BuffettNews.com

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:No matter what your opinion of this whole tragic situation, this is just WRONG, IMHO:

The feud between the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and their son-in-law continued even after her death: The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

just wrong, not to let parents attend their child's death.........

I agree 110%, I think that shows what kind of person Michael Schivao is.

UAHparrothead wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:No matter what your opinion of this whole tragic situation, this is just WRONG, IMHO:

The feud between the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and their son-in-law continued even after her death: The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

just wrong, not to let parents attend their child's death.........

I agree 110%, I think that shows what kind of person Michael Schivao is.

Was there ever any doubt???

Terri,
I never met you but I am most saddened that people think it was ok to allow you to be starved and dehydrated to death. Something they would not allow to happen to cats, dogs, or other animals. People said that you were not there, that also said you were suffering...

If indeed you were suffering, as they said, I am glad your turmoil has ended. May God always hold you close and May you reap all of the just rewards Heaven has to offer.

May God also quickly ease the pain and grief of her parents and sibblings and friends....I know all to well what they are going through.

UAHparrothead wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:No matter what your opinion of this whole tragic situation, this is just WRONG, IMHO:

The feud between the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and their son-in-law continued even after her death: The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

just wrong, not to let parents attend their child's death.........

I agree 110%, I think that shows what kind of person Michael Schivao is.

ok I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a minute. I thought long and hard about this. I had to put myself in his place for a moment or maybe in a similar situation. If this were Don and I already knowing what his wishes are, had battled with them for years trying to fulfill his wishes I think I might have done the same thing. I don't really know for 100% because I'm thankfully not in that position but I have to look at the big picture. Besides for me to say what kind of person he is without ever meeting him or having one conversation with him is passing judgement on him and I really try to not do that.

ph4ever wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:No matter what your opinion of this whole tragic situation, this is just WRONG, IMHO:

The feud between the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and their son-in-law continued even after her death: The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

just wrong, not to let parents attend their child's death.........

I agree 110%, I think that shows what kind of person Michael Schivao is.

ok I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a minute. I thought long and hard about this. I had to put myself in his place for a moment or maybe in a similar situation. If this were Don and I already knowing what his wishes are, had battled with them for years trying to fulfill his wishes I think I might have done the same thing. I don't really know for 100% because I'm thankfully not in that position but I have to look at the big picture. Besides for me to say what kind of person he is without ever meeting him or having one conversation with him is passing judgement on him and I really try to not do that.

I'm right there with you Connie. What I am curious about is many of the people, mostly conservatives, who wanted her to be kept alive also support the whole sanctity of marraige argument when it comes to gay marraige... therefore if we are to fight for the sanctity of marraige, then why don't we acknowledge & accept Michael Schiavo's decision in the context of their marraige?

(btw, I'm not critical of the conservative viewpoint... I'm still confused myself on the whole thing)

Please understand, I'm not taking a position for or against Michael Shaivo or the Schindlers. I just think that no matter how acrimonious their relationship had become, they should have been able to coexist in the same room for a few minutes so that Terri's parents could be there when she passed away.

ph4ever wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:No matter what your opinion of this whole tragic situation, this is just WRONG, IMHO:

The feud between the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and their son-in-law continued even after her death: The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

just wrong, not to let parents attend their child's death.........

I agree 110%, I think that shows what kind of person Michael Schivao is.

ok I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a minute. I thought long and hard about this. I had to put myself in his place for a moment or maybe in a similar situation. If this were Don and I already knowing what his wishes are, had battled with them for years trying to fulfill his wishes I think I might have done the same thing. I don't really know for 100% because I'm thankfully not in that position but I have to look at the big picture. Besides for me to say what kind of person he is without ever meeting him or having one conversation with him is passing judgement on him and I really try to not do that.

I try not to pass judgement on the man, I don't know him or what is motives truly are, but I just can't understand if he loved her so much, why did he enter in an adulterous relationship with another women and had two children by her? That is what bothers me. This was NOT a peaceful death.

