Terri Schiavo's Husband: Jeb Bush 'Put Me Through Hell'

[Faun]

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

She was killed. End of story.

Wrong. She was allowed to die. Which is what most people would want if they were in her condition.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Too late. I am a part of the medical profession. Lol. And no, I said Terry Schiavo was not brain dead.

And what did her brain activity have to do with her being in a persistent vegetative state?

That it is wrong to kill her. She was starved to death. How awful.

Not awful. She lacked the cognitive ability to comprehend her starvation.

That is not known. There are doctors who say she MAY produce natural "pain killer type" chemicals. Others say it is a slow and very painful death, especially for a person who is NOT brain dead, like Terry. It is awful. Awfully cruel.

 

[ChrisL]

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

She was killed. End of story.

Wrong. She was allowed to die. Which is what most people would want if they were in her condition.

No, her feeding tube was disconnected and she was starved to death. Why do you want this woman to be dead anyway? Why would you argue against her loved ones wishes for her death? It's just weird. Most people feel the opposite, I think. If she was brain dead, I would agree. She is no longer present and not able to perform any kind of functions on her own, but she was NOT brain dead. We can't just kill people because they have brain damage without a living will!!!

 

[Faun]

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

Her family, friends, priest and some of her doctors disagree with your assessment of her state of mind. They saw her, spoke with her and interacted with her. I will take their words over yours.

Who cares whose word you take? The autopsy proved they were wrong. Does it matter to anyone that you cling to those who were proved to be wrong?

 

[ChrisL]

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

Her family, friends, priest and some of her doctors disagree with your assessment of her state of mind. They saw her, spoke with her and interacted with her. I will take their words over yours.

Who cares whose word you take? The autopsy proved they were wrong. Does it matter to anyone that you cling to those who were proved to be wrong?

Okay, I think you've made the case that you are a cold-hearted person. Carry on. I've nothing more to say on the matter. To me, it is very cruel way to off someone and was completely unnecessary because she had family that was willing to care for her and had no living will.

 

[Faun]

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

Why don't you try to put yourself in the shoes of her parents for just a couple of minutes. Imagine that was your child and you wanted to spend some time with her at home before her death, but were told "nope, too bad, we are going to kill your child because we don't think her life is worth living anymore." That is shitty no matter how you try to slice it.

Of course parents feel differently. It's their child. Almost any parent would cling to hope, even when there is none. I don't criticize the Schindler's for fighting. I likely would have done the same if it were, G-d forbid, my child.

 

[Dana7360]

Well, I think the husband is a jerk. He did not HAVE to kill her. That was completely unnecessary.

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Yes she had no living will so the government of Florida did the legal and right thing by giving guardianship of her to her husband. Not her parents.

It seems to me you keep advocating for the law to be violated and I don't understand why.

Children aren't property of their parents. No parent owns their kids and no parent has any control or right to control their children once that child reaches the age of 18.

What is wrong with handing her over to her parents is that it would have been a violation of court orders and illegal. Do you understand that when a judge rules and orders something that it must be followed or you have broken the law? Do yo understand that when two people get married they're committed to each other and the parents have absolutely no right to tell their child what to do or where they should live? That it's the spouse's job to do that when the other can't? That's one of the benefits of marriage. That a person gets to choose who they trust to make the best decisions for them when they can't. The court in Florida followed the law.

You are advocating for people to violate the law.

 

[Faun]

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

She was killed. End of story.

Wrong. She was allowed to die. Which is what most people would want if they were in her condition.

No, her feeding tube was disconnected and she was starved to death. Why do you want this woman to be dead anyway? Why would you argue against her loved ones wishes for her death? It's just weird. Most people feel the opposite, I think. If she was brain dead, I would agree. She is no longer present and not able to perform any kind of functions on her own, but she was NOT brain dead. We can't just kill people because they have brain damage without a living will!!!

I agree with Michael Schiavo's choice because I would not want to be kept alive in her condition either. Almost everyone I've heard weigh in on that matter has said they would not want to be kept alive.

 

[ChrisL]

Too late. I am a part of the medical profession. Lol. And no, I said Terry Schiavo was not brain dead.

