PDA

View Full Version : Terry Schiavo dies



shellman54
03-31-2005, 09:59 AM
The woman who was taken off life support by her husband passed away this morning. Was this the right thing to do? I think so.

scrub c
03-31-2005, 10:06 AM
Tough- VERY Tough decision...

Was it the right thing to do???Cant answer that question... hope like HELL I never have to.
I wish the media would have let her go in peace, instead of telling us how she was being starved to death and what-not.

44INAROW
03-31-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by scrub c
Tough- VERY Tough decision...

Was it the right thing to do???Cant answer that question... hope like HELL I never have to.
I wish the media would have let her go in peace, instead of telling us how she was being starved to death and what-not.

Amen - I feel the same way. Such a tragic situation

Phil C
03-31-2005, 10:18 AM
But as Go said Call a Spade a Spade and that is what the media did like it or not.

pirate44
03-31-2005, 10:18 AM
the people who err on the side of life when all the facts arent known, lost today. i dont think it was a tough decision at all for Michael Schiavo. in the same way,it wasnt a tough decision to not allow an MRI or CT or swallow test. in the same way it wasnt a tough decision to not allow her to recieve communion. in the same way,it wasnt a tough decision for him not to allow Terri's parents to be in the same room with her as she dies. i hope no parent goes through that.

Phil C
03-31-2005, 10:35 AM
Pirate I guess that leaves him free to marry the other woman the media has mentioned. He sure didn't take the sickness and in health vows seriously did he?

pirate44
03-31-2005, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Phil C
Pirate I guess that leaves him free to marry the other woman the media has mentioned. He sure didn't take the sickness and in health vows seriously did he?
divorce would have taken care of that, but then her parents would have say so, and im pretty sure he didnt want that. For goodness sake, why couldnt he just let her parents be with her during her final moments?

Sinton94
03-31-2005, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by pirate44
divorce would have taken care of that, but then her parents would have say so, and im pretty sure he didnt want that. For goodness sake, why couldnt he just let her parents be with her during her final moments?

A agree with you 44!

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 10:47 AM
This guy is a complete thug.

On a different note...

I propose a question: The Pope is currently on a feeding tube. Would all the Catholics that supported removing the tube on Terry support the removal of the tube on the Pope? After all, the media would have you belive that being on a feeding tube is being on life support.

LHSCheerleader
03-31-2005, 10:48 AM
i agree.. it was really sad.. but it's kinda like the whole abortion thing... what if the young lady that was having the abortion got raped?? would you really wanna live with that ?? it's just all ..umm... crazy.

spiveyrat
03-31-2005, 10:50 AM
There is just something fishy about Michael, his motives, and his actions... The whole story hasn't been told yet.

venomous tat2
03-31-2005, 10:56 AM
What I don't understand is why couldn't he just let her parents
have her they're the ones who wanted her not him, IMO it was selfish,and cruel. A lot of us on here have children ,would you want your childs spouse to do this to your child, I think not. I have compassion for people no matter who they are or where they come from. I pray God give her parents strength and welcome
Terri home with open arms. It's wrong to make a family suffer like that, if your kids are close around today give them a hug or call them and tell them you love them," LIFE IS PRECIOUS"

Forgive me for preaching I couldn't help myself

spiveyrat
03-31-2005, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by JasperDog94
This guy is a complete thug.

On a different note...

I propose a question: The Pope is currently on a feeding tube. Would all the Catholics that supported removing the tube on Terry support the removal of the tube on the Pope? After all, the media would have you belive that being on a feeding tube is being on life support.

The Catholic church is an advocate of living wills. In this case, there was doubt as to whether Terri wanted this or not. So, in this case, the position of the Church is on the side of life. Catholics who in this case support the removal of her feeding tube are not in communion with the Church.

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by venomous tat2
Forgive me for preaching I couldn't help myself Can I get a' AMEN?!!

Preach on brotha! (or sista):)

PurpleFreddy
03-31-2005, 10:59 AM
Pirate, she did, indeed, have a CATscan several years ago ... you can't believe every thing you hear on FoxNews (FauxNews?) ... like the one doctor they kept referring to as a Noble Prize nominated neurologist.
He wasn't officially nominated for Nobel Prize in medicine ... his congressman sent a letter to the Nobel committee ... not the way you get nominated. Also, he has been reprimanded by the medical board in the past.
Fox also said that he examined Terri Schiavo. He only observed her for about an hour. He never examined her.
Remember, everything you hear is not always as it is. On both sides of the story.

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by spiveyrat
The Catholic church is an advocate of living wills. In this case, there was doubt as to whether Terri wanted this or not. So, in this case, the position of the Church is on the side of life. Catholics who in this case support the removal of her feeding tube are not in communion with the Church. My point exactly.

pirate44
03-31-2005, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by PurpleFreddy
Pirate, she did, indeed, have a CATscan several years ago ... you can't believe every thing you hear on FoxNews (FauxNews?) ... like the one doctor they kept referring to as a Noble Prize nominated neurologist.
He wasn't officially nominated for Nobel Prize in medicine ... his congressman sent a letter to the Nobel committee ... not the way you get nominated. Also, he has been reprimanded by the medical board in the past.
Fox also said that he examined Terri Schiavo. He only observed her for about an hour. He never examined her.
Remember, everything you hear is not always as it is. On both sides of the story.
man, i dont even have cable TV and rarely watch TV anyway. id like to know your source that you know she recieved the CT. im not saying your wrong, but id like to see it if you can produce the story.

CheerMom
03-31-2005, 11:04 AM
This is a sad day.:( I personally have been in this situation, with my mother, and never, would any of us have ever thought to do what Michael Schiavo has done. My mother probably would not have wanted to be like she was either, but we as children, nor my father would have ever been able to watch her starve to death. We kept her at home with us, for six years, and loved her until God took her home. This just breaks my heart.:(

PurpleFreddy
03-31-2005, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by pirate44
man, i dont even have cable TV and rarely watch TV anyway. id like to know your source that you know she recieved the CT. im not saying your wrong, but id like to see it if you can produce the story.

Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News contributor Fred Barnes echoed a false claim he made days earlier, stating that Terri Schiavo's brain "[h]asn't been examined for 10 years." In fact, a computed tomography (CT) scan was performed on Schiavo's brain in 2002.

During a roundtable discussion on the March 27 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Barnes said of Schiavo: "And look at the facts that are at least in question. Was she thoroughly examined in the first place? She didn't have an MRI [magnetic resonance imaging], didn't have a PET [positron emission tomography] scan -- normal in these cases. Hasn't been examined for 10 years. So there's that." Barnes made a similar claim on the March 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume: "Well, she hasn't had a brain test for 10 years, Juan [Williams, fellow panelist], 10 years."

As Media Matters for America documented, the Associated Press reported on March 24 that Schiavo's "most recent brain scans and examinations were done in 2002," and a November 22, 2002, ruling by the Pinellas County, Florida, Circuit Court denying an appeal by Schiavo's parents to prevent the removal of her feeding tube referred to the results of a CT scan -- or CAT scan -- Schiavo had received in 2002.

*******************

Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum identified Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Florida neurologist who claims he can help Terri Schiavo, as a "Nobel Prize-nominated neurologist," despite the fact that Hammesfahr was never actually nominated for a Nobel Prize.

Hammesfahr, who was disciplined in 2003 by the Florida Board of Medicine, testified during an October 2002 court hearing on the Schiavo case that his claim to be a Nobel nominee is based on a letter written to the "Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine" by Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) recommending Hammesfahr for a "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine." But that award does not exist (the Nobel Assembly awards separate prizes in peace and medicine), and assuming Bilirakis intended to nominate Hammesfahr for the prize for medicine, as Hammesfahr claims, the nomination is meaningless because Bilirakis is not qualified to nominate anyone for that award.

According to an explanation of the nomination process posted on the Nobel Prize website, the Nobel Assembly sends out invitations to approximately 3,000 people who are allowed to propose candidates for the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. The 3,000 are "mainly members of the Nobel Assembly, previous prize winners, and a selection of professors at universities around the world" -- not U.S. congressmen. Furthermore, the Nobel Assembly's "Nomination and Selection" criteria make clear that "[i]nformation about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years," so if Hammesfahr had received an actual nomination, he presumably would not know about it.

On March 21, Fox News host Sean Hannity referred to Hammesfahr as a Nobel Prize nominee eight times during a single hour-long edition of Hannity & Colmes.

