Answer me this. If we knew for a fact that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that she would not want to be kept alive in such a state, would you then allow nutrition to be withheld? I doubt it. So this has nothing to do with facts, it has only to do with what this woman sympbolises in terms of Pro-live Movement. All of the so called facts that are thrown around are only attempts at winning the arguement and have nothing to do with truth (other than some religious truth that you may impute).
You have not read my posts. If she had a living will to this specific circumstance...or even if her entire family, particularly those who clearly still love and cherish her (and that aint Michael IMHO), agreed that these were her express wishes, then I would not stand in the way, even though I disagreed with it because starvation and dehydration is not a pretty way to go regardless of what pundits may say.
If there had been a living will in this case, she would have been laid to rest long ago, and none of us (for the most part)would have a problem with it. There wasn't, so here we are. The ONLY people who have testified she would want to die are direct relatives of the man who is having children with another woman and just happened to 'remember' that "Oh yeah, she would not wnat to live" after the lawsuit was successful. His credibility is in the crapper.
You have it backwards -- the pro-DEATH, pro-euthanesia movement is the one who wants to use Terri as a symbol -- never mind, that there is NO evidence, other than hearsay from someone who has a personal interest in seeing Terri dead.
It became an unholy alliance between MS, who wants to kill his wife and the euthanasia crowd, who are willing to ignore such "minor" points, that there is no evidence that Terri did want to die, unless she was 100% normal. And what's normal?
The same crowd who can't wait to kill Terri, are moving the earth to save terrorists. Doesn't that clue you in?
We don't know that she is in a PVS, and we don't know that she ever wanted to be dehydrated to death. Your assumptions are asinine, on the order of "If my aunt had wheels instead of feet."
We have only the word of her (technical) husband about her alleged wishes. While he was battling in courts for millions of malpractice dollars, he swore he would care for her forever. After he got the money, 7 years later, he "remembered" that she didn't want to be kept alive.
You don't see a glaring conflict of interest now, in keeping this (technical) husband as her guardian? A man who has remarried in every sense except on paper?
If all those who cared about her were in agreement there would be no controversy -- but those who care the most lost the case to one who by all rights should have forfeited his say.
What is guiding this decision is convenience not right and wrong. Godwin, aside, this is not much different than the policy of German in the 1930s and 1940s.
Further there is clearly disagreement about the state of Terri's condition.
If Teri was in a persistent vegatitative state or brain dead as the MSM repeats over and over, even though they know better, she would just lie there like a pet rock. She is awake, aware, alert and participating in what goes on around her.
"This has nothing to do with facts"??? facts according to whom? Those who see defence of any human life except the lives of convicted murderers as a threat to their beloved US Supreme Court invented right to murder babies?
It would be laughable, were it not so tragic and distorted: The pro-abortionists fear that treating any life as sacred, might open up for discussion, the possibility that babies just might be people too.