I hope y'all are happy....

[Avatar4321]

do you care about the quality of life you will live?

Of course. But i sure as hell dont want some court deciding i should die if I am somehow became handicap because a judge decides i wouldnt want to live that way. How is that justice? I sure as heck didnt give the judge power to decide that. Terri didn't either.

The courts disagree with you.

The court decided that segregation was constiutional before too. So what? This judge is wrong. Judges can be wrong. I don't think that the Constitution makes judges god. The Judge doesn't have the right to determine that someone should die because their quality of life wont measure up to a certain level. We are supposed to be civilized.

but you have no problem with the random deaths of iraqi civilians as you call them collateral damage. how touching.

Who says i have no problem with it? its a tragedy. Its not our fault that the terrorists are targeting the Iraqi people to scare them into submision though. And its better that we fight and lose a few people than not fight and see the people slaughtered. We failed to fight in Vietnam and over 20 million people were slaughtered by communists in Southeast Asia. If its a choice between the two evils of a few people being killed and alot of people being killed its not a tough choice. Doesnt mean that any of us think its not sad that such a choice even has to be made.

Get over yourself. The fact that people disagree with you does make their opinion less valid or make them dumb. So cut out this self righteous bs. Rational people can oppose a husband murdering her wife.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Of course. But i sure as hell dont want some court deciding i should die if I am somehow became handicap because a judge decides i wouldnt want to live that way. How is that justice? I sure as heck didnt give the judge power to decide that. Terri didn't either.

according to centuries of legal precedence, she did through her husband. but I forget, delay just said that the sanctity of marriage isn't important now.

The court decided that segregation was constiutional before too. So what? This judge is wrong. Judges can be wrong. I don't think that the Constitution makes judges god. The Judge doesn't have the right to determine that someone should die because their quality of life wont measure up to a certain level. We are supposed to be civilized.

If the courts were wrong, why did the supreme court decline to review it?

Who says i have no problem with it? its a tragedy. Its not our fault that the terrorists are targeting the Iraqi people to scare them into submision though. And its better that we fight and lose a few people than not fight and see the people slaughtered. We failed to fight in Vietnam and over 20 million people were slaughtered by communists in Southeast Asia. If its a choice between the two evils of a few people being killed and alot of people being killed its not a tough choice. Doesnt mean that any of us think its not sad that such a choice even has to be made.

I was referring to the bombs that were dropped by the US, don't skirt the issue.

But I'm dismayed that your conservatism now consists of opening up the sanctity of marriage to federal government now. congrats. this is a good precursor to removing part of the constitution where states must honor contracts conceived in other states so you can outlaw gay marriage. How many other constitutional amendments would you like to remove so the feds get more power?

Get over yourself. The fact that people disagree with you does make their opinion less valid or make them dumb. So cut out this self righteous bs. Rational people can oppose a husband murdering her wife.[/QUOTE]

 

[no1tovote4]

It isn't murder you moron. Its about letting a womans wish to NOT live a tortured meaningless existence. Get this straight, its about what TERRI wanted, not her selfish ass parents and siblings.

I would agree if I hadn't seen Mr. Schiavo on TV in the past two days saying, "I think this is what Terry would have wanted."

I would also agree if it wasn't contested in such a way. Saying they are selfish when they clearly believe that this is not what she wished is simply being disingenuous and attempting to make them into mosters, much like the other side has done with Mr. Schiavo.

However death should be brought on noone by an assumption of what they think somebody wants, this is what they mean by a presumption to life. It should be 100% clear. With this much reasonable doubt we wouldn't convict the worst murderer to death, why should we do it to somebody innocent of crime?

 

[5stringJeff]

I would agree if I hadn't seen Mr. Schiavo on TV in the past two days saying, "I think this is what Terry would have wanted."

I would also agree if it wasn't contested in such a way. Saying they are selfish when they clearly believe that this is not what she wished is simply being disingenuous and attempting to make them into mosters, much like the other side has done with Mr. Schiavo.

