Replies

Living is not lying there waiting for a cruel husband to get the courts to allow him to starve you to death - based on the claim that once she mentioned she would not want to live in that condition.

Her condition would be much better if her family were allowed to care for her, to visit as they wish, to provide her therapy and treatment - which was being denied by the "husband".

Yes, her life could be much better if Michael were out of the picture and taking care of his current common law wife and children and leaving the care of his first wife to those that love her.

He has defaulted on his role as husband (since we don't allow a man two wives at the same time). And, if he has two at the same time - we must not allow him to kill one of them at his discretion - especially since he is no longer the husband - but a bigamist.

But - so many chose to ignore all of Michael's activities and concentrate on allowing him to kill. Why do you think they would do that?

Why do people seem to want the option to kill a spouse based on heresay that the unwanted spouse once said they would not wish to live in such a condition? Looks like free murder to me with the courts blessing. Allows them the option of gaining all the inheritance and being free too - as long as they can get the courts to condone such murder.

What have we fallen to? We use to have morals, dignity, respect for life but now we want to play God and the court given right to remove others who are costly or inconvenient from the living. What wonderful humans we produce nowadays.

And, can you imagine what kind of people we will have in 50 years as we progress along killing all the weaklings, the costly, the inconvenient? What a wonderful life we have then as long as the remaining ones are not weak, costly or inconvenient to those surrounding them. If they become one of the weaker ones - they will be done away with as, of course, those would not wish to live anyway.