Schiavo rebuttal compendium

The intent here is to keep a nice little reference guide so that if one of you encounters a freeper in hand-to-hand combat on this issue, you'll have on hand the best answers possible to any of their assholish statements.

Here are some arguments I encounter:

"But poor Terri Schiavo will STARVE!!"

Well, that wouldn't be the case if you didn't continually block assisted suicide. She wouldn't have to starve at all if not for you. But that really isn't the issue at all. The issue is the sanctity of marriage and the right of a husband to make personal, family decisions for his incapacitated spouse.

"But he's already cheated on her! What sanctity of marriage?"

First of all, he's been dealing with this for 15 years. For all intents and purposes, his wife has been dead for 15 years. Expecting him not to move on is total bullshit, but the bottom line is that he's still married to her and he's still her legal guardian. Therefore, he still makes the call, not the parents, not the government.

"Why doesn't he just divorce her and let the parents take over? It's all about the money!!!"

First of all, aren't you the people who are trying to defend marriage? Curious then that you're advocating divorce. But since you mention money, he waited 7 years before he decided this was the best possible action. He believed like the parents did, until he came to the conclusion that this was not in Terri's best interests. Heaven forbid someone come to their senses and actually change their minds. Yet once again, that detracts from the main issue that it's none of your business, none of the government's business, and if he wants to stay married to her because he doesn't believe in divorce, that's his decision to make. When Terri married him, she knew that he would have this power if something happened. If she didn't like that, she had ample opportunity to make a living will. She did not.

"So should we starve all death row inmates? Is that an acceptible way to die?"

First of all, the death penalty is the height of hypocrisy for those who claim to be "protectors of life". But since you mention it, first of all, we're talking about an issue of guardianship, and the government does not take guardianship over death row inmates. They still have power over their own albeit limited choice of actions. Further, there's a little line in the Constitution against "Cruel and Unusual Punishment", but you guys aren't high on the Constitution, are you?

All Congress did was allow families a chance to have their case heard!

Actually, they had NINETEEN chances. That's how many times it went to appeal. And in the end, they still sided with Mr. Schiavo.

I saw videotape of her responding to questions. She's alive and fully aware!

No, you saw less than a minute snipped from over 6 HOURS of tape recorded footage. She happened to do something at that one instance, but there was about 5 hours and 50 minutes in which she did nothing.

There are doctors who said she is able to respond and could pull through.

Most of those doctors hadn't ever even seen her in person, and literally dozens of doctors who have seen her argue quite the opposite.

Please add any scenarios that did not occur here. I would like to keep this running if at all possible.

They have to petition the court. The court makes all decisions concerning her-she is a ward of the state.

From an excellent blog on this case which is very clear about the author's neutral position on the case:

"Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer."

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

This information can be found under the heading:
Is Michael really just looking for money?

This page is a truly great resource for those looking to find pure factual reporting on the case.

Thank you very much.

I live here and haven't followed it this well! I will refer back to your link again!

Well Done!

Right now on the SciFi station they are showing a program about a woman who telepathically communicates with her boyfriend. It's called Fact Or Fiction!

It's amazing how television takes it's cues from what is happening in a given time frame!! I have seen this unfolding for quite some time. I have a Dish and can view a wide array of programs, but still they do "follow the lead" to some extent.

However, they also cover the less than RW vomit!

I saw it posted this weekend and it is by far the most unbiased compilation I have seen.

who pollute the public airwaves with emotionalism and mis-information would take 15 minutes and learn something about this situation.

Column entitled "Terri's husband isn't the enemy, guardian says."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket25022505feb25,1,1729313.column?ctrack=2&cset=true

Here's a snip or two - columnist Mike Thomas speaking:

For answers, I turned to University of South Florida professor Jay Wolfson. He was appointed as a guardian ad litem for Terri in 2003 and prepared a report on her for Jeb Bush.

(snip)

Says Wolfson now: "Michael was adoring of her. One nursing home complained he was hostile and abusive of the staff in championing her care. She was immaculately kept. In 13 years, she never had one bedsore."

Is Michael after her insurance settlement?

Wolfson's report says that early on, Michael "formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interests in the guardianship estate."

Why doesn't Michael simply turn Terri over to her family?

From the report: "Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."

Wolfson told me that when Michael heard this, he said: "That's it. I'm never going to let that happen to her."

Wolfson says the Schindlers later recanted their testimony.

We are having an intense dialog on my Families web site. Some for and some against the removal.

My stance... this is between the legal husband and his spouse with the advice of his Doctors. No one else has a right to make this difficult decision.

Thanks again for the link you provided... I am sure it will be used by many in my Family.

:toast:

I live in Florida and this has gotten WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of hand. The EEEEIIIIdiot's brother stepped in and now we have another corrupt EEEEIIIdiot defending her, Tom DeLay. Some nerve.

