audio of Terri Schiavo 'responding to her father on Friday She WANTS TO LIVE!

audio of Terri Schiavo 'responding to her father on Friday immediately following the removal of her feeding tube'

On drudge now....


LINK to Audio

Well what do you think?



EDIT: Link will not come up for me, getting hit hard I think.





Edit:

A mentally disabled woman whose court ordered starvation-execution began Friday attempted to contradict her estranged husband's claim that she wants to die hours before her feeding tube was disconnected, an eyewitness is claiming.

Barbara Weller, an attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents, told reporters Friday afternoon that during her visit earlier in the day she told Ms. Schiavo:

"Terri, if you would just say, 'I want to live,' - all of this will be over."

According to pro-life activist Randall Terry, who recounted the scene to radio host Sean Hannity, Schiavo tried desperately to repeat Weller's words.

"'I waaaaannt . . .' Schiavo allegedly said, in a prolonged yell that had police stationed nearby running into her hospice room.

"She just started yelling, 'I waaaannt, I waaaannt,'" Terry said, according to Weller's account.

At that point police ejected Weller, he said.


She tried to talk!


[edit on 20-3-2005 by edsinger]




EDIT


Welcome to Sweet Liberty

Our purpose is to report the truth that is being suppressed by the mainstream media regarding Terri Schindler-Schiavo's
condition and the battle that is being waged in the courts on her behalf. We will present the documentation that exposes the lies.

Terri's fight is one that should cause all Americans to take interest. It is indicative of a society which has ceased to embrace it's most precious attribute -- the ability to love all human life, regardless of handicap.

Further, Terri's case has other ominous overtones, as it reflects upon a trend in American governments to shift more power away from the legislative branches to the courts. Are we headed for a one-branch system of government?





"For I was hungry, and you gave me meat.
I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink.
I was a stranger, and ye took me in.
Naked, and ye clothed me.
I was sick, and ye visited me.
I was in prison, and ye came unto me. ...
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these
my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

— Jesus (Matthew 25:35-46)




Terri Schiavo, in a recent news media report.
Do these pictures portray someone who is in a coma?
Does she appear to you to be in a vegitative state?
Have you ever seen anyone in a coma sit up and smile?

Permanent Vegetative State
"A permanent and irreversible condition
of unconsciousness in which there is
(a) The absence of voluntary action
or cognitive behavior of any kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact
purposefully with the environment."
— Florida Law: Section 765.101(12)4

Coma , n.
A state of deep, often prolonged unconsciousness,
usually the result of injury, disease, or poison,
in which an individual is incapable of sensing
or responding to external stimuli and internal needs.

— The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language, Fourth Edition





Terri Schiavo wants to live

Terri Schindler-Schiavo does not want to die. She would like to go home. And she tried to convey this to her father in no uncertain terms by sitting bolt upright and trying to get out of her chair when told she might be killed, her family has revealed.

His daughter's response stunned Schindler, who grabbed the phone and asked, "My God, what did you tell her?"

The speaker said he had warned, "If you don't get up and get out of there, you're going to die there."

"He was ecstatic when I told him what Terri had tried to do," Schindler said.

[edit on 20-3-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger

audio of Terri Schiavo 'responding to her father on Friday immediately following the removal of her feeding tube'

Edsinger, you are a Republican/conservative, right? What role do you think states rights should play in this controversy?

Ed are you falling for the propaganda BS or you are just trying to get controversial here, you know very well that the women is blinking open mouthed vegetable.

And still you bring this here for what? you know is all a lie, to keep the puppets running while the puppeteers do their job.

I guess that is our human nature. When others are different from us, they have to go. We have really tried in this country to not discriminate against the handicapped. Why this particular woman has been chosen to die I do not understand.

Terry's mother and father love her and don't want her to die. They believe in her and believe someday she will be OK.

Her husband does not want her and will do anything to see her die.

I'm not sure that this raises to the level of Congress passing new laws, it would seem to me that there is already a law against killing.

But, what for me is the horror of it all, is that if they remove that feeding tube she will die from a long and inhumane period of thirst and hunger. She will starve to death. If she must be killed why must she be tortured. We don't even do that for our worst murders on death row.

I don't have much time, but if she ate Jello and the husband refused therapy for her, then something is amiss.

I can side with Bush on this one, if there is any doubt, then er on the side of life.

I just got home and have not heard the latest but I did manage to hear the mp3 of her and I can not make any words out but it was like she was trying to answer but cant.

