I think you read my last post. I'll state my position once again in case it was unclear to anyone. The ME doesn't matter. His report doesn't matter. The size, shape, or condition of her brain, doesn't matter. This is a moral issue. It is MORALLY WRONG - then, now and 500 years from now - to dehydrate and starve to death a woman, regardless of what her physical or mental state appears to be outwardly, because her estranged husband with a common law wife and children, wants it. That is morally WRONG. PERIOD. There are plenty of "facts" or "evidence" that people can discuss till hell freezes over and it's all irrelevant because it boils down to that one simple statement of morality. I'm not going to continue to argue these factoids with you folks. You can go read Empire Journal.com for a ton of information that they have put together. There are other sites as well but that is one of the best and comprehensive. YOu can do your own research if you care to. But I am still going to shout from the rooftops that it was MORALLY WRONG to dehydrate and starve Terri Schiavo. And that's the end of the discussion for me.
POST HOC!
It is morally wrong to deny OR DELAY a woman the right to die. Let's turn the clock back to before the obstructionism.
But you're right...it was morally wrong to make dehydration the only way for Mrs. Schiavo to be at peace.
"And that's the end of the discussion for me."
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by saying that in the beginning.
Now - is it MORALLY WRONG to accuse people of being corrupt when you have no evidence of it ?
What if Terri had put her wish "not to live that way" on paper instead of orally? Still morally wrong?
Amen.
I stated this much earlier, but it seems to me the judge way back lacked judgement and let MS continue his path w/no solid evidence himself about even any "wish to die". So not only was this all morally wrong, but it was legally questionable from way back.