Replies

You totally ignore the reality; that spending resources on keeping people alive against their will, deprives the younger members of a family, from the unborn babes on, of the use of those same resources. The culture of the "Living Death," that you seem to want to force on others, is most certainly not a culture of Life.

I rest my case.

You believe that "some" can/should judge others and see that they are not around to "waste resources".

And, again, I do not believe you are anti-abortion because, of course, why should a mother bear a child she does not wish so that that child will be a burden and "waste resources".

And, I do not intend to go wade through your "analysis" no matter how many times you mention it. Your views are clear.

Now - just WHO is supposed to be the judge of "aliveness" for each of us, including you?

I rest my case. You believe that "some" can/should judge others and see that they are not around to "waste resources".

You find where anyone in the Schiavo case based a decision on that premise. The issue was the other way around. The question was would Mrs. Schiavo want to be kept alive in the condition in which she found herself.

My comment that you take completely out of context, was to question why others--here the protesters--would embrace the culture of living death, when it would have such an effect--that is, to shift priorities so as to interfere with the natural processes of life and death in such a way as to undermine the future. A culture of life, tries to provide for ongoing life, not keep the nearly dead alive against their will.

Let me put the second of those points, the incidental effect of the protesers' demands into a slightly different focus by suggesting this dilemma. What if a flash flood were carrying off both Terry Schiavo and a bright and healthy niece of Terry Schiavo's, and you could only reach one. Which would you save? My point went to priorities, which you seem to totally ignore.

But again, no part of the Schiavo decision was based upon such prioritizing. The object was to determine what Terry would have wanted, and who (between husband and parents) was entitled to speak for her.