Yes, you are right on both counts. I don't have medical qualifications and what I said is hypothetical and unknown. And I knew you were going to jump on the second part re: the advocate. Bottom line, I wanted you to "voice" your position and wanted to draw you out. I want to read what you think/believe instead of your curt challenges of what other people have posted.

I do know that her husband is her "voice" as you call it, both in the civil and covenant sense. But does that position carry with it the power to decide for another person whether they live or die?

An infant, or an unborn baby, (healthy or not) is alive and also unable to speak for his/herself. I doubt if you would say that a father has the right, based on his covenant position to abort or starve a baby. (I don't know; maybe you would think that is OK.) I do know that my second son, without medical intervention, would surely have died. What if my husband had thought it his covenant right to decide his fate. Jake was unable to express his wishes. But when there is life, there is hope and where there is hope, how can one justify taking a life? If you think you can support that with scriptured, why don't you do that? You think everyone is wrong, then teach us, if you can.

I realize that you can come back and tear my post apart. I fully expect you to do it. But I will ask you; where does mercy and love belong in your view of covenant headship and responsibility? What about loving your wife as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for it? I wasn't just handicapped, I WAS dead in my sins and Christ showed me love and mercy. Should a husband show less?

Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine
Hiraeth