Replies

The question is why does your morality (or anyone elses)override his legal rights? Especially if you have a bought and paid for legislature that will do what you want to circumvent the existing law.

I understand it fully, but I don't think it is right that people who are far removed from the personal relationship that a man has with his wife are all suddenly standing around with their undies in a bunch, getting laws changed, and generally acting like a bunch of omnipotent moral busy-bodies when for the last 13 years nobody gave a fat-rats patootie about her.

The question is why does your morality (or anyone elses)override his legal rights?

One reason: There is great suspicion (backed by the comments made by Dr. Michael Baden on Greta van Sustern's show last night) that Michael may have tried to kill Terri. He should not be allowed to put her to death, and especially not be allowed to have her cremated immediately after death as he has already gotten permission to do, without a thorough investigation.

...when for the last 13 years nobody gave a fat-rats patootie about her.

Better late than never.

Sir, you know not what you speak. While perhaps Terri Schiavo was not the person whose face and whose story was on the forefront, I have for many years supported the rights of ALL disabled persons.

If my morality is that which supports an individual's right to live and not be starved/dehydrated to death then sir, I am all for pushing it down the throats of others. Because the Constitution of this great country ensures us all of that right, be thankful that there is a people who are willing to fight to keep it. The person we save may very well be you. The sad thing is that people have to be told that this is barbaric and inhumane.

Terri Schiavo is not her husband's property to do with what he chooses. Just as you and I are not the property of others, neither is she. You say that he has the legal authority to starve his wife? I say that is questionable under the circumstances.

You complain about "us" taking this case to the legislature. That is the way laws are made. Those in the legislature even argued that the old law was flawed and that the judge misinterpreted the law. Who better to know the intent of the old law than the ones who wrote it and passed it? Did you even listen to the arguments of the legislators? You certainly can now by accessing the archives.

I am no constitutional scholar but I am smart enough to realize that judicial activism and corruption is destroying our inalienable rights.