averagefellar,

I can certainly understand your point and I do believe it has some merit . . . with this qualification: The decision to either go on or be taken off life-support be that of that individual and not someone else's. My personal request is that in such an event that the only thing standing between "life" and death is full life-support, that I be allowed to go home and not be subjected to such artificial means to sustain what the Atheistic world deems to be "life".

The article that CovenantInBlood linked to in his first post provides far too little information about this woman's actual state. The only thing that I could ascertain is that this has been a situation that has been going on for over 10 years. And then there was this quote by the reporter, which no doubt he got from the woman's parents:

Quote
Michael Schiavo and his wife's parents have been battling since 1994 over whether Terri Schiavo, 41, should be kept alive. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, say their daughter is able to communicate and may improve with therapy.
Now IF that is true, that she is able to communicate, aside from the speculation of the possibility of improvement through therapy, then she is definitely not brain dead.

So, coming full circle, my question would have to be, What is the desire of the woman herself in regard to being "kept alive" via life support? But again, if she is indeed able to communicate, then I don't consider her condition as one that is relevant to the question.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]