Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 384
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Funny, the points talldog mentioned were brought up long before the govt got involved.

    If there is proof that terri said she wanted to die, provide it please.
    Why do we need proof? She told her husband she would want to die, and he's forwarding the message now.. Why should he not be believed?

    I find it ironic how the gov't republicans talk about the sanctity of marriage and the great bond between a man and a wife, etc etc etc, when arguing against gay marriage --- but when something like this comes up, the sanctity and trust and ultimate man-woman bond gets thrown out the window and they have to meddle.
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Why do we need proof? She told her husband she would want to die, and he's forwarding the message now.. Why should he not be believed?

    I find it ironic how the gov't republicans talk about the sanctity of marriage and the great bond between a man and a wife, etc etc etc, when arguing against gay marriage --- but when something like this comes up, the sanctity and trust and ultimate man-woman bond gets thrown out the window and they have to meddle.
    It's important to remember that the parents don't want her to die. And last time I checked, republicans also believed in the sanctity of family.
  3. #203  
    When she got married, the parents lost the right to make that decision.
  4. #204  
    Joebar, you're on your way to being one of us
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Joebar, you're on your way to being one of us
    Tumpet players?
  6. #206  
    http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/03.22.05.htm

    yeah, this guy...



    He apparently has a blog now, and changed his name legally to "Warrior"..

    rofl
  7. #207  
    Joe...are you The Ultimate Warrior ??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Why do we need proof? She told her husband she would want to die, and he's forwarding the message now.. Why should he not be believed?

    I find it ironic how the gov't republicans talk about the sanctity of marriage and the great bond between a man and a wife, etc etc etc, when arguing against gay marriage --- but when something like this comes up, the sanctity and trust and ultimate man-woman bond gets thrown out the window and they have to meddle.
    My thoughts exactly.
    When the dark clouds gather on the horizon, when thunder and lightning fills the sky, When fate is but a glint in the eye of a fallen Rattler, And hopes are lost friends, When the sinew of the chest grows weary from those hard-charging linebackers, And the muscles in the legs grow tired from those hard-charging running backs ... You must remember that the Rattlers will... Strike, Strike, and Strike again.
  9. #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Tumpet players?
    LOL
    Palm III > HS Visor > Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 750 > Treo Pro > PrePlus GSM

    "95% of all software issues are due to USER ERROR."
  10. #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by dansamy
    .....I do not think the courts should have even begun hearing the case.
    I agree. There are a lot of cases decided by courts lately that I would as soon that the court had simply refused to hear. "Under God" is a good example.

    That said, when people are unable to agree, we rely upon the courts. In this case, the parents and the spouse were unable to agree; it ended up before the courts. The courts are the institution that we rely upon to make the difficult decisions, the ones where the rest of us are unable to agree what should be done. In doing so, the courts rely upon law, precedent, and the facts placed before them by the litigants.

    I would not want the job but my perception is that in this case the courts have done a pretty good job under difficult circumstances.
  11. #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    It's important to remember that the parents don't want her to die.
    True. However, they do not get to decide. Terri gets to decide. In the presence of a dispute as to what her decision is, we turn the decision over to the courts. If there were no doubt, we would not need the courts. In this case we ask the courts to decide. After hearing all of the testimony and considering all the evidence the court of competent jurisdiction decided that her wish is to die.

    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    And last time I checked, republicans also believed in the sanctity of family.
    They do, they do. They just reserve the right to decide what one is. They are also big defenders of capital punishment as long as they get to decide who is so punished.

    It is to protect all of us from arbitrary decisions of others that we have the rule of law. Under this rule, when the rest of us are unable to decide, we turn to the courts. However we may feel about it, the courts get to have the last word, they get to decide. If we do not like the decision, we are permitted, perhaps required, to exhaust our appeals from that decision. Terri's parents have clearly exhausted theirs. For them to insist, as they do, that they have been unfairly treated is simply disingenuous. We have no other fair treatment to offer.

    Reconciling one's self to the death of a child is difficult but thousands do so graciously and gracefully everyday.
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    This is where I disagree. They're not letting her die because of her condition, but because her husband is pushing for her death, and Florida law allows it under these circumstances. If he was out of the picture, none of this would be happening. The judges are following the law, and I don't fault them for that, but I think it's a bad law. And as I noted previously, there is precedent for Congress overstepping states' rights to overturn unjust laws, and there are many situations (like abortion and civil rights) where people who are now invoking states' rights would argue exactly the opposite. That's why I don't put any stock in the hypocrisy argument, because we're all hypocrites under the right circumstances.
    That is not what the law says or the courts found. The law says that an individual has the right to refuse medical treatment or even nourishment. When one is unable to communicate, or even to decide, their agent or surrogate may communicate, or even decide, for them. In the absence of an express appointment by the individual, the law says that the spouse is presumed to be the one to report or communicate the decision of their loved one.

    One would hope that the parents, who gave their daughter in marriage, would respect that decision. In the absence of such respect or consent, the law provides the parents the opportunity to demonstrate that the individual did not want to die or that the spouse should not be permitted to say so. They have appealed to every possible court including that of public opinion and have been rebuffed over and over.

