1 Terri is still alive. Her fate is in the hands of God, not medical technologists.

2 No, her fate is in the hands of politicians....which is as good as dead.

3 "No, her fate is in the hands of politicians....which is as good as dead." Maybe conservatives could abandon yet another political principle and go to the UN?

4 Maybe you could read the previous post.

5 "No, her fate is in the hands of politicians....which is as good as dead." No faith in God, eh? I guess politicians out-trump God.

6 No, but free will does.

7 "No, but free will does." Terri's free will? Gosh... Is that an admission that Terri's choice is the right one after all?

8 Good bye, Terri, rest in peace. I hope those that killed you get a fate worse than yours. And may the doors of Hell hit them in the asses on their way IN. RIP.

9 "I hope those that killed you get a fate worse than yours." Terri is headed to Hell? I am confused. I thought you supported Terri.

10 "Maybe conservatives could abandon yet another political principle and go to the UN?" Or maybe we could act like liberals and send the federales in to kidnap her or put her out of her misery!

11 Body Bagger, don't you think it says something about your character when you delight so much in the misery of another, are so delighted at the prospect of a death of an innocent, that you feel compelled to goad those who supported keeping her alive with semantics and juevenille jabs? I think, perhaps, that you and your ilk would have been at home in the Roman Coliseum. I would start to be worried about myself if I began to be celebratory oover the death of someone whose only crime was outliving their functionality.

12 "Body Bagger, don't you think it says something about your character when you delight so much in the misery of another,..." I'm not delighted in Terri's misery. I'm delighted that her wishes will be respected. "....are so delighted at the prospect of a death of an innocent,..." Innocent? Terri told her friends and husband that she did not want to be kept alive on artifical support if left in a vegetative state. The only thing that is innocent about Terri's situation is the fact that her bulemia went untreated and that she did not get the help she needed. "... that you feel compelled to goad.." Goad? Pointing out hypocricy is 'goading'? Add a new entry in the dictionary. "..those who supported keeping her alive with semantics and juevenille jabs?" Ignoring my previous support for her right to live *had she requested it* is juvenile. "I think, perhaps, that you and your ilk would have been at home in the Roman Coliseum." That statement was *entirely* juvenile. Pot, meet kettle. "I would start to be worried about myself if I began to be celebratory oover the death of someone whose only crime was outliving their functionality." So you would keep Terri alive despite her wishes? Talk about situational ethics. You, sir, are in no position to preach to me.

13 The debate continues I see. No matter how it all plays out for us here in this forum.... Gods will be done. Chris

14 You presume to speak from a position of omniscience, which you canÂ’t possibly possess. You do not know TerriÂ’s wishes, in the absence of a legal document stating those wishes, and in light of the fact that her husband is a philanderer, perhaps we might wish to hold off killing her? If one does not see a problem with starving Terri Schiavo to death, then why advocate starvation? Why not bludgeoning? It has been stated ad infinitum and nauseum that she feels no pain, so explain the difference. Too gruesome? How about a bullet? Certainly much quicker and less painful than death by dehydration or starvation. One must either advocate death or life, there is no middle ground. I realize that absolutism is anathema to those of the Liberal stripe, but I will not allow you the clean conscious that relativism provides you. You are either celebrating this womanÂ’s murder or trying to prevent it --despite whatever protestations you offer to the contrary.