Panther Ross
03-31-2005, 11:13 AM
I seriously think that it was a easy answer, tough but obvious. Who would keep somebody in bed, who can't talk, eat or do anything by themselves except say something like AAAAAAAAAAAA. I saw that on a report so I am not trying to make fun of her or anything. The answer was obvious, but the guy who said to pull it is a queer for what he is doing to her.

Keep in mind that this person has been sitting there for 15 years, but can't they inject her with something to make the death a little bit easier, maybe not but isn't that possible?

pirate44
03-31-2005, 11:14 AM
sorry i didnt make myself clear. i wasnt looking for a story criticizing FOX news about whatever. i was interested in seeing the story which documents the outcome of a CT scan.

pirate44
03-31-2005, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by pirate44
sorry i didnt make myself clear. i wasnt looking for a story criticizing FOX news about whatever. i was interested in seeing the story which documents the outcome of a CT scan.
thanks, but never mind. i'll look it up myself

Panther Ross
03-31-2005, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by pirate44
sorry i didnt make myself clear. i wasnt looking for a story criticizing FOX news about whatever. i was interested in seeing the story which documents the outcome of a CT scan.

Well you got it anyway.

pirate44
03-31-2005, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Panther Ross
Well you got it anyway.
sorry, but i dont remember yanking your chain

CheerMom
03-31-2005, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Panther Ross
I seriously think that it was a easy answer, tough but obvious. Who would keep somebody in bed, who can't talk, eat or do anything by themselves except say something like AAAAAAAAAAAA. I saw that on a report so I am not trying to make fun of her or anything. The answer was obvious, but the guy who said to pull it is a queer for what he is doing to her.

Keep in mind that this person has been sitting there for 15 years, but can't they inject her with something to make the death a little bit easier, maybe not but isn't that possible?

I guess for someone who hasn't been in that situation, you might think it is an obvious decision, but it is not. I would have never done that to my mother.

Panther Ross
03-31-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by CheerMom
I guess for someone who hasn't been in that situation, you might think it is an easy decision, but it is not. I would have never done that to my mother.

Must I repeat myself, obvious but tough. I know that it was hard, but the answer was obvious.

Panther Ross
03-31-2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by pirate44
sorry, but i dont remember yanking your chain

Sorry you came off kinda smart.

pirate44
03-31-2005, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Panther Ross
Sorry you came off kinda smart.
i was serious and not being a smart@ss. sorry if i came off that way. im just frustrated and sad over the fact that Michael wouldnt let her parents be with her at the time of her death and tell her goodbye

PurpleFreddy
03-31-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by pirate44
sorry i didnt make myself clear. i wasnt looking for a story criticizing FOX news about whatever. i was interested in seeing the story which documents the outcome of a CT scan.

What I posted does reference an Associated Press story confirming the CT Scan in 2002.

spiveyrat
03-31-2005, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Panther Ross
Must I repeat myself, obvious but tough. I know that it was hard, but the answer was obvious.

No, the answer was not obvious... there is no living will, only Michael's word, and there are people in place who would have gladly taken care of her. Not obvious in the least.

Panther Ross
03-31-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by spiveyrat
No, the answer was not obvious... there is no living will, only Michael's word, and there are people in place who would have gladly taken care of her. Not obvious in the least.

Yes obvious, what good is in it? Let her enjoy life in the afterlife. She could not do a thing. What good are you doing by keeping her.... none. That may come across as rude, but I mean no offense.

Bandera YaYa
03-31-2005, 11:33 AM
I think we way the media and politicians got involved made it so vulgar. I need someone to explain to me ...WHY....if it wasn't the husband, trying to fulfill his wife's wish (not to be kept alive like this)...then what would make him do all of this?...I mean why didn't he just wash his hands of the whole thing, tell her parents from the get go,"you take her, she's your problem" and him just go on with his life....but he didn't he fought long and hard for her wished to be honored.....so i don't get it..it looks like to me, he took his wife's wishes very seriously....or why go thru all of this? I know he has a new family...but if it was me, I would want my husband to find someone else to be happy with and i would not want to live like that. You can't judge someone in this situation unless you have been exactly where he was. Did she tell him she didnt want to be kept alive in this manner??? Only he and her know that answer...BUT if that wasn't the answer, then why would he fight so hard against her parents all these years?? I am not saying I don't believe her parents should have been allowed into the decision.....but I just can't think of a reason why he would have put himself thru all of this, if he didn'r really love her and want what she wanted........it would have been a cake walk for him to just walk.........May she finally rest in peace.

Phil C
03-31-2005, 11:36 AM
Look for a made for tv movie to come out on this soon. My guess is that Michael and his woman will be the one to most benefit. Also look for the movie to make him the hero and her parents the villians.

Phil C
03-31-2005, 11:40 AM
Bandara good point but how do we know all this? Unfortunately that brings out the importantce to have things in writing.

Bandera YaYa
03-31-2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Phil C
Look for a made for tv movie to come out on this soon. My guess is that Michael and his woman will be the one to most benefit. Also look for the movie to make him the hero and her parents the villians. Yeah, a movie is prob already half done....just waiting for the outcome. But I think that there are no heroes and no villians here...no one won in my eyes.....except maybe Terry.....just maybe she is running in a meadow somewhere.....I certainly hope so.

onfirebball05mustang
03-31-2005, 11:47 AM
May she rest in peace!

This has been such a LONG ordeal for the family, the media and everone else.

IMHO--

From what little medical knowledge that I have and through talking to others...

Her death was a matter of QUALITY of life vs. QUANTITY...she's had a great QUANTITY, but considering the QUALITY, it was time to make peace and let go.
As far as her condition, she was 'starved' to death, but it is PAINLESS. This has hit alot of people the wrong way. The body was left to shut down (finally) and let her find some sort of comfort..hence the morphine which made it possible for her to breathe and for blood to flow alot easier.
I've been working in a nursing home for a few months now and have seen situations like this in which it was just a matter of time no matter what was done.
What saddens me is the drama between the husband and the family..i don't even understand all of it, but the money was a great factor that shouldn't even have been considered.

did i mention JMHO?

Bandera YaYa
03-31-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Phil C
Bandara good point but how do we know all this? Unfortunately that brings out the importantce to have things in writing. Exact;ly my point!!! Why would he have fought so hard, unless she really did want this???? That's all I'm saying.....I don't know if it was what she said or not, I just cant think of another reason why he would put himself thru all this......

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 11:53 AM
Ya Ya - There have been many questions raised about Michaels motives. Too many to discuss in detail, but here are a few:

1. Nobody knows how Terry got this way. Michael originally didn't want an audtopsy (sp?). He wanted her creamated. Some suspect that he may have had something to do with her condidtion.

2. Michael benefits financially from her death.

3. Machael suddenly remembers a conversation that they had SEVEN YEARS after her injury.

4. A nurse has testified that Michael's presence in the room alone with Terry completely altered her mood. She was curled up in a ball and was scared after Michael left. The nurse also found cuts and bruises on Terry after Michael left the room with her.

There are just too many signs here that something's not right about Michael.

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by onfirebball05mustang
As far as her condition, she was 'starved' to death, but it is PAINLESS. I've heard this arguement before. There are just as many "experts" that say it is painful as those that say it isn't. The truth is we don't know if she felt pain or not while starving to death.

I thought we had a law in this country about "cruel and unusual punishment".:(

Black_Magic
03-31-2005, 12:08 PM
The Lady was Brain Dead... Her EEG was flat. Her body was kept alive by feeding. This ladies Brain was filled with water and ceribial fluid. The only thing left in nerve function was reflex actions. the lady was dead but the body was still kept alive. Yes Let her parents be with her in the end. no harm in that. but the woman is Dead. Let her body go.
As far as the pope and his feeding tube. the man can still think and comunicate his needs. thats a silly analogy to us the pope to compare to a Brain Dead woman.

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 12:10 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but not everyone agrees that the woman was brain dead.

