"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Wed 23 Mar 2005 12:20:53p, Ron Hardin wrote
in
message :

His listeners don't agree with him, so he told them to listen to
somebody else.

But he's never been any good on moralizing, as to theory or as to
entertainment value.

Either he gets over it or his show ends.

It's about marriage, not about killing, Rush.


Opinions vary. But you are free to choose death over life and justify it
in
any way that helps you feel more at ease with your decision. As for me and
mine, unless it can not possibly be avoided any longer, we will *always*
choose life over death when an innocent is involved.


This is one circumstance in which I am 100% in agreement with Bush and the
CONgress. Always err on the side of life.

My main question to Mr. Schaivo would be.... if it really was Terri's wish
not to be kept alive "artificially", then why did it take so long for him to
decide to honor her wish? Surely this thing hasn't been in court the entire
15 years??

I really think you guys involved in this thread need to read this. I
normally dislike blogs, but this one's a bit different.

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

Here's a couple of quotes from there to whet your appetite.

quote

The facts of this case are terribly sad, but they are not hard to
understand. There's really nothing to be confused about, and as best I can
tell, nothing's been overlooked by anyone. Terri's situation has arguably
received more judicial attention, more medical attention, more executive
attention, and more "due process," than any other guardianship case in
history. Terri's family has had the benefit of excellent legal
representation as well as the Governor's own top-notch attorneys, all of
whom have scoured the case for ways to assist the effort to keep Terri's
feeding tube in place.

end quote

And here's interesting quote number two:

quote

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should
live or die?

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.

end quote

What I like about this guy's site, which bills itself as "The first weblog
devoted to Florida law and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals", is this
quote:

"I encourage anyone interested in this case to read the judicial decisions
that have been entered. Most informative, from a factual point of view, are
Judge Greer's orders and the Second District's decisions."

And of course, he provides those documents for you to read. I wonder how
many people in this country talking about this issue have bothered to look
at these documents.

No I don't.

Be sure to click on the "Home Page" link. There are more links to the legal
documents there.