15 Oh. And your high horse has short, stubby legs.

16 Her fate is in the hands of young Skywalker.

17 "You presume to speak from a position of omniscience, which you canÂ’t possibly possess." Dead wrong. I speak from a personal belief in the right of individuals to express their 'free will' and make decisions on their own behalf. "You do not know TerriÂ’s wishes,.." Neither do you, but you assume that her husband and friends are liars. Now who is the one claiming omniscience? "..in the absence of a legal document stating those wishes, and in light of the fact that her husband is a philanderer, perhaps we might wish to hold off killing her?" And you continue to ignore that her friend corroborate his testimony. Sad, really. "If one does not see a problem with starving Terri Schiavo to death, then why advocate starvation?" Who is advocating starvation? "Why not bludgeoning? It has been stated ad infinitum and nauseum that she feels no pain, so explain the difference. Too gruesome? How about a bullet? Certainly much quicker and less painful than death by dehydration or starvation." What would your choice be? You've obviously thought about this quite a bit. "One must either advocate death or life, there is no middle ground." If Terri had chosen to live, despite her injuries, I would advocate life. There is no middle ground in individual liberty. "I realize that absolutism is anathema to those of the Liberal stripe," Actually, the term you are seeking in referring to me is "Libertarian". But I realize that your hate-addled brain in incapable of making that distiction. "..but I will not allow you the clean conscious that relativism provides you." Right. You make the rules. I got you. Just the type of thinking that Democrats have used for years. Welcome to their line of reasoning (choke!). "You are either celebrating this womanÂ’s murder or trying to prevent it --despite whatever protestations you offer to the contrary." You are either celebrating the entry of the State into the affairs of individuals, stripping them of their right to liberty, or you aren't. Welcome to Daddy Government.

18 "Oh. And your high horse has short, stubby legs." It took you four minutes to come up with that? Don't quit your day job. Comedy isn't your stong suit.

19 On the record....... If I am ever in the state that Terri Schiavo is in please let me pass on!! I do not know what her wishes might have been but I would not want to live on in that state myself. Chris

20 BB, of course I meant that those who murdered Terri should rot in hell, your lame comment "Terri is going to hell?" was indeed, juvenile and a bad attempt at humor. You knew damned well what my stance is on all this, yet you chose to make light of it. So you really don't give a shit one way or the other about life? Just what a person wants? Do you condone suicide? Some people are in mental agony, should we allow them or assist them to end it all too? Your only concern was carrying out Terri's wishes which you, I or anyone else has NO CLUE, therefore, without SOMETHING IN WRITING, WE MUST ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE, AS Bush said. Schiavo is a philandering whoremonger, who fathered two kids with another woman, while his wife lies in a hospice bed..some loving husband! So why does he want her dead? He doesn't really, just bad blood bet. him and Terri's family, he wants to "win"...Sadly no one wins in this case.

21 bb, i have a calculator!

22 Her "wishes" were advanced by a real standup guy... too bad Michael Schiavo was horribly inconsistent throughout the legal proceedings... and even worse, the courts did nothing about it. http://www.zimp.org/stuff/contradictions.htm

23 That's life. Of the many ironies generated by the case of Terri Schiavo - the comatose woman whose fate has divided America - two currently stand out. The first is that what originally seemed an overwhelming victory for conservatives - with a Republican congress and president joining in an unprecedented federal intervention in the Florida "right-to-die" case - has now exposed a deep conflict in conservatism itself. At issue is a dilemma for many of George Bush's strongest supporters. Are they primarily social conservatives - in which case they back the federal government's move to keep Mrs Schiavo alive at all costs? Or are they primarily constitutional or "federalist" conservatives - in which case they dislike Washington imposing itself over the decision of state courts, a precedent that conservatives would bitterly resist if it was pursued by a Democratic congress or by a liberal president? The second is that Ms Shiavo's best chance of returning to a cognitive state lies with stem-cell research. Although stem-cell therapy is still in its infancy, a likely future application is expected to be the replacement of damaged brain cells, such as those that have reduced Ms Schiavo to a vegetative state for the past 15 years. In a few years, it is possible that Ms Schiavo may be curable. But for this to happen, moral conservatives, including Mr Bush, would have to revise their view that stem cells not only have a right to life, but one that outweighs the right to a cognitive life of sufferers from brain conditions such as hers. Having demonstrated how much value he attaches to Ms Schiavo's life - allowing himself to be wakened in the early hours to sign the federal intervention into law - Mr Bush may one day have to decide whose hopes for life are higher value: a woman who was in the prime of her life when she was struck down by brain damage, or a group of cells forming part of an embryo of four or five day's existence. When this case took off, conservatives may have treated Ms Schiavo's case as a black-and-white moral issue. But they will have to wrestle with complex consequences for many years to come.

