IUBillsFan Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 It's funny how the Right suddenly loves Federalism...when it suits their needs. Bill Frist:"a unique bill passed under unique circumstances that should not serve as a precedent for future legislation." Does this remind anyone of Florida 2000? 281676[/snapback] And the left Doesn't want the federal to intervene...HUH I guess it works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Again, 3 years after the incident. What's the problem?Still need that second cup VA? I don't know, if I had to put up with everything he's gone through, I'd at least want the life insurance that I had already paid for. Also, if it really was her wish to not be in this state (and who knows if that's true), wouldn't it be wrong for him to just walk away? As Rockpile said in a previous thread, this is why everyone should have a living will; makes all of this moot. CW 281816[/snapback] "again three years" whats the problem. It would seem he chose very quickly to find a new relationship , who knows how close to the actual unfortunate course of events that resulted in Terri's situation. At issue here is , does this man have a conflict of interest in deciding what is right for Terri, I submit to you he does. based on Michaels living situation from outset of incident very quickly courts would have found this to be true and the parents would have been named as guardians. (my opinion) A living will would resolve who is the Guardian, but still if this named Guardian came into conflict of interest the law and courts need resolve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 "again three years" whats the problem. It would seem he chose very quickly to find a new relationship , Three years isn't "very quickly," IMHO. As I said in a previous post, it's very common for people to meet in support groups for cancer victim's - even when the other spouse is still alive. I just don't think 3 years is "jumping the gun" at all. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 This is the same George W. Bush who, while governor of Texas, signed a law allowing hospitals to terminate life-support for incapacitated patients, even against the wishes of the family. Especially if the patient cannot pay. As opposed to what? Leaving a brain dead person hooked up for fifty years just because their family can't accept reality? Oh wait, "Medicare will pay for it"! And then people wonder why the system is going bankrupt. Hello??? McFly???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Does this remind anyone of Florida 2000? 281676[/snapback] You mean when the Democrats tried to rewrite the Florida election laws on the fly and after the fact in an effort to steal the Presidency? Yeah....a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Three years isn't "very quickly," IMHO. As I said in a previous post, it's very common for people to meet in support groups for cancer victim's - even when the other spouse is still alive. I just don't think 3 years is "jumping the gun" at all. CW 281847[/snapback] Agreed, this guy had to have been lonely after 3 years of that. If I waited three years for someone that is alive to love, I would go crazy. Let alone this guy was probably horny as hell after 3+ years of dealing with his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Agreed, this guy had to have been lonely after 3 years of that. If I waited three years for someone that is alive to love, I would go crazy. Let alone this guy was probably horny as hell after 3+ years of dealing with his wife. 281886[/snapback] Let's suppose that maybe he put her into the vegetative state by beating her head to a pulp. change your perspective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Let's suppose that maybe he put her into the vegetative state by beating her head to a pulp. change your perspective? 281911[/snapback] Yeah, makes me think the hospital where she was taken has a bunch of blind imbeciles working there if they can't tell that someone's head has been beaten to a pulp. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Yeah, makes me think the hospital where she was taken has a bunch of blind imbeciles working there if they can't tell that someone's head has been beaten to a pulp. CW 281928[/snapback] there were markings on her that were of concern...... it would not be the first time people were in error.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Yeah, makes me think the hospital where she was taken has a bunch of blind imbeciles working there if they can't tell that someone's head has been beaten to a pulp. CW 281928[/snapback] They have seen bone bruises on her about her head and neck. Sounds like she "fell down the stairs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 They have seen bone bruises on her about her head and neck. Sounds like she "fell down the stairs". 281957[/snapback] Internal bone bruises are not the same as putting "her into the vegetative state by beating her head to a pulp." CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Internal bone bruises are not the same as putting "her into the vegetative state by beating her head to a pulp." CW 281969[/snapback] Bone bruises. BONE BRUISES. Know how hard a bone has to be impacted to bruise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 SOMEONE has to protect her. I'm surprised it's not all you compassionate, caring liberals. 281809[/snapback] I hadn't noticed the above in my earlier response. You supporting legislative intervention is a perfect example of the hypocracy of modern conservatism. And for the record, I never once posted as to whether or not the tube should be removed. That's a matter for the family to decide, and in the event of disagreement, as is the case here, it's up to the courts to settle, not Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I hadn't noticed the above in my earlier response. You supporting legislative intervention is a perfect example of the hypocracy of modern conservatism. And for the record, I never once posted as to whether or not the tube should be removed. That's a matter for the family to decide, and in the event of disagreement, as is the case here, it's up to the courts to settle, not Congress. 281977[/snapback] Again, who is the check on the judiciary? That's the flaw in our system. No one has a check on these judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 What's wrong with you people??? She's a vegtable! Her laughing is that of a madwoman! Her reactions to people aren't intentional, its the result of the body reacting to a stimulus! She can't express herself, she can't feed herself, and she didn't have a living will! Chances are, if she has any thought going on in her head (which is highly unlikely) its pure torture and hell! If this was caused by her eating disorder, then she did it to herself! 