i'm going to just second what dragon said, i couldn't have said it better (and probably not as nicely) as he did.

nicely put. i think i'm going to try to take your advice.

Corrupting a minor? Please explain

because they are moronically following the mantra of people who don't know what they are talking about. I've seen Tom Delay give a speech about the sanctity of life being more than the sanctity of marriage and watched some people post a little quip by Winston Churchill about a talk with an old lady who wouldn't want to live 'like that' and churchill saying death is the only thing you cant get out of. These two idiots shouldn't speak unless they'd been there and the last that I checked neither of those two were in a 15 year coma or persistent vegetative state.

now, this kids got a juvi record for doing something his parents believed in. way to look out for the kids there. :|

The kid's a hero in my book. Anyways, it's over now. By this time tommorrow, she'll be gone. May God bless her soul

well it just goes to show that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

/sarcasm (kinda) off

Now that Terri will be gone, what's the number of months before hubby of the year gets remarried:

Over/Under- 5 months

I'm going with under

so what. He's never made it a secret that he has moved on with his life or that he remains married to her so that he can carry out her wishes.

I'm not arguing the merits of the case anymore.

So is that an under?

are you that concerned about his future?

No, you are just using the typical character attack that the right has used on him. "He has this family on the side so how can he really care about her?" Of course they miss all of the obvious reasons why...

Weddings take time to plan. I'd say over on that alone.

Y'all are the one's who brought out the sanctitiy of marriage thingy. I'm just wondering if the grieving period between marriages applies to him. I know my wife and I talked about what if scenarios and we both said that we would morn a at least a year out of respect if it ever came to it.

Thus, I'm wondering what conversations they had about it and if "others" have heard them as well, since the others seem to have intimate knowledge of their mariage.

He's had 15 years to grieve....I think thats more than enuff time

one last post, just for you NCB...

http://www.choppingblock.org

/1st class ticket to hell... all aboard!

7 years ago michael made the decision to carry out terri's wishes. almost 7 years of therapy failed. I'd say that, although upset at the loss, anyone that watched a spouse live for 15 years in a way they would never want to would be relieved at the end of it for them.

Some evidence from our "others"


I'm sure they're not as credible as husband of the year's "others", but it's still worth the read considering this is an innocent woman's life on the line.

Let's see what the temp agency lady had to say:

Oh yeah, we've got a doctor on our hands here.

The child you posted about NCB, is simply a pawn of his parents political beliefs. Children should not be used by either side for political gain. That is corruption of a minor. I say this from the piont of view of someone who found it despicable when Kerry kissed a baby on the cheek for a photo-op.
Let me make an analogy your not going to like to much.
Using this child is like saying "I don't agree with the death penalty, why don't I try and sneak my 10 year old into the local prison on execution night to give that man in the electric chair some rubber boot's!"
Children are not political pawns.

To any and every parent: Do not ever use your child to make a statement in a political fight!

As for the husband, let me make a note of your rule of thumb NCB, there we go, written down. One year of greiving required if spouse passes away. Thank you for correcting us on what a correctly "moral" greiving period is.

I hope that Terri finds peace, and I hope that to her, these fights and arguments seem silly.

Arch, you're young and I presume you don;t have any children. So it's easy for you to sit on your soapbox and say to others how to raise their children.

I'll tell you how I raise my children. It's not easy, but I tell them to stand up for family and stand up to bullies. I give them guidelines of what's right and wrong. My daughter came home from school one day last fall and told me of kids on her bus who were being mean to her friend and neighbor, a kindergartner who is very small for his age. I asked what did she do. She said nothing. I didn;t get mad at her, but rather I told her that it's important to stand up to bullies, and when she did so, I would never get mad at her. I told her that's what good people do; they stand up to people who cant do so themselves. I tell this to my sons as well. I'm fortuante to have been raised this way. (my mom reenforced this in me....she had two brothers, my uncle, who were killed by Castro in Cuba during the early days of his reign)

My point I guess is, if this were my son I would be proud because he was doing what he thought,(and what values was instilled in him) was right. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this kid will grow up to be a leader.

