Replies

I agree; both sides, but I would argue that it really doesn't matter what Michael has to say because:

1.Food does not equal health care--there is nothing heroic about feeding someone: she is not being kept alive by anything that I don't do for my children every single day. So if I stop feeding my infant and allow her to die is that okay? am I not responsible for her death?

2.Terri did not have anything in writing. We just changed our mortgage..took 10 signatures each and 4 pages to be notarized! Shouldn't legally killing someone take at least that amount of forethought? If it was that important to her then she should have put it in writing....not in writing--then tough.

3.She may not have wanted to live that way, but would she have wanted to die this way? Starving a dog to death is against the law in most states--why would it be acceptable to do to a human?

4.All of the right to die arguments are based on assumptions--they assume that the person (Terri in this case) is in misery, feels nothing, understands nothing, loathes this life,--insert argument here-- but how do they know?...what if they are wrong? Should we not err on the side of life?

5.This killing of people to put them out of their misery is a very slippery slope. I am sure that you have heard of Peter Singer...today he writes that we should be discussing the killing of spina bifida babies. Only very severe forms of spina bifida--what a guy that Singer is! /sarcasm
Eugenics is a very dangerous game and it is evil to the core. Dangerous because we should not be putting a dollar amount on human lives, we should not be valuing one life above another based on "potential" and we should not be subjectively judging the relative value of someone else's life (specifically someone who is not guilty of any crime).
Thanks for the post.