Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I believe in the Right to Life. I also believe in miracles. Before you criticize me, let me tell you a little story. My father had his 1st major heart attack at the age of 42. He had 2 quadruple by-pass surgeries that both failed. The doctors didn't give him much hope. Very small capillaries started growing in his heart, branching out and carrying his blood flow. The doctors had never seen such an occurance and said it had to be a miracle. These little capillaries sustained my Dad for 40 more years. 281652[/snapback] I also believe in right life but what occured with your Dad simply will not happen with Mrs. Schiavo. If you are such a strong supporter of right to life then how can you support a party that just authored bankruptcy legislation that will ensure that a family will never be able to keep a child alive like this again or their lives will be destroyed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I believe in the Right to Life. I also believe in miracles. Before you criticize me, let me tell you a little story. My father had his 1st major heart attack at the age of 42. He had 2 quadruple by-pass surgeries that both failed. The doctors didn't give him much hope. Very small capillaries started growing in his heart, branching out and carrying his blood flow. The doctors had never seen such an occurance and said it had to be a miracle. These little capillaries sustained my Dad for 40 more years. 281652[/snapback] So, "not much hope" is equivalent to zero hope? Teri's cerebellum is filled with cerebral fluid from the spine! If they do reconnect the tube, they're very soon going to have to amputate her limbs to keep her blood closer to her heart for circulation purposes. She's not going to be waking up. Can you imagine the "What has no arms, no legs, and ...." jokes? You may call wanting Teri to die of natural causes like an infection and pulling her feeding tube crossing some kind of symbolic fence. It's more like trying to find a chalk line in your driveway after 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I have a hankering for some French Toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
envirojeff Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Bottom line (FOR ME) is that she needs to slip away and those that want to selfishly keep her alive should be ashamed of them selves! This is my final thought! Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 How do YOU know that's all Terri can do ? And how does ANYONE know what Terri wanted? I wouldn't believe a single word her scumbag "husband" says. Terri's family is from my area. If her parents and siblings want to care for her.....I say let them. 281640[/snapback] The thing is this isn't about them caring for her or that the love her. I don't think it's love. This an obsession that is being manipulated by the President for political gain. Love puts the loved one's welfare above one's own selfish desires. And I don't think it's faith. I think it's vain self-delusion. Faith is humble submission to God's will, which includes a time of death for every living being, however hard that is to accept. The parents are not mentally healthy people, and they are projecting their own denial of reality upon their daughter. While I pity them, I do not think they are owed one iota of "appreciation", not even for form's sake escpecially since they are allowing their daughter to be used as a political pawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Specifically, why are you glad he signed it? You are aware that her cerebral cortex has liquified which means there is no chance, zero, she can recover. She has been dead for over 15 years and is tragically been kept alive for purely selfish reasons on her family part. All the responses you see are responses to light, sound and sensation. It saddens me that people think so little of a person like Terry to support a radical religious group's (The current leadership of my Republicna party) use of her as a political tool. If this is the right thing to do where were they when this occured : http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387 281641[/snapback] Right, and her dirtbag husband wanting to collect a million dollar settlement so he can move on with his new love has nothing to do with it? Get a clue, you "Republican" you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Since Terri's family is from your area and I know nothing about any of this, please tell me what she can do. Let me know what her average day is like. What is her favorite TV show???? I would just like to have all the details that you do. Jeff 281656[/snapback] I didn't say I knew them personally, Jeff. And speaking of miracles.......I believe the Bills can win a Super Bowl, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Right, and her dirtbag husband wanting to collect a million dollar settlement so he can move on with his new love has nothing to do with it? Get a clue, you "Republican" you. 281664[/snapback] It is amazing. He fought for a settlement to pay for her care as long as she lives. As soon as he got the settlement, he immediately wanted her dead and wanted the body destroyed ASAP so that an autopsy could not be performed. He refused the medical treatement he fought so hard for in court, once he got the money. If her wishes were that she did not want to be kept alive, why did he fight for money to keep her alive, only to immediately want her dead once he received the money. Add to that, the fact that if she actually stated that she did not want to be kept alive, why did he not say anything for SEVEN years? This has obviously dragged on longer than it should have and it is disgusting how the politicians are grandstanding over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Another thing that really strieks me as peculiar is how no one is bringing up that fact Republicans voted en masse to pull the plug on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country. Thank God their happened to be one REAL Republican (Like myself) that realized the insanity of that and fought it and beat the WH on it. 281611[/snapback] Funding has no bearing on this case. First off the husband was awared 2.5 million dollars by the courts to sustain her life, by part of a ruling against the doctors who misdiagnosed here belimic condition. They probably would have awarded more but there are some concerns that the husband may have contributed to her heart stopping/brain damage as well. The millions were awarded for her care for the rest of her life. Not for him to go shack up and have kids with someone else. He just wants her dead so he can save some of that millions plus collect the million dollar life insurance policy that he needs for her to "die" first. So your "reduction" in funding, had nothing to do with this case and in fact is not true to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Again, I have a simple rhetorical question: If it's OK to allow one person to starve