Who said I wanted to kill? And whose pity are you talking about?
I'll tell you what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not turning our whole system of family and probate law upside down because of the outcome of one very famous and very unusual circumstance. While you see only twisted motives of people you have deemed devils or saints, the rest of us see our own experiences, our own families and our own futures... and we don't want the circus you and others like you created around that other case brought to our lives and our decisions.
What most of us realize that we face today, is a constantly changing level of medicine and technology that has brought us to a time where we can now unnaturally delay death without prolonging life. Where we can sustain life at some minimal level, but not always cure. In those cases, it is sometimes the right decision to not prolong inevitably a life that is over. No case is ever truly like another, and you can't create a government policy that tries to make them the same, particularly if your own motives are inseparably infected with a presumption of guilt and suspicion on all parties involved. I can't really get my head around what it is you people ~want~.
Perhaps we could solve all your concerns if we eliminated personal property inheritance and willed it all to the government. You apparently think there is no real love in families if there is the hope of one day inheriting the family farm.
You apparently think there is no real love in families if there is the hope of one day inheriting the family farm.>>
Have you worked for five minutes in probate? I have, and the greed is INCREDIBLE.
If there is hope of one day inheriting the family farm, there IS no real love in most families.
That would not happen in most cases; this was an unusual case because a stranger who called himself a husband did not defer to the people who really loved this woman.
Do you bother to read what you post?