Go ahead and demonize him, arch. Just please don;t raise your children to not stnad up for others.

I'm not going to read through this whole thread to find if these points ahave already been made, but

1) Why are we wasting time with this? It's a somkescreen, folks. it has been adequately, and extenisvely handled by state courts and has no business in national discourse, particularly not when Bin Laden is still putting out tapes willy nilly, Iraq is still teetering on the edge of quagmire, North Korea is still building nukes, The Iranian Government is trying to build nukes while the Iranian public is probably the most Pro American public in the middle east, gas is over $2 a gallon, our harebrained leader has a harebrained scheme to gut social security in the guise of saving it, and the deficit is spiralling out of control. And you want to discuss whether a woman who is dead to herself has the right to die? It's the only right anyone ever really has.

2) Judaeism was a wonderfully adaptive strategy to living in the southern Levant 5000 years ago, and Christianity was a wonderfully adaptive strategy for protesting Jewish social hegemony in the central Levant 2000 years ago. Not so much now. Stop trying to impose religious values whose time has passed long since on modern society with modern technology. Seriously. If it helps you live in your own head to believe in that dreck, then that's your business. Please don't make it mine.

3) Only one thing goes down my feeding tube: Bourbon til I die.

I know this is off topic but even 10 year kids are intelligent, have an opinion, realize and decifer what is perceived as right or wrong. Maybe that kid took the initiative and got his parents involved. Do you know? Even more off topic is the 12 year old Canadian kid who received accolades in person from the Prime Minister for raising 25k for tsusami relief.

There are smart kids in the world and one day will take part in running it.

That parent and kid should be applauded, providing they are true to their cause. I think if they weren't genuine, childrens aid would be hot on their asses for not providing proper parental supervision..

338 and counting......

I've noticed that many parents have much larger soapboxes than non-parents, simply because their giant parent-ego needs more support from a larger, heftier box. Don't presume to know all about other people's opinions, or their merit, based on what you guess their situation is, or how much you disagree.

This kid was a pawn. He was, like this entire stupid fiasco has been, a political stunt.

Oh- and NCB, if you're going to make a statement about Mr. Schiavo's grieving period and how long it'll take him to remarry, then at least have some clue what you're spouting off about.

Since you obviously don't understand the psychological nature of extended (15 years) periods of grief, for the suffering and deterioration of a loved one due to terminal illness or situations such as this one, then don't insult this poor woman, this poor man, or us here on the boards by giving your inappropriately sarcastic "how long until he remarries" nonsense. If you would like to refute what I've written here, then show me a PhD in Psychology and i'll retract my statement.

Until then, consider this a warning against any further posting of that nature. That goes for everyone. This is not a sarcasm forum, this is a serious discussion.

I'm not insulting anyone here or TS, but I am questioning the man's motives, which are fair game and a part of this story. The guy claims he's doing this to fulfill his marital duties, but yet he's out there living with another wife and two kids, along with 300,000 dollars that he was personally awarded and another 700,000 that is in a trust fund set up for her and which some people claim has not been entirely used up.

I'm sorry if you don't like my opinions on the guy , but if you don't recognize that this is a legitimate part of the story, then you can't fully grasp the arguments people on my side of the story.

Her whole cerebral cortex has been replaced with fluid. Language, voluntary movement, problem solving, emotion, sight, smell, hearing, touch...she has NONE of the above. I don't even know if she can even be considered human at this point, just a heartbeat.

What is Jeb Bush trying to accomplish with his rediculous attempt to pass as Schiavo's legal guardian?

This should say it all for our supposedly conservative members instead of the kneejerk conspiracy theorizing thats been running rampant over this issue


There comes a time when it becomes necessary to break ranks with one's political compatriots.

