That is ok Pilgrim, for the record I don't know what he is talking about either. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Surely you're not suggesting that unless a person can personally petition the courts they are not worthy of protection?
I'm having a hard time understanding your thinking on this issue. Maybe it's time for you to lay out your argument. I would think that since you seem to feel very strongly about this, you would want us to understand your reasoning. At this point, I have to think you'd be defending the indefensible.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
OK. I'm game. I'll try to answer your question. Terri hasn't "answered the courts for herself" because she does not, at this time, possess the faculties to communicate her wishes for herself. That is not to say she has no wishes nor that she will never possess the faculties to do so. She requires an advocate.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
I am a little shocked at your question. This has been answered by others a few times already. Terry can not answer for herself, but by your question it makes it sound like you believe because of that, it is alright to let her starve to death.
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
From what I understand from way back when I read about all this, there is even question about how she actually became brain damaged. Like the husband could have had something to do with it. Her condition came about very mysteriously from what I remember.
Just because she is brain damaged (not brain dead) doesn't mean we should kill her. As far as extensive medical equipment.. the only thing she needs is a bag with the drink in it (like for instance "ensure") and a stand on which to hang it. Not very extensive.
It seems so obvious to me that this man that is called her husband only resents Terri's existence. He wants her dead so he can have her money. That's probably why he won't just divorce her. Now it is probably also an issue of what he looks like. I'm sure he doesn't want people to think badly of him for divorcing her and marrying another woman.
You know, if Florida has it's way, then it would be the epitome of hypocrisy. Don't they pay gazillions of tax dollars to run group homes?? Group homes where some are fed through feeding tubes, and are either developmentally disabled, or brain damaged? Don't they pay a gazillion in tax dollars for their medical care? Isn't the state the only "ADVOCATE" for these people???
I suppose this is just another step though. There are already babies that are allowed to starve to death, or are killed in horrific ways and it's all legal.. all because the mother wants her baby dead.
If I were a betting woman, I would bet that Terri would have asked for a divorce a long time ago if she could. She does have biblical grounds after all!!!
