Gosh, I never said that. Good grief, are NO comments allowed? If so, just let us know and we'll stop.
I see you've been quite "vocal" on the threads tonight in favor of killing Terri.
I ask in all sincerity why you support this outcome instead of supporting just letting people who love her and are willing to take on the burden of caring for her for the rest of her natural life have her. Michael can just divorce her and get on with his new life.
I am pro-life for Terri for three reasons:
1) She requires no "extraordinary means" of life support, just food and water. Starving an animal to death is a felony. Therefore, as a society, we should refrain from starving a person to death.
2) She never made her end of life wishes clear in a written document. We really don't know what she wanted. Therefore, we should "err on the side of life".
3) She has family who are ready, willing and able to take on the burden of caring for her for the rest of her natural life.
I won't even get into the circumstances surrounding her "collapse"; the hearsay testimony used to support the finding that she wishes to die; the suspicious timing of remembering her "wishes" only AFTER the malpractice suit in which part of the award was based on rehabilitation and future care; the new quasi-marital relationship complete with children, etc..... Let's just stick to the principles at work here, for clearly this is an issue which goes way beyond this particular disabled person.
Thank you.