Michael Schiavo

Author	Comment
rodkirby	Michael Schiavo		Lead	[-]
Posts: 485 03/26/05 11:24:51	Tags : None Let's look at another issue here. We all uphold the sanctity of marriage. When a man and a woman covenant together in marriage, they remain in that covenantal bond no matter what happens, unless there is a formal divorce. If I engage in an adulterous affair, I am still married to my wife; I haven't dissolved that relationship. I have been unfaithful, I have violated the covenant, but that covenant bond is still there. If I have multiple adulterous affairs, but have not gone through divorce proceedings, you would not say that the marriage bond is dissolved. You would say that I am still married to my wife, and I have covenantal and legal obligations toward her. The grounds for divorce may very well exist, but if a divorce has not taken place, we are still married. Isn't that what has happened with Michael Schiavo? Let's assume he has been engaged in an adulterous affair for years, as has been reported. Have he and Terri been divorced? No. Has he been an unfaithful husband? That seems to be the case. But he is still legally, covenantally Terri's husband. Therefore, I see no grounds for the argument that he has abandoned his rights as a husband, due to his adultery, and therefore Terri's parents should be making the decision. I would think that legally, covenantally, he still is her husband, and he has the legal right to make decisions for her when she is incapacitated. Now, that is not to say that he has the right to starve her to death, nor is it to deny that the state could find grounds for spousal abuse and place her in protective custody. But one line of argument I have heard involves his adultery, and I just don't see that as a valid argument. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	But the problem is...	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 432 03/26/05 13:17:47	that according to law, there is a mechanism for ending a marriage. Yet Terri does not have access to it, for obvious reasons. So now what? Is there a point at which a spouse who cannot act on her own but is in a situation (that is, open and acknowledged adultery) where the law has always, even prior to no-fault divorce, acknowledged her right to be free, becomes free, or at least has the option of having someone other than the legally vow-violating spouse determine whether it is in her best interests to be freed? IOW, is there a point at which he actually loses the right to his covenantal privileges as a result of legally violating his covenantal obligations? (Not being nice to her is also violating his covenantal obligations, but common law has always recognized that adultery is a legal violation as well.) I'm Goldberry, and I support this post.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: But the problem is...	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 485 03/26/05 15:22:57	I agree. However, I guess I am looking at this from the point of view of making a strong argument in the whole issue. What arguments do we use -- those of us who are appalled by the removal of the feeding tube? Yes, there should be some way of dissolving this marriage. But, whether there is or not, Michael is still her husband. Yes, he has been unfaithful. But he is still her husband. I wonder if that is what makes public opinion so much in favor of him -- that there is still a concept that, as her spouse, he has the responsibility and right to make health care decisions for her. If I were incapacitated, I would trust my wife to be making the right decisions, and if that involved removal from life support, I have confidence that she would be doing the right thing. I think most married couples, Christian or not, believe the same thing. So I think our argument is not helped by talking about his unfaithfulness -- he is still her husband, and thus is able to decide her health care. I'm just concerned that, when we (conservatives and Christians) argue for our positions in the court of public opinion, we need to be using our strongest arguments, and not using weak or ambiguous arguments. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
The Clinging Vine	Except his adulterous relationship is doubtless....	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 03/26/05 15:37:37	....one of the motivating factors behind her murder. IOW, he has a vested interest in seeing her dead, and it's BECAUSE of his mistress and their children. Were he just flitting from one woman's bed to another, living a playboy lifestyle, then actually he might be far more willing to keep her alive. Marvelous protection from any expectation of marriage . . . he's already married! But this isn't the case. He's lived with this other woman for years and had two sons by her. His real "married" life is with her. Therefore, it's to his benefit Terri die. Personally, ISTM we need to be agitating for legislation saying that no one who stands to benefit from someone's death, whether monetarily or because it frees them to marry another, etc., can make decisions regarding plug-and/or-tube-pulling. Anne, a Predestinarian Complementarian The Vine's Blog "The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification." -- Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	What is and is not an issue	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/26/05 15:47:16	The public relations problem with using the adultery argument is that most people no longer accept traditional standards of sexual morality. You've got a lot of people who are saying, "If I were in a PVS for 15 years I would want my spouse to find happiness, and if my spouse were in a PVS for 15 years I'm not sure I wouldn't seek human comfort elsewhere myself." And you've got other people who don't see the connection between marriage and sex in the first place. The church needs to understand that this particular public relations battle is unwinnable because the church's position ceased to be the majoritarian opinion some time ago. That doesn't mean the church should change to fit current standards; it just means that if the issue is public relations, forget it. Look, the Schindlers and Randall Terry aren't likely to ask for my advice, but if they did here's what I would tell them: Demonizing Michael isn't going to work because if you look past the narrow issue of removing the feeding tube, he comes across as very sympathetic. Here's a man who by all accounts was devoted to his wife, who went to nursing school specifically so he could take care of her, and who as long as there was hope that she would recover took an active role in her care. He could have washed his hands of it and walked away completely 15 years ago; he didn't. Even while starting a life with another woman he still looked after her. The only reason he is unsympathetic to some is that they disagree with him on allowing her to die. You're not going to score any points by demonizing him.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Come Again?	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/26/05 15:53:20	"Personally, ISTM we need to be agitating for legislation saying that no one who stands to benefit from someone's death, whether monetarily or because it frees them to marry another, etc., can make decisions regarding plug-and/or-tube-pulling." I think the practical effect of that would be to remove from the decision-making process all spouses and children since pretty much every spouse and/or child will get life insurance, inherit property, or be free to remarry. So, the question then is who would be left to make the decision? Second cousins twice removed? I also don't see how letting Terri die frees him to remarry any better than simply filing for divorce. If that were his motivation, why didn't he simply file for divorce and leave her parents to take care of her?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
The Clinging Vine	Isn't he at least nominally Catholic?	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 03/26/05 16:13:41	If he is - though, granted, he's surely not practicing it now - he would want to be married in the RCC. Got those boys, after all. If he divorced her, he couldn't do that. For a proper, official RCC marriage, only Terri's death will do. I've got lots of relatives from whom I shan't receive a significant inheritance. Actually, the more I mull on it, the more ISTM such a decision ought not to be in the hands of one person. Maybe three? Preferably from different branches of the family, as opposed to three children of the patient, or three siblings. If there's not enough family, the decision-team can be augmented by friends or court-appointed whatdoyoucallem's. But having someone's life in the hands of one person, and that person having a real motive for wanting that someone dead, is really stupid. That's fallen humanity for you, though. They prate on about the "essential goodness of human nature," without grasping the evilness that lurks inside us all. Anne, a Predestinarian Complementarian The Vine's Blog "The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification." -- Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Catholicism and Committee Decisions	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/26/05 18:36:39	I don't claim to be an expert in Catholic polity, but I do know that these days there are enough divorcing and remarrying Catholics that death can't possibly be his only option. As much grief as the Catholic church has given him over this issue I'd be surprised if he's raising his sons Catholic anyway, but I don't actually know. And I confess to being troubled by your willingess to assign to him the worst possible motives. OK, so you disagree with his decision, but please at least consider the possibility that he's doing what he thinks is right. Please see Matthew 7:1 and the second half of I Samuel 16:7. And the problem with the committee approach to end of life decisions is that it guarantees that you will have situations like this where family members don't agree. I know up front that my spouse and my mother would make different choices -- he'd carry out my wishes not to be kept alive by machines; she'd keep me alive as long as possible regardless of my wishes. If someone's wishes are clear, that person shouldn't need anybody's permission to have them carried out. If they aren't clear, call me old fashioned but I think the marriage relationship is a special relationship that trumps everything else. "Therefore shall a man leave both his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh."
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
The Clinging Vine	[astonished] WHAT grief?	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 03/26/05 19:27:53	The bishop of his diocese is on his side; so much so he'd forbidden Terri Schiavo's name be mentioned in churches, though he finally relented to the point she can be prayed for. Big of him, isn't it? According to a reporter for World magazine, there hasn't been a single priest outside the hospice in which Terri's being killed. The Catholic presence - or lack thereof - is puzzling. Granted, the pope came down hard on the side of not starving or dehydrating Terri, but that's about it. He hasn't received any significant grief at all from the local RCC. And shame on them! What wishes are you talking about? If everything's spelt out in a legal document, that's one thing. Not the situation with Terri, though, is it? All we've got is Michael - the one bound and determined to see her d.e.a.d., dead - and his siblings claiming she made a comment years ago about not wanting to be kept alive by machines. I don't suppose it matters to you that a feeding tube is not a machine? Didn't think so. For crying out loud, the person who has the most to gain by her death is the one claiming she once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive by machines and also the one making the decision to kill her. Wouldn't you prefer to not have the same person occupying all three of those positions? Used car salesmen must love to see you coming . . . you're an extraordinarily trusting soul. Anne, a Predestinarian Complementarian The Vine's Blog "The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification." -- Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Re: [astonished] WHAT grief? and yet another issue	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/26/05 23:48:47	I was referring to the Vatican. Technically a feeding tube is a machine, but even if it weren't I don't think that changes the analysis. And you've never met me but I'm actually fairly cynical where human nature is concerned. I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility that Michael Schiavo may well be the "self seeking reptile" Tom Fleming called him; I just don't think the Schindlers have come within a country mile of proving it. I just wish you would acknowledge the alternative possibility: that he may be doing what he thinks is right. And I also think that because of human nature any system that gets implemented will lead to bad results in particular cases; I'm concerned with finding the system that works the best the greatest number of times, and I think the one we have now does that. Hate the Schiavo result as much as you like, most of the time the current system more or less works. Most family members will have personal interests and I'm not sure family gridlock -- which is how this case dragged on for 15 years in the first place -- would be better. Decide who the decisionmaker should be and get out of their way. But since you want to talk about financial motive, here's an interesting question that I was going to start a new thread on: Once upon a time not so very long ago people got sick and died. People did not linger for 15 years because there was no technology to keep them alive. Had Terri Schiavo had her stroke in 1890 rather than 1990 she would have died within a day and that would have been that. We are now at the point where lots of people who would have quickly died a generation ago are being kept alive for five or ten years at a cost of a million dollars each. What happens when we reach the point where all of us can have our lives extended five or ten years but at a cost of a million dollars each? It is well and good to say we are pro-life and believe that life should be preserved, but somebody has got to pay for all this expensive technology. I agree with you that money is not the supreme value, but neither is it entirely irrelevant. At what point does the pro-life position become too expensive to maintain?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
The Clinging Vine	Now, BION, you and I agree on something.	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 03/27/05 00:15:04	Understand, I draw a distinct line between feeding someone who cannot otherwise feed themselves, since we each and every one of us arrive in the world in that condition (I've a two week old grandbaby, and if she were dumped on the floor and ignored, she'd die of dehydration and starvation, seeing as how she's no more capable of feeding herself than Terri Schiavo), and throwing one treatment after another at someone in a bid to stave off the inevitable. Remember when Micky Mantle received an organ transplant at an advanced age, and with him in poor health anyway? And he still died, big surprise. That was simply ludicrous. The man was in bad shape, plus in his 60's, and they STILL performed an organ transplant! You are quite right that the mad chasing after immortality our society seems to be bent upon is foolish in the extreme, but deliberately killing (for that's what it IS) someone by withholding their food and water is wicked. Mark my words, a "right" to die, such as the current law permits, will sooner rather than later become an obligation to die. A willingness to be "permitted" to die so as not to be a burden to our families and society will devolve into a responsibility to die so as not be a burden. Anne, a Predestinarian Complementarian The Vine's Blog "The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification." -- Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