24 Paul, But, as stated several times in earlier posts, one important strand of Conservatism has been against judicial supremacy. Conservatives have NEVER believed that judges ought to be the final say on what the law is. As to your second point, perhaps.

25 Paul, I think you'll find many conservatives like me who disagreed with the actions of Bush and Congress from a purely political and legal persepective, but certainly understand the compassion that drove them to try and save a precious life that's in peril under questionable circumstances. We conservatives can actually disagree and remain strong... despite the Left's best wishes for a deep rift and confrontation. Keep dreaming, liberals, we're only getting stronger!

26 That is RIGHT Jason....... The left is usually the side that eats their own.....

27 Actually, Jason and Chris. I am a Brit' and I supported the war.

28 I am sorry Paul if you took offense. My comment was more agreeing with Jason than dissagreeing with you. I enjoyed reading your post. I don't wholeheartedly agree with you but you make some very good points. Nothing will change the fact that we will all meet our maker someday. I will pray for Terri's well being.

29 "BB, of course I meant that those who murdered Terri should rot in hell, your lame comment "Terri is going to hell?" was indeed, juvenile and a bad attempt at humor." No, it was an attempt to point out that Terri expressed her wishes and that you refuse to acknowledge it. Now who is the juvenile? "You knew damned well what my stance is on all this, yet you chose to make light of it." No, I chose to make your tirade plain for all to see: You have no interest in letting people make decisions for themselves. Welcome to the Democratic Party. "So you really don't give a shit one way or the other about life?" Who's life? "Just what a person wants?" You've got it. LIBERTARIANISM. "Do you condone suicide?" Yep. "Some people are in mental agony, should we allow them or assist them to end it all too?" Nope. But Terri was in mental agony. Where is your sympathy for that aspect of her life? "Your only concern was carrying out Terri's wishes which you, I or anyone else has NO CLUE, " Actually, I have plenty of clues. Terri's husband and HER friends. The 'friends' part is one you carefully choose to ignore. Why is that? "therefore, without SOMETHING IN WRITING, WE MUST ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE, AS Bush said." Okay. Without something in writing, we should subordinate all decision to the State. Got it. I don't agree with that opinion, but I understand it. "Schiavo is a philandering whoremonger, who fathered two kids with another woman, while his wife lies in a hospice bed..some loving husband!" Who said he wasn't? And why do you discount her friend's testimony? HMMMMMMM??? "So why does he want her dead?" He said he is carrying out Terri's wishes. "He doesn't really, just bad blood bet. him and Terri's family, he wants to "win"...Sadly no one wins in this case." And you and others who support denying people their right to control their own lives are losing your battles too. Thank God.

30 "Her "wishes" were advanced by a real standup guy..." Who said he was? "too bad Michael Schiavo was horribly inconsistent throughout the legal proceedings... and even worse, the courts did nothing about it." Yes they did. They considered all of the evidence and came to a conclusion that you and several others in this forum reject. Does that mean we should expect a federal building to be blown up?

31 "No, it was an attempt to point out that Terri expressed her wishes and that you refuse to acknowledge it." Er, that would indeed be news to me. The only evidence presented at trial was an offhand comment by Terri. Today, the judge aknowledged that he had erred in the original trial. Why? Because Terri had made another offhand comment that she believed taking a person off of life support was terrible. So, what we have is an impasse. No one knows what Terri wanted, for sure. In the face of uncertainty, then, which side do we err on?