Another point is that (and by no means am I refering to you Connie) this country has become so polarized that many people can't simply discuss an issue without hurling insults at one another. If we have any hope of moving on then we must try to leave the malice at the door and try to learn something from one another.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Please understand, I'm not taking a position for or against Michael Shaivo or the Schindlers. I just think that no matter how acrimonious their relationship had become, they should have been able to coexist in the same room for a few minutes so that Terri's parents could be there when she passed away.

Understood & agreed.

iuparrothead wrote: I'm right there with you Connie. What I am curious about is many of the people, mostly conservatives, who wanted her to be kept alive also support the whole sanctity of marraige argument when it comes to gay marraige... therefore if we are to fight for the sanctity of marraige, then why don't we acknowledge & accept Michael Schiavo's decision in the context of their marraige?

(btw, I'm not critical of the conservative viewpoint... I'm still confused myself on the whole thing)

My problem in this case in regards to his marital rights, is that he is engaged in what could be labeled as a common law marriage on the side. I think that he is a bigamist personally. I guess that is not illegal in Florida.

UAHparrothead wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:No matter what your opinion of this whole tragic situation, this is just WRONG, IMHO:

The feud between the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and their son-in-law continued even after her death: The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

just wrong, not to let parents attend their child's death.........

I agree 110%, I think that shows what kind of person Michael Schivao is.

ok I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a minute. I thought long and hard about this. I had to put myself in his place for a moment or maybe in a similar situation. If this were Don and I already knowing what his wishes are, had battled with them for years trying to fulfill his wishes I think I might have done the same thing. I don't really know for 100% because I'm thankfully not in that position but I have to look at the big picture. Besides for me to say what kind of person he is without ever meeting him or having one conversation with him is passing judgement on him and I really try to not do that.

I try not to pass judgement on the man, I don't know him or what is motives truly are, but I just can't understand if he loved her so much, why did he enter in an adulterous relationship with another women and had two children by her? That is what bothers me. This was NOT a peaceful death.

Another point is that (and by no means am I refering to you Connie) this country has become so polarized that many people can't simply discuss an issue without hurling insults at one another. If we have any hope of moving on then we must try to leave the malice at the door and try to learn something from one another.

I think perhaps one reason why many people can't communicate with each other without the insults is because many aren't taught the proper ways to communicate. How many parents actually sit down and rationalize and communicate with their children anymore? It all begins there IMHO.

There is a penalty for bigamy.

Two mothers-in-law.

PHBeerman wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: I'm right there with you Connie. What I am curious about is many of the people, mostly conservatives, who wanted her to be kept alive also support the whole sanctity of marraige argument when it comes to gay marraige... therefore if we are to fight for the sanctity of marraige, then why don't we acknowledge & accept Michael Schiavo's decision in the context of their marraige?

(btw, I'm not critical of the conservative viewpoint... I'm still confused myself on the whole thing)

My problem in this case in regards to his marital rights, is that he is engaged in what could be labeled as a common law marriage on the side. I think that he is a bigamist personally. I guess that is not illegal in Florida.

Troy,
Only about 15 states actually recognize common law marriages...Florida is not among them.

PHBeerman wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: I'm right there with you Connie. What I am curious about is many of the people, mostly conservatives, who wanted her to be kept alive also support the whole sanctity of marraige argument when it comes to gay marraige... therefore if we are to fight for the sanctity of marraige, then why don't we acknowledge & accept Michael Schiavo's decision in the context of their marraige?

(btw, I'm not critical of the conservative viewpoint... I'm still confused myself on the whole thing)

My problem in this case in regards to his marital rights, is that he is engaged in what could be labeled as a common law marriage on the side. I think that he is a bigamist personally. I guess that is not illegal in Florida.

Okay, understood. But his legal fight has been going on for over 7 years. Did he begin the quest to have her feeding tube removed before he began the relationship with the other woman?

rednekkPH wrote:

PHBeerman wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: I'm right there with you Connie. What I am curious about is many of the people, mostly conservatives, who wanted her to be kept alive also support the whole sanctity of marraige argument when it comes to gay marraige... therefore if we are to fight for the sanctity of marraige, then why don't we acknowledge & accept Michael Schiavo's decision in the context of their marraige?