CheerMom
03-31-2005, 12:16 PM
My mother was "supposedly" brain dead, as well. How do you explain the emotion of crying when we told her that our Dad had passed away. She cried, not just tears rolling down her face, but sobbing. She would also smile when certain people would walk into the room. People can't know what they are thinking or feeling because they can never tell us. I'm sure Terry's parents saw these things in her, as well, and that is why they fought so hard to keep her alive.

pirate44
03-31-2005, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by CheerMom
My mother was "supposedly" brain dead, as well. How do you explain the emotion of crying when we told her that our Dad had passed away. She cried, not just tears rolling down her face, but sobbing. She would also smile when certain people would walk into the room. People can't know what they are thinking or feeling because they can never tell us. I'm sure Terry's parents saw these things in her, as well, and that is why they fought so hard to keep her alive.
im so sorry you have been through all this. you more than any of us knows the pain of the situation. thanks for opening up and sharing your experience with us.

Black_Magic
03-31-2005, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by JasperDog94
Sorry to burst your bubble, but not everyone agrees that the woman was brain dead. They dont pull plugs on people who have EEG activity. The teating Doctors in this case show and say that it is a Flat EEG. any Doctor with certain Religious views that disagree with removing the tube could SAY otherwise but to SAY it does not mak it so unless you can prove it with a recorded reading. let the woman GO.

Bandera YaYa
03-31-2005, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by JasperDog94
Ya Ya - There have been many questions raised about Michaels motives. Too many to discuss in detail, but here are a few:

1. Nobody knows how Terry got this way. Michael originally didn't want an audtopsy (sp?). He wanted her creamated. Some suspect that he may have had something to do with her condidtion.

2. Michael benefits financially from her death.

3. Machael suddenly remembers a conversation that they had SEVEN YEARS after her injury.

4. A nurse has testified that Michael's presence in the room alone with Terry completely altered her mood. She was curled up in a ball and was scared after Michael left. The nurse also found cuts and bruises on Terry after Michael left the room with her.

There are just too many signs here that something's not right about Michael. THANK YOU ! I didn't know any of this....that's what I was wondering why were so many people were against his actions???
I hate all these news people...the dumb things they say, like they know something for certain.......UGH!!! ...bad actors !!! They are just happy they have something to report constantly on.......but they seem soooooooooooo sad........blahblahblah
:mad: :mad:

Phil C
03-31-2005, 12:25 PM
Bandara a Vatican Cardinal condemned her death and said it was wrong! Enough said!

Black_Magic
03-31-2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Phil C
Bandara a Vatican Cardinal condemned her death and said it was wrong! Enough said! OH! Well ... then if the Vadican said it is wrong and condemed it , it must be wrong.... Didnt the Vadican say Galilleo was wrong and Condem him for saying the earth was not the center of the universe?:rolleyes:

Phil C
03-31-2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Black_Magic
OH! Well ... then if the Vadican said it is wrong and condemed it , it must be wrong.... Didnt the Vadican say Galilleo was wrong and Condem him for saying the earth was not the center of the universe?:rolleyes:

:eek: Remember Black that is men of the Lord we are talking about!

Bandera YaYa
03-31-2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Phil C
Bandara a Vatican Cardinal condemned her death and said it was wrong! Enough said! Well......I'm not Catholic.................but I guess that is a good answer!

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by CheerMom
My mother was "supposedly" brain dead, as well. How do you explain the emotion of crying when we told her that our Dad had passed away. She cried, not just tears rolling down her face, but sobbing. She would also smile when certain people would walk into the room. People can't know what they are thinking or feeling because they can never tell us. I'm sure Terry's parents saw these things in her, as well, and that is why they fought so hard to keep her alive. I agree with Pirate44. Thanks for sharing your story with us. You have been through something that none of us would wish on our worst enemy. I'm sure there will be stars in your crown in heaven for taking care of your mother that way.

Bandera YaYa
03-31-2005, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Phil C
:eek: Remember Black that is men of the Lord we are talking about! With all due respect.....and I do respect all religions, but even "men of the Lord" are great sinners.....I worhip and give all Glory to God.

CheerMom
03-31-2005, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by JasperDog94
I agree with Pirate44. Thanks for sharing your story with us. You have been through something that none of us would wish on our worst enemy. I'm sure there will be stars in your crown in heaven for taking care of your mother that way.

You do what you do for the ones you love.

spiveyrat
03-31-2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Black_Magic
OH! Well ... then if the Vadican said it is wrong and condemed it , it must be wrong.... Didnt the Vadican say Galilleo was wrong and Condem him for saying the earth was not the center of the universe?:rolleyes:

You actually went back to the Middle Ages to find fault with the Va'T'ican and the Holy See. If you can't recognize the Pope as being a moral compass (even if you aren't Catholic), well... I, I just don't know what to say to you.

Black_Magic
03-31-2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by spiveyrat
You actually went back to the Middle Ages to find fault with the Va'T'ican and the Holy See. If you can't recognize the Pope as being a moral compass (even if you aren't Catholic), well... I, I just don't know what to say to you. I sure did go back to the Middle ages to find just one example. BUT the vadican only in 1993 admited it was wrong when in regards to Galilleo. much of what the chatholic church says is right and wrong is not actually writen in the bible. such as men of god not being able to wed. No disrespect intended but I dont think the vadican is the measuring stick of truth and have been proven to be wrong on ocasions.

rhs78
03-31-2005, 02:22 PM
I don't know who was right, but if the husband really loved terri he would not of had the tube pulled, but turned things over to the parents and let them take care of her.
thanks cheermom for sharing, i under stand what you went thru with your mom, as i went thru this with my brother a year and a half ago,its hard to let go of someone you love,i dont know if gets any less painful as the years go bye. lifes lessons are good teachers if we learn from them.....

Bubba-Joe
03-31-2005, 02:27 PM
Bubba Joe is going to have to side with Black Magic on this issue, I know that come as a suprise,
But the Vatican and the Pope aint GOD
they are just MEN, no more and no less.
I have the same ability to talk with GOD as does the Pope or any other man.
As for this situation, it should be an example of how important communication between a husband and a wife is, and that living wills should be in place.
The bible I read teaches me that a husband and wife come together in marriage and that what God joins together let no man come between.
Lots to think about with this situation.

Phil C
03-31-2005, 02:33 PM
Bubba: "In sickness and in health. For better or worse."

rhs78
03-31-2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Bubba-Joe
Bubba Joe is going to have to side with Black Magic on this issue, I know that come as a suprise,
But the Vatican and the Pope aint GOD
they are just MEN, no more and no less.
I have the same ability to talk with GOD as does the Pope or any other man.
As for this situation, it should be an example of how important communication between a husband and a wife is, and that living wills should be in place.
The bible I read teaches me that a husband and wife come together in marriage and that what God joins together let no man come between.
Lots to think about with this situation.

AMEN BUBBA

Bubba-Joe
03-31-2005, 02:44 PM
I think this would be considerd that worse part and he was there.
My opinion on this, I do not want to suffer nor do I want my wife to suffer.
that is why we have discussed what we want in this situation.
I am tired of people hammering the husband, because his in-laws ( who by the way spoke highly of him in earlier reports) for what ever reason think they should make the call.
If and when my children marry - then they become one with thier spouse.
I will allow them the freedome to grow and mature in that relationship, why
because that is the way my parents and wives parents have brought us up.
Too many people think today that they should tell folks how to live or in this case how to die.
Life is short - the family should be remembering the good times, but they won't.
Remember this
The Love of Money is the root of all evil.
From the information I have read the in laws became distant with the husband after a large sum of money came into play
Strange how that works out huh

Phil C
03-31-2005, 02:46 PM
Right Bubba and it seems the husband is getting the money with his new (?) woman according to the media. Huh!

Bubba-Joe
03-31-2005, 02:53 PM
She was his wife
why shouldn't he get the money in the settlement.
He has to live with his choices as do you or I.
No one has the right to choose for me, anymore than I have the right to tell someone how to live thier life.
If I were to die today I would want my wife to move on.
If my wife were to die today she would want me to move
Both my wife and I agree that if this situation ever takes place with either of us
The MEDIA needs to stay the HECK out of it.
How holier than thou is it to tell someone how to live.
I would bet a bunch of the media folks need to get that plank out of thier own eye, before they try and get the splinter out of mine.
"He who is with out sin cast the first stone"

Phil C
03-31-2005, 02:58 PM
Beware the power of the press Bubba! It is just and constitutional. It is their duty to present this news. That was part of the reason for the war of independence. It is most important for the press to be free. Especially since they are conscientious folks trying to bring out the truth in all matters.

