I am not the resident expert on the Terri Schiavo case (that would be Pete), but I had to comment on the following little nugget from this story:
Michael Schiavo says his wife had expressed wishes not to be kept alive artificially, although she left no written directive. He said he is determined to carry on in the case out of love for his wife.Aww. Such a trooper — fighting an endless court battle to judicially kill his wife by starvation."This case is about Terri Schiavo's wishes," Felos said. "It's about her wishes not to be forced-fed, her wishes not to be kept alive artificially."
Somebody remind me: Michael stands to gain something when Terri dies, right? I mean, beyond the ability to marry his shack-up floozy who gave birth to their bastard children? Or does he give up the right to her malpractice settlement money?
I believe that, according to Michael Schiavo, the malpractice money is gone.
Reason? (Again, I believe this is from the Michael Schiavo team.) Why ... to pay the attorney's fees incurred -- in this bid to kill her. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the irony here.
The other day a news report claimed that $440K of the $750K malpractice funds had been spent on the lawyers.
If a new guardian were to be appointed, it's thinkable that he might challenge the legitimacy of those expenditures, and demand that Terri's fund be repaid. That fact by itself provides Mr. Schiavo a motivation to rub his wife out and get the case closed.
Another improvement in the coverage: Fox is starting to use a video clip of Terri showing her expressiveness.
There is also the little matter that if Terri gets therapy, she might be able to communicate, and accuse Schiavo of trying to kill her that night 15 years ago.
But if she's dead, she can't testify.
First, before anyone gets on my case, I am firmly on the side of Terri Schiavo -- as is evidenced on my blogs Fides, Spes, Caritas and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis.
But "shack-up floozy who gave birth to their bastard children"? Do you really think that's acceptable language? Do you think that a non-Catholic or non-Christian who visited this blog and saw that would be at all interested in looking at the Catholic view of this issue when you're using language like that? As usual, Eric, I'm disappointed in the way you chose to present your opinion.
While I have no sympathy at all for Michael Schiavo's girlfriend, I have to agree with Nathan that innocent children should not be referred to as "bastards." The kids are have a difficult-enough life with a wife-murderer and adulteress for parents. They don't need orthodox Christians using distasteful words to describe circumstances of birth they had nothing to do with.
By all means, cast stones at Schiavo and his girlfriend -- I don't think Christ would object to this one, so long we all understand that "casting stones" is a metaphor for right judgment -- but leave the kids out of it.
Fair enough -- I see your points, but I'll stick with "bastard." I didn't mean for it to be a nice word. Bastardy isn't a nice thing. Neither is being a woman of loose morals ("floozy") or deliberately killing the innocent ("murder"). It's not always charitable or prudent to state the bald truth, but sometimes it is, and I think when you're trying to get the state to use the medical establishment to kill your wife in order to marry your concubine, that's a good time for the bald truth.
Incidently, any stigma attached to illegitimacy attaches primarily to the parents, not to the children. It is regrettable and highly detrimental that this stigma has lessened in the last few decades.
Eric, in which world do you live that illegitimacy applies primarily to the PARENTS?
Your decision to continue telling us the "bald truth," that is, verbally bashing Michael Schiavo, his mistress and their innocent children, is disgusting. This shouldn't be about verbally bashing Michael Schiavo and his mistress, it should be about trying to save Terri's life. Obviously you've lost sight of that goal, but that doesn't particularly surprise me.
Nathan, it's ironic that you take an intemperate tone in your lectures about being more temperate.
Perusing your posts regarding Terri Schiavo. In response to this part of your post: "It's not always charitable or prudent to state the bald truth, but sometimes it is, and I think when you're trying to get the state to use the medical establishment to kill your wife in order to marry your concubine, that's a good time for the bald truth."
My grandfather divorced my grandmother when my mother was a child, 55 years ago. His wife was in a mental nursing home, comletely unaware of who she was, that she had a family, and with an unfavorable diagnosis to ever regain her memory or ability to function by herself without 24 hour care. She would wander off, or go into fits. To sum it up, she was insane. After it became evident it would be this way forever, he signed her over to the home, divorced her, and went on with his life to support his numerous children, eventually remarrying. Some may think he should have (at the age of 30 something) sacrificed his entire life in devotion to her. That part is irrelevent. The point is, Mr. Schiavo could have signed Terri over to her parents and divorced her long ago.