My congressperson, Katherine Harris just tried blocking any kind of ethics investigation of that rat!! I used to think Florida was a great place, but Geeeeez, it's getting hard to live here!

we let a handful of nuts get on TV and protest...... the media went wild...they never showed the other side of the street

Damn them all to HELL

The guy is truthful, says he doesn't know when he doesn't know. This Q&A is quite helpful.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda

First of all, it is doubtful she can feel pain. Second, upon withdrawal of a feeding tube to allow death, the patient is given the appropriate medications to make them comfortable.

I actually heard someone say she'd be "writhing in agony" towards the end. It doesn't happen that way.

How can I change mine???

you can change your avatar two ways. Go into Edit Profile and pick one from the selection or upload your own. I uploaded this one. :hi:

Right. Because we allow euthanasia for cats and dogs. Apparently, we care more about relieving the suffering of our pets than we do of human beings.

onenote

"But she hasn't had rehabilitation therapy! Who knows what she could recover if she would just have some therapy!"

Her cerebral cortex has liquified. That means that the part of her brain controlling memory, thought, feelings, sight, is gone; replaced by spinal fluid. There is no chance that she is ever going to regain brain function or control over her body no matter how much therapy she has.

Terri's did receive extensive rehabilitative therapy during the first few years with the hope she may recover but she did not respond. Her husband even flew her to California for an experimental brain implant that did not work.

Leaving aside that most "miraculous" recoveries of "brain dead" individuals can and have been explained scientifically in ways that would distinguish the Schiavo case, I suppose we ought to have a law that no one gets buried without a federal court hearing to determine if that will deny them their rights. After all, Jesus was resurrected after 3 days, so we shouldn't be rushing into these things, right...

onenote

tell them that the only way that her brain can recover is by using stem cells from fetuses.

Even then, she wouldn't be Terri any more, she would be a "blank slate" . . .

Gotta beat back the lies and half-truths (some even spread by the conservative DUers here).

the petition that the Schindlers filed with the federal court -- the habeus petition -- before Congress took this up. (I still have to read the decision, however). I feel like I did in 2000 trying to keep up with all the court filings and trying to make legal sense of it all. That habeus petition is worth a read as it alleges that the court erred by having the judge act as the surrogate guardian and the judge, and it referenced statues. I think the woman should be allowed to pass on, but this IS interesting.

The parents encouraged him to date other women. He even brought the girlfriend homw to meet Terri's parents, back when they were all living together.

Terri's parents wanted him to get on with his life, because they knew Terri was never coming back.

I really believe that Michael Schiavo is doing this out of love for Terri. He won't divorce her because he doesn't want her to be forced to live like this.

This is a good resource thread.

Bush voted FOR pulling the plug in 1999 as Texas governor. A baby died against his mother's wishes just a few days ago in accordance with this law. The mother was non-white and did not have money to pay the hospital. Neither Bush himself nor any of the oher Repubs went to the rescue of that particular "innocent life." The selectivity of their concern reveals the hypocrisy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1673139
This has now been pointed out in the Washington Post, as described in this DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3315290
Here's the law Bush signed in 1999, used to justify cutting off life support for this baby:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

Bush didn't HAVE to go rushing off to Washington so dramatically to sign this bill. It could have been flown to him in Texas. And just THINK of how often he DIDN'T rush somewhere when he WAS needed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1675026

The cerebral cortex is the big, wrinkly thing in your head we usually think of as "the brain." Everything that is essentially human happens in the cerebral cortex--including thought, language, and emotion. Without it you'd be left with just the brain stem, which controls only involuntary functions like breathing, heartbeat and digestion.

remains intact. Maybe that sums up the republi-CONS as a party. The party of lizard brains. And LOWER functions.

respiration therapist in order to help Terri when this all started.
Randi Rhodes did some extensive reading today from some court papaers and timeliine papers. Terri Schaivo was at her parent's home for care at one time, but they finally had to admit that it was too over whelming for them. The 24/7 care that she needs is such that she has to be in a facility that can provide it adequately.
Michael Schiavo lived with Terri's parents for the first four yers of this ordeal in order to provide the best care for Terri.
What he is doing, is out of love and respect for Terri's wishes. He has turned down millions to turn away from her.

need an answer please "why did he wait 8 years to want to get rid of her, only after he had a girlfriend ten?"

Thanks in advance for your help.

Also he was firmly in her parents' camp in keeping her alive for a long time. He got her therapy, even took some classes to learn how to treat her himself. Finally, at some point, it got through to him that there was nothing anyone could do. Just because Terri's parents haven't come to that realization yet, that does not change the fact that she will not come back to life, nor does it mean everyone should be completely immutable on the subject.

That's the problem with these Freepers. They think just because they have no ability to change their mind about things that everyone should be just like them.