Bubba-Joe
03-31-2005, 03:00 PM
WOW Phil C
that sounds almost like a Liberal Dem

Phil C
03-31-2005, 03:01 PM
:D

Bubba-Joe
03-31-2005, 03:02 PM
guess we gonna have to agree to disagree on this deal

spiveyrat
03-31-2005, 03:03 PM
Look, obviously you guys aren't Catholic. It is easy to condemn what you don't understand.

Black_Magic
03-31-2005, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Phil C
Beware the power of the press Bubba! It is just and constitutional. It is their duty to present this news. That was part of the reason for the war of independence. It is most important for the press to be free. Especially since they are conscientious folks trying to bring out the truth in all matters. Give me a barf bag!:hairpunk: The press is in it for the Money and story. They want the scoop and dont care who they hurt to get it. I feel sorry for anyone who cant see that at this point in the story. If My wife died 15 years ago ( Brain dead ) and I wanted to move on with my life as she would want, I believe any life insurance money would be rightfully mine. Bubba is right in that once she married the man, the parents are now second in line in deciding anything.

Black_Magic
03-31-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by spiveyrat
Look, obviously you guys aren't Catholic. It is easy to condemn what you don't understand. well Im a christian. the only true source of religious truth is the Bible. Not any man. To me the Bible is the ONE source. not any one particular denomination. If its biblical its truth. if it is not in the book its oppinion.

Hupernikomen
03-31-2005, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Panther Ross
Yes obvious, what good is in it? Let her enjoy life in the afterlife. She could not do a thing. What good are you doing by keeping her.... none. That may come across as rude, but I mean no offense.

What good are any of us?

CHS_CG
03-31-2005, 03:20 PM
The way I see it.. there are probably a lot of facts that we dont know.. everybody knows as well as I do the media doesnt expose EVERYTHING... just what they want to make their story better. The fact of the matter is, after a person gets married.. their spouse is the one who has the"final say" in cases like this. Do I agree with everything Michael has done or said.. no.. but I dont agree with her parents keeping her alive when there have been numerous doctors that say there is no chance of recovering in her condition. The fact of Michael having another women in his life now doesnt mean he doesnt love and care deeply about his wife. I have seen it first hand after my best friend died.. her boyfriend did move on after a while but it is still really hard on him and he still loves Kelley very very much. This story is a very mixed up one... before all of us can make a clear picture of it.. we need ALL the facts just not the juicy ones.

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Bubba-Joe
She was his wife
why shouldn't he get the money in the settlement.
How about because he's shacked up with another woman and has two kids out of wedlock with her.:mad:

Hupernikomen
03-31-2005, 03:25 PM
The media isn't the issue. The issue is the sanctity of human life, and activist judges who rule on moralty not legislation. Some people just feel very strongly that the life of a human being, no matter how trivial or unproductive it is, is very precious. She had no living will and the courts decided based on her husband's testimony that it was what she would have wanted. It was a barbaric act to starve her to death no matter how you slice it.

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Hupernikomen
The media isn't the issue. The issue is the sanctity of human life, and activist judges who rule on moralty not legislation. Some people just feel very strongly that the life of a human being, no matter how trivial or unprotective it is, is very precious. She had no living will and the courts decided based on her husbands testimony that it was what she would have wanted. It was a barbaric act to strave her to death no matter how you slice it. Very well said.

Lost in all of this one one side of our government (judicial) trumping the other two (executive and legislative). Unelected and unaccountable judges are running our country and congress nor the president will stand up to them. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

...stepping down off of soapbox...

BCsportfan
03-31-2005, 03:47 PM
Personnally, I wish he would've let her parents take her home and keep her comfortable, God wouldv'e taken her in his own time.

Seems like any life insurance money would be donated to charity after hospital bills are paid to help other brain damaged people.

Anyway ... only God knows who passes and fails His test, we won't find out until we are before Him if we've done things right or wrong. When Michael and her parents are infront of God they will answer for their actions no matter what we think.

SINTON81
03-31-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Black_Magic
well Im a christian. the only true source of religious truth is the Bible. Not any man. To me the Bible is the ONE source. not any one particular denomination. If its biblical its truth. if it is not in the book its oppinion.

The Bible as interpreted by who? You? Aren’t you also just a MAN?:) :) :)

JasperDog94
03-31-2005, 03:59 PM
Easy folks. Let's not let this get into a debate on religion. That's one road we don't need to go down.

SINTON81
03-31-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by JasperDog94
Easy folks. Let's not let this get into a debate on religion. That's one road we don't need to go down.

Sorry JasperDog94, I went back and fixed it.:D :D

pirate44
03-31-2005, 04:11 PM
i agree. come tomorow we should all be able to post together on different threads without holding any grudges towards anyone.

rockdale80
03-31-2005, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by JasperDog94
Ya Ya - There have been many questions raised about Michaels motives. Too many to discuss in detail, but here are a few:

1. Nobody knows how Terry got this way. Michael originally didn't want an audtopsy (sp?). He wanted her creamated. Some suspect that he may have had something to do with her condidtion.

2. Michael benefits financially from her death.

3. Machael suddenly remembers a conversation that they had SEVEN YEARS after her injury.

4. A nurse has testified that Michael's presence in the room alone with Terry completely altered her mood. She was curled up in a ball and was scared after Michael left. The nurse also found cuts and bruises on Terry after Michael left the room with her.

There are just too many signs here that something's not right about Michael.

Very well said.

Lost in all of this one one side of our government (judicial) trumping the other two (executive and legislative). Unelected and unaccountable judges are running our country and congress nor the president will stand up to them. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

...stepping down off of soapbox...


running america.????..its called checks and balances....and what money was he going to get? the settlement had been made years ago. He ordered an autopsy upon her death just to prove he was making the correct decision. The man became a nurse so he could care for her. And now he is an awful person for waiting 7 years before he gave up on his wife. I dont know whether he was right or wrong. The bottom line was it was his decision to make. NOT THE PARENTS. That was what this was all about. I find it a little odd that everytime it has went to court over the past 7 years she was found in a vegetative state, and Michael rights were upkept. I mean several judges of both parties have reviewed this case from the bottom to the very top. No conclusive evidence to prove she wasnt in a PVG, and no reason to have a trial. I can appreciate the fact that the parents want her to live, and I can understand they want their daughter, unfortunately it was not their decision to make. I am going to stop there. Sorry for getting on a soapbox, and remember this is is just my opinion.

LH Panther Mom
03-31-2005, 04:19 PM
I couldn't have said it better. I can't agree or disagree with Michael and just pray that I'm never faced with his situation.

mwynn05
03-31-2005, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by rockdale80
running america.????..its called checks and balances....and what money was he going to get? the settlement had been made years ago. He ordered an autopsy upon her death just to prove he was making the correct decision. The man became a nurse so he could care for her. And now he is an awful person for waiting 7 years before he gave up on his wife. I dont know whether he was right or wrong. The bottom line was it was his decision to make. NOT THE PARENTS. That was what this was all about. I find it a little odd that everytime it has went to court over the past 7 years she was found in a vegetative state, and Michael rights were upkept. I mean several judges of both parties have reviewed this case from the bottom to the very top. No conclusive evidence to prove she wasnt in a PVG, and no reason to have a trial. I can appreciate the fact that the parents want her to live, and I can understand they want their daughter, unfortunately it was not their decision to make. I am going to stop there. Sorry for getting on a soapbox, and remember this is is just my opinion. I pretty much agree with you.

Black_Magic
03-31-2005, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by SINTON81
The Bible as interpreted by who? You? Aren’t you also just a MAN?:) :) :) Its not rocket science. If it is writen it is writen. I have a problem with certain churchs beliefs that are not even writen. Where does it say that priests should not marry? but one pope said they should not and ever since then the church says they should not. Thats the type of suff im talking about. Im just saying that some cardnal that condems the actions taken in this case carries very little weight im my eyes .

Hupernikomen
03-31-2005, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Black_Magic
Its not rocket science. If it is writen it is writen. I have a problem with certain churchs beliefs that are not even writen. Where does it say that priests should not marry? but one pope said they should not and ever since then the church says they should not. Thats the type of suff im talking about. Im just saying that some cardnal that condems the actions taken in this case carries very little weight im my eyes .

People who disagree with our convictions generally don't carry much weight with us else we would have different opinions.

mustang04
03-31-2005, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by JasperDog94
This guy is a complete thug.

On a different note...

