Straight Up with Sherri

Saturday, March 26, 2005

He Says, She Says

No wonder there is so much banter.

I have noticed a few things.

One side believes this is a "right to die" case.

One side believes this is a "right to life" case.

Just out of PURE curiosity, let's clear some things up.

Question to the "right to life" side:

If a person has a LIVING WILL and has stated IN WRITING that they would want to be allowed to starve to death in certain situations, do you believe the government has the right to intervene and stop this?

Question to the "right to die" side:

If a person has a WILL TO LIVE and has stated IN WRITING that they would want "heroic measures" to be taken to sustain their life, do you believe the government has the right to intervene and stop this?

posted by Straight Up with Sherri at 8:35 AM

7 Comments:

  • NO

    and

    NO

    The government has no right to intervene in private family matters.

    Would you want them to intervene in YOUR LIFE?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:14 AM  

  • Key words, IN WRITING.

    In this case it is not in writing, so then the decision goes to the guardain. Michael. cut and dry case, except that Michael has been lying too much to be believed and should have been removed as her guardian the moment he got engaged to another woman. Herein lies the problems and the major issue in this particular case.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:15 AM  

  • KEYES:

    And of course, when the judges are judging a case, if a law seems to them to conflict with the Constitution, they have go with the Constitution. But if a governor is faced with a judicial decision, and he conscientiously concludes that that judicial decision conflicts with the Constitution and his constitutional duties, he can't obey it!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:28 AM  

  • By Anonymous, at 9:14 AM

    Key words, IN WRITING.

    In this case it is not in writing, so then the decision goes to the guardain. Michael. cut and dry case, except that Michael has been lying too much to be believed and should have been removed as her guardian the moment he got engaged to another woman. Herein lies the problems and the major issue in this particular case.

    By Anonymous, at 10:15 AM

    Michael Schiavo has not lied. Why should he have been removed as her guardian for doing something that the Schindlers encouraged him to do?

    That is NOT the problem nor a major issue.

    NO ONE on this site has answered that question.

    THE SCHINDLERS ENCOURAGED MICHAEL TO MOVE ON WITH HIS LIFE .. .TO DATE .. WHILE HE WAS LIVING WITH THEM ... taking care of Terri. They even encouraged him to bring his dates home to meet them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:12 PM  

  • keeka said...

    Michael Schiavo has taken steps that will prevent investigators from examining Terri Schiavo's body for evidence of abuse after she dies - a suspicion her family has repeatedly raised as her death grows more imminent.

    They have repeatedly raised this suspicion 4 years after the fact. Why? Why didn't they bring it up in the first trial? They keep CREATING new allegations because they are desperate and trying ANYTHING to have their daughter put back on the tube.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:14 PM  

  • Michael Schiavo has lied.....



    Police Report

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 12:31 PM  

  • if someone attempts suicide, their loved ones will (with the support of the hospital) take heroic measures to save that person's life, even though it is clear that at least at the moment of action, that person wanted to die.

    I'm not sure that's the best example, because in the vast majority of cases, attempted suicides that actually fail are really "cries for help." In other words, suicides where someone does something to themselves then immediately alerts someone about it. In those cases, I don't think it's heroic to save them -- it's pretty much called for.

    And Sherri: your hostultra links aren't working.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home