And what did her brain activity have to do with her being in a persistent vegetative state?

That it is wrong to kill her. She was starved to death. How awful.

Not awful. She lacked the cognitive ability to comprehend her starvation.

That is not known. There are doctors who say she MAY produce natural "pain killer type" chemicals. Others say it is a slow and very painful death, especially for a person who is NOT brain dead, like Terry. It is awful. Awfully cruel.

Again, you reveal abject ignorance byou don

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

She was killed. End of story.

Wrong. She was allowed to die. Which is what most people would want if they were in her condition.

No, her feeding tube was disconnected and she was starved to death. Why do you want this woman to be dead anyway? Why would you argue against her loved ones wishes for her death? It's just weird. Most people feel the opposite, I think. If she was brain dead, I would agree. She is no longer present and not able to perform any kind of functions on her own, but she was NOT brain dead. We can't just kill people because they have brain damage without a living will!!!

I agree with Michael Schiavo's choice because I would not want to be kept alive in her condition either. Almost everyone I've heard weigh in on that matter has said they would not want to be kept alive.

No, I am not ignorant, as much as you would like to convince (me?) that I am. We will have to agree to disagree. I think that what they did to Ms. Schiavo was terribly cruel.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I think the husband is a jerk. He did not HAVE to kill her. That was completely unnecessary.

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Yes she had no living will so the government of Florida did the legal and right thing by giving guardianship of her to her husband. Not her parents.

It seems to me you keep advocating for the law to be violated and I don't understand why.

Children aren't property of their parents. No parent owns their kids and no parent has any control or right to control their children once that child reaches the age of 18.

What is wrong with handing her over to her parents is that it would have been a violation of court orders and illegal. Do you understand that when a judge rules and orders something that it must be followed or you have broken the law? Do yo understand that when two people get married they're committed to each other and the parents have absolutely no right to tell their child what to do or where they should live? That it's the spouse's job to do that when the other can't? That's one of the benefits of marriage. That a person gets to choose who they trust to make the best decisions for them when they can't. The court in Florida followed the law.

You are advocating for people to violate the law.

No I am not. She had no living will. It would have hurt nobody. However, Terry was in pain when she died. Your side did hurt someone.

 

[Faun]

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

Her family, friends, priest and some of her doctors disagree with your assessment of her state of mind. They saw her, spoke with her and interacted with her. I will take their words over yours.

Who cares whose word you take? The autopsy proved they were wrong. Does it matter to anyone that you cling to those who were proved to be wrong?

Okay, I think you've made the case that you are a cold-hearted person. Carry on. I've nothing more to say on the matter. To me, it is very cruel way to off someone and was completely unnecessary because she had family that was willing to care for her and had no living will.

Funny. You're proven to be wrong so you pick up your ball and sulk home.

 

[ChrisL]

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

Her family, friends, priest and some of her doctors disagree with your assessment of her state of mind. They saw her, spoke with her and interacted with her. I will take their words over yours.

Who cares whose word you take? The autopsy proved they were wrong. Does it matter to anyone that you cling to those who were proved to be wrong?

Okay, I think you've made the case that you are a cold-hearted person. Carry on. I've nothing more to say on the matter. To me, it is very cruel way to off someone and was completely unnecessary because she had family that was willing to care for her and had no living will.

Funny. You're proven to be wrong so you pick up your ball and sulk home.

Not at all. I just realize that it is a waste of my time.

 

[ChrisL]

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

She was killed. End of story.

Wrong. She was allowed to die. Which is what most people would want if they were in her condition.

No, her feeding tube was disconnected and she was starved to death. Why do you want this woman to be dead anyway? Why would you argue against her loved ones wishes for her death? It's just weird. Most people feel the opposite, I think. If she was brain dead, I would agree. She is no longer present and not able to perform any kind of functions on her own, but she was NOT brain dead. We can't just kill people because they have brain damage without a living will!!!

I agree with Michael Schiavo's choice because I would not want to be kept alive in her condition either. Almost everyone I've heard weigh in on that matter has said they would not want to be kept alive.

