I believe this is why Michael did not let Terry go:
Court testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.
That's beyond gruesome. And I'd expect my husband to make darned sure that never happened to me.
My parents wanted me to live, no matter what was 'wrong' with me. Any parent that would reject their offspring because it was 'damaged', are not Christian, not human, and not what I would want for parents.
Her parents want to keep her alive, no matter how much it costs or how much of their personal devotion, time it takes.
Michael wants to kill her no matter how much it costs, or how much time it takes.
Whose side did you wish to be on?
Can you provide me to a link of this court testimony?
I would like to read it for myself. So far your references and paraphrasing of other's statements has been very very shaky.
Speaking of gruesome, read a description of what it's like to be killed by dehydration and starvation and then see if you can still tell us that any sane person would wish to die in this gruesome way, and furthermore, actually request it.
And since when does amputation of limbs (a wholly fictional and hypothetical straw man put forward by Felos) give a judge the authority to order the starvation of a U.S. citizen?
Cordially,