[newgeezer]

Sorry, my mistake. Since a living will doesn't require the testator to be declared brain dead, whether Mrs. Schiavo was declared brain dead is irrelevant.

Your abortionists analogy would have some merit if an unborn baby could chose his or her mother AND could exchange vows with the mother of his or her choosing AND could have the option of drawing a living will. Mrs. Schiavo chose her husband and exchanged vows with him. Because there was no formal living will making her wishes clear, it only made sense that the person to speak for her was the one she chose herself.

[Darkwolf377]

As with most people who don't want to cop to the issue, you're insisting on taking an analogy literally.

Sorry, my mistake. Since a living will doesn't require the testator to be declared brain dead, whether Mrs. Schiavo was declared brain dead is irrelevant.

So entering into marriage means your spouse can decide to kill you--actively destroying a living being? That's news to me, and I'd wager to most married people.

Your abortionists analogy would have some merit if an unborn baby could chose his or her mother AND could exchange vows with the mother of his or her choosing AND could have the option of drawing a living will.

See above.

Are you saying that a married couple have MORE rights to decide whether the other person lives or dies than does a person who has another person actually growing inside them? That a contract is more binding than is biology?