You have stated that this was not about the right to life, but about who has the right to decide when someone else's life should end.
No, that's incorrect. What I have stated is this: While some insist the case was all about the right to life, I maintain it was neither a right-to-life nor right-to-die case. Instead, it seems to me that the Schiavo case was all about who speaks for a person when that person cannot speak for herself. I have also stated more than once that my take on the Terri Schiavo case is that there were two sides with two different stories about what her wishes were. Here, the court decided (1) a person's spouse trumps her parents, and (2) a spouse's testimony pertaining to a living will is as valid as a signed living will. Surely you, like me, want to honor Terri's wishes. You can believe me when I say I wouldn't want to end anyone's life against their wishes any more than you would. Period.
Now, about the living will... Do you believe every time a person is allowed to die in accordance with a living will, it equates to "forced euthanasia"? If your answer is an unqualified "Yes," I'll accept your "forced euthanasia" charge and we'll part ways now.
On the other hand, if your answer is anything other than an unqualified "Yes," you would be saying you are okay with at least the concept of a living will, and you still owe me a quote to back up your claim that I am in favor of "forced euthanasia."
I must say this is infinitely more enjoyable than the sniping. Let's keep it going.
Your tagline used to be (fundamentalist, regarding the Constitution AND the Holy Bible, i.e. words mean things!) I see that has changed. You have advocated allowing Michael to decide that Terri had to die, and now you deny that's what you meant. Words do mean things, but for you, they mean whatever you want them to mean at the moment.