let them do it?
| >>
| >
| > First off, his name is Michael.
| >
| > Secondly, early on, there was a deposition. In the questioning, it
was
| > asked of the parents how far they would go to keep her alive. They
| > asked what if she developed diabetes? Would they amputate a limb
to
| > save her? Yes was the reply. The right arm? Yes. And then if the
left
| > needed to be cut off too? Yes. How about the right leg? Left leg?
Yes
| > and yes. So there's this picture of Terri, torso and head only.
What
| > if she then needed open heart surgery to stay alive? Then they'd
give
| > her the sugery. So, the image is a woman cut down to a torso and
| > having that cut open.
|
| I think I saw this movie... isn't this the one Kin Basinger backed
out
| of (forget the name of it)? :-X
Boxing Helena.
|
EnEss
> EnEss wrote:
>>He testified to this in court, and had 2 other witnesses testify to
>>similar
>>conversations they remembered having w/ Ms. Schiavo in which she indicated
>>the same type of sentiment--no tubes and mechanical and artificial
>>measures
>>if I'm incapacitated and there's no hope.
> The two other very-late witnesses were own brother and his
> brother's wife. You know that but didn't mention it.
Yes I know it. And your point is?
Are you saying because the testimony was from Michael Schiavo's brother and
SIL, that means automatically it must be untruthful?
Do you know anything about these people personally that would suggest to you
they're not to be trusted or believed? Do they have a reputation you've
heard about of being shameless liars?
Are you suggesting that because you know I know who it was that testified
but neglected to specify it in my previous post that somehow calls my
character in question?
Because I really don't get your point? Did you have one?
> Judges are not infallible.
I never suggested for one moment that they are. Again, what's your point? I
would say the judge in this case has considerable more knowledge and
understanding of the facts than you or I or anyone in this NG. As he's been
immersed in it for the past 7 years, I would say that's in indisputable
fact. While no judge is above error, someone must be a final arbitrator in a
dispute of this nature. I would say this judge, imperfect or otherwise, is
better qualified to judge the merits of the case and the credibility of all
the evidence--including testimony--than you or I or Randall Terry or Bill
Frist or Pres. Bush or his Bush brother.
> The judge did say that a question might be
> why this was reported so late.
And while we're on the subject of relevant facts being reported so late, you
may have heard the Schindlers are now reporting that Terri tried to state
she "wants to live" LAST FRI. AS HER FEEDING TUBE WAS BEING REMOVED! But for
some reason, they didn't think to mention this to the judge in all the
briefs they've been spamming w/ him all week until tonight. Does the timing
of this revelation strike you as questionable at all? Does it suggest to you
it may not be a truthful account, as it's only coming out now? If you think
tardiness of recollection or assertion points to fabrication, you must call
the credibility of this "new report" into question. And if you do, does it
not also call into question the trustworthiness of any of the past testimony
of the Schindlers and their witnesses?
> Despite that and testimony to
> the contrary he found this testimony "reasonable."
Do you think it "reasonable" to imagine that if Terri Schiavo's
consciousness could be magically assimilated for 5 mins. to speak for
herself that she would tell everyone this is certainly her wish.... to be
kept alive by a feeding tube delivering nutrition and hydration to her
stomach even though she's been unable to do anything for herself for 15
years, or talk to anyone, or make her wishes known in any way, even after 3
years of intensive therapies failed to affect any change whatsover and that
the prognosis is she'll go on like this for the next 10 or 15 or 20 or 30
years? Do you think it "reasonable" that she would say she would want to go
on being fed artificially simply because life is so precious a gift that
even if you can't experience it any way and probably have not even the most
remote consciousness of it, that it's still better to be alive in any sense
possible than to be dead officially and finally? Do you think she would say,
"I just love it when I get my sponge baths...I just live for that. I love it
when the nurse rolls me onto my left side....the view of that wall is so
much nicer. That makes staying alive worth it right there!"?
Do you think it "reasonable" that Terri Schaivo would relish the thought of
the state shelling out millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to maintain
her in the current state she's in for maybe another 20 or 30 years because
it makes her feel like so valuable a commodity? Wow. What a boost to a
girl's ego!
Is it "reasonable" to imagine *anyone* who would feel or think such a thing?
