Replies

Sounds likeit was written by a professional from the husband's legal team (er, promotions department) and TV advisor.

Were that the case, she'd still be alive. I think you need to read the article more carefully. It’s clear to me that he argues that we’re creating a culture of death which no longer recognizes the value of life, particularly the inherant value of life under altered circumstances.

Not really.

I agree with the "conclusions" that he is drawing (that you guys pointed out) about the culture of death.

But the "points" and summaries and history of the case come straight from the very prejudiced view points of the anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-death, Micheal-was-good-and-kind-and-loving-to-the-end, hospice-is-care-giving-and-love-filled-with-no-profit-motive-in-killing-an-expensive-paitient, kindly-doctors-and-careful-treatment-for-her words.

And this simply wasn't the case: The hospice, and Micheal, wanted her dead as soon as possible. If she were alive, HE wanted her life to be as miserable and pain-filled as possible, deliberately. His lawyers, once they got rid of the long-care money, wanted her dead to establish HSI credentials and reputation, and so called in exclusively pro-death lawyers, doctors, and witnesses.

The media, wanting desperately to hurt the pro-life Christians they despise, hurt Bush (in Washington) and through him, his brother in FL, and to torment the pro-life advocates they hate, continued the charade through THEIR choice of words, terms, interviews, and pictures: deliberately (for example) refusing to try to show how painful her death was, but DELIBERATELY repeating how "peaceful" and kind his lawyers was for "ending the torment."

This writer may be walking closer to identifying the culture of death, but he is starting his argument using the words coming from the pro-death lawyers, pro-death "bioethics" professors (who stand to gain THEIR reputations from this event) and from the pro-abortion news media.