280709[/snapback] As was stated in a post by another member, it is not so clear cut. To call her a "madwoman" and make blind assumptions, without knowing her or experiencing a similar case, is cold and ignorant. Maybe you have experienced a similar situation, I don't know, but from your comments it would appear not. When I was younger, my cousin was born as what you would call a "vegetable". She was blind, required a feeding tube and when she died at the age of 8 she was still no bigger than a 1 year old child. She couldn't talk, nothing. She could breathe on her own however and I would say she was in a very similar state as that of Terri Schiavo. I hope you are watching who you say such opinions to. My uncle would never let anyone say anything like that about his daughter - when she was alive or even now. I have never met Terri and I don't know her personal situation, but my guess is she is much more than a vegetable. If I walked in and talked to her, I very much doubt she would react in any meaningful way. If her parents walked in and talked to her or read to her, my guess is her reaction would be drastically different. From what I have been told, that is clearly documented in videos. My cousin knew her parents - she laughed and reacted to them and her older sister much differently than anyone else. She was much more than a madwoman laughing because her body reacted to stimulus. Under that theory, the same stimulus would produce the same result - that is completely false in my cousins case and from everything I have read about Terri, it is also false in her case as well. To be honest, I still can't believe you said that - it really is sickening. According to your theory, my cousin should have been killed at birth. And that is what it is, murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 21, 2005 Author Share Posted March 21, 2005 As was stated in a post by another member, it is not so clear cut. To call her a "madwoman" and make blind assumptions, without knowing her or experiencing a similar case, is cold and ignorant. Maybe you have experienced a similar situation, I don't know, but from your comments it would appear not. When I was younger, my cousin was born as what you would call a "vegetable". She was blind, required a feeding tube and when she died at the age of 8 she was still no bigger than a 1 year old child. She couldn't talk, nothing. She could breathe on her own however and I would say she was in a very similar state as that of Terri Schiavo. I hope you are watching who you say such opinions to. My uncle would never let anyone say anything like that about his daughter - when she was alive or even now. I have never met Terri and I don't know her personal situation, but my guess is she is much more than a vegetable. If I walked in and talked to her, I very much doubt she would react in any meaningful way. If her parents walked in and talked to her or read to her, my guess is her reaction would be drastically different. From what I have been told, that is clearly documented in videos. My cousin knew her parents - she laughed and reacted to them and her older sister much differently than anyone else. She was much more than a madwoman laughing because her body reacted to stimulus. Under that theory, the same stimulus would produce the same result - that is completely false in my cousins case and from everything I have read about Terri, it is also false in her case as well. To be honest, I still can't believe you said that - it really is sickening. According to your theory, my cousin should have been killed at birth. And that is what it is, murder. 282006[/snapback] This is no kid, this a soon to be middle aged woman who has gone 15 years without improvement....15 YEARS! And this isn't something that she was born with, she did this to herself. AND, by law her hunsand has the legal right to make the call. Its her fault she didn't write up a living will when she got married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Amendment XIV 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Again, who is the check on the judiciary? That's the flaw in our system. No one has a check on these judges. 281990[/snapback] I'd beg to differ. Other members of the judiciary are the "check" via the appeals process. Ultimately, if a case ends up before the Supreme Court, the check there is that the Justices have all been approved by the legislative branch (Congress). Tube in or tube out, I don't know and frankly, I'm not sure I care. From what I understand of her condition (which admittedly isn't that much), I know if it were me, I'd rather be dead. But she's not me so I don't have a dog in that fight. Either way, federal intervention in this case is nothing more than political grandstanding. At its best, it may help them get re-elected. At its worst, it sets a very dangerous precedent for Congressional intrusion upon the private and personal affairs of the citizenry, and we all have a dog in that fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 US Congress, s686, For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo: Rep - 156 for, 5 against, 71 not voted. Dem - 47 for, 53 against, 102 not voted. US Senate, s653, A bill for the relief of the family of Theresa Marie Schiavo: Unanimously approved. Most of the House and Senate Republicans obviously missed the memo on how to be Republican. Apparently, so too did half of the house and all of the Senate Democrats. But here's where I get confused - did the House and Senate Democrats who voted for or against the bill do so because they were good Republicans, or bad Republicans? Since some here are apparently having little luck teaching Republicans or Democrats how to be real Republicans, maybe their wisdom would be better utilized should they concentrate harder on teaching Christians how to be real Christians, or teaching those with families the real meaning of compassion and love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 AND, by law her hunsand has the legal right to make the call. Its her fault she didn't write up a living will when she got married. 282009[/snapback] By law, you are correct. But don't you think there's something wrong with the law if her husband ignores her for the last twelve years, and has another chick and kids with that chick? And then a dozen years later shows up? So I guess you can abandon your wife and then come back when it's convenient for YOU? From what I've heard and read, it would seem to me that if she were cognizant today she could declare that her husband is estranged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts