![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And because this is the "real" news on the matter -
The Teri Schiavo autopsy results are in.
And her husband did his duty by her.
And the so-called "pro-life" activists? *waves red flag of personal opinion*
They have a long way to go before they can convince me that their "activism" isn't smoke from another fire - it appears to have little to do with "life" or dealing with the hard realities of end-of-life issues. There are worse things than being alive, if you truly believe in any kind of afterlife.
This was one of them. Thank God it's over.
And her husband did his duty by her.
And the so-called "pro-life" activists? *waves red flag of personal opinion*
They have a long way to go before they can convince me that their "activism" isn't smoke from another fire - it appears to have little to do with "life" or dealing with the hard realities of end-of-life issues. There are worse things than being alive, if you truly believe in any kind of afterlife.
This was one of them. Thank God it's over.
no subject
Of course he didn't, nor would it make sense to tell them, given their opposition to the treatment he was giving her. Moving her from the home to a hospice was him basically saying "it's time for you to die." They would have opposed it obviously. It wasn't illegal, but I think the implication is that it was very rude and intentionally so.
My point is getting lost in the side issues here. He lied in court, he'd already betrayed his marriage when he did so, and his false dedication makes him a prick in my book. I couldn't care less how much money he made or lost in the process, or what Terri's actual chances of recovery were. When someone says in court to a judge, or at a wedding to someone's family, that they intend to stay with their spouse for the rest of their life, that's a vow, and not something to be casually discarded when keeping those words becomes inconvenient.
no subject
The logical consequence of your position is the claim that divorce should be completely illegal, no matter what. You took that vow, now you're stuck with it no matter if your spouse beats the shit out of you, disappears for 20 years, runs around on you with everything else in town, or lies in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery and every chance of living for another 50 years.
Sorry, Charlie. We spent half a century fighting to get people OUT of that mindset, and I'm not going back in on YOUR say-so. There's nothing more poisonous than a marriage which is dead in all but name.
You keep throwing around the word "casually", when from all the evidence there was nothing casual about any of Michael Schiavo's decisions. Why does everyone have to make him either an angel or a demon? He was a human being, trying to steer his way thru a difficult course as best he could. He probably made mistakes. Who among us has not? Who's entitled to throw that first stone?
no subject
In my personal experience, the people who make the biggest deal about divorce being OMG THE WORST THING EVER are either a) desperate to find something to be morally patronizing about or b) deeply unhappy in their own relationship, or-- a combination of a and b. Not that that's this person's deal, just what I've seen in my (happily brief and limited) experience with such belief systems.
no subject
I'm not trying to be morally patronizing, nor am I unhappy with any of my own relationships, all I am saying is that this guy is not the squeaky-clean saint he's being put forward as, and that his motives are questionable. Do I know for a fact that he did this for himself rather than for her? No. But I do know that he's said things that don't match his actions, and those things make him a prick in my book.
no subject
Yup.
no subject
You can take whatever you want, but you'd be wrong. I also know plenty of people who grew up with parents who hated one another but refused to go their separate ways. That's an even more wonderful experience.
But eh, no one's discussing kids here, so that's irrelevant. Teri was hardly having children while she was in that state.
I'm not trying to be morally patronizing, nor am I unhappy with any of my own relationships
Like I said, that's just my own anecdotal evidence speaking, I've no idea what your deal is. Judging from your icon as well as your comments on this thread, it seems to me you just really really like celebrity gossip. Which is fine, but that's a subject that's of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever, so it always surprises me when other people are interested.
all I am saying is that this guy is not the squeaky-clean saint he's being put forward as, and that his motives are questionable.
Again, that's fine, if that's how you feel. But it's entirely irrelevant, as he did absolutely nothing wrong from a legal standpoint, or in my own opinion, from an ethical standpoint-- sure, you can question his motives all you like, but since you can't read his mind, and you don't know any of the people in question, it's essentially a huge waste of time. The reason you're having trouble convincing anyone here otherwise is because the rest of us realize that it's absolutely none of our business, and we can never know what goes on in the heart of a total stranger.
no subject
That's hardly true. I said it was not something to be casually discarded, not completely unbreakable. Of course there are times when it is necessary, but that isn't the point.
If he wanted to move on with his life, as his actions in 1991 indicated he did, then divorcing her would have been the right thing to do. His claiming to be dedicated to his wife while sleeping with another woman was dishonest.
I don't think he's a devil - a liar, maybe - but I do think he's been repeatedly portrayed as the white knight here, and I'm just pointing out that his armor's dirty underneath. He's no paladin.