The Schindlers or Randall Terry or Tom Delay or George and Jeb Bush or Bill
Frist or Pat Buchanan might *say* such a thing, just to make some kind of
point. But I don't think even any of these deluded individuals would really
*think* such a thing in their heart of hearts.
And I don't even know you, but I'd wager you wouldn't either. What
"reasobable" person would?
> And on that basis, we have this case that has so ballooned.
It's "ballooned" as you call it, mainly due to the right-wing lobby that has
gladly fed the delusions of the misguided Schindler family for its political
gain and has also poured over a million dollars into keeping this morbid
farce alive, while the politicians and the media have jumped in as well for
purposes of their exploitation.
I wouldn't blame that on the judge.
>>interpretation of the judge in this case. That's the job of the appellate
>>judges, and in this case, none so far have found fault w/ any of his
>>rulings
>>or the process he allowed to get to where things are now.
> Actually, they look for legal processes that were wrong. They
> are not to second guess his interpretation re weighting differing
> testimony.
I know all about that. You needn't lecture me on how the judicial system
works.
The point being the case has been thoroughly reviewed, many times over and
not found to be in procedural error. I would say that shows the Schindlers
and Ms. Schiavo had their due process. It's just that the Schindlers don't
like the outcome.
This is a lot of energy and time and resources being poured into a battle to
"save" one woman's life--which is even questionable as a possibility in a
very real sense. Right now, as we debate this, there are millions of
innocent people, including infants and children, who are totally innocent of
any wrong-doing and who are fully alive in any sense of the word, who are
having their human and civil rights violated in the most egregious manner
every day, and many are starving to death and going without water and basic
medical care, and really are suffering real torture and terrorism and
imprisonment and homelessness, w/ the conditions for many of them created by
situations supported by our very own tax dollars, and the conditions for
others being possible to address w/ an investment of tax dollars from us.
Why don't we direct our energy and concern and resoources and outrage to
those people and those conditions and those situations, and allow Terri
Schiavo to find her way to the peaceful and final end that was meant for her
15 years ago?
NS
(add sbc before global to email)
c-bee1
"Messalina" <messa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111774678.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
> > if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care,
> why
> > not let them do it?
>
>
>
> her.
>
>
> Actually, they had her for three weeks a few years ago and couldn't
> handle it. Its a nice thought in theory, but these are not young
> people.
>
> Mez
I kinda wondered, also about where they were during the bulimia. 'Course,
bulimics can be pretty sneaky.
EnEss
> What it does say clearly is that people should leave written
> documentation, living wills, advance directives, etc etc so
> that if it's important for you not to be living in a helpless
> state, there cannot be a fight.
So what are you saying? That because Terri Schiavo didn't leave anything in
writing, she should just be left to linger in the condition she's in for
maybe another decade or 2 or 3? That ought to be the default position?
Under normal circumstances, when something like this happens to someone and
he or she hasn't left written wishes, the decision falls to next-of-kin or a
person who's been given POA by the incapacitated person. State laws
recognize the spouse as next-of-kin if the person is married. As Ms. Schiavo
had not filed divorce papers or designated anyone else as POA for her, maybe
the default position should be next-of-kin gets to make the decision,
period. End of discussion.
If you're going to say, "Well, if she didn't want to be kept alive the way
she is now, she should've put it in writing before it happened or tough", it
seems to me you could just as easily say it the other way...."Well, if she
didn't want her husband making decisions for her, she should've put
something in writing or filed for divorce, so tough... the husband gets to
make the decision."
If one is going to be a hard-ass about it, the pendulum swings both ways.
Rich Travsky
>
> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
> other people.
According to the polls, it doesn't.
RT
Rich Travsky
> ...
> The thing that bugs me the most about the case is this:
>
> After Mark took up with the other woman, and had two children with
> her, WHY didn't he just turn custody of Terri over to her parents?
> Why was it so important to keep custody of her? Obviously he has
> moved on with his life. He says the money has nothing to do with it.
> Then what is his motivation? He obviously has another family unit
> thing going, so why not just let go of her and let her parents care
> for her?
>
> if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care, why
> not let them do it?
From an interview with her state appointed guardian ad litem:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket25022505feb25.story
...
Why doesn't Michael simply turn Terri over to her family?
