Legally, Michael Schiavo is Terri Schiavo's husband. But while married to her he has had a series of girlfriends and has fathered two children with the woman he currently cohabitates with. Less serious issues have inspired men to run from their commitments, so I'm not prepared to proclaim Michael Schiavo an evil guy for ignoring that "'til death do us part" portion of his vow. I am prepared to say that he's not Terri Schiavo's husband in any sense (save perhaps the legal one). Schiavo has a common law wife at home and a more traditional wife wasting away on a hospital bed. The interests of the two women conflict. Saying you love your two wives is like saying you love your two countries; at a certain point you play Benedict Arnold to one.

I think saying he is not her husband is to let him off somewhat, morally speaking. It is the difference between ery and fornication. Both are bad. The former is much worse. But I would argue along with you that his ery should result in de facto divorce, and therefore his legal status as Terry's head should be revoked.

"Legally, Michael Schiavo is Terri Schiavo's husband."

This is one reason the courts have been ruling the way they have. I agree that this whole situation is tragic yet It could've been prevented a long time ago had Michael Schiavo agreed to hand over the decision making and the burden to the parents. Instead we're faced with this incredibly political moment.

He's a modern day Judas. How appropriate it is for today.

My use of "adult - ery" is being smudged out. As is my earlier use of "tort-ured" on an other thread.

This whole thing is too sad for a host of reasons. Least of which is that, based on his legal status, her husband still has the upper hand when it comes to, literally, making real life and death decisions for her. And even though he’s lived an adulterous life and has disconnected himself from her, he is still her husband and retains that power.

What’s worse is that the same reasons that she now lies in a bed unable to speak or act in her defense while others plot her fate are what do not allow her to legally jettison her scumbag husband and transfer control over her life to her parents who would most certainly keep her alive.

When two out of three branches of our federal government can be usurped by the fiat of a handful of judges, our checks and balances system has become impotent. That doesn't even consider the fact that judges are more concerned with narrow technicalities than they are with basic moral issues and the mandate that each citizen be afforded life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the strong can crush the weak so easily in this country, what exactly are we fighting abroad for? It seems there are more serious issues to deal with here at home. When life is so cheap in our society that a man who cares nothing for his wife can starve her over the wishes of her loving family, and our government, who has sworn to protect us, does absolutely nothing, then what is the point of taking our constitution and its laws seriously? There is a higher moral law that must be followed.

"Moral duties have no terms." -Robert F. Kennedy

Very well said, Polemical. The judicial is the last remaining bastion of the liberal agenda. Now Florida has a strong "privacy" clause in their Constitution, but it was ruled in the Browning case that where there is doubt, the exercise of that privacy must be presumed toward the continuation of life. Thus, all those who are invoking only the privacy of the family, are ignoring the rights that Terri may still be construed to retain.

I feel that an argument to privacy is one of the reason that the state cannot just come in and say "You're not acting like a husband", because back when the libs were more powerful in Florida they amended the constitution to say that they have a right to be "left alone". Thus a state court would have to prove that it is in the state's interest to subject Schiavo to it's definition of husband. Oddly enough, only Terri could object to such a husband, and Michael already speaks for her.

So, here's a little wager for everyone...since we've now redefined what kind of life is truly a "life worth living"...how long will it take to get Alzheimer's patients being murdered because their lives are not "worth living" anymore? And then, we make a jump to other mentally ill people. Any takers on how long before we get there? Because, we're really just relying on a doctor saying "well..I wouldn't wanna live like that, would you?" So following this to its logical conclusion, pronoucements on various states of mind become death sentences. It's all "for our own good" of course, but we'll die nonetheless. (severe religiousity [is this a word] strikes me as a possible candidate, since it's already been used to steal children from their parents)

This is where we're going. If a small party can say, "yep, her life's not worth living, pull the tube", who's going to determine that my life is not worth living? If I can't (or because of some "severe mental disability" don't WANT to) participate in the orgy of sex, tv, and massive consumption that have become the hallmarks of "good living", will my life be forfeit "for my own welfare"?

