Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
That was my comment first of all. Second, you clearly see this as a human rights issue and therefore a political one also. I do not see this as a human rights issue but rather an enforcement of a woman's wishes if she were to become as she is now. Rosa Park's clearly saw a human rights issue when she decided to fight the racist laws of her time, Terri's family does not. Even if Terri did have a living will stating that she should not be kept alive in this condition, the family would still have the same fight. This has nothing to do with the family fighting for human rights, nor does the President have any intention of defending human rights on this one. He has set this precedent in Texas.


This is a human rights issue borne through an ambiguous legal one. There would be no issue had she made her wishes clearly known (and by clearly, I mean legally). There are thousands of other cases like this that you will never hear about, because the appropriate measures were taken to ensure the person's wishes were known. This has become a case of he said/she said, and the debate was sparked from that. The debate has turned from what Terri wants to whether it's right to end someone's life under these circumstances. It's been a healthy debate that will unfortunately end when Terri dies.