However death should be brought on noone by an assumption of what they think somebody wants, this is what they mean by a presumption to life. It should be 100% clear. With this much reasonable doubt we wouldn't convict the worst murderer to death, why should we do it to somebody innocent of crime?

Thank you no1, this is exactly the point I have wanted to make, but wasn't able to express correctly.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

However death should be brought on noone by an assumption of what they think somebody wants, this is what they mean by a presumption to life. It should be 100% clear. With this much reasonable doubt we wouldn't convict the worst murderer to death, why should we do it to somebody innocent of crime?

how did scott petersen get a death sentence then? all of the evidence against him was circumstantial.

 

[no1tovote4]

how did scott petersen get a death sentence then? all of the evidence against him was circumstantial.

There was less reasonable doubt in that case than there is in this one. That and the fact that even that Jury knows that death in California is likely to never happen. Interesting that he will be safe in a secluded part of the prison and not subject to Gen Pop, but this woman under simple presumptions and guesswork will be killed most assuredly.

There are at least as many witnesses on the family's side as on Mr. Schiavo's side, creating an incredible amount of reasonable doubt, however the court cannot under the current law work with reasonable doubt they must work with Mr. Schiavo's heavier claim being the husband. This is what people are talking about, the laws should be changed to reflect a presumption of life when there is reasonable doubt as to the wishes of the patient.

 

[Shattered]

There was less reasonable doubt in that case than there is in this one. That and the fact that even that Jury knows that death in California is likely to never happen. Interesting that he will be safe in a secluded part of the prison and not subject to Gen Pop, but this woman under simple presumptions and guesswork will be killed most assuredly.

There are at least as many witnesses on the family's side as on Mr. Schiavo's side, creating an incredible amount of reasonable doubt, however the court cannot under the current law work with reasonable doubt they must work with Mr. Schiavo's heavier claim being the husband. This is what people are talking about, the laws should be changed to reflect a presumption of life when there is reasonable doubt as to the wishes of the patient.

 

[no1tovote4]

Cool smiley.

 

[Mr. P]

I still say, EVERYONE SHOULD BUTT OUT!

 

[dilloduck]

So no one should challenge the ex-husbands assertions and desires? It would be nice but I don't think anyone has the opportunity to do whatever they want to and not expect a challenge---especially when it's one of life or death--hell , people condemned to death by a jury AUTOMATCALLY get a review and appeal.

 

[Avatar4321]

according to centuries of legal precedence, she did through her husband. but I forget, delay just said that the sanctity of marriage isn't important now.

I tired of these straw men. No one has said that the sanctity of marriage isnt important. What has been said is that the santity of life trumps it. No husband has the right to murder his wife.

Terri did not make her wishes known. Michael admitted it on National Television when he told Larry King that no one knows what Terri wanted. Michael admitted he didnt know what she wants but he wants her dead. Regardless how sacred marriage is, marriage does not give anyone the legal right to murder their spouse. It never has. If you accept that a husband can kill his wife for the belief that she wouldnt want to live a certain way, we are going to have alot more murders using this defense. "My wife didnt want to live life knowing she would live like _________ so its my right to kill her"

You can insert anything you want in there. It doesnt matter. no husband should be allowed to murder his wife. We arent talking about letting a terminally ill person die here by failing to keep their bodies alive with machines. we are talking about cold blooded murder by forbidding her eat or even to let her try to eat.

If the courts were wrong, why did the supreme court decline to review it?

Because they had no jurisdiction to federally review this decision until last night.

I was referring to the bombs that were dropped by the US, don't skirt the issue.

Im not skirting anything. The loss of life sucks. Im simply refuting your arguments

But I'm dismayed that your conservatism now consists of opening up the sanctity of marriage to federal government now. congrats. this is a good precursor to removing part of the constitution where states must honor contracts conceived in other states so you can outlaw gay marriage. How many other constitutional amendments would you like to remove so the feds get more power?

