Replies

The definition of terminal has been perverted by some to include people deemed useless or unworthy of life, instead of just people dying of disease or illness.

I know this and I for sure as heck would not want to be kept alive with a feeding tube under certain circumstances. And I'm sorry but when you marry your spouse is your next of kin under law.Conservatives are crapping in their own pampers wanting the GOVERNMENT to decide life and death decisions.

You're making a common mistake. You're trying to apply your wishes to her life. Sure you might not want to live that way, and you might not believe that anyone would. But, what bearing does that have in regards to Terri's wishes? She made had no advanced directive. Which brings us to your statement about marriage. Setting aside the fact that the husband has extramarital interests that cloud his judgement as a guardian, Terri has rights. Rights are not nullified by marriage.

It is a contradiction we hear so often that Terri's right to die is being infringed upon with no mention of her individual right to life not to be denied by disability, as protected by the Florida Constitution. Being human and with rights, with no advanced directive, and not being terminally ill, for Terri to die requires intervention; i.e. someone has to kill her. This goes against the state law that disallows euthanasia. This is because this isn't about her right to die, but her husband's hope to have a right to kill her.

This is not about conservatives wanting government intervention in deciding life or death. The conservative in us is fighting a poorly written right-to-die law that is allowing some to pervert it into a tool for killing others. A right to die does not equal another's right to kill. The conservative opinion recognizes the sanctity of life and an individual's rights, including that of life.