Notwithstanding strongly held opposing opinions regarding the life of Terri Schiavo specifically, it may be wise for all parties to proceed with due caution and deliberation. While it is indeed true that this is a case of one woman's life, there are larger and broader issues at stake, such as: the sanctity of marriage. Therewith, we must view the matter in the abstract.

Marriage is the legally binding union of a man and woman. With this union comes spousal responsibility, as well as other accepted rights and obligations. Some of these same rights and obligations have been at the center of the debate over gay marriage. However, most relevant in this case is the use of power of attorney in the making of medical decisions. For gay couples, this is an important issue. The case of Terri Schiavo, should her parents succeed in their custodial battle, may damage spousal rights in circumstances that many others are fighting for the right to have.

The operative question in this case: should Michael Schiavo's rights as a husband be reduced or eliminated because his wife's parents do not agree with his legal right to make medical decisions on her behalf? The point of view of some conservatives on this issue is, I believe, incorrectly predicated. While we may argue Terri Schiavo's right to live or die ad infinitum, the broader issue is being ignored; it is not our choice. While we do seemingly pay lip service to the vows of marriage as being sacred, when confronted with an issue of this nature, some of us are all too willing to cast the rights of the husband aside. Additionally, it is indeed an odd juxtaposition that in this case, we have conservatives who normally seek to limit the interference of government in the affairs of individuals, seeking in this case to have government intrude in an exceedingly egregious manner.

This is not a pro-life related issue; Terri Schiavo is not an unborn child. Therefore, this aspect should not be brought into the picture. The fundamental issue should be about who has the ultimate right to make a decision, medical or otherwise, of this nature. Irrespective of personal feeling with regard to whether or not Terri Schiavo should be artificially kept alive or not, conservatives who struggle mightily to preserve the sanctity of marriage are exhibiting a typical knee-jerk liberal reaction in this matter. The emotions of the moment are holding sway and the rights of the spouse are being abrogated in the extreme.

Conservatives fight hard to preserve not only the sanctity of marriage, but the idea of individual responsibility and independence of action. However, it would appear that as concerns this matter, some of our number have forgotten these basic tenets. Where may this lead us, and what should conservatives being saying or doing, ultimately? As with our defense of the sacrosanct right of free speech, while we may not agree with Michael Schiavo, we should be willing to support his right to act in accordance with his rights and obligations.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=273

until i see real consistency coming from the right on the question of the veneration of life--which would include opposition to war and calls for social/economic justice in the world that those of us who are alive have to operate, i will not see in actions like those which surround this sad, sad case anything like a principled stand. that is, once the american right manages to catch up pope john paul 2--who, as much as i detest his politics, is at least consistent.

i wonder about the correlation between the conservative agitation on this matter and the nature of the coverage on fox news of the matter. it seems that roger ailes holds the toggle switch--when he flips it on, the right reacts.


this is an exploitative, brutal, horrific political stunt mounted by the right at the expense of people who seem for some reason to see in being exploited for political ends a type of therapy.

i feel badly for all parties involved. for some reason, i feel particularly badly for schiavo's parents. who obviously are terrified of death, who obviously cannot let go. in a way, it looks like their inability to let go has driven them into a public and grotesque version of kafka's story "the hunger artist"

Yes, in this case I break ranks with the coalition that elected this President. It is dangerously irresponsible (and ultimately, anarchic) to work so hard to knock down the rights of guardianship, overwhelming medical evidence, and legal precedent. Media exploitation, strident adherence to personal belief systems, and rampant emotionalism are the culprits here - and unbridled co-optation of a situation for political gain by those who should know better how to lead responsibly.

NCB I've just to ask, and I'll probably not have time to check this thread for a while, so if I don't insta-reply, no offense. My question to you is:

Why do you give a flippitty shit shit shit who he is marrying, why he is marrying her/him/it, or when they marry? I don't personally care, nor do I see a reason to care, if he is actually involved in a polyamorous relationship with the last vestiges of the Branch Davidians, who wandered down from Texas to live in the shadows of the rides at Disneyworld. It's complete strawman character assassination. It's irrelevant.

