You have a way of twisting words to your liking. Perhaps that's why you refuse to quote anything. At any rate, fine. Let's go with that. Someone has to speak for her when she cannot speak for herself, right? If I've been inconsistent there, tell me how.
At the time you made that statement, it was pretty clear you were talking about her life.
Okay, I was talking about her life and her right to live or die as she chooses. Any person can make a living will and have his or her wishes carried out. The only question left to be answered by the court was, does a spouse's testimony qualify as a valid living will. The court decided it does. Therefore, it ordered that her wishes contained therein be carried out. If I've been inconsistent there, tell me how.
Now you claim your words no longer mean what they meant back then.
Where did I make such a claim? Which words? What did they mean back then? Help me out here. I can only guess you're reading something into my words that they didn't say.
What do those words mean now? That he had the right to speak in her presence, for her listening pleasure? That he had the right to be a ventriloquist, and "speak for her" in that manner?
I still have absolutely no idea where you're going with this.
I suspect you know how morally void your argument was, and would now like to pretend you never made that argument.
Is it really asking too much for you to refrain from that accusatory crap just long enough to have a reasoned discussion?
I am being totally honest with you when I say I cannot comprehend where you are getting the idea that I have backed away from or denied anything I said before. But, you continue in your refusal to QUOTE anything. Assuming you are capable of copy-and-paste, find what I said and provide your own interpretation. I maintain I haven't denied a thing. SHOW ME where I'm wrong.
Let's start with the basics, one point at a time. If Person 'A' has a written living will which states he does not want food and water when it's determined he's in a state of PVS, would you be okay with his being allowed to die? Isn't that a valid, simple question? If you're totally opposed to the idea of a living will, just say so and get it over with.
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.
You did not state that this was about her right to life. As a matter of fact, you stated the exact opposite. You did not state that this was about her right decide. You stated that it was about her estranged husband's right to decide for her.
Now you want to pretend that you meant something that is not indicated in your original statement. You claim that you meant the exact opposite of what you said.