then your argument is specious; there is no way of to determine whether he ever witnessed or was the victim of abuse. You asked for something where you could calculate this for *yourself.*
If you get into the testimony of the case, which as far as I can tell you absolutely are not, you will find that many of those characteristics do in fact apply in Schiavo. You ask about education, for instance. They met at a community college and dropped out when they were married and moved to Florida. It's in the testimony. The guardianship argument is also not only repetitive but also specious... while she might be experiencing the result of her own poor choices by staying in an abusive marriage --if she did -- a reasonable person in her circumstances could not be expected to foresee where this led in her particular case. She broke new ground after all. This was the first time that hearsay was admitted in a proceeding to determine wishes in a right-to-die case. Your argument might perhaps hold for another woman after this. But imho the standard should be higher, and in fact it was in the Curzon case. But that precendent said that state courts *could* but were not required to apply this standard. Florida did not. Furthermore nobody is disputing that what was done was in accordance with Florida law, and that is what is so troubling. I have work to do. Dana On 4/14/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > OK, now that I have a moment. > > > > I'll take your points one at a time: > > 1.) Defense of Mrs Schiavo vs. Mr. Schiavo. > > As I've explained before, to me it comes down to guardianship. If you > believe in it, and the guardian is ruled competent, then it's their > call. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have and it meets my > highest standard: it can be used on me. > > For example, medical experiments kill people every day (Alzheimer's > most recently publicized). I'm not happy about that, but it's a > volunteer thing like marriage. > > Put another way, Mrs. Schiavo CHOSE to marry Mr. Schiavo and CHOSE to > stay with him. IF she's a victim, she's a victim of her own poor > choices. It's question of personal responsibility to me. > > 2.) About facts and a profile. > > Previously you've said, "oh yeah, he fits the profile." I find that > to be a irresponsible statement. Here's why: > > Let's say I calculate the probability of people getting into a car > accidents. One high risk profile might be: Male, 16-24, unmarried, > not college educated, poor high school grades, unemployed, high > horsepower car. > > Being male dings someone a bit, unmarried puts him higher, etc. In > the end I can calculate his probability of getting into an accident > and charge him accordingly. > > What I'm looking for is this type of analysis that would definitively > put Mr. Schiavo in the 90th percentile or higher. > > You have just a bit of a start (albeit after your accusation), so > let's look at your progress: > > 1.) Males who are victims of abuse. (Do we know Mr. Schiavo was?) > 2.) Education. (Do we know his IQ?) > 3.) Money problems (Do we know they had more than average?) > > If that's all you have then your a long way from "oh yeah". > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=17 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:154051 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