If you don't believe in an afterlife, feel that she was not cognizant of anything that was happening, then who does it harm to let her parents take her home and care for her? NO ONE.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Nope, not my opinion. Stated fact by the physicians who examined her. But it's nice to see you think you should get to make that choice but force her to remain kept alive in that state.

And if I have an affinity on the issue, it's over choice, not death. Something you apparenly feel you should be entitled to but not Terri and her husband at that time.

Plug, that there was no hope of recovery was your opinion, and at variance with medical experts, of which you are not one. And it's also your opinion that she was "forced" to stay alive. Just because you want to pull your own plug,

doesn't mean everyone does. She was Catholic and catechized to treat life as precious in every stage.

So what you have is just a bunch of opinions that you treat as fact.

Ummm, Sitting Bullshit ... her autopsy proved the doctors who diagnosed her condition an irreversible persistent vegetative state -- right. That has nothing to do with my opinion, no matter how much you wish it did.

And she most certainly required life support to keep her alive. That is Florida state law, also not my opinion.

As far as her faith, that had nothing to do with it. Just as there are many Catholics who commit adultery even though it goes against their faith; many Catholics who are gay even though it is against their faith; many Catholics who have abortions even though it goes against their faith, therer are also many Catholics who do not want to be kept alive on life support should they ever unfortunately end up in that condition.

There are also many catholics who use birth control. There are many catholics who let a fetus die to save the mother.

Both of which are against catholic teachings and rules.

Bullshit. The first one is, the second one is not. Catholic mothers are not required to endanger their lives in childbirth.

Stop lying, Leftists!

There are many Catholics who have abortions for all sorts of reasons.

Catholics for Choice

They aren't real Catholics just like Nancy Pelosi. Beliefs are not optional for Catholics. We uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church or we lose our state of grace and communion with the Universal Church. That couldn't have been made more clear in the Council of Trent. According to the Church, anyone who procures, participates in, or advocates an abortion has committed a mortal sin and is in danger of eternal loss unless they repent. There is no ambiguity about abortion in the Catholic Church.

 

[Faun]

And what did her brain activity have to do with her being in a persistent vegetative state?

That it is wrong to kill her. She was starved to death. How awful.

Not awful. She lacked the cognitive ability to comprehend her starvation.

That is not known. There are doctors who say she MAY produce natural "pain killer type" chemicals. Others say it is a slow and very painful death, especially for a person who is NOT brain dead, like Terry. It is awful. Awfully cruel.

Again, you reveal abject ignorance byou don

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

She was killed. End of story.

Wrong. She was allowed to die. Which is what most people would want if they were in her condition.

No, her feeding tube was disconnected and she was starved to death. Why do you want this woman to be dead anyway? Why would you argue against her loved ones wishes for her death? It's just weird. Most people feel the opposite, I think. If she was brain dead, I would agree. She is no longer present and not able to perform any kind of functions on her own, but she was NOT brain dead. We can't just kill people because they have brain damage without a living will!!!

I agree with Michael Schiavo's choice because I would not want to be kept alive in her condition either. Almost everyone I've heard weigh in on that matter has said they would not want to be kept alive.

No, I am not ignorant, as much as you would like to convince (me?) that I am. We will have to agree to disagree. I think that what they did to Ms. Schiavo was terribly cruel.

Yes, on this matter you have revealed ignorance. You revealed you think a person who is in a persistent vegetative state is brain dead and you revealed you think just because a person has some level of brain activity that means there is some level of awareness.

Neither of which were true in Terri Schiavo's case.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, I know who was "harmed" by her being alive . . . her husband who wanted her gone so he could forget about her and move on with his life. That is the bottom line here. Her husband was a cold-hearted snake, like so many people posting here on this thread. Cold, cold, cold.

 

[ChrisL]

That it is wrong to kill her. She was starved to death. How awful.

Not awful. She lacked the cognitive ability to comprehend her starvation.

That is not known. There are doctors who say she MAY produce natural "pain killer type" chemicals. Others say it is a slow and very painful death, especially for a person who is NOT brain dead, like Terry. It is awful. Awfully cruel.

Again, you reveal abject ignorance byou don

She was killed. End of story.

Wrong. She was allowed to die. Which is what most people would want if they were in her condition.

