Comments on: Terri Shiavo’s Death Sentence

By: Queeny

Queeny — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:38:48 +0000

I’m sorry but I cannot see how someone would want to be kept alive if they couldn’t do anything for themselves. As far as having the living will I totally agree But I’m like these other people I’m a little confused about it. If it were me who was relying on the feeding tube to stay alive and not be able to feed myself,take care of my self clean myself or anything then I say let me go to Jesus so he can take care of me. I would not want to be in a state where I couldn’t talk or move so I would want my family to see fit to it that I was not kept alive artificially and let me go to a better place. I have nothing to say about anything anyone has said because it’s all opinion and facts.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:34:49 +0000

Of course I assumed that it would have been at the request of the parents and their lawyer.
He had to turn down the money or it would have proved that he was only making claims for money. That might not be the case but perception is reality to the public.

I am not ignoring that he might be right. I am pointing out the obvious fact that there is no way to support his claim and as such she deserves the benefit of the doubt. To make such a claim indicates you are ignoring that her parents might be right. I am not necessarily inaccurate either. What other reason would he have for his wish to see her dead. He let her live a long time before the request. If he felt this way and it was her wish, then why did he wait so long?

By: Surfside

Surfside — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:33:52 +0000

If the judge “declare(d) the husband an adulterer and strip(ped) him of guardianship,” he would be acting in a manner that you decry — as an activist judge. Generally, a judge can only act on matters that are brought before him. He can’t introduce new issues. The parents should have gotten their lawyer to sue the husband for divorce on Terri’s behalf a long time ago. It was their best chance and easily provable. Once he was removed, they could have had the state appoint them as guardians.

You’re ignoring the possibility that the husband may be right and may be acting in Terri’s best interest. He’s had ample chance to remove himself from the situation. He’s even passed up large cash donations to do such. He could have divorced her, received half the settlement proceeds and not incurred any legal fees. To say he has a pecuniary interest is not necessarily accurate.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:13:24 +0000

tball, just because this has been through judicial review a thousand times does not mean the judges are not acting on behalf of the husband and his interests while ignoring the person who needs the most protection. The judicial system needs to protect those among us who are least able to protect themselves. Since there are no papers expressing her wishes then the court should err on the side of the victim. I do not know Florida law and I think that too much time and money has been wasted on this case when there are probably many more just like it.
Perhaps someone can explain why the judges did not declare the husband an adulterer and strip him of guardianship of a person he obviously cares nothing about. My agruments are valid and are based upon my point of view. I would not want to be kept alive in that state but I am not the issue. If her parents are willing to care for her then what is the problem?

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:00:19 +0000

At least you and I agree on that. Congress has more important things to deal with and sports and state’s issues are not two of them. I think I have stated all along that this should not be a concern of the Congress

By: tball

tball — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:57:43 +0000

You should make an attempt to understand the law and its application (which is admitedly complex) before you use such phrases as “activist judges” and before you criticize a judge whose rulings have been upheld numerous times by higher courts (and decided they would not be reviewed by the Supreme Court). If you dont like the Florida laws, learn them and criticize them, instead of their administrators. To knowledgeable people you lessen the worth of your remaining opinions to nearly zero.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:44:58 +0000

Well, then you’re correct Big Dog. They must be evil jerks! I’m not sure how I feel about the Terry case. Well, I take it back. I could care less about it. It’s none of my business. I just can’t believe they are playing around with feeding tubes and baseballs…

By: Surfside

Surfside — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:59:28 +0000

That would be the 53 Dems that voted against the bill in the house — and the 102 Dems that didn’t even show for the vote. I think Big Dog is talking about them. The Senate is much harder to pin down, as the had a voice vote. We do know, however, that Hillary did not show up for it.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll090.xml

Actually, Big Dog and I don’t see eye-to-eye on this issue. But, he does have the figures on his side in this regard.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:47:02 +0000

Remind me again which Democrats are in favor of “starving Shiavo”…

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:36:39 +0000

Then why are so many democrats in favor of killing Terri? Oh, I get it. She is unable to vote. So like I said, all the old people who are in a vegetative state will be taken off life support because they can not vote.

Unless you want to count the voter fraud the dems don’t like to talk about. I’ll tell you how it works. If you are not able to vote someone can vote for you if you express your desire to them. The frauds come in and fill out voter cards in the nursing homes and then say “Who did you want to vote for sweetie?” Then they mark the democrat box and say I knew it was a vote for so and so.

So beware old people. If you become incapacitated you might get put to sleep. And remember what I said, put your wishes in writing, then the donks can’t kill you.