Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irishgrl
Wrong again, counselor  I dont HATE them, I said I dont RESPECT them. They lost all credibility for me when they aligned themselves with the pro-life wackos. (by the way, you are right about the pro-life fanatics taking advantage of their vulnerability, I think that is heinous) I think it is disgusting, too, to have the PRESIDENT and Congress involved...Also: The fact that the in-laws had no problem with Michael until he refused to pay them from his settlement shows me there is more than one agenda here. As I said before, I can understand a parent wanting to keep their child alive, but at some point (say 15 YEARS?????) you have to ACCEPT that the medical community KNOWS what it is talking about and that no matter how much they wish it were otherwise, their daughter is beyond any hope of recovery, and continued denial of the truth only prolongs the inevitable.
Bringing up new issues now (like the alleged "time lag" between the collapse and the 911 call) makes me wonder why this very thing wasnt brought up in any of the Court battles? They are showing their true colors in their ongoing effort to smear their son-in-law who has yet to be shown guilty of ANYTHING. No, I certainly DONT respect them, and the more venom they spew, I find it harder and harder to sympathize with them.....
You keep misinterpreting me even tho I think I am crystal clear   |
The parents never accepted that their daughter wanted not to live like that and there is little proof she actually said that. So to say that after 15 years the parents should accept that on faith and then go along with killing what was left of her is unfair because it puts your notion of what they should do on them
I mean if you go by that, then all people in PVS should be killed after 15 or so years regardless of intent.
Also, they did not believe Mr. Schiavo when he said conveniently years after the fact that after all of his trying to help his wife, he essentially suddenly remembered a conversation they had about this topic
I mean isn't it odd that he never once mentioned it for years
I get that he was trying to help his wife all along, but the timing is a little suspicious.
Finally, the articles indicate the discepency in the time was first noted in , I think, 2003, when this was at the appellate level and all facts were found.