Replies

Hi all! I've lurked here for a while but never posted. If any of you freepers are interested, how about helping out a little over at this board when you can. http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm?sitekey=gws&Forum=79&Topic=9283
It's a national forum and it's clear most of these people don't have a clue about Terri.

You don't have to go any further than this to understand how people don't have a clue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1008725/posts

We see some of it here, though not as much as that site. This is FR afterall. : )

These people are either just plain ignorant or evil. Some are unable to wrap their minds around the facts and issues at stake. Some don't care to. The one's who don't understand are the one's we can change.

So many still just accept the short snippets they are told by the media, a right-to-die case. They dehumanize Terri because of her condition. It's painful to empathize with Terri and easier to discredit her existence by telling themselves that she's merely a 'vegetable'. Some just are cold and callous.

Disabled groups all over should be outraged, as should women's rights groups. Like that'll ever happen. How many times have you read other's thoughts that she should be killed because she's useless? That the money spent on her should be put to better use, on other, better people I suppose. Or the thought that because she's married, the husband basically owns her. Shameful.

We are constantly barraged with arguments that Terri will never recover and that her condition was self-inflicted. We are called ghouls for fighting for her life, called this by people who want to see another starved to death. The pro-death side is throwing around all manner of deceit. It's an attempt to divert attention from the heart of the matter, does a disability render a person less than human in the eyes of the state?

I'm still in shock that the judge ever allowed Felos to be council for Terri. He has an obvious conflict of interest. He's seriously into euthanasia, his personal agenda should squarely place him outside of Terri's best interests. He's mentioned a book on the case, in which his monetary outlook is much brighter should he win by having Terri killed. He was on the board of the hospice that benefits by having her killed at their business. Then we come to his character. Downing planes with his mind, telepathically discerning that the Browning woman wanted to die, making the implication that Terri may have done the same, etc. I can't decide if I think he's just a don't-care-for-the-sanctity-of-life leftist kook, or a would-be Bundy who gets off on his power to have the state do his bidding.

(Sorry for the rambling, been a loooong day.)