32 You are dismissing also the fact that coworkers have said they saw Terri coming into work with bruises on her face and arms, and that she was making plans to room with another coworker and get an apt. on their own. So, Schiavo raises eyebrows there. If Terri's in mental agony, why is she smiling? She doesn't know what happened to her, she became like a small infant again, if a mother decides to end her baby's life because that baby cannot think for itself or feed itself or be of any use to anyone, should she be denied that right as well, if the poor kid's being fed with a tube, such as my son was? And, on a respirator too! He is 12 now THANK GOD we didn't pull the plug on HIM! Schiavo gave up his rights of being legal guardian when he chose to break the wedding vows, the parents should have sued him on the grounds of adultery in Terry's behalf and gotten full custody. Sounds simple to me, did they even try that? Even if it WERE Terri's wishes, I don't agree with the WAY she is being allowed to die: STARVATION SLOWLY. Had she been on a respirator, I don't think I would be as upset. But the method of letting her go this way is inhumane. If we starved the animals in shelters instead of euthanizing then, the PETA would be all over them. Where is Terri's protection from such a cruel and torturous death? TWO WEEKS to DIE?????? God we let our own people suffer for two weeks before they die, yet we defend the Iraqi prisoners from abuse at Abu Ghraib! Such irony! They are the enemy! Terri hurt no one, yet we are hurting her now.

33 >>No, it was an attempt to point out that Terri expressed her wishes >>and that you refuse to acknowledge it." "Er, that would indeed be news to me. The only evidence presented at trial was an offhand comment by Terri." I guess that is only "offhand" if it applies to death. What would your position be if it had been in support of living on life support? "Today, the judge aknowledged that he had erred in the original trial." And so the testimony of the witnesses that confirmed her affirmation to die should be thrown out? Again, I wonder how you would view this if she had chosen life. "Why? Because Terri had made another offhand comment that she believed taking a person off of life support was terrible." I read that. She also said later that she didn't want to live out her life on life support. So your point is we should reject that information that conflicts with her wishes? "So, what we have is an impasse. No one knows what Terri wanted, for sure." Except those individuals who testified that she wanted to die. Yep, no one knows. "In the face of uncertainty, then, which side do we err on?" There will *always* be uncertainty. Leave it up to Daddy Government. Republicans=Democrats who quit smoking pot and started shaving.

34 Okay so if it was so cut and dried, and they believed Schiavo from the beginning, it wouldn't make sense that this would have been allowed to continue for so many years, now would it? Know why? Because there is UNCERTAINTY as to WHAT Terri's wishes were...no proof...aren't we supposed to show burdon of proof and in the absence of said proof, give the person the benefit of the doubt? Too bad they couldn't give Schiavo a polygraph test to see whether he was telling the truth about her wishes, but that evidence isn't submissible in a court. Going on what some of her friends and husband thought...nice juducial system we've got. So, BB and all the rest of you who agree with the judges, are we to believe Schiavo's people, yet totally dismiss Shindlers' people and what they think? We certainly are at an impasse...too bad the judges don't see it that way.