Facts:

1.No one on this board, as far as I can tell, has all the facts of this case. We have some information available through the public media, but none of us is consulting the physicians / family personally. Some of these sources would seem to be more objective than others.

2. This didn't pop up over night. This is not akin, in any way shape or form, to a last minute death-row appeal. This has been applealed. And appealed. And appealed. And applealed. It has received more attention from the legal system, political parties, religious groups, special interest groups, etc than it could have possibly merited on an individual basis. Do you honestly think that the courts can "slip" something by, when they are under this type of scrutiny from everyone from the governor of Fla. to the President of the United States.

3. Please see dksuddeth's most recent post.

4. You don't have to like the husband. I don't like him. I don't dislike. I don't know jack shit about him, and neither do you really. When is the last time y'all hung out and swapped stories? What I know is that this case has gone through pretty much every step it can go through.

5. There are other things occurring right now in this country and in this world. The intense scrutiny this case is receiving is completely disproprotionate to its real importance. As dksuddeth alluded to, the position that the conservative right is adopting in this case is seeminly quite counter to the position it has stated regarding the sanctity of marriage and its utility to stabilze society.

6. Re: the nurse. It's very simple. Screw the media coverage - that's just for the hospital's image. Since you're so adept in dealing in hypotheticals, let's hypothesize this: Michael Schiavo is doing what he believes is the morally correct thing to do, but it is not easy. He has endured this situation for 15 years. It is not easy to visit the animated remains of the woman he married many years ago. Others in the hospital feel sadness at what they know they must do, but of course they don't like it. I don't think anyone involved in this decision woke up one morning and said " Shit. I feel like killing someone today. Hell yeah and yee haw!!! Let's get the party started. Somone get some beer and a radio..."

It.
is.
not.
an.
easy.
situation.
to.
be.
in.

The last thing you need in that situation is a nurse running around making everyone feel like shit, and/or annoying the hell out of everyone involved. It is very simple. No one hired her to pontificate on her views of moral righteousness. They hired her to check the drip bag, vital signs, and sponge the patient off, etc If she can't perform professionally in a hospitial, she should not be there. It is a huge responsibility to be in the position she is in. Let her find another job that isn't so sensitively position, and she can run her yapper all she wants.

.

Don't get me wrong, I don;t fault the guy for getting on with his life. However, when he made the decision to have another wife and family, he should have relinquished Terri's rights to her flesh and blood. Afterall, he has given himself to another and that voids the relationship he had with Terri.


You are correct, this is not like a death penalty appeal. The condemed prsioner has far more rights and appeals.


You can make the same argument to those who think he's a loyal hubby doing what is best for his wife.

You're correct, and the liberal left seem to be running counter to their arguments about the sanctity of marriage. It's as if everything is upside down

Phd Degree

:p

Thats what the "experts" say. What I would like to ask them is, if this is true then why is she given pain-killers? Why is she given morphine? Why is she even at a hospice center at all? It just doesn't add up.

At this difficult time for the Schiavo family I think we all need to take a moment to respectfully keep in mind that the most important thing here is maintaining the right-wing's freedom to shriek a lot and exploit her situation for maximum political gain.

No, it does not. There exists no 1:1 correlation between those two events that is outside your head.


1. Usually not more than 17. that's big number in the legal system.

2. This may be a useful analogy in some context, but it is not a direct relation. The two situations are not the same. A condemned prisoner in a PVS would have much the same level of "rights" that this Schivo has. Specifically which rights are you claiming she is being denied?

Yes, the problem being that the system of arbitration that we have adopted in this society has fallen on the side of the guardian. If you don't like that, start filing an appeal to courts to change the defination of the rights entailed in the marriage contract. Maybe you can slip something in there allowing gay people to get married while you're at it.


