"You don't have to be a bible thumper to side with the familyYou don't have to be a bible thumper to side with the family"

You just have to decide to throw away the last couple of hundred years of laws passed respecting the rights of married people to make Health Care decisions for eachother. And you have to be willing to flush medical science down the drain in favor of emotional (and religious) Zeal.

Nope. Give me a break. There is no end to the absurdity that will follow from saying that Parents should have the authority in care giving decisions made about adults. This 'Soft' position makes just as much sense as the 'hard' position you are claiming to not be arguing.

"From what I saw here, I presume alot of the resentment of the family came from poor relations with in-laws and a general disdane of the Christian right- which can be understandable. (How's that for a box?)"

No, it comes from the fact that they were all over the airwaves claiming MS was a murderer and an abuser, while MS was not injecting himself before the camera, and when he was before the camera, did not slander. It came from the wholesale denial of Medical Science by the so-called advocates of TS. It comes from the rather logically, legally and socially absurd positions adopted by those trying to work out a way to go along with this madness (the claim that TS was 'merely' disabled, the proposition that there was lack of science, the supposed shabby moral and ethical nature of the husband, That there was a 'fortune' to be had for MS by letting TS die, and now I'll add your 'parents rights' position to the heap).

" don't see what's so "radical" about valuing life."

Why, nothing.

Except that its a re-naming of the dabate. Except that it levels it down to jingoism. Except that it in one sophomric rhetorical move migrates it to a completely undefined and value laden pea soup.

Its like claiming you are for 'family values'. It implies your opponents values are not 'family values'- which I am sure he would disagree with... Especially since its a term completely without definition. But who cares... As long as you pretend to the moral high-ground with a Name Game, why do you need substance?

Its like declaring that you are working for a 'culture of life', implying that abyone who does not agree with your stance is for a 'culture of death'. It doesn't matter that 'culture of life' is without definition... It just sounds good and casts a pall of moral nefariousness on all those who disagree with you. Who needs substantive debate or a dialogue grounded in fact and defined moral principles.

So, no. Saying absolute shit like 'my poisition is merely valuing life' does not impress me. Nor does it sway me. Might work for the bevy. Keep trying it, I'm sure it will catch on.

Keep repeating it, you mighyt end up president.

Oh, and about those pesky facts that you are running from: If TS is effectively dead, as all good medical science on the issue points to being the case, then its not about 'valuing life'. To our best ability of our institutions, it has been determined that TS did not want to be carried on in this state, so its not about 'valuing life'. Current legal and constitutional rights, and over 30 court hearings determine that the husband has the right to say what hapens in this case, so no- its not about the empty jingo of 'valuing life'.

Davin L.