Yes, and mine was; you just don't like that it was.
Then, when you attempt to compare my ethics to those of an abortionist, I'm obviously going to respond by telling you how your comparison doesn't work.
No, you're just whining like you've been attacked instead of addressing the actual point of the analogy, intentionally warping the analogy so you can go "You've personally attacked me!" instead of addressing the point I actually made.
However, if your objective here is not to debate but to prove how clever you can be, by all means, you win. High fives all around. Emotion trumps reason in yet another Terri Schiavo discussion.
Wow, you've made the trifecta: Avoiding the actual point; playing the victim instead of sticking to the point; and below shouting "Strawman!" Save those high fives for yourself.
Yippee, another strawman ("a contract is more binding than is biology?")! A marriage—remember, what God has joined together, let not man put asunder—is more binding than biology. Besides, as I said before, babies don't get to choose their mothers.
Here's the point where you're attempting to warp that analogy. By refusing the simple, human connection everyone knows exists between mother and child, you're in the Hemlock Society arena of theory over reality. Plus, I'm an atheist, so arguments about God are menaingless to me, and a religious organization wasn't asked to make the choice in the Schiavo case--pay attention now--a GOVERNMENT organization was.
If marriage is just "a contract," homosexual 'marriage' is no problem, right?
If you want to take the side of the gays and argue that a society has no right to decide on what agreements get made within that society, go right ahead. YOU are the one who claim primacy of an agreement between two people endowed by an outside superior being--in your case, God, but in the case that matters in both cases (again, the Schiavo case was not decided over a religious belief but a legal one--you didn't know that?)the law/government.
So by my beliefs, legal marriage is not a right to kill anymore than the biological connection is; by yours, an agreement between two people (you keep saying she decided to marry him) is just fine and dandy since the "wife" in both cases goes into that contractual agreement willingly.
Assuming debate is your reason for being here: Should it be legal for a person to enter into a "living will" refusing food and water?
Yes--if that person isn't alive or is in a persistent vegitative state aka brain dead. THAT is the standard; the slippery slope argument is all about drawing that line and staying on this side of it, not having "yeah, but" exceptions.
Terry Schivo was not brain dead:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928042/posts
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/19/memo-to-abc-nytimes-terri-schiavo-was-not-brain-dead/
If yes, ... ... why shouldn't her spouse be able to do the same for her, when she is unable? ... lacking a legal document, must it be assumed that the incapacitated person desires food and water? (If so, on what basis?)
See above, and stick to the discussion, and leave out the phony victim pose, please. It's only a flag that you've got nothing.
Perhaps our creator will soften your hard heart and make himself known to you. I pray that's his will.