Observations of the SuperCAT!

In the Middle Ages, respect for human life was lower than it has generally been in modern times. Parents who could not afford children would abandon them in a public square. Sometimes the children would be taken in by someone. Oftentimes they wouldn't. Even with respect for life as low as it was, however, nobody would prevent someone who wanted to take in an abandoned child from doing so.

Michael Schiavo doesn't want to "let Terri die". He wants to ensure that nobody is allowed to take her in and care for her. That is not "passive euthenasia". That is active killing. And unless one believes the word of a man who contradicts himself whenever convenient(*), it is nothing less than murder.

(*) Just a few examples: Michael claimed that he was restricting video/audio of Terri to "protect her privacy", but he had no trouble discussing indelicate aspects of her gynecological exams on national television. He has claimed to want Terri to get better, while refusing to allow her any therapy that might accomplish that. He claims to want to honor his wedding vows and yet he as openly moved in with another woman, fathered children by her, and pledged to marry her. In 2003, he claimed that it was because of the court's will, not his, that Terri's feeding was withheld even though he was the person who sought the order. Is the word of a man such as that credible?