[SueAngel]

Thanks for takihg the time to post that article! This part really jumped out at me:

the term “euthanasia” is to be understood the lawful termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary suffering and under adequate safeguards.

How does that definition fit with starving someone to death????!

[Theodore R.]

Euthanasia advocates SAY they favor termination of life by painless means, but if push comes to shove, they will settle for PAIN and AGONY, if that is what it takes! It's "Death First" from the standpoint of those misguided citizens.

[STARWISE]

It does not .. this whole travesty has been trumped up to make it look like 1) she's on life support-- and she's not 2) installed in a hospice for terminal patients -- and she's not terminal 3) she's an unresponsive, brain dead vegetable -- and she's not 4) in some kind of horrendous misery, out of which she needs relief -- and she's not 5) Felos and Schiavo are some noble knights, protecting her dignity and privacy -- AND THEY'RE NOT!

It's a common Hitleristic technique: repeat your twisted position, over and over; corrupt the language when you describe someone's condition and then just repeat it so the media and the public keep hearing and absorbing that language and that description until they finally actually believe the spin. Rush may not be appropriately supportive in the case .. but he's right about something: "Words have meaning."