Because you have been on numerous threads defending Michael Schiavo and his position.
Michael Schiavo is killing her by starvation. You support him, therefore you support killing her.
I am asking an honest question because I sincerely want to hear rational arguments for supporting Schiavo's position.
Your reaction speaks volumes. Sorry to bother you!
An absolute lie.
I have been asking questions.
Now run along and find ANY thread where I said I wanted her to die.
Your question about letting a baby starve to death because they can not feed themselves and might be seen as a burden is a very good one.
There are obvious differences ethically speaking but maybe only in an ethical sense.
I do not support the removal of Terri's feeding tube but as a defence and the only defence I could offer on Michael's behalf is that he is honoring his wife wishes.
Having said that he does lose all credibility when he takes on a mistress and fathers children with her.
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
I pray I never find myself in his situation.
I can not for the life of me understand why he did not just divorce her unless he doesn't believe in divorce on some religion ground. Which I can understand. But if he has those kind of religious beliefs then having his wife starved to death should factor in a little higher than divorce.
I would probably be a vocal Michael supporter if it weren't for his infidelity.
Like I said earlier in this thread I have no reason not to believe what this article says. I don't know him or Terri or any of the parties involved and what his brother says about him and his reasons for why he is doing this seems more logical than many of the other theories I have heard expressed.