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.

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.

Exactly how stupid are you? You went from saying it was not known if she felt pain to saying she did feel pain. Again, you destroy your own arguments even when others aren't doing that to you.

 

[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.

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.

Exactly how stupid are you? You went from saying it was not known if she felt pain to saying she did feel pain. Again, you destroy your own arguments even when others aren't doing that to you.

Obviously, your reading comprehension is as poor as your spelling. I said it's controversial. Some doctors say a patient feels pain. Others say they don't.

However, according to witnesses at her bedside, Terry was in pain when she died.

 

[Faun]

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.

Umm, I didn't speak for anyone but myself.

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.

Terri felt nothing. Again, she was in a persistent vegetative state.

 

[ChrisL]

Anyways, I have to log off now. I have things to do to get prepared for this storm. Have fun, you cold-hearted bastards.

 

[Faun]

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.

Now you're lying. In reality, you have no idea what she told her husband.

 

[Faun]

Anyways, I have to log off now. I have things to do to get prepared for this storm. Have fun, you cold-hearted bastards.

See ya, you lyin' freak.

 

[Faun]

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.

Exactly how stupid are you? You went from saying it was not known if she felt pain to saying she did feel pain. Again, you destroy your own arguments even when others aren't doing that to you.

Obviously, your reading comprehension is as poor as your spelling. I said it's controversial. Some doctors say a patient feels pain. Others say they don't.

However, according to witnesses at her bedside, Terry was in pain when she died.

Your own words....

Faun: She lacked the cognitive ability to comprehend her starvation.

ChrisL: 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.​

You go from saying it's not known if she was in pain or not ... to saying she was in pain. Then, when called on destroying your own position, you deny saying it.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Yes she had no living will. That doesn't mean her parents can just kidnap her and take over her life. It means that the courts of Florida make the decision on who takes care of her. The court chose her husband. After all it was Terri who actually chose him by marrying him. If she didn't want him to have that responsibility she would not have married him.

It would have hurt our court system because we have law and order in America. Parents can't just barge in and take over their adult children's lives. Especially when that adult is married. Do you understand that people have to follow the law? The law was followed right down to the letter and you still moan and groan. Because the law isn't on your side.

You have no idea if she felt pain or not. You aren't her, you weren't with her when she died and you have absolutely no medical training or experience.

"My" side is the side of the law. Your side is the side of kidnapping people who can't defend themselves or make their own decisions. Which is probably one of the lowest things possible. Taking advantage of a person in her condition is disgusting. Yet you still advocate for her to have been kidnapped and forced to remain in that state for an undetermined amount of time. What happens when her parents die and she's still alive? Or when her parents can't take care of her properly? You don't think things through. Just like all far right wing crazy people.

Posting lies just shows how ignorant you are of the law, medicine and science.

I'm done with you. Don't bother to reply to this because I'm not going to read it. You have no respect for our laws, our justice or court system. I don't waste my time with such people. If you want anarchy and people to have the right to illegally kidnap their kids you might want to choose to live in a different nation. Things like that aren't allowed to happen here in America.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Unconditional love would have let her go. When someone loves another person unconditionally they put that other person first.

Not themselves.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So? What is wrong with letting them take her home and care for her until she died? She did not have a living will that specified her own wishes. Although she was said to be "brain dead," others reported her as being somewhat cognizant at times.

The reports of her being cognizant were from doctors willing to lie for the Schindler's. The state's selected physician declared her in a PVS. And again, since you didn't answer ... why keep her alive in that condition? It wasn't about her parents. It wasn't about their needs or inability to let go. It was about Terri. How long would you want someone to keep you in that condition?

Oh please. Lol. I don't think the doctors would lie about a patient's medical condition and risk their entire livelihoods and careers. That is just . . . ridiculous.

And yet, there was no risk to either. So much for your strawman.

Of course there is! Doctors cannot lie about a patient's condition. That goes against their oath.

First of all, there's nothing in the Hippocratic oath about lying. But even if there was, the oath is not legally binding and no [legal] consequences stem from violating it. That's not to say there aren't legal risks for other malpractices which may or may not break their oath, but that would be an appearance of coincidence and due to the malpractice violation, not breaking the Hippocratic oath.

And as it happened, the Schindlers' physicians lied about her condition, which was ultimately proven she truly was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state, and no consequences befell them. Most notibly, because a diagnosis to some degree, is based on opinion. But such opinions can be bought, as the Schindler's did.

