Judge rejects right-to-die delay

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap


Because parenst do not OWN children. This is specially true of adult, married children. Its Terry Schiavo, not whatever her maiden name is. There is a right of spouses not testifying against each other in court- no such right for parents and kids.

The law recognizes marriage as a union. Ties to siblings and to parents after you are an adult have no similar legal protection. Hence the parents have no legal ground to "take her over". This is why the husband keeps winning, and probably will keep winning.

So unless the husband decides to give control over, which iks purely his decision and I am incapable of speculating about, the parents only recourse is more suits, that will probably fail.

husband don't own women. I thought we already went throught he feminist movement already. The guy is out for money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, they guys ISN'T out of money! What money does he gain by her dying that he couldn't save by simply divorcing her? He's already spent all the malpractice money on keeping her alive.

What money, Diss? I see this lie constantly refered to, but no proof.

[Dis]

this case just didn't appear yesterday. He's been trying to have her killed since he got the money. Yes the money is all gone now, nothing he can do about that.

I just don't see why he can't turn over custody to the parents and get a divorce and be done with it. People will say it looks bad, but having a woman killed looks bad as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He's been trying to have her killed since he got the money.

No he hasn't. He waited a few years to see if she'd come out of it. When all the doctors told him that there was no chance, he said, ok, lets put her out of her misery.

I just don't see why he can't turn over custody to the parents and get a divorce and be done with it.

Because he ****ing loves her and wants to carry out her wishes!

I wonder why people have such a tough time accepting that a husband MAY love his wife that much?

[Dis]

men are incapable of love

if he really loved her, he'd sneak into the hospital Clint Eastwood style and put her out of her misery.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, only you.

[Dis]

Bill has been blocked!!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050320/D88UT24O0.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Dis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, only you.

I subscribe to the feminist philosophy that men are evil, and women are sweet and tender.

That's the only reason why I take the mother's word over the husband.

The woman went through the pain of childbirth. She should have more say than a husband. Marriage doesn't mean **** anymore. People get married and divorced at the drop of a hat.

You can't prove the husband actually loved his wife, but a mother's love never falters. Yes there is infanticide, but this is common even in the animal kingdom, there are biological reasons for this.

[asleepathewheel]

Frankly I can see why he wants her dead for selfish reasons beyond cash.

Who wants to be known as a guy who divorces his wife cause she's in a coma? "Dad, tell me about your first wife"...

And if he is Catholic and doesn't believe in divorce, well, til death do us part.

[Sava]

I see the ignorant keep slandering Michael Schiavo.

It must be nice to make stupid assertions without anything remotely resembling proof.

[DinoDoc]

Why don't you tell us how it feels Sava?

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why don't you tell us how it feels Sava?

HAWHHWAHWAHWAHWAH YOU SO FUNNY!!*!*(!&
DD IS TEH CLEVER ZOMFGPWNED

[Mr. Harley]

Occam's Razor (or in more modern parlance, KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid). When faced with a complex or a simple answer, when both have equal evidence backing them, the simple answer is more likely the case.

1) Schiavo's husband wanting to kill her for money - Since he was offered at least $1 million, and maybe as much as $10 million, obviously not the issue at this point in time. The latter figure is more money than he ever stood to make from this.

2) He is doing this for reasons other than money. See above. No duh.

What could those reasons be?

A) She actually expressed this in a conversation with him at some time or other. He still respects her wishes. Simplest and most likely explanation. He married her, in general that indicates some sort of feeling now, doesn't it. Plus, look at the grief he has gone through. If he didn't care he would not do this. Trust me, my mother died strapped to a bed as her mind failed and she wanted to come home to die because my dad had stopped caring after eight years. It's very sad to see someone wear out like that, as in the healthy spouse.

B) He is covering up her murder. Well, given the situation reference her deteriorated mental condition, even if she might have testified against him in the past, by this point it will never happen. Red herring, very complex, no credibility for abandoning $1 million, let alone $10 million.

C) He hated her. Nobody (credible) is suggesting this, and given the length of time, hassle he has been through, etc. Silly.

D) The argument/hassle has taken on a life of it's own. Arguments, both political and family, have a terrible tendency to do this. Where some kind of compromise might have been possible (please note - might - since this is post-analysis we will never know) it no longer is. Positions have hardened, family members are not communicating, etc. Can be combined with (A) above.

E) He wants this for closure. Definitely possible, and I will have to defer to those out there who have not had it, i.e. disappeared loved ones, brain-dead family, etc. I cannot see be willing forego $1 to $10 million for closure, but then again people do irrational things from a monetary sense for emotional reasons.

F) So he isn't the man who abandoned his wife. Red herring. Right now he could turn her over while taking the money, put most of it into a charity, and still keep more than he ever would have made. He would end up smelling like roses. His actions are irrational from both a reputation and monetary sense. Plus, he already has a girl friend/children. This does give some more credence to the closure bit. Again, I must defer to those who have faced that issue. I have no real emotional connection there.

So what do we now know? It was not for money at this point, he would take the $1 million if it was. It was not to coverup attempted murder, at this point she is in such bad shape he has succeeded - and he could take the money and run in that case, also. Reputation is silly. He could have made his much better and gotten the money. He would have to be the brain-damaged person to take his current actions if that is his intention.

What's left. Love and the obligation that goes with it. Possibly combined with an extended family dynamic that has so confused the issue that compromise is no longer possible, if it ever was (you cannot keep her both alive and dead - that's a tough compromise to figure out). Lastly, he may want closure and the emotional issues outweight the financial issues.

KISS - keep it simple, stupid. Or, use some common sense.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dissident


You can't prove the husband actually loved his wife, but a mother's love never falters. Yes there is infanticide, but this is common even in the animal kingdom, there are biological reasons for this.

Yeah, and there are also monetary reasons, and convenience reasons- new boyfriend doesn't like having kids around ? Simple, pop them in a car and drive it into a lake, drown the annoying critters and say a big scary black man done do it !

Mmmm, a mother's love never falters, especially when it's self love, or when there's extreme poverty involved:



" Murderous poverty

The Collector welcomed the babies as evidence that the campaign against female infanticide has started showing results.

But non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in the poor districts of Salem, Dharmapuri, and Usilampatti say baby girls are still being killed there soon after being born.



The measure could save many girls


This is despite the efforts of the government and social organizations to educate the people against this vile practice.

They say the birth of a daughter is unwelcome to a poor family as they can ill-afford the traditional dowry and other marriage expenses which follow when the girl grows up.

The rate of death for baby girls minutes after they are born is still very high in Tamil Nadu.

In most cases, NGOs say that the baby is killed by the mother and buried surreptitiously with the connivance of the elders in the family.

Methods of snuffing out infant lives vary.

A grain of paddy forced into the baby's mouth, a table fan switched on at full blast turned towards the infant's face and milk from poisonous weeds fed to the baby are some techniques used. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1703000/1703630.stm