Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[koshergrl]

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Oh, it's not just Gosnell's victims. It's standard operating procedure.

 

[WinterBorn]

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Oh, it's not just Gosnell's victims. It's standard operating procedure.

If baby takes a single breath and then is killed, it is murder. The law is clear. Prosecute those who do it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

 

[BlueGin]

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

 

[BlueGin]

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.

 

[koshergrl]

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

This is an ongoing conversation. I don't race around to prove over and over what is on the site, or that's all we'd do all day long, as dishonest baby killers lie and pretend they have no recollection of convos they participate in.

 

[BlueGin]

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

This is an ongoing conversation. I don't race around to prove over and over what is on the site, or that's all we'd do all day long, as dishonest baby killers lie and pretend they have no recollection of convos they participate in.

Exactly

 

[BullKurtz]

Abortionists make BIG money....I suggest they should face a BIG risk in return....George Tiller for example:

 

[koshergrl]

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.

Exactly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.

Thank you for confirming that you cant substantiate any of your claims.

 

[BlueGin]

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.

Thank you for confirming that you cant substantiate any of your claims.

I can verify everything I say... Or i wouldn't say it. I just don't do it at the whims of dishonest pricks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet. It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up. And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?

There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not. At what age, education level does she have or loose that right? If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus? If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up? What if she is in school or beginning a new job? What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her? When is a woman's body her own? When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her? Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.

So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.

Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.

Her brain said other wise

View attachment 46455

Ah, the old 'only things I don't want to kill are alive' definition of life. So reminiscent of bygone ages, when those marked for death were labeled as less than human, therefore not granted human rights.

Hey, demonization IS kind of the leftist raison d'etre, after all. Anything else would require a level of maturity and depth that's really beyond them.

 

[WinterBorn]

Abortionists make BIG money....I suggest they should face a BIG risk in return....George Tiller for example:

Feel free to go out and murder someone in the name of pro-life. lol

Then you could go to prison. I'm sure you would enjoy it there.

 

[koshergrl]

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.

Thank you for confirming that you cant substantiate any of your claims.

I don't need to race around double-verifying stuff that everybody here remembers and can access for themselves. I will accept that you are also a Gosnell apologist based on your denial that they exist, despite the fact that they are milling around this site right now. Probably private messaging you.

 

[sakinago]

Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of Gosnell's actions?

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.

Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.

Thank you for confirming that you cant substantiate any of your claims.

I don't need to race around double-verifying stuff that everybody here remembers and can access for themselves. I will accept that you are also a Gosnell apologist based on your denial that they exist, despite the fact that they are milling around this site right now. Probably private messaging you.

They should be if they want to be consistent, what is the difference if he kills it on the inside or the outside? Just bc it respires with it's own lungs as opposed to it's mothers blood stream

 

[Faun]

Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

 

[koshergrl]

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Actually, no he's not. If he doesn't have a person to provide him care he will die.

 

[BullKurtz]

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it. He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it. He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.

Any evidence for that? I never saw any medical testimony of any evidence of domestic violence.