I propose a question: The Pope is currently on a feeding tube. Would all the Catholics that supported removing the tube on Terry support the removal of the tube on the Pope? After all, the media would have you belive that being on a feeding tube is being on life support.

dude u cant even compare the two....Terri had a heart attack in like 1990 that led to her vegetative state, so yes her and the pope might have the feeding tube in common, but the pope is suffering from a current illness and is responsive and is basically normal, SHE on the other hand could not respond, or do anything for 15 years, so pulling the plug on her is a waaay different situation than pulling it on the Pope

Gobbla2001
03-31-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by mustang04
dude u cant even compare the two....Terri had a heart attack in like 1990 that led to her vegetative state, so yes her and the pope might have the feeding tube in common, but the pope is suffering from a current illness and is responsive and is basically normal, SHE on the other hand could not respond, or do anything for 15 years, so pulling the plug on her is a waaay different situation than pulling it on the Pope

She was not in that state until 8 years ago when her therapy was stopped (2.3 millions dollars worth of therapy, where's the money now? THAT'S RIGHT, her husband with two kids from a different lady who just decided her fait has it, or did)...

Fact is, as far as we know, the ONLY THING we know about her CURRENT position is that some doctors said she could be rehabilitated, others didn't, but her husband would not let them examine her to find out...

So let's say we get the chance and we let her live so doctors can examine her, if we are proven wrong, the only mistake would have been letting her live, have mercy on our souls for making such a 'horrible' mistake...

HOWEVER, if we made the mistake of letting her die, and we find out later that she was able to be rehabilitated, we have made a mistake that unfortuantly we cannot take back...

We just let someone starve to death...

In Florida, it is against the law to allow the death of F***ING LAB RATS in any other form other than 'veteranary acceptable uthinization' (forgive me if I have spelling it wrong, I do not spell these words every day much less every year, much less ever, really ;) )... That would include twisting their heads off (oh, poor 'lab rat' suffers for 8 seconds), or smashing them with a hammer (squirm for three seconds and you're dead) or WHATEVER ELSE YOU CAN THINK OF... and I believe that it would include 'starving them to death'... Even if they do have an ear growing out of their back...

This country is 'messed' up, she just starved to death for crying outloud... They didn't remove a pace-maker or breathing machine/whatever (30 seconds you're gone), they took her food and water away, it was slow, and NONE OF US know if it was painful or not (A morphine 'DRIP' was not used, she received small doses on the 19th and yesterday or the day before I believe, not enough to cover the whole time period)... So until we know that something is going to hurt or not going to hurt, or something is treatable or not treatable, we should make sure that the person is AVAILABLE for when we 'DO' find out...

rockdale80
03-31-2005, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Gobbla2001
She was not in that state until 8 years ago when her therapy was stopped (2.3 millions dollars worth of therapy, where's the money now? THAT'S RIGHT, her husband with two kids from a different lady who just decided her fait has it, or did)...

Fact is, as far as we know, the ONLY THING we know about her CURRENT position is that some doctors said she could be rehabilitated, others didn't, but her husband would not let them examine her to find out...

So let's say we get the chance and we let her live so doctors can examine her, if we are proven wrong, the only mistake would have been letting her live, have mercy on our souls for making such a 'horrible' mistake...

HOWEVER, if we made the mistake of letting her die, and we find out later that she was able to be rehabilitated, we have made a mistake that unfortuantly we cannot take back...

We just let someone starve to death...

In Florida, it is against the law to allow the death of F***ING LAB RATS in any other form other than 'veteranary acceptable uthinization' (forgive me if I have spelling it wrong, I do not spell these words every day much less every year, much less ever, really ;) )... That would include twisting their heads off (oh, poor 'lab rat' suffers for 8 seconds), or smashing them with a hammer (squirm for three seconds and you're dead) or WHATEVER ELSE YOU CAN THINK OF... and I believe that it would include 'starving them to death'... Even if they do have an ear growing out of their back...

This country is 'messed' up, she just starved to death for crying outloud... They didn't remove a pace-maker or breathing machine/whatever (30 seconds you're gone), they took her food and water away, it was slow, and NONE OF US know if it was painful or not (A morphine 'DRIP' was not used, she received small doses on the 19th and yesterday or the day before I believe, not enough to cover the whole time period)... So until we know that something is going to hurt or not going to hurt, or something is treatable or not treatable, we should make sure that the person is AVAILABLE for when we 'DO' find out...

is 7 years worth of court appointed guardians and doctors not enough evidence for anyone? (not michael's or the schindler's doctors) a CT scan not enough? what more would you like? I am no expert, but I have seen the CT scan. Regardless, it was Michael's decision to make. And almost all of the settlement money went to her therapy. Not to him. There is only about 40-50 thousand left from the entire settlement. The doctor that said she could be rehabilitated it turns out is somewhat of a fraud. Claiming to be a nobel prize nominee...when in fact noone knows because that information is not released to the public. Furthermore, you dont know all of the facts yet you make accusations about this guys character when you in fact know nothing about him other than the reports you have seen on television. Like I said earlier....noone knows all of the facts. The original testimony was not only from him claiming she said she didnt want to live like that, but some of her closest friends as well. And yes, someone did starve to death. If that is the problem you have with it then it should be addressed as such. I am not exactly a proponent of starvation...that doesnt mean I am going to characterize a man as a greedy murderer.

mustang04
03-31-2005, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Gobbla2001


This country is 'messed' up, she just starved to death for crying outloud... They didn't remove a pace-maker or breathing machine/whatever (30 seconds you're gone), they took her food and water away, it was slow, and NONE OF US know if it was painful or not (A morphine 'DRIP' was not used, she received small doses on the 19th and yesterday or the day before I believe, not enough to cover the whole time period)... So until we know that something is going to hurt or not going to hurt, or something is treatable or not treatable, we should make sure that the person is AVAILABLE for when we 'DO' find out...

8 years....8 years! im sorry but if ANYONE in my family was in that state for only 5 years, i wouldnt wanna see them like that, my dad always says that if he has a stroke that he doesnt wanna be kept alive if he cant even do anything, and i feel the same way, would u really want to see ur kid in that condition, im sry but i think the humane thing to do would be to let them pass, what were they accomplishing keeping her alive? having that 1% chance that she MIGHT be able to rehabilitate to a half veggie state, they were spending alot of money and keeping a person alive that prolly wouldn't have wanted to stay alive, but she couldnt respond so we dont know for sure, but thats exactly the point, she COULD NOT DO ANYTHING physically, would you really want to live like that??

its so easy to argue that "yes i would live like that, so just in case they found a treatment" isnt it....

TheDOCTORdre
03-31-2005, 08:10 PM
A&E is running a show about Terri Schiavo right now if anyone is interested

Gobbla2001
03-31-2005, 09:08 PM
"My dad said he wouldn't want to live like that"

"I wouldn't want to live like that"

No where in there did I see "She didn't want to live like that"... Because we do not know for sure (all we know is her response to a TV show over 15 years ago where she stated "I wouldn't want to live like that"

Of course I wouldn't want to live like that either, but I say that as a healthy person, why would I trade me now for me in that condition?

Could physically do anything? That is what my problem is, she COULD PHYSICALLY SWALLOW 8 YEARS AGO, but hubby said he wanted the spoon feeding to stop, and ordered a cease to all therapy... WE DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT SHE WAS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF DUE TO HER HUSBAND'S DECISION TO STOP ALL TREATMENT... He even ordered the hospice to stop giving her antibiotics for an infection one time...

The fact is that we 'did not know for a FACT' what her capabilities etc... were, her husband would not let anyone find out for whatever reason...

Gobbla2001
03-31-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by rockdale80
is 7 years worth of court appointed guardians and doctors not enough evidence for anyone? (not michael's or the schindler's doctors) a CT scan not enough? what more would you like? I am no expert, but I have seen the CT scan. Regardless, it was Michael's decision to make. And almost all of the settlement money went to her therapy. Not to him. There is only about 40-50 thousand left from the entire settlement. The doctor that said she could be rehabilitated it turns out is somewhat of a fraud. Claiming to be a nobel prize nominee...when in fact noone knows because that information is not released to the public. Furthermore, you dont know all of the facts yet you make accusations about this guys character when you in fact know nothing about him other than the reports you have seen on television. Like I said earlier....noone knows all of the facts. The original testimony was not only from him claiming she said she didnt want to live like that, but some of her closest friends as well. And yes, someone did starve to death. If that is the problem you have with it then it should be addressed as such. I am not exactly a proponent of starvation...that doesnt mean I am going to characterize a man as a greedy murderer.