that can't feed herself, is it then OK to allow ANYONE who can't feed themselves to starve? I mean, seriously retarded people can't feed themselves. Should we allow them to starve? And how about babies? They're pretty much helpless. Let's let them starve too, while we're at it. Look, the bottom line in this issue is MONEY. The jackass of a husband wants to collect the money that's currenty being spent to keep Terri Schiavo alive so he can move in with another woman. He's scum. Hes SUCH scum that he evwen turned down a MILLION dollars to walk away and let the woman's family take care of her. To me, it's that simple. Like everything else it's all about the benjamins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Right, and her dirtbag husband wanting to collect a million dollar settlement so he can move on with his new love has nothing to do with it? Get a clue, you "Republican" you. 281664[/snapback] That is irellevant. What has occured here is the Republican Party does not respect the rule of law when a state rules in oposition to their un-constitutional beliefs. You don't shred the constitution to overrule state courts. To do it simply for political gain and not for ethical, religious or even as a matter or priciple. If any of those applied then how come Delay let that baby die in his own district? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Again, I have a simple rhetorical question: If it's OK to allow one person to starve that can't feed herself, is it then OK to allow ANYONE who can't feed themselves to starve? I mean, seriously retarded people can't feed themselves. Should we allow them to starve? And how about babies? They're pretty much helpless. Let's let them starve too, while we're at it. Look, the bottom line in this issue is MONEY. The jackass of a husband wants to collect the money that's currenty being spent to keep Terri Schiavo alive so he can move in with another woman. He's scum. Hes SUCH scum that he evwen turned down a MILLION dollars to walk away and let the woman's family take care of her. To me, it's that simple. Like everything else it's all about the benjamins. 281671[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Funding has no bearing on this case. First off the husband was awared 2.5 million dollars by the courts to sustain her life, by part of a ruling against the doctors who misdiagnosed here belimic condition. They probably would have awarded more but there are some concerns that the husband may have contributed to her heart stopping/brain damage as well. The millions were awarded for her car for the rest of her life. Not for him to go shack up and have kids with someone else. He just wants her dead so he can save some of that millions plus collect the million dollar life insurance policy that he needs for her to "die" first. So your "reduction" in funding, had nothing to do with this case and in fact is not true to begin with. 281670[/snapback] He has said repeatedly he would forgoe the settlement if they would allow her to pass on in dignity. Her parents have flatly refused. So that point isn't relevant. " They probably would have awarded more but there are some concerns that the husband may have contributed to her heart stopping/brain damage as well. " That an extraordinary claim that required extraordianry proof. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 It is amazing. He fought for a settlement to pay for her care as long as she lives. As soon as he got the settlement, he immediately wanted her dead and wanted the body destroyed ASAP so that an autopsy could not be performed. He refused the medical treatement he fought so hard for in court, once he got the money. If her wishes were that she did not want to be kept alive, why did he fight for money to keep her alive, only to immediately want her dead once he received the money. Add to that, the fact that if she actually stated that she did not want to be kept alive, why did he not say anything for SEVEN years? This has obviously dragged on longer than it should have and it is disgusting how the politicians are grandstanding over this. 281669[/snapback] I think its pretty obvious that he fought for the sttlement and to keep her alive and then came to the realization that she was never going to recover. At that point he simply wanted to allow her to pass with some sort of dignity rather than keep her "alive" for selfish reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 That is irellevant. What has occured here is the Republican Party does not respect the rule of law when a state rules in oposition to their un-constitutional beliefs. You don't shred the constitution to overrule state courts. To do it simply for political gain and not for ethical, religious or even as a matter or priciple. If any of those applied then how come Delay let that baby die in his own district? 281674[/snapback] By God if yu're a Republican, then I'm a socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I think its pretty obvious that he fought for the sttlement and to keep her alive and then came to the realization that she was never going to recover. At that point he simply wanted to allow her to pass with some sort of dignity rather than keep her "alive" for selfish reasons. 281680[/snapback] So, as soon as he received a boatload of money, he suddenly changed his mind and went against everything he fought so hard for? How about allowing an autopsy, since there is still some dispute over how she got into this condition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 So your "reduction" in funding, had nothing to do with this case and in fact is not true to begin with. 281670[/snapback] It is 100% accurate AND true. The 2.5 million dollar judgement would NEVER be awared if Bush gets his way and establishes malpractice caps therefore the costs to keep her alive would be the family's responsibility. They would also not be allowed to declare bankruptcy once those bills got out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 So, as soon as he received a boatload of money, he suddenly changed his mind and went against everything he fought so hard for? How about allowing an autopsy, since there is still some dispute over how she got into this condition? 281682[/snapback] Suddnely? Provide a timeline that proves that accusation. As far as the autopsy goes and the "dispute" I think that's being pushed without evidnece. If there was any eveidnece he would've been charged with a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Suddnely? Provide a timeline that proves that accusation. As far as the autopsy goes and the "dispute" I think that's being pushed without evidnece. If there was any eveidnece he would've been charged with a crime. 281687[/snapback] Kind of hard to do when she's still ALIVE, no? Why would the husband not want an autopsy if he had nothing to hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia 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] Answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts