But that's my fault. At least with Rush I knew he hated the very idea of mercy killing since he took up the fight against Dr. Kevorkian over a decade ago. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Kevorkian but this idea that ending suffering is wrong--in all cases--doesn't square with me. And the idea of erring on life when the alternative is another 10, 20, 30 years of a continued vegetative state seems cruel and even sickening. Jesus told the thief that he would be in paradise that very day when the thief asked Jesus to remember him in his Kingdom. But for the pro-lifers paradise is only found by putting off death as long as humanly possible regardless of the hopelessness and the suffering that must be endured. It's like "pro-life" is a religion unto itself.
You may have found FR hard to stomach but I'm finding my own party hard to stomach--and trust.
I agree completely, but the problem in the Terri Schindler S. case was that the decisions were being made by the wrong people. If Michael Schiavo wanted to make decisions for Terri as if she were his wife, then he should have acted as her husband. If he considered her to be dead and himself free to begin a relationship with another woman, then he shouldn't have been making Terri's decisions.
I think Rush and most Freepers supporting Terri would have been on the side of the husband if he wasn't in an adulterous relationship, there being witnesses who said Terri said "when there is life, there is hope" etc. and not the wish Michael said she said....7 years into the ordeal (after saying for the past 7 years that she would have wanted to live).
If these things were not there....if we had reason to believe the husband, I am sure Rush and most Freepers on the side of the parent's would have switched sides to the husband.
I know I would have.