Im dismayed that you seem to think its a right for people to murder others. Im dismayed that you seem to ignore that 14th amendment that allows the federal government to check the powers of the state if they overstep their bounds in issues such as this. Im dismayed that you seem to think saving a woman's life will somehow recind the full faith and credit clause of the constitution or even that the full faith in credit clause has anything to do with this matter. Your logic just doesn't flow here.

 

[insein]

if your going to let her die you might as well inject her with something to make the death quick and painless instead of starving her to death over the course of 7 to 10 days. And dont give me that bullshit that she cant feel anything. How could we possibly know.

 

[Mr. P]

So no one should challenge the ex-husbands assertions and desires? It would be nice but I don't think anyone has the opportunity to do whatever they want to and not expect a challenge---especially when it's one of life or death--hell , people condemned to death by a jury AUTOMATCALLY get a review and appeal.

Last I knew he wasn't an Ex-husband..So yes, BUTT OUT.

 

[Mr. P]

...And dont give me that bullshit that she cant feel anything. How could we possibly know.

EEGs and such..She's toast..There is no brain..Just a stim...

 

[Bonnie]

I called you a moron because you IGNORE, yes you IGNORE, the 5+ years this has gone through a handful of courts in florida. The parents lost everytime because ALL of those courts decided in terri's favor. You don't agree with terri's wishes so you, and all those that support this abomination of a republican party, are pleased as punch to force YOUR will on an individual that never wished to be this way. THATS Sadism to the extreme.

And you ignore an awful lot based on your own feelings of wanting to have final and all say over your wife, which is your business and no one is telling you otherwise. This is not about you and your marriage this is about Terri and her due process. What's the harm in letting a federal judge hear the case?????

Can you get passed the politics and this and see it as a case in which many are trying to save this womans life???
Those courts in FLA did not hear all the facts in this case only certian facts. Not everyone who wants to save Terri is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

You are staring to look like someone who is heartless enough to put legal wrangling over someone's life???

 

[Bonnie]

We believe the following videos clips give stunning testimony to Terri's awareness. These are in Real Media format.
Terri and her Mother Tracking a Balloon for Dr. Cranford
Swab Test Asked to Open Her Eyes
Terri Responding to Music "How's Your Cold?"


http://www.terrisfight.net/

Very telling videos of Terri and how well she repsonds to her family.

 

[dilloduck]

We believe the following videos clips give stunning testimony to Terri's awareness. These are in Real Media format.
Terri and her Mother Tracking a Balloon for Dr. Cranford
Swab Test Asked to Open Her Eyes
Terri Responding to Music "How's Your Cold?"


http://www.terrisfight.net/

Very telling videos of Terri and how well she repsonds to her family.

If we are to kill all people who are not able to think, our population will be at least decimated .

 

[OCA]

It isn't murder you moron. Its about letting a womans wish to NOT live a tortured meaningless existence. Get this straight, its about what TERRI wanted, not her selfish ass parents and siblings.

Nobody knows exactly what Terri wanted. There is nothing in writing.

 

[OCA]

We believe the following videos clips give stunning testimony to Terri's awareness. These are in Real Media format.
Terri and her Mother Tracking a Balloon for Dr. Cranford
Swab Test Asked to Open Her Eyes
Terri Responding to Music "How's Your Cold?"


http://www.terrisfight.net/

Very telling videos of Terri and how well she repsonds to her family.

I'm in the middle on this case. I believe that Terri doesn't know what day it is, doesn't know day from night...she's a vegetable. I believe her parents grasp at straws and take any gutter utterance as intelligible life.

I also believe that libs are quick to kill this chick and babies but then do not want to kill convicted murderers...where is the logic in that?

This case is a shithole. congress getting involved is the last thing that was needed.

 

[5stringJeff]

If we are to kill all people who are not able to think, our population will be at least decimated .

On the plus side, the Democrats would never win another election.