Is this the on-line equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I" or am I missing some deeper point here, because honestly - 1. I have no idea what you're talking about, 2. You're going to have a very difficult time explaining your points to me / debating me if you make the ridiculous assumption that I identify myself in any way, shape, or form with the "liberal left." 3. I am now out of this. I did not intend to debate you in any serious fashion. I asked a simple question:

why do you care who this guy is shagging?

You answered me with something reflecting your personal values within the context of marriage, but which reflect no socially accepted norm / law that I am aware of. Do your committments to your old friends vanish because you make new friends? If you get re-married and have new kids, do you no longer have responsibility for your kids from your first marriage? If you make a promise to one girlfriend/lover/spouse, and get re-married - do you really believe that your old committments vanish? If so, then you are bordering on philosophical relativism, and I would like to be first to welcome you to the "liberal left".

She is given pain-killers more for the family than the patient. I signed my living will yesterday, and that clause was in there about pain killers. The idea was that the family rests easier knowing that the doctors have done everything they could do to eliminate any possibility of pain. A hospice generally provides end-of-life care, and it's been clear for years that Michael Sciavo intended this for Terri.

I couldn't disagree with you more about that. People enter into marriage as equals, but the idea of "for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health" means in part that one spouse advocates for the other when the relationship is no longer one of equals. That's what Michael Schiavo is doing explicitly. I understand that people think Michael abandoned Terri is some sense. I don't have the authority to judge that. But he didn't divorce her or abandon her, he tried for years to help her, and when all else failed, he tried to do what he said Terri would have wanted him to do. It would have been much easier for this man to leave any any point in the last 12 years, especially with the relationship he has with Terri's family.

There's also a little clause in there about being faithful and devoting himself to her. He's not even close to doing that

Again, I think that he's being more faithful than most spouses have the stomach for. He is demonized daily for a thankless task, and yet he stays. Fueds in the family are the most bitter I've ever known, and I just don't see an upside for Michael Schiavo staying, other than knowing he's doing what he knows his wife would want him to do.

Is there a place that anyone here can link us to to get info about the status of the money that's left? What I've read is that there is "less than $50,000" remaining of any assets of Terri's and Michaels, and that whatever is left is intended for final legal costs and medical/burial costs. I clearly understand that a financial motive would make sense, but I see no evidence of it anywhere, I hear no major media outlets verifying it -- is it true or false?

As for living with another woman and having children -- he hasn't been able to live with his wife for 15 years. If the same happened to me that happened to Terri, I wouldn't condemn my SO for enjoying a life, and caring for my interests at the same time. It's a pretty cold person who would deny Michael Schiavo happiness in his highly unusual circumstances.

NOBODY is superman nor is anyone a perfect husband. I'm reminded about stones and glass houses.

There MAY be things that this person or that person has issue with when it comes to schiavos behavior, but theres never been anything found to call him a criminal. Trying to demonize the husband because he's not acting 'perfect' is nothing more than cheap and dirty political tricks and frankly its quite classless to do so.

I'm not looking very forward to the vicious reports soon to come out about this judge greer as the radical right to life whackos start their persecution.

First of all, devoting yourself to your wife does not mean keeping them alive against all hope and against their wishes. I'd say that, in this situation, it takes more devotion to kill the person you love than to keep them alive.

Second, let's discuss your statement when *your* wife has been braindead for the past 15 years, shall we?

DK, I said earlier I cannot blame the man for moving on with his life. And like I stated earlier, when he moves on with his life, the moral thing would be to allow her own flesh and blood to care for her.

maybe so, maybe no. people have varying degrees and beliefs about things. Some people would think very little about saying that they've moved on, here ya go mom and dad....she's all yours. Others may actuallly have taken their vows as seriously as possible and actually try to abide by their spouses final wish. Alot of people have made judgement calls based on some seriously outlandish propaganda and barely mitigated circumstances to re-inforce their own belief systems. walk a mile, i say. you just might gain a different perspective.