On the flip side GD- there are many people who feel that is exactly what the court is doing- carrying out an execution.

This mess is so subjective and emotional-

My last wish on it- that she dies faster than they predict so it can end. Then maybe people can find peace.

If the government had stayed out of it to begin with; if her parents had reconized her husbands rights as next-of-kin to begin with the courts would have never gotten involved and everyone who feels this is a court ordered execution couldn't have possiblay felt that way, since it was a private decision made by her legal next of kin. The way it should have been all along.

Sorry, but those people are wrong. The courts are not ordering her death. The ruling isn't, "Kill her." The ruling is, "Allow Michael Schiavo, the legal guardian, to make whatever decission he feels." There's a huge difference. The courts have upheld personal freedom to decide the fate of a loved one in an extraordinary medical condition. Any other decission would have been the courts and government intevening in a private matter.

To illustrate the difference...if today, Michael Shiavo had a sudden change of heart and said he wanted the feeding tube reinserted...it would be reinserted. Why? Because the court didn't order the tube removed because they want her to die. They ordered it removed because that's the decission that Michael made.

And if that was the case- then maybe it should have been done a long time ago. Then there would not be an issue would there- if Michael had been so intent on carrying out her wishes-

All I said was some people felt that way- my previous post continues to be taken out of context.

Of course you would say that-

It doesn't change the fact that some people feel exactly that way- including the Pope.

I have to say that if I honestly felt he (the husband) had the best interests of Terri at heart, I'd be more OK with it. I would again go back to my major point, being someone just needs to go do the deed rather than letting her die of dehydration.

I cannot speak to his motives, but he seems.....slimey to me. I don't trust him. Gut feeling. No evidence other than various testimony I've read.

I was just pondering- if someone went in there and smothered her- would they charge them with murder?

And that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong. The decission is Michael's, not the courts'. Now, a whole other argument is whether he should be allowed to make that decission, but as the law stands now, he is.

and YET- when they try to change the law all hell breaks loose.

How much complaining will there be if they try to change the law after she is dead.

(btw- off topic...kudos for the Bucky quote (I have one myself you see)- although you have his name spelled wrong ;) )

More Rachel-