#1 the Doctors were not able to run tests

#2 this is the same court that viewed hearsay as fact (which allows federal government to step in due to violating federal law, so they must have appointed the BEST doctors, huh?

#3 Ctscan only gives you so much, and MRI is what everyone wanted, and he wouldn't give it to us

#4 The nobel doctor is a fraud just because the info cannot be released? And I had actually forgotten about him, over 20 doctors (hell, I guess they're frauds too since they're on the side of 'life') have said she may be able to recover

#5 HE is innocent until proven guilty, I can make all of the accusations I want whether it be me saying he is a murderer (which I haven't said, thought I believe it is POSSIBLE that he is covering something up) or saying that he is not (your position, accusation whether it be verbal or non)...

#6 You are right, no one knows all of the facts, WHICH IS WHY UNTIL WE DO, WE SHOULD KEEP LIFE GOING BECAUSE THE END OF THAT LIFE WOULD BE SOMETHING WE NOW CANNOT TURN BACK ON...

That is my whole point here, the other stuff I speak is nothing but conversation, floating ideas etc..., but the thing that beats me down is that not all of the facts were known by ANYONE due to the ban on examining her...

#7 I am atleast glad that they let the husband have say, it is the law and we cannot argue that, however, what a loving husband... Two children with another woman who lives with him, what a man to decide the pulling of someone else's plug...

#8 there is no number 8

#9 but there is a number 9... I guess muscular distrophy kids, who basically have no hope of leading a regular life etc... should all be starved to death now...

Nice going, Florida!

rockdale80
03-31-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Gobbla2001
"My dad said he wouldn't want to live like that"

"I wouldn't want to live like that"

No where in there did I see "She didn't want to live like that"... Because we do not know for sure (all we know is her response to a TV show over 15 years ago where she stated "I wouldn't want to live like that"

Of course I wouldn't want to live like that either, but I say that as a healthy person, why would I trade me now for me in that condition?

Could physically do anything? That is what my problem is, she COULD PHYSICALLY SWALLOW 8 YEARS AGO, but hubby said he wanted the spoon feeding to stop, and ordered a cease to all therapy... WE DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT SHE WAS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF DUE TO HER HUSBAND'S DECISION TO STOP ALL TREATMENT... He even ordered the hospice to stop giving her antibiotics for an infection one time...

The fact is that we 'did not know for a FACT' what her capabilities etc... were, her husband would not let anyone find out for whatever reason...


lets have some fun with bold letters to drive a moot point..... okay lets not...the only fact is it was a decision the husband made and not for you or anyone else to make. you dont know all the FACTS....(again more fun with bold letters) yet you criticize this man to no end.....let it go. Noone on here knows, but you wage a vendetta against a guy that you A)dont know, and B) dont agree with. Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. At what point do you give up hope, suspend desire, and move on to honor what you believe to be your wife's wishes. Even if they werent her wishes....it BY LAW...(i like bold letters) is his legal right to do what he did.

espn1
03-31-2005, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by rockdale80
lets have some fun with bold letters to drive a moot point..... okay lets not...the only fact is it was a decision the husband made and not for you or anyone else to make. you dont know all the FACTS....(again more fun with bold letters) yet you criticize this man to no end.....let it go. Noone on here knows, but you wage a vendetta against a guy that you A)dont know, and B) dont agree with. Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. At what point do you give up hope, suspend desire, and move on to honor what you believe to be your wife's wishes. Even if they werent her wishes....it BY LAW...(i like bold letters) is his legal right to do what he did.
Thanks for not making me type. Ditto!

Gobbla2001
03-31-2005, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by rockdale80
lets have some fun with bold letters to drive a moot point..... okay lets not...the only fact is it was a decision the husband made and not for you or anyone else to make. you dont know all the FACTS....(again more fun with bold letters) yet you criticize this man to no end.....let it go. Noone on here knows, but you wage a vendetta against a guy that you A)dont know, and B) dont agree with. Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. At what point do you give up hope, suspend desire, and move on to honor what you believe to be your wife's wishes. Even if they werent her wishes....it BY LAW...(i like bold letters) is his legal right to do what he did.

Never said it was not his legal right, keep reading and boldly go where no rockdale80 has gone before...

It is legal, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't f'd up beyond all means...

And for the record, I am disapointed in the Bush brothers, could have done more...

Gobbla2001
03-31-2005, 09:40 PM
On the real, guys, I respect each and every one of your opinions...

And also respect each and every one of you as individuals...

Maybe it is because I was raised different, or had experiences that may have shaped my mind over the years to believe what I believe today, and I guess when we meet conflicting ideas, we tend to go to extreme measure to get our ideas across because the others seem so foreign...

SOOOOO, if I have offending anyone or what have you, I appologize...

However, I do not appologize for me beliefs, and do NOT expect any of you to appologize for yours...

We all know where we each stand now, so let's not let this issue get between any further progression in friendship or whatever mushy crap I can come up with...

Holla

rockdale80
03-31-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Never said it was not his legal right, keep reading and boldly go where no rockdale80 has gone before...

It is legal, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't f'd up beyond all means...

And for the record, I am disapointed in the Bush brothers, could have done more...

Would you want anyone else making a decision for you and your family? No....that is why they did not do more....And you want more controversy? Sure you do so here goes. When Bush was governor of Texas he passed into law a bill saying a hospital or hospice could remove feeding tubes, vertilators, or any other means of life support if the family could no longer afford it. I am not trying to start a political debate, but to me that raises a red flag. Especially when he says "it is wise to err on the side of life." OK back to the facts at hand. You may think it is F'd up, but you arent there, and not making the decisions on someone else's family.

rockdale80
03-31-2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Gobbla2001
On the real, guys, I respect each and every one of your opinions...

And also respect each and every one of you as individuals...

Maybe it is because I was raised different, or had experiences that may have shaped my mind over the years to believe what I believe today, and I guess when we meet conflicting ideas, we tend to go to extreme measure to get our ideas across because the others seem so foreign...

SOOOOO, if I have offending anyone or what have you, I appologize...

However, I do not appologize for me beliefs, and do NOT expect any of you to appologize for yours...

We all know where we each stand now, so let's not let this issue get between any further progression in friendship or whatever mushy crap I can come up with...

Holla


Agreed no hard feelings.....just stating my opinion as well....and the bold letters were fun

Gobbla2001
03-31-2005, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by rockdale80
Agreed no hard feelings.....just stating my opinion as well....and the bold letters were fun

I like bold letters too...

Fun it was, no better feeling than expressing your opinions to a wide-variety of folks...

mustang04
04-01-2005, 12:22 AM
:crying: :crying: i luv yall guys

SINTON81
04-01-2005, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Black_Magic
Its not rocket science. If it is writen it is writen. I have a problem with certain churchs beliefs that are not even writen. Where does it say that priests should not marry? but one pope said they should not and ever since then the church says they should not. Thats the type of suff im talking about. Im just saying that some cardnal that condems the actions taken in this case carries very little weight im my eyes .

I don’t want to make this a debate about religion but you keep asking the question so I’ll answer it. Catholics get that belief from Jesus’ and St. Paul’s words in the Bible. The Pope didn’t just dream it up one day. Jesus said in Matt. 19:12 some people renounce marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven. Who ever can accept this ought to accept it. St. Paul said in 1Cor.7 that he wished the unmarried stay unmarried as he was. It is a gift from God. Why? As St. Paul says in 1Cor.7:32-33, so they can worry about pleasing God, and not their wife. In other words so that they can more freely devote their time to God and His Kingdom. Like you said it’s not rocket science. All the Pope and the Catholic Church do is use Jesus and St. Paul as their example.

If all you were doing is just talking about some Cardinal it would be one thing but you weren’t. You were purposely trashing the Catholic faith by deliberately misspelling words, Vadican(Vatican), chatholic church(Catholic Church), and cardnal(Cardinal).