Lied? Was he brought before a medical board for professional misconduct or did you tell a lie?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The reports of her being cognizant were from doctors willing to lie for the Schindler's. The state's selected physician declared her in a PVS. And again, since you didn't answer ... why keep her alive in that condition? It wasn't about her parents. It wasn't about their needs or inability to let go. It was about Terri. How long would you want someone to keep you in that condition?

Oh please. Lol. I don't think the doctors would lie about a patient's medical condition and risk their entire livelihoods and careers. That is just . . . ridiculous.

Oh, I almost forgot .... Bill Frist even lied about her condition. Without ever even examining her, he declared she did not appear to be in a PVS to him. So yeah, people lie to support their position -- even doctors.

That is because she was awake and interacting. People who are "brain dead" don't do that. Sorry.

You just lost the argument. You clearly don't understand the difference between being "brain dead" with being in a "persistent vegitative state."

Oh, well.

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No matter how many times this is explained, the death worshippers cling to scientific ignorance. It's embarassing. I would be mortified to display such stupidity but they have no shame.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

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

It's you Leftwats who said she was braindead this entire thread. We're just going along with your false premise to make the case that, according to you, it wouldn't matter to her if her family took her home.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

I could put you in a cell with no food and water and say you were "allowed to die". It's the same thing.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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...

No it's actually very consistent. Unlike Protesants, the Catholic Church has a catechism, clearly spelled out beliefs. To depart from the teachings of the Church is to be in schism and out of communion with the Church. This isn't complicated.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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're projecting again, Plug. Just because you want to die doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Really? You think that conversation really took place? Most people shy away from such morbid topics because it's human nature to not want to face one's mortality. And Mikey had a motivation to lie. If the judge were fair he would have rejected such tainted testimony, but in truth he was just like the rest of you death worshippers and just wanted to kill this woman.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Now you're lying. In reality, you have no idea what she told her husband.

For one thing, I didn't say that she told her husband anything. AND, neither do you know what she said to her husband.

 

[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.

Yes she had no living will. That doesn't mean her parents can just kidnap her and take over her life. It means that the courts of Florida make the decision on who takes care of her. The court chose her husband. After all it was Terri who actually chose him by marrying him. If she didn't want him to have that responsibility she would not have married him.

It would have hurt our court system because we have law and order in America. Parents can't just barge in and take over their adult children's lives. Especially when that adult is married. Do you understand that people have to follow the law? The law was followed right down to the letter and you still moan and groan. Because the law isn't on your side.

You have no idea if she felt pain or not. You aren't her, you weren't with her when she died and you have absolutely no medical training or experience.

"My" side is the side of the law. Your side is the side of kidnapping people who can't defend themselves or make their own decisions. Which is probably one of the lowest things possible. Taking advantage of a person in her condition is disgusting. Yet you still advocate for her to have been kidnapped and forced to remain in that state for an undetermined amount of time. What happens when her parents die and she's still alive? Or when her parents can't take care of her properly? You don't think things through. Just like all far right wing crazy people.

Posting lies just shows how ignorant you are of the law, medicine and science.

I'm done with you. Don't bother to reply to this because I'm not going to read it. You have no respect for our laws, our justice or court system. I don't waste my time with such people. If you want anarchy and people to have the right to illegally kidnap their kids you might want to choose to live in a different nation. Things like that aren't allowed to happen here in America.

Have a nice day.

Look, stop talking about yourself. This has nothing to do with you. Save your sob stories. No one is posting lies here except you and your disgusting friends.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Exactly how stupid are you? You went from saying it was not known if she felt pain to saying she did feel pain. Again, you destroy your own arguments even when others aren't doing that to you.

Obviously, your reading comprehension is as poor as your spelling. I said it's controversial. Some doctors say a patient feels pain. Others say they don't.

However, according to witnesses at her bedside, Terry was in pain when she died.

Your own words....

Faun: She lacked the cognitive ability to comprehend her starvation.

ChrisL: 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.​

You go from saying it's not known if she was in pain or not ... to saying she was in pain. Then, when called on destroying your own position, you deny saying it.

Wow, you are even MORE of an idiot than I gave you credit for. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Anyways, I have to log off now. I have things to do to get prepared for this storm. Have fun, you cold-hearted bastards.

See ya, you lyin' freak.

Is that all you have? Liar, liar pants on fire? Weak dude, weak.