27 Mar 05
Originally posted by ScheelAre they bastard children, Scheel?
Normally I'm no fan of PC but you might want to buy a newer dictionary. With the implicit derogatory meaning of the word - not everybody born out of wedlock deserves to be equated with a term originally associated with dogs of dubious origin.
But then again you are likely a more authoritative source on the correct use of English than I.
27 Mar 05
Originally posted by DelmerNo, they are not; they are children the same as any others. Only incredibly ignorant people call children "bastards" anymore; it's the 21st century, not the 19th.
Are they bastard children, Scheel?
He has been regularly going to the hospital for 15 years and still does. He very well might be holding her hand when she passes. However, it's really none of your or my business either way; just another cheap shot by the self-righteous zealots who have been tearing into this guy with lies, distortions and innuendo non-stop over the last couple of weeks. Have you people no shame?
27 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
They've already had those "investigations"; they're called "appeals" in the judical process. 6 courts have sided with the trial court on EVERY substantative issue. At some point litigation must end; this case has been going for 7 years, the facts aren't going to change and the law is clear. Let her wishes be honored and let her rest in peace.
You know I wasn't referring to those "investigations".
27 Mar 05
Originally posted by DelmerTo you they might be, Delmer.
Are they bastard children, Scheel?
To me the word bastard is more than an objective description of an arbitrary marital status of their parents at conception. The word is derogatory and implies a substandard value to that child.
I believe that the way we talk to each other ultimately defines how we think of each other. Therefore in my vocabulary bastards is not a word to be associated with children that to my knowledge have done nothing wrong.
So to me: No.
You may feel different but what does that make you ?
27 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou said:
You know I wasn't referring to those "investigations".
An investigation into how the courts and judges, in particular judge Greer, have weighed the evidence is crucial. Which criteria did they use to determine which evidence is "credible" and why and how did they label the evidence to the contrary as "incredible".
This type of review is done by appellate courts and they have ALL been satisfied with how Judge Greer weighed the evidence in this case. If you are talking about a politically inspired "investigation" by right-wing politicians that may happen, but I wouldn't bet my lunch money on it.
27 Mar 05
A point that I was trying to make in one of my previous posts was that this debate could have been centred around some deep issues regarding a persons right to determine what was a life worth living. The boundaries to medical prolongation of suffering or hopelessness.
But instead it has deteriorated to name calling and accusations.
Both have recently been demonstrated ad nauseous.
27 Mar 05
Originally posted by ScheelIt probably makes me a guy who questions why a husband who openly breaks his marriage vows has any say in her death.
To you they might be, Delmer.
To me the word bastard is more than an objective description of an arbitrary marital status of their parents at conception. The word is derogatory and implies a substandard value to that child.
I believe that the way we talk to each other ultimately defines how we think of each other. Therefore in my vocabulary bastards is ...[text shortened]... have done nothing wrong.
So to me: No.
You may feel different but what does that make you ?
27 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Delmerwell. he'll do... one hand in her hand, and the other into the bank account...
I wonder if Terri's husband will be holding her hand when she dies, with his girlfriend and their two bastard children in a corner of the room sobbing in sorrow, of course.
Have u any doubt?
Edit: only spelling
27 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DelmerYes probably that too.
It probably makes me a guy who questions why a husband who openly breaks his marriage vows has any say in her death.
But you were not talking about the husband before.
Anyway
I take your answer to mean that you consider the vows of marriage to be so sacred that if a person breaks them then he can not possibly have honest intentions after that.
Though I fully agree with you that breaking the vows (or cheating on your partner before marriage) is a inexcusable breach of trust - I can not support the idea that you then de facto loose any ability to do do what is right a later point.
Edited for syntax
27 Mar 05
Originally posted by LittleBearThe principles involved in this case interest me alot - the actual case less. This comes from the fact that I don't think we should base our attitude towards such deep questions on the precedence of single cases. (Yep no.1 - I don't agree with the way law is handled in the US).
well. he'll do... one hand in her hand, and the other into the bank account...
Have u any doubt?
Edit: only spelling
So for the sake of argument would you LittleBear feel different if there were no money involved ?
27 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DelmerBesides having Victorian attitudes about these matters, you are incorrect to say that the husband "had any say in her death":
It probably makes me a guy who questions why a husband who openly breaks his marriage vows has any say in her death.
Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.
As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
The one who made the decision was Terri herself and the court heard ALL relevant evidence and determined what her wishes were. I'm curious, Scheel, what part of Florida law do you find objectionable in this case?
27 Mar 05
Originally posted by Scheel"I wonder if Terri's husband will be holding her hand when she dies, with his girlfriend and their two bastard children in a corner of the room sobbing in sorrow, of course."
Yes probably that too.
But you were not talking about the husband before.
Anyway
I take your answer to mean that you consider the vows of marriage to be so sacred that if a person breaks them then he can not possibly have honest intentions after that.
Though I fully agree with you that breaking the vows (or cheating on your partner before marriage) is ...[text shortened]... t you then de facto loose any ability to do do what is right a later point.
Edited for syntax
I believe I was talking about the husband, Scheel. Mentioning the "love" children and girlfriend only highlighted the fact that the husband's right to any say in this case is questionable to me.
Of course he can do what is right. In fact, he may very well be doing what is right. I have no problem with her dying. But I think there are quicker ways than starvation and the court should have ordered one of them. I also think that with nothing in writing this husband, who broke his vows to his wife, should not take legal precedence over her parents.