I hope that helps.

slpybear the bullfan
04-01-2005, 01:51 AM
I suggest we steer clear of the religion folks. I think we can move along back to the topic at hand...

slpybear

Black_Magic
04-01-2005, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by SINTON81
I don’t want to make this a debate about religion but you keep asking the question so I’ll answer it. Catholics get that belief from Jesus’ and St. Paul’s words in the Bible. The Pope didn’t just dream it up one day. Jesus said in Matt. 19:12 some people renounce marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven. Who ever can accept this ought to accept it. St. Paul said in 1Cor.7 that he wished the unmarried stay unmarried as he was. It is a gift from God. Why? As St. Paul says in 1Cor.7:32-33, so they can worry about pleasing God, and not their wife. In other words so that they can more freely devote their time to God and His Kingdom. Like you said it’s not rocket science. All the Pope and the Catholic Church do is use Jesus and St. Paul as their example.

If all you were doing is just talking about some Cardinal it would be one thing but you weren’t. You were purposely trashing the Catholic faith by deliberately misspelling words, Vadican(Vatican), chatholic church(Catholic Church), and cardnal(Cardinal).

I hope that helps. Whos" thrashing" the catholic church? Im saying that some cardinal who condems it has very little weight in my eyes. Look the catholic church has condemed many things over the years and in most peoples opinion they were wrong. Galilleo is an example. The catholic church condemed Queen Elizabeth and the pope even proclaimed that anyone who killed her would be welcomed into heaven. THats a Pope advocating the murder of a person.. not very good. thats a fact of history. many God loving christians were killed because they disagreed with the pope. SO, I dont consider the officials of the catholic church as a compas of morality. That being said it is far from thrashing it. I just want to get that point cleared up as to why I feel the way I do about the Cardinals oppinion of the case.

Bottom line is that it is the husband who has the right to make this decision. Not me, you, mom or dad, or even the pope. the woman was comfermed brain dead by more than one doctor and more than one test. she is no more than a body who has been preserved by the most extensive and expensive embalming techiques known to man. Let the woman rest in peace finally.

BrahmaMom
04-01-2005, 10:04 AM
This is no doubt a tough one. The good that comes from it is that couples can discuss their wishes. CheerMom, I applaud you. My mom only lived 17 hours, enough time for us to say goodbye. The medical staff was wonderful in their humane and compassionate treatment of her and us. No way could I have made the call to withdraw medical support. Fortunately, we weren't put in that position, she was able to go peacefully with her family around her. And for those of you non-believers or doubters out there, my mom's family of origin was waiting for her on the other side. I felt them, some of them I had never met, yet I knew who they were. If it was my child, I am sure I would fight all reason and anybody in my way to protect my baby. I appreciate what Michael did, just learned today he became a nurse to care for her. The media makes him sound heartless, I don't know the details. Seems like he could've turned her over to her parents. And he certainly could have allowed them in the room at the end. But now Terri is whole again, at peace, and her family can eventually move on. My prayers are with them all, what an ordeal to experience under any situation, made public by the media. Let us all learn from this. Just want to say, too, my prayers are with Pope John Paul as he goes quietly with some dignity and peace, what a wonderful man and final message to us all. Yes, to those who say "he's just a man"--my answer is that I admire him as a great man and pray for his peace and comfort.

spiveyrat
04-01-2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by BrahmaMom
Just want to say, too, my prayers are with Pope John Paul as he goes quietly with some dignity and peace, what a wonderful man and final message to us all. Yes, to those who say "he's just a man"--my answer is that I admire him as a great man and pray for his peace and comfort.

Whoa, Nelly! He's not gone yet! ;)

sinton66
04-01-2005, 11:12 AM
While it is acceptable to discuss this particular topic, I would advise all of you to try to keep religious differences out of your discussions. We don't need to be downing anybody's churches because of their belief systems, practices, or stances on particular issues. Each of you should be able to discuss this topic based on your own personal opinions in a mature, sensible manner. If you can't do that, then please avoid the discussion.

Panther Ross
04-01-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Hupernikomen
What good are any of us?

Dude are you actually trying to compare us with Terri Schiavo on a social level? You of all people, blow my mind.

Panther Ross
04-01-2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Black_Magic
The Lady was Brain Dead... Her EEG was flat. Her body was kept alive by feeding. This ladies Brain was filled with water and ceribial fluid. The only thing left in nerve function was reflex actions. the lady was dead but the body was still kept alive. Yes Let her parents be with her in the end. no harm in that. but the woman is Dead. Let her body go.
As far as the pope and his feeding tube. the man can still think and comunicate his needs. thats a silly analogy to us the pope to compare to a Brain Dead woman.

I think you may be right, I always thought there was different degrees of brain dead. You can also have different parts of your brain missing also after incidents.

BrahmaMom
04-01-2005, 12:20 PM
spiveyrat, I meant no disrespect to the Pope; from what I have read today, heart failure is not very reversible, given his current health, and it appears that the prognosis is not good. I am certainly not hurrying Pope John Paul to his reward, just praying that he is as comfortable as possible and I know he is at peace. I am also grateful he has been able to communicate with his colleagues and medical staff. He is in my prayers and thoughts a lot these days--and I am not Roman Catholic, just have tremendous respect for the man and what he stands for and his way of uniting by common ground rather than dividing--very precious gift he was given, IMHO.

District303aPastPlayer
04-01-2005, 12:42 PM
i personally think its time i chime in on this subject. i honestly can say that i would have fought to pull the tube a while back. after the eeg scan went flat.. and she was artificially alive on tubes only... is when you have to give up hope. i understand that people wake up from comas 30 years later... but from what i understand... the ladies brain was mush.... and there isnt a way to repair that as far as i know.... i dont condone her hubbies actions in seeking another woman while she is alive... but moving on is necessary...

spiveyrat
04-01-2005, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by spiveyrat
Whoa, Nelly! He's not gone yet! ;)

:( I've heard that there is little hope for him. He's a great man/leader. I know his reward will be great.

District303aPastPlayer
04-01-2005, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by spiveyrat
:( I've heard that there is little hope for him. He's a great man/leader. I know his reward will be great.

he lost consciousness earlier adn was in a coma last night around 2am our time. i had just gotten home and put on the TV... talk about a shock...

SINTON81
04-02-2005, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Black_Magic
Whos" thrashing" the catholic church? Im saying that some cardinal who condems it has very little weight in my eyes. Look the catholic church has condemed many things over the years and in most peoples opinion they were wrong. Galilleo is an example. The catholic church condemed Queen Elizabeth and the pope even proclaimed that anyone who killed her would be welcomed into heaven. THats a Pope advocating the murder of a person.. not very good. thats a fact of history. many God loving christians were killed because they disagreed with the pope. SO, I dont consider the officials of the catholic church as a compas of morality. That being said it is far from thrashing it. I just want to get that point cleared up as to why I feel the way I do about the Cardinals oppinion of the case.

Bottom line is that it is the husband who has the right to make this decision. Not me, you, mom or dad, or even the pope. the woman was comfermed brain dead by more than one doctor and more than one test. she is no more than a body who has been preserved by the most extensive and expensive embalming techiques known to man. Let the woman rest in peace finally.

Wow! Where do I start? First Galileo and now Queen Elizabeth. What’s next, the pope condemned your minister back in the 1500’s. What was Queen Elisabeth doing to Catholics? She was murdering and torturing Catholics. She was ordering the hanging and imprisonment of Bishops, Priests, and lay Catholics. Pulling fingernails, dislocating arms and legs, torturing on the rack until death, and taking over Catholic Churches. So the Pope excommunicated her for being a heretic and falsely taking the throne. The Pope decreed that she was not the true Queen and that she should not be obeyed and that people should resist her. He then threw his support to army’s that were at war against her. That someone kills her while they are fighting is a far cry from advocating her murder. There IS such a thing as a just war. A good many God loving Christians (Catholics) also died for not agreeing with Queen Elizabeth. It seems to me that your view of history is a little one sided. There were so many things going on in the 1500's one could not even begin to understand, King's and Queen's at war with one another and so on.

Life was rough in the 1500’s; people lived and died by the sword. We are talking about 2005. The Pope and Cardinal we are talking about were not alive in the 1500’s. If you would stick to the subject we would not be talking about this. The subject is TERRI SCHIAVO and whether it was right to pull the feeding tube. No one asked your opinion about the problems you have with “some churches beliefs”.
Just by the things you write I could also say that I have problems with your churches beliefs.