No, her feeding tube was disconnected and she was starved to death. Why do you want this woman to be dead anyway? Why would you argue against her loved ones wishes for her death? It's just weird. Most people feel the opposite, I think. If she was brain dead, I would agree. She is no longer present and not able to perform any kind of functions on her own, but she was NOT brain dead. We can't just kill people because they have brain damage without a living will!!!

I agree with Michael Schiavo's choice because I would not want to be kept alive in her condition either. Almost everyone I've heard weigh in on that matter has said they would not want to be kept alive.

No, I am not ignorant, as much as you would like to convince (me?) that I am. We will have to agree to disagree. I think that what they did to Ms. Schiavo was terribly cruel.

Yes, on this matter you have revealed ignorance. You revealed you think a person who is in a persistent vegetative state is brain dead and you revealed you think just because a person has some level of brain activity that means there is some level of awareness.

Neither of which were true in Terri Schiavo's case.

No, you've revealed your ignorance. A person who doesn't even know how to spell the word "vegetative" probably has no business discussing medical conditions. Lol.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Plug, that there was no hope of recovery was your opinion, and at variance with medical experts, of which you are not one. And it's also your opinion that she was "forced" to stay alive. Just because you want to pull your own plug,

doesn't mean everyone does. She was Catholic and catechized to treat life as precious in every stage.

So what you have is just a bunch of opinions that you treat as fact.

Ummm, Sitting Bullshit ... her autopsy proved the doctors who diagnosed her condition an irreversible persistent vegetative state -- right. That has nothing to do with my opinion, no matter how much you wish it did.

And she most certainly required life support to keep her alive. That is Florida state law, also not my opinion.

As far as her faith, that had nothing to do with it. Just as there are many Catholics who commit adultery even though it goes against their faith; many Catholics who are gay even though it is against their faith; many Catholics who have abortions even though it goes against their faith, therer are also many Catholics who do not want to be kept alive on life support should they ever unfortunately end up in that condition.

There are also many catholics who use birth control. There are many catholics who let a fetus die to save the mother.

Both of which are against catholic teachings and rules.

Bullshit. The first one is, the second one is not. Catholic mothers are not required to endanger their lives in childbirth.

Stop lying, Leftists!

There are many Catholics who have abortions for all sorts of reasons.

Catholics for Choice

They aren't real Catholics just like Nancy Pelosi. Beliefs are not optional for Catholics. We uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church or we lose our state of grace and communion with the Universal Church. That couldn't have been made more clear in the Council of Trent. According to the Church, anyone who procures, participates in, or advocates an abortion has committed a mortal sin and is in danger of eternal loss unless they repent. There is no ambiguity about abortion in the Catholic Church.

What is a real Catholic has a funny definition, it keeps changing...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, I know who was "harmed" by her being alive . . . her husband who wanted her gone so he could forget about her and move on with his life. That is the bottom line here. Her husband was a cold-hearted snake, like so many people posting here on this thread. Cold, cold, cold.

You think like a child. Had it been my wife, who would not want to live that way, I would have pulled the plug myself, or not stopped until it was.

 

[Faun]

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Yes she had no living will so the government of Florida did the legal and right thing by giving guardianship of her to her husband. Not her parents.

It seems to me you keep advocating for the law to be violated and I don't understand why.

Children aren't property of their parents. No parent owns their kids and no parent has any control or right to control their children once that child reaches the age of 18.

What is wrong with handing her over to her parents is that it would have been a violation of court orders and illegal. Do you understand that when a judge rules and orders something that it must be followed or you have broken the law? Do yo understand that when two people get married they're committed to each other and the parents have absolutely no right to tell their child what to do or where they should live? That it's the spouse's job to do that when the other can't? That's one of the benefits of marriage. That a person gets to choose who they trust to make the best decisions for them when they can't. The court in Florida followed the law.

You are advocating for people to violate the law.

No I am not. She had no living will. It would have hurt nobody. However, Terry was in pain when she died. Your side did hurt someone.

Exactly how do you go from stating "it is not known" if she was in pain ... to stating "she was in pain?"

Damn! You'You're losing this debate so badly, you're even defeating your own arguments.