(btw, I'm not critical of the conservative viewpoint... I'm still confused myself on the whole thing)

My problem in this case in regards to his marital rights, is that he is engaged in what could be labeled as a common law marriage on the side. I think that he is a bigamist personally. I guess that is not illegal in Florida.

Troy,
Only about 15 states actually recognize common law marriages...Florida is not among them.

You missed the big word Frank.

PHBeerman wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

PHBeerman wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: I'm right there with you Connie. What I am curious about is many of the people, mostly conservatives, who wanted her to be kept alive also support the whole sanctity of marraige argument when it comes to gay marraige... therefore if we are to fight for the sanctity of marraige, then why don't we acknowledge & accept Michael Schiavo's decision in the context of their marraige?

(btw, I'm not critical of the conservative viewpoint... I'm still confused myself on the whole thing)

My problem in this case in regards to his marital rights, is that he is engaged in what could be labeled as a common law marriage on the side. I think that he is a bigamist personally. I guess that is not illegal in Florida.

Troy,
Only about 15 states actually recognize common law marriages...Florida is not among them.

You missed the big word Frank.

Well, it wasn't in red the first time...

Michael waited over 8years of Terri in her condition BEFORE HE RECALLED an alledged ONE TIME CONVERSATION with her that only his family members witnessed.

IF He wanted to carry out Terri wishes so strongly.... why did he wait so long to bring that alledged conversation?

The point is moot now... she was starved to death in accordance with his and the courts wishes. The plug was NOT pulled.... she needed no mechanical life support only food and water.

No one can argue or deny that she was alive. They can argue her quality of life and that THEY would not want to live like that....in doing so I opine that those people ARE judging and subjecting Terri to THEIR views.

Not one of us knows her real wishes, and for anyone that considers the courts and doctors to always be right I point out at all the wrongful convictions of innocent persons and the real medical malpratice suits out there. I will grant there are bogus cases of medical malpractice but there are many that are real.

It was the law at one time in some places and may still be on the books in a few of them, that a husband had the RIGHT to beat his wife with a stick or instrument that was no larger than his thumb.... how many are for husbands to have that particular Right?

Tell me how many of you would willingly and intentionally allow an animal ( let alone a family member ) to be dehydrated and starved to death and not say a word about it? Yet you continue to support the Right of the husband to allow his wife to be intentionally starved and dehydrated until dead?

If someone walked in and shot her in the back of the head or cut her throat orstabbed her to death........what would you be saying then? Would that be more humane than making her take so many days to die? I am not advocating that to have happened to her at all. I am asking would that have been considered more humane than 12-13 days to die ? Or would you want the person that did tried with murder?

As someone said earlier that they feel that something that has not been revealed is going on or went on that we have not been told and unfortunately some wanted her to die and end her suffering but said she was not inside.

If she was not inside then please explain how she was suffering....and why a few more weeks or months or whatever time she had left, would have mattered and remember to consider he waited over 8 years to recall that alledged one time conversation and who the witnesses are to the alledged one time conversation and the husband said Terri died 15 years ago....

I don't have any answers only questions ....and doubts and I do believe in the death penalty but even that requires the decision beyond a reasonable doubt ( I think is now the term used ) I have reasonable doubt.....and you already know how I feel about starving and dehydrating someone let alone an animal...

Connie, my apologies for being repetitive but I DO consider those points to be important and to be considered and given equal time. No trick questions as we discussed on the phone. Those are why I raise my hackles and peak my interest....well you know, what else I said.

I don't feel like reading the above post. Can someone give me the Clif note version?

PHBeerman wrote:I don't feel like reading the above post. Can someone give me the Clif note version?

Same post. Different day.

Put your wishes ON PAPER.

after all the bad blood from both sides, i'm not quite ready to take terry's parents description of what happened as gospel. nor am i signing up for her husband's version either....

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:after all the bad blood from both sides, i'm not quite ready to take terry's parents description of what happened as gospel. nor am i signing up for her husband's version either....

That is where I am as well.

The husband-Shacking up with someone else,wants to move on.

The parents-Allegedly had little involvement with Terri until money was to be had.

Both have alterior motives. I just know that if I were in the state that Terri was for 15 years, I would be p*** at those that let me live like that.