In sticking to the subject it is “my opinion” that what they did was murder. There was no machine helping her breath, there was no machine helping her heart pump. I could just as easily say that you also advocate the murder of a person. Would it be true or would it just be someones opinion? I do consider the Pope and the Catholic Church as a moral compass in this century as do millions of people world wide. (The fact that you don't is no big deal). The reason the Catholic Church stands against this is because it moves this nation and the world one step closer to accepting euthanasia.

Hupernikomen
04-02-2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Panther Ross
Dude are you actually trying to compare us with Terri Schiavo on a social level? You of all people, blow my mind.

I blow your mind? In your first post you said it was an easy decision, and then in a couple post later you said it was a hard decision. You stated what good was her life? My question to you is who has the right to place value of the quality of life no matter how trivial it might seem?

How much good is the life of a person so deformed they can't eat without the help of a tube? Or how about the throat cancer patient who can't breathe without a trach. or ventilator? How much good is the life of the stroke patients who can't speak anymore? How much good is the life of the pope right now? Are we going to start exterminating every life form that we don't see the "good" in?

You seem to have it all figured out so please enlighten me as to who is "good" and who is not.

Old Cardinal
04-02-2005, 04:48 PM
It is a sad commentary in America when an adulturous husband with several alterior motives can legally starve his wife to death!
He could have relinquished all rights and let the loving and willing family care for her.
I believe in written living wills and if by pulling the plug I would die immediately. That is different than starving a human being without water!
We have got to get rid of the activist liberal judges that are really "loose cannons" in control over the wishes of Congress and the American people. The liberal can't win at the ballot box so they find ways to control by legalistic coersion! The balance has been tilted to the liberals as they sieze control of all facets of freedom and distort the wishes of the vast majority of USA citizens. Sad!

Specklebelly
04-02-2005, 06:44 PM
I think too much focus throughout this entire fiasco has been put on the alterior motives of the parents and the husband. Fact is that if they all agreed to either leave the feeding tube in or out, none of us would know who Terri Schiavo was or her story. People are unplugged like this on a regular basis. Nobody seems to refer to it as murder when the whole family agrees to it.

There is only one opinion that matters in this situation and that is the opinion of Terri Schiavo. Unfortunately, she is was so brain dead she couldnt tell anyone what she wanted. In that case, lets all use a little common sense and put ourselves in that hospital bed. For 15 years, you have been unable to eat, drink, walk, talk, think or interact with anyone like a normal adult human. That is fact and proven by every doctor who examined her that did not have an alterior motive. So if that were you laying in that bed for 15 years, what do you want? I personally say pull the plug and its about 14 years too late to do so. If anyone who reads this would like to remain plugged in, please explain to me why. After 15 years, are you suddenly going to make a miracle recovery? I feel the courts and the husband in this matter used common sense and felt the woman would want to go ahead and die after all of this time. They made the right decision.

People ripping the husband through all of this should be ashamed. If he didn't care for her and didn't want to follow through with what he thought was right, he would have divorced her long ago and turned custody of her over to the parents like the parents wanted. He loved her enough to not divorce her, pay attorney fees for 8 years fighting his in-laws, and do what he felt his wife wanted. Its sad he had to fight two parents who could just simply not let go and say goodbye that long. As parents, you give up your right to make those decisions when your daughter gets married. That woman's life ended 15 years ago and its sad he was forced to keep her "alive" this long.

rockdale80
04-02-2005, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Old Cardinal
It is a sad commentary in America when an adulturous husband with several ulterior motives can legally starve his wife to death!
He could have relinquished all rights and let the loving and willing family care for her.
I believe in written living wills and if by pulling the plug I would die immediately then that is different than starving a human being without water!
We have got to get rid of the activist liberal judges that are really "loose cannons" in control over the wishes of Congress and the American people. The liberal can't win at the ballot box so they find ways to control by legalistic coersion! The balance has been tilted to the liberals as they sieze control of all facets of freedom and distort the wishes of the vast majority of USA citizens. Sad!


the liberals did was right...upholding the law. someone around here has to. legalistic coersion? have you ever heard of a basic principle in this country called checks and balances? just because executive and legislative branch pass a law does not mean that is constitutional. besides it was not just liberal judges. several judges from BOTH parties looked this case over. not even the conservative judges did anything. do you want to attack them to? if you are going after all the judges then be fair and go after every single on of them. but dont just single out the few that are democratically appointed.

Old Cardinal
04-02-2005, 11:36 PM
I guess I am talking about checks and balances as being skewed too far to the leftist. Whoever said the Judges were from both sides of the fence-CNN news.... LOL

While I got you here can you tell us what is driving the wins in softball up at Rockdale? They were not that strong last year and seem to be a good solid unit this season.

rockdale80
04-03-2005, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Old Cardinal
I guess I am talking about checks and balances as being skewed too far to the leftist. Whoever said the Judges were from both sides of the fence-CNN news.... LOL

While I got you here can you tell us what is driving the wins in softball up at Rockdale? They were not that strong last year and seem to be a good solid unit this season.

the team last year was a young one....lots of juniors and sophmores that just werent there yet. atleast that is my understanding. They werent that bad last year winning some games they shouldnt have, and losing a few they probably could have won. a few of the girls have played together for some time now and seems like they are just putting it together. i havent personally caught a game in a few years...just read the paper, because I live in Houston now. Whatever it is they are doing, they are doing it right.

as far as the judges it is not some hidden news. supreme court is mostly conservatives. not something that is made up on CNN....but the truth. you can go online and find out just how many conservative judges did nothing as well. like the supreme court??? because they are so liberal right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Old Cardinal
04-03-2005, 12:59 PM
I have only heard folks talk about how "Socialistically Liberal" the Clinton appointed Supreme Court is. Never have I hear anyone even hint that they are "Conservatives"! That is what the beef is all about going on is that they think that there might be a conservative replacement chosen next time.....
Thank you for the info on Rockdale softball. I see that they beat LaGrange 4-2 Saturday.

rockdale80
04-03-2005, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Old Cardinal
I have only heard folks talk about how "Socialistically Liberal" the Clinton appointed Supreme Court is. Never have I hear anyone even hint that they are "Conservatives"! That is what the beef is all about going on is that they think that there might be a conservative replacement chosen next time.....
Thank you for the info on Rockdale softball. I see that they beat LaGrange 4-2 Saturday.

Well since you only see what Fox news says about this I went and looked up the justices, and who nominated them to their position.

Rehnquist-Nixon
Ginsburgh-Clinton
Breyer-Carter
Stevens-Ford
O'Connor--reagan
Scalia-Reagan
Kennedy-Reagan
Souter-Bush Sr.
Thomas-Bush Sr.

And this is not something that took me too long to find out. It is completely unbiased. Like I said, if you are going to attack judges then attack them all. Because it was not just the liberal judges that sided with Michael and the law. It was all of them....from both parties.

Black_Magic
04-04-2005, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by rockdale80
Well since you only see what Fox news says about this I went and looked up the justices, and who nominated them to their position.

Rehnquist-Nixon
Ginsburgh-Clinton
Breyer-Carter
Stevens-Ford
O'Connor--reagan
Scalia-Reagan
Kennedy-Reagan
Souter-Bush Sr.
Thomas-Bush Sr.

And this is not something that took me too long to find out. It is completely unbiased. Like I said, if you are going to attack judges then attack them all. Because it was not just the liberal judges that sided with Michael and the law. It was all of them....from both parties. And this is is a leftist "clinton appointed supreeme court????? LOL Heck only 2 out of the 9 are appointed by Democrats! Prime example of conservatives crying about something they know nothing about. Everything is socialist or liberal or communist.. wha wha wha.Heck Regan and Bush appointed more than 50% of the judges and people still cry about it. Dont wory though. Things will change back the other way after about2-4 years. the pendilum is starting swing back the other way.

sinton66
04-04-2005, 10:56 AM
What part of the statement "No political discussions" do yall not understand?? Get back on track with this discussion or it will end.

JasperDog94
04-04-2005, 12:53 PM
During the Reagan and Bush Sr. years all judges had to be approved through the liberal (Democrat) controlled congress. So in my humble opinion, none of the justices appointed by Reagan or Bush Sr. is a conservative. Moderate would be more the case.

Bandera YaYa
04-04-2005, 01:02 PM
1
Originally posted by sinton66
What part of the statement "No political discussions" do yall not understand?? Get back on track with this discussion or it will end. You're the man, 66 !!!!!!!.......loves it!