- Feb 22, 2004
- 82,283
- 10,140
So, are you saying taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for anyone's care, or just certain people, like say the president?If the taxpayer was keeping her alive, they should have pulled the plug years before.
If someone has no hope at all of recovery, and there is no point in keeping them alive, then why should the taxpayer pay for that person? Why should my taxes pay for a woman to lay in a bed 24/7, a woman who is incapable of forming a single thought?
Its a waste of taxpayer money, that's what it is.
1) Tax payer money had nothing to do with it. The Parents were going to pay. Not to mention the husband had just won a law suit over her. Not at all odd that he wants her starved only after the law suit is over, is it?
2) That line of thinking starts a people dangerously down the same path that lead to the Holocaust.
3) She wasn't laying in bed 24/7. She wasn't a vegetable. She was moving and responsive to people who visited her.
You guys keep claiming she was brain dead. Brain dead people don't need to be starved. When people who are brain dead are being kept alive only by machines, then all you have to do is take the machines off lines and they are dead. In order for them to starve, they have to still be able to live off any machines long enough to starve.
People who are brain dead don't move around on their own. Terri did. There were videos, heck they still may be online. She was responsive to visitors.
The fact that there are so many of you still trying to justify supporting court ordered execution is disturbing.