35 "You are dismissing also the fact that coworkers have said they saw Terri coming into work with bruises on her face and arms, and that she was making plans to room with another coworker and get an apt. on their own. So, Schiavo raises eyebrows there." No, the police and courts dismissed it. Do you really think that they would not have sought charges against Michael in this case if there were evidence of abuse? You also ignore the judgment of twelve of her peers in the civil case where they weighed the evidence and ruled that Terri's condition was a result of medical malpractice. Your arguments are getting even more selective in presenting evidence. "If Terri's in mental agony, why is she smiling?" She smiles at the wall. Does that mean she is trying to communicate with it? "She doesn't know what happened to her, she became like a small infant again, if a mother decides to end her baby's life because that baby cannot think for itself or feed itself or be of any use to anyone, should she be denied that right as well, if the poor kid's being fed with a tube, such as my son was? And, on a respirator too! He is 12 now THANK GOD we didn't pull the plug on HIM!" Beating your own strawman? "Schiavo gave up his rights of being legal guardian when he chose to break the wedding vows,..." You keep coming back to that issue despite the fact that the courts ruled against your point of view. I guess we can expect the protests and bombings to commence. "..the parents should have sued him on the grounds of adultery in Terry's behalf and gotten full custody. Sounds simple to me, did they even try that?" Yep - been there, done that. "Even if it WERE Terri's wishes, I don't agree with the WAY she is being allowed to die: STARVATION SLOWLY." There is the key phrase: "I don't agree with the WAY she is being allowed to die.." Unfortunately, I believe the real phrase should have been: "I don't agree that she is being allowed to die". "Had she been on a respirator, I don't think I would be as upset." So, suffocation is better? Wow, please do not lecture me on the superiority of your values. "But the method of letting her go this way is inhumane. If we starved the animals in shelters instead of euthanizing then, the PETA would be all over them." You have a whole farm of strawmen, don't you? "Where is Terri's protection from such a cruel and torturous death?" The Florida District Court, the Florida Court of Appeals, the Florida Supreme Court, the Federal District Court, the 11th Circuit Court, the US Supreme Court.... Are you getting the message that the individual liberty of Terri is what the courts ruled in favor of? "TWO WEEKS to DIE??????" Rather unpleasant, but yes. Do you have an alternative? Oh, yeah... smothering her. "God we let our own people suffer for two weeks before they die, yet we defend the Iraqi prisoners from abuse at Abu Ghraib!" Strawman The Third. "Such irony! They are the enemy!" More strawmen. It is getting crowded in here. "Terri hurt no one, yet we are hurting her now." Terri hurt herself with her bulimia. Terri's doctor should have recognized her condition and treated it. Terri said she did not want to live in a vegetative state. Yeah, this is just a cabal out to kill Terri.

36 "Okay so if it was so cut and dried, and they believed Schiavo from the beginning, it wouldn't make sense that this would have been allowed to continue for so many years, now would it?" You would have rather Michael took her off life support years ago? Wow! I thought you supported life. "Know why? Because there is UNCERTAINTY as to WHAT Terri's wishes were...no proof...aren't we supposed to show burdon of proof and in the absence of said proof, give the person the benefit of the doubt?" Yep. And the police and prosecutors *always* suspect the spouse when a person is injured. Guess what? No arrest, no charges, no trial. "Too bad they couldn't give Schiavo a polygraph test to see whether he was telling the truth about her wishes, but that evidence isn't submissible in a court." Because polygraphs are unable to tell truth from fiction. If they were so trustworthy, we wouldn't need the courts. "Going on what some of her friends and husband thought...nice juducial system we've got." It is called 'direct testimony'. It is more valid than your 'speculation'. "So, BB and all the rest of you who agree with the judges, are we to believe Schiavo's people, yet totally dismiss Shindlers' people and what they think?" No, but I don't think they are acting in Terri's best interst but instead are acting in their own best interests. "We certainly are at an impasse...too bad the judges don't see it that way." No the judges broke the impasse. Terri gets her wish. Liberty moves forward.

37 Bodybagger, Don't have time to read your entire post, just want to focus on one point. I am suggesting the I DON'T KNOW WHAT TERRI'S WISHES ARE. At best, there seems to be a contradiction between what her parents and one set of friends believed she wanted, and what her husband and another set of friends say she wanted. But in the face of uncertainty, I believe we should err on the side of life. To say Terri gets her wish is to assume the judge knows her wishes. That is a ridiculous proposition.

38 Ok so I just listened to Hannity's interview with Terri's parents, brother and sister. They filed a police report against Michael for alleged ABUSE toward Terri! Many coworkers have sworn statements that Terri showed up at work with BRUISES. Furthermore, Judge Greer COMPLETELY IGNORED STATEMENTS BY 33 DOCTORS WHO EXAMINED TERRI AND SAID SHE WAS NOT IN A PVS. So there! Why is the judge ignoring everything in favor of Terri's staying alive and just presenting the side of the husband's case in this???? A judge, who unfortunately did not rule on this, told Hannity he wishes there was something HE could do, that this is murder, that we, who don't even elect these judges, have to see this happen! Can't Bush as the head of state, overrule the Supreme Court??? Surely, if he was woken up in the middle of the night to fly back and sign legislation to help keep Terri alive, he could do something now! If animals were allowed to starve in the shelters, PETA would be all over it. If prisoners were allowed to starve in prison, every civil rights group would jump on it. Gee, wonder why Jesse Jackson's not getting into it? He seems to put his nose in everything else. AGAIN, NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT TERRI'S WISHES WERE....oh, one final note, there are also sworn statements that Terri did not wish to be kept alive on a RESPIRATOR, her mother stated NO ONE WOULD WANT TO STARVE TO DEATH AS THE WAY TO END THIS. Plus, Schiavo ADMITTED he wasn't sure WHAT Terri would have wanted, but didn't use this as his ammo until well into 7 years AFTER Terri became disabled. I lost faith in the justice system when OJ was set free...I don't know why I'm surprised they approved Terri's murder!

