>>Your concept of “debate” is to proclaim the disabled “brain dead”, state that their spouse has the right to kill them and then accuse anyone of disagreeing with you of being a fascist.<<
My concept of “debate” is to state facts: Mrs. Schaivo was unable to think, based on all clinical evidence; her husband had the complete right to express her desires and did so; the desire to have government intervene is fascism, pure and simple.
Funny - it was the fascists who really liked the practice of killing innocent people. You’re awfully “free” with insults of the worst kind based on nothing other than people defending the right of the helpless not to be murdered.
Debating is not making unfounded assumptions and then treating them like facts.
Do you know for a fact that she was unable to think? If she couldn't talk, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Could you read her mind?
Are you a medical professional who examined her yourself and determined, based on medical tests that she was, indeed, unable to think? Would any medical professional ever be really qualified to state that some one cannot think based on their ability to respond as expected?
Do you KNOW FOR A FACT that she did indeed tell her husband what he claimed? Were you there and did you hear it? Did you tape record it?
Your concept of *debate* is to state what you want to be true and defend it and call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist and proclaim yourself the victor in the debate, when everyone but you knows you aren't.
The level of delusion you're displaying on this thread about your reasoning skills does partly explain your stand on this situation, but is still awe inspiring in its scope.