Michael Schiavo	03/26/05 11:24:51	rodkirby
But the problem is...	03/26/05 13:17:47	Goldberry of Withywindle
Re: But the problem is...	03/26/05 15:22:57	rodkirby
Except his adulterous relationship is doubtless....	03/26/05 15:37:37	The Clinging Vine
Come Again?	03/26/05 15:53:20	abewoelk
Isn't he at least nominally Catholic?	03/26/05 16:13:41	The Clinging Vine
Catholicism and Committee Decisions	03/26/05 18:36:39	abewoelk
[astonished] WHAT grief?	03/26/05 19:27:53	The Clinging Vine
Re: [astonished] WHAT grief? and yet another issue	03/26/05 23:48:47	abewoelk
Now, BION, you and I agree on something.	03/27/05 00:15:04	The Clinging Vine
ethical systems	03/28/05 16:43:21	ramclaughlin
Re: ethical systems	03/28/05 17:04:39	rodkirby
OK, how about another approach	03/28/05 17:34:55	abewoelk
The problem with...	03/28/05 23:56:15	Goldberry of Withywindle
Re The Problem With . . .	03/29/05 02:30:48	abewoelk
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/29/05 13:37:53	ramclaughlin
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/29/05 16:23:00	abewoelk
A small correction	03/29/05 17:08:44	JohnCallaghan
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/29/05 17:09:03	ramclaughlin
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/29/05 18:03:11	abewoelk
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/30/05 18:38:46	ramclaughlin
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/31/05 01:23:48	abewoelk
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/31/05 09:20:30	rodkirby
Actually, that's a different problem	03/31/05 12:19:40	abewoelk
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/31/05 13:27:24	ramclaughlin
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/31/05 15:54:48	abewoelk
Strange examples.	03/31/05 16:19:46	Goldberry of Withywindle
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/31/05 17:03:32	ramclaughlin
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/31/05 23:43:08	abewoelk
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/31/05 17:04:03	rodkirby
case in point	03/31/05 17:09:56	ramclaughlin
Re: case in point	03/31/05 23:44:32	abewoelk
That's my point	04/01/05 18:44:34	ramclaughlin
But . . .	04/02/05 10:55:07	abewoelk
the question is law, not doctrine	04/04/05 16:51:48	ramclaughlin
Re: Re The Problem With . . .	03/31/05 23:47:08	abewoelk
The question remains...	04/01/05 16:08:47	Goldberry of Withywindle
Re: The question remains...	04/02/05 11:01:12	abewoelk
Now why....	04/02/05 11:44:50	Goldberry of Withywindle
Because	04/03/05 10:10:37	abewoelk
You're jumping to application...	04/04/05 09:50:34	Goldberry of Withywindle
Not Exactly	04/04/05 11:08:26	abewoelk
The thing is...	04/04/05 12:26:55	Goldberry of Withywindle
Okay, if utilitarianism is...	04/05/05 11:20:08	Goldberry of Withywindle
Hello, Pluto	04/04/05 17:29:30	ramclaughlin
While you're at it	04/05/05 12:40:55	abewoelk
utilitarianism	04/04/05 17:27:15	ramclaughlin
God vs. United States	04/04/05 17:32:32	ramclaughlin
Torture with dull knives	03/29/05 15:32:45	JohnCallaghan
utterly horrifying	03/29/05 17:27:39	ramclaughlin
Re: Torture with dull knives	03/29/05 18:13:34	abewoelk
Truth is stranger than fiction	03/30/05 13:45:03	JohnCallaghan
Re: Truth is stranger than fiction	03/30/05 15:08:34	abewoelk
We're also talking about...	03/30/05 15:25:45	Goldberry of Withywindle
BTW, before you respond with...	03/30/05 15:28:16	Goldberry of Withywindle
Actually I have a better response than that	03/30/05 15:45:38	abewoelk
Not exactly.	03/30/05 16:16:31	Goldberry of Withywindle
all legislation is moral	03/30/05 18:42:36	ramclaughlin
Re: all legislation is moral	03/31/05 00:56:39	abewoelk
Re: all legislation is moral	03/31/05 12:34:31	ramclaughlin
Agreed.	03/31/05 13:51:47	Goldberry of Withywindle
Neatly-Labeled Ziplock Bags	03/30/05 16:53:29	JohnCallaghan
Re: Neatly-Labeled Ziplock Bags and Shoes on Other Feet	03/30/05 17:51:15	abewoelk
need more feet ... or less	03/30/05 18:51:55	ramclaughlin
A Simpler Analysis	03/31/05 00:54:10	abewoelk
Re: A Simpler Analysis	03/31/05 12:41:08	ramclaughlin
Re: A Simpler Analysis	03/31/05 16:10:30	abewoelk
Re: A Simpler Analysis	03/31/05 17:00:59	ramclaughlin
Re: A Simpler Analysis	03/31/05 23:59:36	abewoelk

Yuku free message boards

Michael Schiavo

Quick Reply

Replies