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

[ChrisL]

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.

Did you not read my post? It is not known. It is a controversial matter, especially for a person like Terry who was NOT unconscious. Also, her gasping and panting is well documented while she was in the throes of death. That is an indication of pain.

 

[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.

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.

Good for you. You should be proud.

 

[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.

Good for you. You should be proud.

I am. You have a problem understanding that there are worse things than death, much worse.

 

[Faun]

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.

Because almost no one wants to be kept alive in that state. Just because modern medicine provides the ability to keep a body alive doesn't mean it's the right thing to to. Taxidermists have the ability to preserve a body for parents who can't deal with their departed children so they can prop them up in a room, that doesn't make that right either.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Because almost no one wants to be kept alive in that state. Just because modern medicine provides the ability to keep a body alive doesn't mean it's the right thing to to. Taxidermists have the ability to preserve a body for parents who can't deal with their departed children so they can prop them up in a room, that doesn't make that right either.

You can't speak for others, especially if they don't have a living will.

 

[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.

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.

Good for you. You should be proud.

I am. You have a problem understanding that there are worse things than death, much worse.

You don't know how Terry felt. You have no clue. Her parents visited her every day.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Because almost no one wants to be kept alive in that state. Just because modern medicine provides the ability to keep a body alive doesn't mean it's the right thing to to. Taxidermists have the ability to preserve a body for parents who can't deal with their departed children so they can prop them up in a room, that doesn't make that right either.

You can't speak for others, especially if they don't have a living will.

Oh but you can, if you are their spouse...

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Because almost no one wants to be kept alive in that state. Just because modern medicine provides the ability to keep a body alive doesn't mean it's the right thing to to. Taxidermists have the ability to preserve a body for parents who can't deal with their departed children so they can prop them up in a room, that doesn't make that right either.

You can't speak for others, especially if they don't have a living will.

Oh but you can, if you are their spouse...

Sorry, but I take the parents' side on this issue.

 

[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.

Good for you. You should be proud.

I am. You have a problem understanding that there are worse things than death, much worse.

You don't know how Terry felt. You have no clue. Her parents visited her every day.

Her husband knows how she felt, before she was dead before she hit the floor. Life can be brutal, start dealing with it like an adult, not a child.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Because almost no one wants to be kept alive in that state. Just because modern medicine provides the ability to keep a body alive doesn't mean it's the right thing to to. Taxidermists have the ability to preserve a body for parents who can't deal with their departed children so they can prop them up in a room, that doesn't make that right either.

You can't speak for others, especially if they don't have a living will.

Oh but you can, if you are their spouse...

Sorry, but I take the parents' side on this issue.

You can take whatever side you like but you are ignoring the reality. The reality is the choice belongs to your spouse at that point, so, marry well eh?

 

[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.

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.

Good for you. You should be proud.

I am. You have a problem understanding that there are worse things than death, much worse.

You don't know how Terry felt. You have no clue. Her parents visited her every day.

Her husbands knows who she felt, before she was dead before she hit the floor. Life can be brutal, start dealing with it like an adult, not a child.

No he doesn't know how she felt. It is a well-documented fact that husbands and wives can have less than ideal relationships, whereas your parents (in most instances) love for you is unconditional.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Because almost no one wants to be kept alive in that state. Just because modern medicine provides the ability to keep a body alive doesn't mean it's the right thing to to. Taxidermists have the ability to preserve a body for parents who can't deal with their departed children so they can prop them up in a room, that doesn't make that right either.

You can't speak for others, especially if they don't have a living will.

Oh but you can, if you are their spouse...

Sorry, but I take the parents' side on this issue.

You can take whatever side you like but you are ignoring the reality. The reality is the choice belongs to your spouse at that point, so, marry well eh?

I disagree with you entirely. Since he was not a faithful spouse, that says a lot too. He couldn't wait for her to be gone, let's be honest.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Good for you. You should be proud.

I am. You have a problem understanding that there are worse things than death, much worse.

