[highball]

You obviously didn't read my post to him very clearly, to have so fully missed the context.

But whatever. You are clouding the issue with semantics.

Not terribly helpful, but not terribly surprising, either - the Schiavo threads tend to be loaded with emotional responses.

[T'wit]

>> You obviously didn't read my post to him very clearly, to have so fully missed the context.

You obviously didn't read the name "BykrBayb" very carefully if you think you were posting to a "him." And of course, the context WAS the Terri Schiavo case, just as I had it.

Here's what you said, word for word, annotated:

>>That's very cute rhetoric, but it isn't what happened here. [N.b. -- the "here" refers to the Schiavo case.]

>> The state didn't make the medical decisions. Her [Terri's] husband [Michael] did, as is his right and his obligation.

This is not a "hypothetical" husband now, is it? It's Michael. You do say he made the decision to kill Terri, just as I reported. You say it is "his right" to make the medical decision. That is nonsense. Guardians have no right either to practice medicine or cause harm or death to their wards. If Michael made the decision, as I noted earlier, he committed murder. That's why he vehemently denies that it was his decision.