Inspite of myself, I stay glued to this.
First, I realize I do not have the "facts", I'm not sure anyone does.
However, Terri's lawyer could sue on her behalf for a "divorce" based upon infidelity of the spouse. I think that might help, provided she is allowed to live.
Then, being divorced, her care would revert to her parents. She belongs with them.
But I hope, in a way, that she will be allowed to just pass, since the prospect of a recovery seems unlikely, and in fairness to her parents, who shouldn't bear this weight alone.
I fundamentally do not think we have the "right" to "insist" that someone remain alive. There IS a difference between killing someone, and "allowing them to die".
Nor do I beleieve we have the right to kill, except in self-defense.
But you know what? This is really none of my own business if life were being lived properly. What we have here is a search for a consensus, under "democracy" - which is a "tyranny of the majority".
I'd much rather just be "free", and handle my own affairs.
So I will be going back to obeying authority now, and wait for the next election day, when I am permitted the allussion for a day that I really choose my own masters.
In truth, my masters are chosen for me, I obey them. (Seat belts, insurance coverages, health care taxe, gas tax, tolls, mandatory this, mandatory that, taxes that take half my earnings, license this, poermit that, and so on.)
So, let the law handle it. It isn't my deal is it? It doesn't really concern me. Ultimately whatever I do or do not do is undone by the "majority", as interepreted by "authority".
What a game.