You don't know how Terry felt. You have no clue. Her parents visited her every day.

Her husband knows how she felt, before she was dead before she hit the floor. Life can be brutal, start dealing with it like an adult, not a child.

No he doesn't know how she felt. It is a well-documented fact that husbands and wives can have less than ideal relationships, whereas your parents (in most instances) love for you is unconditional.

Unconditional love is not what you need at that point. They couldn't let go, and she was already gone.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because almost no one wants to be kept alive in that state. Just because modern medicine provides the ability to keep a body alive doesn't mean it's the right thing to to. Taxidermists have the ability to preserve a body for parents who can't deal with their departed children so they can prop them up in a room, that doesn't make that right either.

You can't speak for others, especially if they don't have a living will.

Oh but you can, if you are their spouse...

Sorry, but I take the parents' side on this issue.

You can take whatever side you like but you are ignoring the reality. The reality is the choice belongs to your spouse at that point, so, marry well eh?

I disagree with you entirely. Since he was not a faithful spouse, that says a lot too. He couldn't wait for her to be gone, let's be honest.

That's not being honest, which is the problem.

 

[ChrisL]

You can't speak for others, especially if they don't have a living will.

Oh but you can, if you are their spouse...

Sorry, but I take the parents' side on this issue.

You can take whatever side you like but you are ignoring the reality. The reality is the choice belongs to your spouse at that point, so, marry well eh?

I disagree with you entirely. Since he was not a faithful spouse, that says a lot too. He couldn't wait for her to be gone, let's be honest.

That's not being honest, which is the problem.

Let's look at the facts. There were allegations of abuse. He cheated on Terry. Her parents just wanted to take her home and be with during her last days. Michael wanted her gone.

 

[ChrisL]

Having Terry out of the picture probably helped Michael to feel a LOT less guilty for his behavior.

 

[Faun]

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.

How fortunate is the world to have people like you decide who is or is not a real Catholic?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh but you can, if you are their spouse...

Sorry, but I take the parents' side on this issue.

You can take whatever side you like but you are ignoring the reality. The reality is the choice belongs to your spouse at that point, so, marry well eh?

I disagree with you entirely. Since he was not a faithful spouse, that says a lot too. He couldn't wait for her to be gone, let's be honest.

That's not being honest, which is the problem.

Let's look at the facts. There were allegations of abuse. He cheated on Terry. Her parents just wanted to take her home and be with during her last days. Michael wanted her gone.

Marriage is an up and down business. My spouse, she knows my wishes like no one else. My surviving parent hasn't a clue.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, but I take the parents' side on this issue.

You can take whatever side you like but you are ignoring the reality. The reality is the choice belongs to your spouse at that point, so, marry well eh?

I disagree with you entirely. Since he was not a faithful spouse, that says a lot too. He couldn't wait for her to be gone, let's be honest.

That's not being honest, which is the problem.

Let's look at the facts. There were allegations of abuse. He cheated on Terry. Her parents just wanted to take her home and be with during her last days. Michael wanted her gone.

Marriage is an up and down business. My spouse, she knows my wishes like no one else. My surviving parent hasn't a clue.

That's wonderful that you can trust your wife. Not everyone can trust their spouse to make the best decisions for them. Some people are married to selfish jerks.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can take whatever side you like but you are ignoring the reality. The reality is the choice belongs to your spouse at that point, so, marry well eh?

I disagree with you entirely. Since he was not a faithful spouse, that says a lot too. He couldn't wait for her to be gone, let's be honest.

That's not being honest, which is the problem.

Let's look at the facts. There were allegations of abuse. He cheated on Terry. Her parents just wanted to take her home and be with during her last days. Michael wanted her gone.

Marriage is an up and down business. My spouse, she knows my wishes like no one else. My surviving parent hasn't a clue.

That's wonderful that you can trust your wife. Not everyone can trust their spouse to make the best decisions for them. Some people are married to selfish jerks.

Some are but the rules are the same. It's their call to make.