I should also say, that if people really realize the nazi-like path we're going down and STILL persist in thinking that murdering this poor lady is right, they're on the other side of the battlefield. Those who believe in life and freedom cannot continue to live with these people. They're aliens. We need our own country, or need to find some other place to live.

Moses was forced to lead his people in the desert for 40 years so that the insane and unfaithful generation would DIE OUT, and God would save their children. God could not reach those people and He freed them from Egypt, why should this crop of liberal nutcases (who are perfectly content in their own little "Egypt")be any different? They're not going to have some dramatic conversion, and they endanger the souls of our children. We are reaching the point where we can no longer co-exist.

See an interesting little piece here: http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/articles/2030.html

The former director of the Catholic Information Center here in Washington DC, wrote this article imagining the future condition of both the Church in the world, as well as the United States by 2030. He refers to/predicts the Regional States of America as a new country where Christians are free to live and practice. It's interesting anyway, if you haven't read it. Though, I'm afraid he's more optimistic than I care to be.

Homer,

Great points. That's exactly why euthanasia and eugenics advocates like Dr. Cranford fought so hard for Terri, a precious innocent woman, to be killed(Dr. Cranford was hired by Michael Schiavo to examine Terri. Go figure). It's perfectly compatible with their worldview that believes the strong should never be inconvenienced by the weak.

Very good point Homer. It seems you and me see eye to eye on certain issues. I was talking to my mother last night and I said the same thing to her. My grandmother has Alzheimers so bad she doesnt know her own husband, she cant get out of bed, and she cant even feed herself. If they let Terri die like like, what is the difference between me walking up to my grandmother and pointing a gun at her and pulling the trigger and what the "system" is doing to poor Terri? Absolutely nothing. I guess you can tack on
"handicapped", "Invalid" and "Brain damaged" up there on the list now of indivisuals the Liberal Demonazis systematicaly want to exterminate along with "American", "Caucasion", "Christian", "Catholic" and "Conservative". I've always thought, like what you said, that any true American, Jesus loving, hard working, blue collar, anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, Liberal hating Conservative Republican, should just pack up our things and move to a remote island somewhere and start our own country. CSA(Conservative States of America).

Her EKG reads zero in activity. This is documented. Her mind is gone.

My grandmothers EKG reading is zero also, does that mean I should put a bullit in her head?

No but Terri will not suffer from dehydration because in order to suffer, one has to be consciouss. Thats all

Wow, she blinks, moves her eyes, moves her mouth, looks up and down...thats pretty conscious to me. Tsk-Tsk..Typical Liberal rhetoric.

you also said No about the question regarding my grandmother...there is no difference between her and Terri...cant have your cake and eat it too Liberal.

I am not a liberal and I detest cake. I just don't want to see you go to prison.

The only force in the universe that can definitively answer the question of whether or not she has any level of consciousness is the "almighty". Either way she will eventually be at peace. This has turned into a frenzy of ludicrous proportions. It is a political dog and pony show. I do agree that the parents should have a say however.
What about people on life support that get the plug pulled just because they don't have health insurance? Or would this be comunism and in these particular scenarios, murder is acceptable?

Just as an aside, you need to find out more about the people that are "on life support and get the plug pulled just because they don't have health insurance."

That was a big issue during this entire case, as a bunch of liberal blogs tried to bring up President Bush's signing such a law in Texas as an example of hypocrisy when he tried to intervene on Terri's behalf.

There were rebuttals though, from other liberals even. One of them was a very lucid, in depth look at such laws, and what they actually say is that someone may be disconnected only if there is absolutely zero chance of recovery. In most cases, in fact, the ability to pay for the treatment is irrelevant.

Whether or not to agree with such a law is a difficult issue, because there are good reasons for it. What if someone is being kept alive on a piece of equipment that is in limited supply, and they have no hope of recovery. In the meantime, someone else who needs that machine AND has a chance to recover cannot use it. Is that the way things should work? I don't know. The point is the law is more complicated than simply disconnecting you when you can't pay anymore.