    Death is God's way of teaching us to cherish one another while we can. However, we all owe God our own death and must consent to that of our loved ones. It is childish and selfish to demand otherwise.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Why do we need proof? She told her husband she would want to die, and he's forwarding the message now.. Why should he not be believed?
    Well, he has been with another woman for oh 10+ years has a couple of kids with her. Isnt that a strong indication he has moved on from his husbandly responsibility. He wont allow her a divorce so the people that want to care for her can do so. He refuses to allow any kind of therapy for his wife. He didnt remeber Terry wanted to die til 7 years after the accident.

    There are some reasons I don't believe him. If he had nothing to gain and was only doing what he felt was best for his wife I might lean more in his direction. Maybe I am a whacko but if you are married, you are married until your spouse dies or you get a divorce. When I got married no one said "all bets are off if she suffers brain damage. You can do whatever you want at that point".

    I would suggest everyone get a living will today if you dont already have one. God forbid you and your family would have to go through this same crap. If this case isnt enough to make you think that on your own, then you just may be stupid.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Well, he has been with another woman for oh 10+ years has a couple of kids with her. Isnt that a strong indication he has moved on from his husbandly responsibility. He wont allow her a divorce so the people that want to care for her can do so. He refuses to allow any kind of therapy for his wife. He didnt remeber Terry wanted to die til 7 years after the accident.

    There are some reasons I don't believe him. If he had nothing to gain and was only doing what he felt was best for his wife I might lean more in his direction. Maybe I am a whacko but if you are married, you are married until your spouse dies or you get a divorce. When I got married no one said "all bets are off if she suffers brain damage. You can do whatever you want at that point".

    I would suggest everyone get a living will today if you dont already have one. God forbid you and your family would have to go through this same crap. If this case isnt enough to make you think that on your own, then you just may be stupid.
    JEEBUS! Would you do some research instead of just repeating Fox News innuendo!

    This man has NOTHING to gain and everything to lose by fighting this fight. Yes, he knew Terry would not want ot be a vegtable but she further degenerated over those 7 years. NO FRONTAL CORTEX replaced with spinal fluid, which can not regenerate. He saw there was no hope and is following through on what he understandws his wife would want in that situation. The parents want a frigging animated doll they change forever!
  15. #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    JEEBUS! Would you do some research instead of just repeating Fox News innuendo!

    This man has NOTHING to gain and everything to lose by fighting this fight. Yes, he knew Terry would not want ot be a vegtable but she further degenerated over those 7 years. NO FRONTAL CORTEX replaced with spinal fluid, which can not regenerate. He saw there was no hope and is following through on what he understandws his wife would want in that situation. The parents want a frigging animated doll they change forever!
    Good point, DA! He has acquired a common law wife, and had two children by her. And he hasn't divorced Terry. Doesn't that make him a practitioner of bigamy?

    The amount of animosity that exists between Terri's husband and her parents is hard to imagine. Even if she is a "frigging animated doll they change forever", what harm is there in granting custody to her parents? He's acting not out of devotion to one of his wives, but out of spite.

    By the way, I really appreciate your comments in the "Why Democrats are getting flogged" thread.
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjuhl
    I have no way of knowing the husbands motives. HOWEVER, it is possible, that he still cares enough about her that he wants to comply with her 'wishes'. By turning the decision over to her parents, who CLEARLY refuse to let her go, he is putting the decision into someones hands who opposes what is supposedly her wishes.

    I don't think it is fair to the husband to assume negatives, as he could very easily just walk away from it, with no repercussions. Why does he keep fighting for her to die if he doesn't care?
    My wife and I had this discussion a couple of nights ago. In our case, I know perfectly where she stands - she wants no measures taken that would artificially keep her alive. I, however, am the only person she has communicated this to. So, if she were to go into Ms. Schaivo's state tomorrow, God forbid, I would fight with all of my ability to follow her clear wishes. I can see an instance where that would be in direct conflict with what her blood relatives may want. In that case, I can also see me being the "bad guy"........

    Boy, this is as tough an issue as there is.....
  17. #217  
    I'm gonna pick up a copy of the advance directive forms from the hospital and actually fill them out and get them notarized. It's one of those "round to it" things I keep putting off. I don't want my family to argue like Terri's family is now.
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Good point, DA! He has acquired a common law wife, and had two children by her. And he hasn't divorced Terry. Doesn't that make him a practitioner of bigamy?

    The amount of animosity that exists between Terri's husband and her parents is hard to imagine. Even if she is a "frigging animated doll they change forever", what harm is there in granting custody to her parents? He's acting not out of devotion to one of his wives, but out of spite.

    By the way, I really appreciate your comments in the "Why Democrats are getting flogged" thread.
    I think the harm is that (at least in Michael's eyes) he would be violating the wishes of a woman he probably loved and cherished at some point.

    Maybe he didnt divorce Terry after all this time because he knew the parents would never let go if they got custody (and I bet they probably would have been awarded custody by the courts if there was a divorce). If that is the case, then I can applaud him for putting his life on hold through all the years of trials and appeals?

    I dont think anyone really knows his intentions, but I would rather focus on what Terry wants (or would have wanted.)
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by santa
    Wow... this is the most even handed, thoughtful discussion I've ever seen in the "off-topics".

    Thank you all.

    Yeah, amazing, as it certainly didn't appear it would from the original post.
  20. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    It's important to remember that the parents don't want her to die. And last time I checked, republicans also believed in the sanctity of family.

    I don't understand? Isn't the husband her most immediate family member?
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions