Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:There is nothing "natural" about starving someone to death... If that was natural then we would not need food to "sustain" life... That is the whole point is to sustain it. If she was so brain dead and could feel no "pain" then what would have really been the harm to have let her live to at least comfort the living who "really" lover her... Dogs get treated with more love than her adulterous "husband " has done for her..
Ridiculous.
First of all, starving to death (actually, dehydration) is a completely natural way to die. To state that it is un-natural is to state that you don't understand what the word
natural means.
Secondly, the fact you would advocate keeping a brain-dead woman alive in order to comfort her family is just plain sick and borders on Necrophillia.
You state that Dogs get more love than Terri has been shown; completely ignoring the fact that Michael devoted several years of his life to the rehabilitation of his brain-dead wife and was fanatical about her care. Please learn some facts about the case...
Cycloptichorn
Yes, true Michael spent several years rehabilitating her... I heard, exactly five, till the money came in from the malpractice suit... then he dropped Terry like a hot potato and her "rehabilitation" and persistently sought her death to spite her parents...
I have a plant in my kitchen that has less life than Terry but I water it every day... and yes, love it...
Necrophilia would suggest that the person has to be dead already.. thus the word "necro" dead and "philia" love. How about love for the living?
I guess that is the problem you see living people as dead... and the "not yet living" as something to abort...
Like some early American Indian tribes would send their old into the deserts and caves to die...
And mother cats when they give birth to a sickly kitten they abandon it and leave it to die... Male cats will just as soon steal the kittens if they can and eat them.
It this natural or savage?