When in doubt. Don't.

since she finally said that she wants to live im gonna create a website telling people to plug back her feeding tube!well before her feeding tube was removed i had a theory that you could starve the sense into someone like i starve the sense into myself when i need to think better and like buddha starved himself to clear his mind i think pulling her feeding tube acctully starved the sense into her!!! my theory is right !!! i thin k we just need to give her some moderate intelligence theorapy and she'll be fine
and also we should plug back in the tube.

Originally posted by marg6043
you know very well that the women is blinking open mouthed vegetable.

And still you bring this here for what? you know is all a lie, to keep the puppets running while the puppeteers do their job.

I am so stunned by this statement. None of us know what her true condition or capability is. She has been denied rehab for years, yet was showing improvement when it was available to her (coincidentally until the malpractice suit was won). You have classified her, in your opinion.

So what are the rights of a "blinking open mouthed vegetable" anyway? Anything? Where should we draw the line on mental incapacity? Aside from the obvious examples, Alzheimers - what about that? When they get to this point do we stop feeding them?

Has it occurred to you that if you bought the wrong side of the story you may be the puppet?

News item this morning is that the Federal Judge denied Terri's right to feeding tube.

This post by jukyu appeared in the thread "Can we have one thread about Terri"

Here is the link jukyu posted on 3/21/2005 at 11:59 AM Post Number: 1261935 (post id: 1283828)

This is a quote from jukyu post. please read entire post. It is a good summary of how Terri got to where she is today. It also makes a pretty good case as to why her husband wants her dead.

*Currently Terri Shiavo is being held in a hospice and is being denied food and water. She needs no other type of "life support" such as a resperator. In fact, she doesn't really even need the feeding tube as she can swallow, eat, and drink. However, because of the court order she is being completely denied food and water of any form, something we
don't even do to convicts on death row.

My emphasis in the quote from jukyu's post.

I have voted jukyu for the Way Above Top Secret award.


[edit on 3/22/2005 by Mahree]

Originally posted by edsinger
I don't have much time, but if she ate Jello and the husband refused therapy for her, then something is amiss.

After being told for four years her condition was continuous vegetative loop, and four years of caring for her and therapy, her husband concluded there was nothing more that could be done. That is when he decided to honor her wish to let her go. (She had said on at least two occassions that she would prefer to NOT to be on life support.)

I don't understand why he wouldn't just get a divorce and let her parents care for her. To me, that would be erring on the side of life. And with that, the government wouldn't have any reason to get involved in this.

I can side with Bush on this one, if there is any doubt, then er on the side of life.

Why is it Republicans all my life have railed over states rights, and yet, when something like this - a HUGE states rights issue - happens, they suddenly change the rules? Edsinger, how do you explain this? How do you, as a Republican, support this BS?

The State of Florida has the ultimate say, constitutionally speaking. Bush and his banana federal gumment have absolutely no business getting involved in this case.

I feel terrible for the girl & her loved ones, and I think its disgusting that the Republicans would play politics over her precious life.


[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

I am personally appaulled at the politics that has been had at this woman's expense. Both sides.

I have no more words on this.

*shakes head*

Originally posted by Mahree

Here is the link jukyu posted on 3/21/2005 at 11:59 AM Post Number: 1261935 (post id: 1283828)

This is a quote from jukyu post. please read entire post. It is a good summary of how Terri got to where she is today. It also makes a pretty good case as to why her husband wants her dead.

I have voted jukyu for the Way Above Top Secret award.

As have I.......................I have voted jukyu for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Edsinger, you are a Republican/conservative, right? What role do you think states rights should play in this controversy?

Edsinger, you have yet to respond to my question. Do you not agree this issue is one of states rights? As a Republican, I would think you'd be a champion of states rights.

The Supreme Court obviously sees it that way.

This whole thing is really pathetic, not to mention tragic. Bush and DeLay are USING this poor woman and her family's battle for the sake of politics. It's wrong and they should be called to mat for it.

BushCo. has completely stomped on the Constitutional right of Florida to decide this case.

A Blow to the Rule of Law
The New York Times | Editorial

Tuesday 22 March 2005

If you are in a "persistent vegetative state" and there is a dispute about whether to keep you alive, your case will probably go no further than state court - unless you are Terri Schiavo. President Bush signed legislation yesterday giving Ms. Schiavo's parents a personal right to sue in federal court. The new law tramples on the principle that this is "a nation of laws, not of men," and it guts the power of the states. When the commotion over this one tragic woman is over, Congress and the president will have done real damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy.

