Saturday, March 19, 2005

 

Interesting conundrum.

The only way that Michael Schaivo can claim that it is "distressing to Terri" that she is being kept alive against her wishes, would be if she IS aware of it--and if she IS aware of it, then she isn't a vegetable. If she is so brain damaged that she cannot feel the pain of death by dehydration and starvation, then she can't be distressed by being alive in the condition she's in. Therefore, the question becomes does he have the right to insist on death for someone that is cognizant of what is going on without their positive agreement to it?

Think about it.

Comments:
Since Terri specifically told MULTIPLE people that she didn't want to be kept alive in a state like this.....

The rightwing hypocrites who tell us the government is supposed to stay out of are lives are at it again.
 
Carla, you disgust me! How DARE you call yourself a "liberal" when you are sticking up for a philanderous husband who wants to assasinate his wife in the "perfect crime". You want the definition of "perfect crime"? You just got it!

Coming at you from the left... the TRUE "left". Over and out.
 
There is a legal document that works... it's called a 'living will'... I haven't read ANYWHERE that Terri wrote one.

Have I missed something? Did she write one? Is that what the court has taken for evidence as the basis for ordering her to be starved to death? Please tell me 'yes, there's a living will that you didn't hear about'. Certainly, a court would not order this on the basis of hearsay?

If I ever write a living will, I will set out how and when I will want my 'right to die' protected. If I don't, then I lose the chance to 'die with dignity' but hopefully also keep the right to not be murdered via state and husband-imposed starvation.

If Terri's husband wants to move on fully, he's free to do so. NOBODY cares if he does. Divorce Terri, let go of any money raised to care for her (isn't this the real issue here?) and marry Terri's replacement and father your children.

Terri loved this man enough to marry him at some point in their interaction. The least he can do is to honour her as his wife enough to NOT want her to go through the torture of being starved to death.

Terri's parents want to care for her. They're willing and able to do so. Where exactly does he get off wanting to kill her just because he no longer wants to be a part of her life?

All 'right to die' and 'pro-choice' activists need to really feel this one out before jumping on the bandwagon of 'Terri has the right to die'. They harm their own causes in the eyes of their own supporters.

Terri, I commend your strength and courage. Your soul purpose is to help us all understand the importance of valuing the process of life and truly honouring our ability, as creators in our lives, to choose how we live and how we die.

Thank you, Terri. We all wrap you in our love as you allow humanity to evolve in spiritual maturity through this controversy.

God bless you and keep you. We love you.

Espavo.

(Espavo is an ancient Lemurian greeting meaning 'Thank you for taking your power.'

Angela
http://www.angel-and-soulmate-selfhelp.com
 
Very good points made. This is all gotten so twisted by the left and the media.
 
Well, when you live in a society that believes you have a constitutional right to kill babies, even those that could live on their own outside the womb, it's not really much of leap to start killing unwanted adults as well.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?