From the report: "Testimony provided by members of the Schindler
family included very personal statements about their desire and
intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all
costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by
family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes
and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to
amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with
heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony,
as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members
stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have
artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."
Wolfson told me that when Michael heard this, he said: "That's it.
I'm never going to let that happen to her."
Wolfson says the Schindlers later recanted their testimony.
...
EnEss
> Did you hear that icon of xian insanity, Randall Terry, saying on TV
> that she looked like she had just came out of Auschwitz?
Did you hear him say (yesterday) that even the Romans gave Jesus some water
to drink when they were killing him? I'm no bible studies scholar, but
wasn't that a rag or sponge soaked in vinegar they gave Jesus...just to
torture him some more?
RT is both a dumbass and a nutjob. What a combo.
EnEss
> I'm surprised and grateful that we weren't hit over the head with Terri at
> Good Friday services. Made it easier to sit and pray that God takes her
> soon.
I certainly hope it's over soon. Can you imagine if this thing drags out
another week or so?
G W Shrub
"EnEss" <star...@global.net> wrote in message
news:%z61e.11225$ZB6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
...
> And while we're on the subject of relevant facts being reported so late,
you
> may have heard the Schindlers are now reporting that Terri tried to state
> she "wants to live" LAST FRI. AS HER FEEDING TUBE WAS BEING REMOVED! But
for
> some reason, they didn't think to mention this to the judge in all the
> briefs they've been spamming w/ him all week until tonight. Does the
timing
> of this revelation strike you as questionable at all? Does it suggest to
you
> it may not be a truthful account, as it's only coming out now?...
Why doesn't she emboss her wishes on a grilled cheese sandwich like the real
saints do? Then they could sell it on eBay.
GW
EnEss
> EnEss wrote:
>> "Tom Barrister" wrote:
>> > Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
>> The man's name is MICHAEL, not MARK.
>>
>> I'm snipping the rest of your text w/o comment. If you can't get the
> name
>> right of a prinicple person who's part of a news story that's been
> front and
>> center almost 24 hrs a day for the last week, I see no point in
> wasting time
>> givng you answers that you don't show the ability to process and
> remember.
>> No offense....Tim. Or is it Ted? Or Todd?
> LOL! In other words, you make a good point, Tom. But I'm going to
> nitpick about a first name to avoid answering any of these questions!
No, the idiot does NOT make a good point IMO. His questions show ignorance
and lack of information. If you find these good questions, it tells me a lot
about you too.
LOL
Rich Travsky
>
> No, the conservatives want to preserve the sanctity of life IMO.
That explains this then:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html
...
Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an
attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a
life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics
committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an
opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun
Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop
treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee
agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to
discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during
which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will
accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were
added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult
patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over
treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. (I hasten to
add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the
National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in
support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National
Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society.
Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the
1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)
...
HOUSTON -- The family of a doctor who has been comatose and on life
support for more than a month is fighting a hospital's order that
the machines be turned off.
...
In 1999, then-Gov. George W. Bush signed a law that allows Texas
doctors and hospitals to supersede patient or family wishes in
some decisions involving life support.
...
Ndiyob's physician, Dr. Salim Dabaghi, recommended Ndiyob be taken
off life support and allowed to die. On March 1, the hospital's
medical futility review committee reviewed the case and voted to
follow Dabaghi's recommendation.
...
G W Shrub
I overheard another idiot complaining that Jeb was watering his plants but
not Terri (I suspect the plants have more intelligence). Will this sink
Jeb's hopes of a shot at the presidency?
GW
Carin
"dave" <da...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:SYidnRaHruX...@gbronline.com...
Neither does Michael S. it seems. What about "sickness and health" and
"forsaking all others" - this marraieg should have been anulled a LONG time
ago.
dave
"Carin" <wave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YH81e.4294$gI5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Have you ever faced what he's been through? Apparently not. He did all he
could for her. Bob Schindler, upon learning they were getting none of the
settlement money, is purported to have said that he'd make Michael's life a
"living hell" - this after earlier agreement with and praise of Michael. We
should all walk in their shoes before we judge. Unfortunately this was
settled in the courts a long time ago, and to keep dragging through it does
NO good for anyone, especially Terri.
Would you like to exist the way she is? I'd guess you, like me, would not
want to do that to your family either.
