Raphael speaks # 3

you didn't address the point.
here's what you wrote verbatim. "Terri's wish should be honored
no matter what one's personal views on the sanctity of life."
along with all the fun stuff i threw in, i wrote asking
how do you know what terri's wish was? i made
the point that it's all based on the husband's
claims, which i admitted was what the florida
courts had to go by. we don't know and will never know
for sure what terry schiavo felt then
(she supposedly said it after watching a tv movie on someone
with a terminal illness,) and we don't know what kind of will
she has to live now in her vegetative state.
your thick skinned response ignored (gee whata surprise)
this basic point. you certainly don't give a FACH what
dershowitz says because you ignored his and lani davis'
point: that michael schiavo should recuse himself and
turn over guardianship to the parents.
you also ignored my other points,
that 2 week starvation is horribly cruel and painful
and so is calling it a no brainer.
and what about the point that the parents are willing
to take care of her at no cost to the state.
then why kill her? did you address that? finally, the nurses and friend didn't come forward before because they had no reason to, terry was being kept alive.

let me repeat it a third time. how do you know
what "Terri's wish" is if it's based on hearsay?
why is the husbands hearsay better than the friends
and the nurses? {this particular bitch feud could have been
avoided if you just said that your side thinks courts must
follow husband's wish because he is the legal guardian,
and that her state was not worth saving. instead you absurdly
decided that your side was the one honoring terri!
thats ok, im always up for a good fight, even if uneven;
nine smug allbrainers against one.

looking forward to your ignoring the question
and calling me a starfucker again.