Terry Schiavo - RIP

[pedxing]

Got it. Jim. I did wonder if you intended something less sweeping than "nobody seems to care" - I think the courts and many of the less histrionic observers were focused on what she would want. This is why I prefeaced my statement with "on the face it" - figuring I had to focus on what you posted, not what I might guess you intended.

I think demonizing her husband serves to distract for Terri the real human being and focus attention on a rhetorical victimized Terri who could be an icon for bashing the Courts and the liberals.

BTW: Amidst all this court bashing, has anyone kept count of how many lf the Supreme Court justices were Democratic appointees? You might venture a guess before looking it up.

Another BTW --- SRO - I think you were referring to Randall Terry. I doubt calling him a scumbag is helpful, but I do see him as a mis-leader.

 

[pedxing]

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse here, but wasn't there something in the 10 commandments about bearing false witness. I guess it didn't stop Randall Terry as SRO notes.

But check this out for a look at the mud slung at Michael Schiavo and a reality based apprasial of the evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59521-2005Apr16.html

 

[dmc]

I think you were referring to Randall Terry. I doubt calling him a scumbag is helpful, but I do see him as a mis-leader.

Scumbag is too good for that guy...

 

[smitty77]

God only helps those who believe.

If that's what gets you through the day. My mother-in-law is a firm believer in God and the catholic church. Yet God keeps smacking her down.
....
If God should be helping anyone, this poor woman and her family are prime candidates.
Let me say I don't believe, and I'll leave it at that.

Well Smitty...That's what God had planned for her in her life. Sometimes he tests us in cruel and unusual ways...but that's how we learn and how we find out how strong our binds are...
...there's tons of other people around the world too.

But you said that God helps those who believe. I refute, and you have to further qualify your statement to say God only helps some of those that believe. Back-pedal, grasshopper.

Was God "helping" those poor helpless altar boys when the "messengers of God" were doing those unforgiveable things to them?

 

[pedxing]

Interestin foot note. The medical evidence from the autopsy backs up the husband and goes against her parents on many points (includin: she was blind, had no evidence of brain trauma, had irreversible damage....)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/schiavo.autopsy.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/

 

[dmc]

Does that mean "The Right" was wrong?

 

[BeanoNYC]

Does that mean "The Right" was wrong?

Well I'm sure there will always be "ends justifying the means" arguments from here on out. I feel much better about my stand and for supporting Michael Shaivo now that the autopsy looks to be in his favor.

 

[dmc]

Does that mean "The Right" was wrong?

Well I'm sure there will always be "ends justifying the means" arguments from here on out. I feel much better about my stand and for supporting Michael Shaivo now that the autopsy looks to be in his favor.

I only supported his right to make the decision...

 

[ChileMass]

The autopsy evidence pretty much ends the debate, in my opinion. Science and reason triumphs over superstition and fear again......

 

[ctenidae]

35 more posts later, I think you may be proved wrong, ChileMass. The best we can hope for is a bloody draw, I think.

 

[pedxing]

Ultimately it was the courts decision on what was in her best interest. Yes his testimony influenced the court, and he supported the decision.

The principle and the process were essential, but it is always reassuring when the right process is followed and the evidence points to the fact that it resulted in the right decision. Had the autopsy been different, I still would have stuck by the principle - but not without some sorrow. It's definitely more uncomfortable to stand up for a principle when its enactment leads to the right outcome.

My grandfather was a minister in Texas. A member of his congregation was convicted of statutory rape (supposedly seducing a 14 y/o girl) on the basis of his confession. He told my grandfather that he was innocent and that the confession was coerced. He convinced my grandfather to push for an investigation. My grandfather helped him campaign for hearings, investigation and a new trial. They got some national press attention. Eventually it was proven that the confession was coerced and new trial was ordered. Ultimately he was released. Years later the man was caught red handed having sex with a 13 year old girl. This result did not change my grandfather's feelings about the principle of banning coerced confessions (which is enshrined in the constitution), but he took no pride in his role - the whole thing left a bad taste in his mouth. He would not have devoted such energy had he believed the perp to be guilty.

 

[ChileMass]

35 more posts later, I think you may be proved wrong, ChileMass. The best we can hope for is a bloody draw, I think.

??? I don't get your point......????

 

[BeanoNYC]

Does that mean "The Right" was wrong?

Well I'm sure there will always be "ends justifying the means" arguments from here on out. I feel much better about my stand and for supporting Michael Shaivo now that the autopsy looks to be in his favor.

I only supported his right to make the decision...

Note taken. I'm actually rehashing my original feelings on the subject. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. (are fingers more applicable on a forum?)

 

[cbcbd]

My grandfather was a minister in Texas. A member of his congregation was convicted of statutory rape (supposedly seducing a 14 y/o girl) on the basis of his confession. He told my grandfather that he was innocent and that the confession was coerced. He convinced my grandfather to push for an investigation. My grandfather helped him campaign for hearings, investigation and a new trial. They got some national press attention. Eventually it was proven that the confession was coerced and new trial was ordered. Ultimately he was released. Years later the man was caught red handed having sex with a 13 year old girl. This result did not change my grandfather's feelings about the principle of banning coerced confessions (which is enshrined in the constitution), but he took no pride in his role - the whole thing left a bad taste in his mouth. He would not have devoted such energy had he believed the perp to be guilty.

Wow! Sort of reminds of "The Devil's Advocate".

 

[Jaime86]

Well...I was only 7 when my stepfather molested me for the next 4 years and when it finally came out...he only got house arrest until I turned 18...no prison time or anything...so how's that for the court system? *rolls eyes*

 

[dmc]

Does that mean "The Right" was wrong?

Well I'm sure there will always be "ends justifying the means" arguments from here on out. I feel much better about my stand and for supporting Michael Shaivo now that the autopsy looks to be in his favor.

I only supported his right to make the decision...

Note taken. I'm actually rehashing my original feelings on the subject. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. (are fingers more applicable on a forum?)

My whole point on this is - it was the husbands choice given to him by proxy..
So I was for whatever he decided... If he decided to keep the tubes in - I would've supported that as well..