Andrys Basten
Bart Bailey <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>In Message-ID:<d22cv9$ra5$1...@reader1.panix.com> posted on Sat, 26 Mar
>2005 01:13:13 +0000 (UTC), Andrys Basten wrote: Begin
>
>> Let's get some things actually straight here. Defend the man,
>>but base it on real info instead of just faith.
>
>Hi Andrys;
>
>I could easily change a single word of your exhortation to read:
>"Attack the man, but base it on real info instead of just faith."
I've tried to do that with postings of news reports
and affididavits I've come across. I mainly want them not
to kill her WHILE reviewing the merits of the appeals.
>In any case, I appreciate your efforts to balance the discussion, even
>if I've arrived at what appears to be contrary opinion to yours.
But I always read you since I like the way you present
your thinking. Very eloquent.
Andrys Basten
EnEss <star...@global.net> wrote:
>"Andrys Basten" wrote:
>> What it does say clearly is that people should leave written
>> documentation, living wills, advance directives, etc etc so
>> that if it's important for you not to be living in a helpless
>> state, there cannot be a fight.
>
>So what are you saying? That because Terri Schiavo didn't leave anything in
>writing, she should just be left to linger in the condition she's in for
>maybe another decade or 2 or 3? That ought to be the default position?
That's what anyone who looks at the law is saying. There is
a problem only because many doubt Michael Schiavo's 7-year-delayed
account of her wishes while she was declared PVS after a couple
of months. The decision to remove her tube is based entirely on
an individual's wish (as reported) if in a PVS condition.
And, yes, get it put in writing if you feel strongly about this.
Because the law will get even tougher with that after this.
She's not just lingering. People are taking care of her, and
until this week of dying, she did not look in pain for any of the
2-minutes of 4 hours we saw, and no one has said the rest of the
video shows her in pain at any time.
> Under normal circumstances, when something like this happens to
> someone and he or she hasn't left written wishes, the decision
> falls to next-of-kin or a person who's been given POA by the
> incapacitated person. State laws recognize the spouse as
> next-of-kin if the person is married. As Ms. Schiavo had not
> filed divorce papers or designated anyone else as POA for her,
> maybe the default position should be next-of-kin gets to make the
> decision, period. End of discussion.
That would be your wish, but it isn't so. If Michael's
testimony is not based on fact, the case changes. Because as
the law stands now, a person who is not dying and not in
pain is not denied sustenance just because the spouse wants
that. The important fact is the individual's wish.
Judge Greer, a county probate judge, believed the late
testimony, the parents, friends, and some nurses did not, and
we have a nation in an uproar because it's a seriously complex
situation.
Again, yes, have your wishes put in writing, notarized etc.
>If you're going to say, "Well, if she didn't want to be kept alive the way
>she is now, she should've put it in writing before it happened or tough", it
>seems to me you could just as easily say it the other way...."Well, if she
>didn't want her husband making decisions for her, she should've put
>something in writing or filed for divorce, so tough... the husband gets to
>make the decision."
Well, her friends say they were talking divorce, but certainly
not based on who was going to become her guardian after a lack
of oxygen to the brain.
All of this actually relies on the judge.
David Boies said tonight he would have ruled differently.
Lanny Davis and Senator Harkin are two Democrats who feel there
is an unseemly need to end her life in light of questions that
have been raised.
>If one is going to be a hard-ass about it, the pendulum swings both ways.
Well, that's been obvious.
krp
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4245031A...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> JustMe wrote:
>> ...
>> The thing that bugs me the most about the case is this:
>>
>> After Mark took up with the other woman, and had two children with
>> her, WHY didn't he just turn custody of Terri over to her parents?
>> Why was it so important to keep custody of her? Obviously he has
>> moved on with his life. He says the money has nothing to do with it.
>> Then what is his motivation? He obviously has another family unit
>> thing going, so why not just let go of her and let her parents care
>> for her?
>>
>> Sure, somewhere in the back of his mind he may still love her. But
>> if her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her care, why
>> not let them do it?
>
> From an interview with her state appointed guardian ad litem:
>
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket25022505feb25.story
> ...
> Why doesn't Michael simply turn Terri over to her family?
Because literally under Florida law he CANNOT!