"For all you know, she may be a happier person than yourself. "
YOu are now making an assumption that you know her.......... and nobody knows what she is feeling....... it is all based upon an emotional assumption.
For all the millions of dollars wasted fighting challenges from both sides of the issue there could have been a lot of good passed on to homeless people or treating illnesses that the outcome is more predictable. One has just as much of a right to die as a right to live.
Her parents are getting their legal help pro-bono.
Michael spent money he promised a jury in the malpractice suit would be used to treat and rehabilitate her instead on high-powered, pro-Euthanasia lawyers to try to legally kill Terri. And you know, you have a real point there...Michael was wrong to spend that money to kill her, instead of the way he promised - to help her.
Not to mention, it was very naughty of Michael to suddenly remember, after the 1.5 mil was paid to him that, oh yeah, uh, guess what, Terri once said she wouldn't want to live this way. Funny thing, though, even the likes of Michael Schiavo didn't dare tell Judge Greer that Terri had meant to ask that she be slowly, painfully, starved and dehydrated to death.
Yeah, even Michael and Greer have their limits on what utterly outrageous claims they will make!
Yes, but Terri may not want to die!! Is it not possible that she has struggled to live because she has a huge desire to live? Maybe she's not in the mood to be murdered. Me, either.
Don't pull that bogus argument about money being put to better use. The $$ that was awarded was for Terri's rehab, which she has ben denied for a dozen years.
Besides, the 'useless eater' ideology is the same one that the Nazis perpetrated on the disabled and mentally retarded before they made their way to the Jews. Wasn't it called the T-4 euthanasia programme?
So much for you being against socialist values like you state on your profile page. Don't buy into the lies that the left have been regurgitating all these years.
If Terri were dying, one could argue she has the right to die. In fact, she is young and not currently in danger of dying from anything but starvation. Food and water is human sustenance, not extraordinary care. She is not brain dead, or in a coma as has been erroneously reported. She is conscious, she recognizes and loves her family; she recognizes and fears her husband-in-name-only. Her fear of him, and her fight to live the last time they tried to starve her should indicate her preference. She has deliberately been denied the most decent of environments, has been denied all therapy, and has been restricted from contact with those who love her, and would happily take care of her. She left no living will. That should mean she gets a right to live card, except the husband, the judge, and the attorney have another agenda. She is just a pawn in a larger and grimmer game.
"For all the millions of dollars wasted fighting challenges from both sides of the issue there could have been a lot of good passed on to homeless people or treating illnesses that the outcome is more predictable. "
Oh the poor homeless, I think you have flipped to the dark left side.
So let me get this straight. You acknowledge you have no idea how she feels, yet you insist she would be better off dead? Strange reasoning.
If you choose to be slowly starved to death sometime in your life, then go ahead - It is your choice, but I would certainly hope that no one would use your line of reasoning to decide whether you were to live or to die.
YOu are now making an assumption that you know her.......... and nobody knows what she is feeling....... it is all based upon an emotional assumption.
Non sequitur. Your apply is totally wrongheaded. There is no assumption here, just a statement that you do not know and that the facts could be contrary to your own assumption.
One DOESN'T, however, have a right to MURDER!!!!!