Terri Schiavo--Where Liberal Ideologies Collided

It's been six months and I haven't forgotten the public execution of Terri Schiavo.

I feel a need to address something I kept seeing: clash of the (traditionally) liberal ideologies. Namely, feminism vs. euthanasia.


Radical feminists like to claim that men take away women's rights. But I saw no sign of them as Terri Schiavo's husband took away her rights! I guess the euthanasia crowd won out.

Did you know that in order to collect that million-dollar settlement, Michael had to PROVE that she could be rehabilitated? So much for the PVS lie.

Rense has a whole section on Terri Schiavo on his site, feel free to browse.

My point is, Terri was plainly used and controlled by her husband, and in the end she was murdered by him--though it took him 15 years. You'd think the feminists would be popping out of the woodwork.

Not a peep out of them.

Goes to show how much they really care about women.

Zip, zero, zilch, NADA.

Originally posted by Amethyst
It's been six months and I haven't forgotten the public execution of Terri Schiavo.

Except it was not an execution.

My point is, Terri was plainly used and controlled by her husband, and in the end she was murdered by him--though it took him 15 years.

No, she wasn't. She had an eating disorder which resulted in a heart condition which further resulted in her VS. End of story. Terri was however, used by her parents. I do believe they honestly felt what they were trying to do was the right thing - but they failed to consider Terri's feelings, and the feelings of her husband (who had the absolute legal and moral right to decide her fate).

This isn't about feminism, Amethyst - this is about trying to paint Terri Schiavo as some kind of innocent murder victim. Frankly, that's insulting both her memory and those of genuine murder victims.

Go here

Did you miss the part where Michael had to PROVE that Terri could be rehabilitated in order to get that settlement?

My point is, this was a golden opportunity for feminists to do some man-hating...and they lost out.

[edit on 10/3/2005 by Amethyst]

Did you miss the part where I was addressing other points?

(mainly the parts about it being murder - it simply wasn't - and/or execution).

Wait. Ok, I used "VS" instead of "PVS". There's a difference between the two...which is why I didn't comment on Michael having to prove she was PVS (it was obvious she was in a vegetative state; the ambiguity came from not knowing whether it was permanent, or whether it would/could improve). Is that what you were getting at?

Did you see Terri's CAT scan? Her autopsy report?

Do you honestly think she could have been rehabilitated?

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Did you miss the part where I was addressing other points?

Those other points weren't valid. She didn't have a heart condition. Michael beat her up.

Do you honestly think she could have been rehabilitated?

Well, whoever awarded her husband that million dollars apparently thought so, else he would never have gotten it.

Originally posted by Amethyst
Those other points weren't valid. She didn't have a heart condition. Michael beat her up.

Read her autopsy report.

Her heart stopped for roughly five minutes.

Do you have any proof at all that her condition was caused by being beaten up?

The key to the malpractice settlement was for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain; this would not have been awarded had it not been adequately shown that there was indeed a misdiagnosis....thus, the points made earlier are indeed valid.

No misdiagnosis = no malpractice

No malpractice = no settlement

Initially, I'm sure there was hope for rehabilitation. But CAT scans don't lie....look at the cerebral hemispheres.

There's one question I have though. You mentioned on other posts that the husband "owns" his wife's body, according to the Bible, yes?

Why is this case different? Why did her husband not have the right to decide her fate?

Originally posted by Amethyst
My point is, this was a golden opportunity for feminists to do some man-hating...and they lost out.

I saw no limit to man, woman and sancitity of marriage hatin' by "Reverend" Dobson's poodles Fristie and Delay during Schiavogate, but the rest of us just like the Constitution, less government intervention and our privacy.

Feminism isn't man-hating. Men did control a woman's choices about her body and her mind, so don't make it seem as though its crazy to think that women have to fight to be heard when there were obvious limits on who she could and couldn't be for centuries...however distasteful feminism may seem to you, we need those crazy BI's because without them some man would have his hand up our butts like a puppet.

There is nothing sadder than a person just laying in bed all day with a tube in their belly and a tube in their bladder and a bag on their colon. They can't turn themselves speak or think. All they can do is lay there and rot. Most times they are so drugged so they don't cry out and get on the nurses nerves. Still, no matter how sad it is, its not my decision to make for someone else. Their life is over if that is their wish. This issue HAD nothing to do with feminism so there is no clash in liberal ideology to even discuss here.



[edit on 3-10-2005 by Saphronia]

Originally posted by Amethyst

Those other points weren't valid. She didn't have a heart condition. Michael beat her up.

Amethyst, this is a knew low even for you...I'm sorry but come on.

Can you back up your statement with any proof or is this just another one of your views to make a point? [Which isn't there.]