Ms. Schiavo's case presents heart-wrenching human issues, and difficult legal ones. But the Florida courts, after careful deliberation, ruled that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means in her current state, and ordered her feeding tube removed. Ms. Schiavo's parents, who wanted the tube to remain, hoped to get the Florida Legislature to intervene, but it did not do so.

That should have settled the matter. But supporters of Ms. Schiavo's parents, particularly members of the religious right, leaned heavily on Congress and the White House to step in. They did so yesterday with the new law, which gives "any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo" standing to sue in federal court to keep her alive.

This narrow focus is offensive. The founders believed in a nation in which, as Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, we would "submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules." There is no place in such a system for a special law creating rights for only one family. The White House insists that the law will not be a precedent. But that means that the right to bring such claims in federal court is reserved for people with enough political pull to get a law passed that names them in the text.

The Bush administration and the current Congressional leadership like to wax eloquent about states' rights. But they dropped those principles in their rush to stampede over the Florida courts and Legislature. The new law doesn't miss a chance to trample on the state's autonomy and dignity. There are a variety of technical legal doctrines the federal courts use to show deference to state courts, like "abstention" and "exhaustion of remedies." The new law decrees that in Ms. Schiavo's case, these well-established doctrines simply will not apply.

Republicans have traditionally championed respect for the delicate balance the founders created. But in the Schiavo case, and in the battle to stop the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominations, President Bush and his Congressional allies have begun to enunciate a new principle: the rules of government are worth respecting only if they produce the result we want. It may be a formula for short-term political success, but it is no way to preserve and protect a great republic.
www.truthout.org...

Today's Republicans are NOT Republicans at all.

Well I am realistic and I find more appalling that the so called "pro-life" in their pursue of their agendas are doing to that family what they are doing, if somebody here after all this circus think that is all about her, then you are not better than them.

I wonder how many will like to be open mouthed and in a vegetable state for 15 years because is better to have a body even if the soul has been lone gone.

Read the facts people before making judgment.

I'm still waiting to hear from you Ed.

Here's an article that folks on both sides should consider:

Pull the Plug on Pandering
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on March 22, 2005, Printed on March 24, 2005
www.alternet.org...
I write about the Terry Schiavo case both as one who has personally confronted the "pull the plug" question on several levels in recent years and as a staggered observer of this festival of political hypocrisy, opportunism and the trashing of constitutional law, common sense and common decency.

Look, the fundamental question in such cases is, "Who decides?" Preferably, the dying themselves, with a living will. In this case, evidence that Terry Schiavo did not want her life continued in its current pitiable state has been offered and accepted in several courts of law. Next, the next-of-kin, though in many cases someone else may be closer to the dying person, such as a longtime lover, and should be legally designated to make the decision through power of attorney.

Bad cases make bad law, and this is a bad case. In the tragic cases where a family splits on the decision, the case goes to court, where there is a well-established body of law on the subject. The Schiavo case has been litigated for seven years now, the verdict upheld at every level (including the U.S. Supreme Court, by refusing to hear arguments). It is beyond comprehension, not to mention the Constitution, that the Congress of the United States and the president should have involved themselves at this point.

What on earth makes them think they have the right to do so? Both libertarians and constitutional conservatives, including Justice Scalia, should be having fits over this push by the federal government into a private family matter. Congress has no power to overturn judicial decisions, nor has it any role in such painful personal decisions. This is as arrogant a usurpation of power as we have had since FDR's court-packing plan.
www.alternet.org...

The hypocrisy is staggering..

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Edsinger, you are a Republican/conservative, right? What role do you think states rights should play in this controversy?

Edsinger, you have yet to respond to my question. Do you not agree this issue is one of states rights? As a Republican, I would think you'd be a champion of states rights.

The Supreme Court obviously sees it that way.

Well sorry but I have been VERY busy so I will make it quick, for the most part I do believe in States rights but sometimes they are wrong, I mean we have already had a civil war over the same issue.

The State Legislature passed a law, the courts threw it out...

I believe that in this case an injustice is being done and I hate to say it but I believe the odds are that the husband is getting away with attempted murder and the police that came to the house the night she got ill , thought so also.

It's amazing how truly and utterly evil and un-Christlike some people are in this world. I know Christ is smiling knowing that Terri is finally coming home despite so-called good "Americans" and "Christians" trying to keep her from her Christ for whatever vague, cliche and personal reasons they have. HOW DARE THEY? Most of us Christians are appalled by their actions. Those who try to keep here away from Christ will have to answer for what they are doing.