39 I stand corrected...the sworn statements that Terri would not wish to be kept alive by a respirator were not HERS, they were statements made by others, testifying that she told them that.

40 "I am suggesting the I DON'T KNOW WHAT TERRI'S WISHES ARE." Granted. "At best, there seems to be a contradiction between what her parents and one set of friends believed she wanted, and what her husband and another set of friends say she wanted." That's why we have courts - to sort out differing view points. "But in the face of uncertainty, I believe we should err on the side of life." I believe we should err on the side of personal liberty. "To say Terri gets her wish is to assume the judge knows her wishes. That is a ridiculous proposition." I never suggested that "some judge" knows better than Terri's family whether whe wanted to die. He RULED that the *evidence* (scant as it may be) indicated that Terri chose to not live as a vegetable. I know that is hard for your and the others to accept, but that is what is meant by personal liberty. Her choice.

41 "Ok so I just listened to Hannity's interview with Terri's parents, brother and sister. They filed a police report against Michael for alleged ABUSE toward Terri!" And when did Michael serve time for abuse? He didn't? "So there!" Indeed.

42 you are a one-trick-pony BB, you assume that Terri wanted to die in this situation and can only justify your position if that is true. But the fact is we don't know if it's true, the husbands motivations are suspect, so why not let her live? Because of Libertarian principles of personal liberty that you think apply if what you believe to be true is. I am done arguing with a wall.

43 "you are a one-trick-pony BB," Is that the one with the "short, stubby legs"? "you assume that Terri wanted to die in this situation.." I don't assume anything. I base my opinion on direct testimony by her husband and friends. "..and can only justify your position if that is true." Second fallacy: I don't have to justify anything - to you or any other supporter of the Schindlers. "But the fact is we don't know if it's true, the husbands motivations are suspect, so why not let her live?" Because I would rather err on the side of preserving the personal rights of Terri than those of the people who want to keep her alive against her expressed wishes. "Because of Libertarian principles of personal liberty that you think apply if what you believe to be true is." Parse that sentence and provide me a translation.

44 Can you please stop posting fallacies about her being in agony? Do you just think every doctor who has said she is in PVS and is in no pain is flat out lying? I'm sorry, but they're not. As noted in a long rant by me about this case I would rather see her live if it means that much to her parents (they did bring her into this world) and I feel bad for everyone involved, but I understand that her husband is getting tired of people calling him a liar, a killer and I don't think he nor her friends who testified about her wishes are lying. Oh and how come when her nurse says something it's automatically true but the many doctors who come in there are all liars? And "liberals?" I'm glad I'm not registered as anything, so sick of this fucking right/left war. Like a bunch of kids fighting.

45 Igor is right. Just because you want to believe one side or the other its the blind following. The simple issue is that once she is dead I wont have to listen to all this crap and the media will find their next wannabe news story to follow to the point of overkill. It a constant mindless yammering arguement over one shell of a human who might as well be dead, hell I wish people would be talking about the immigrants streeming across our borders, or the financial legislation requirements to promote domestic companies ... BUT NO! we have to worry about some stupid woman who caused her own state. The fact people do we aregue this much when we see some drug user with a brain looking like swiss cheese and fight to make that person live: NO! You live with your decisions.

46 In the end, the talk that goes on here will decide nothing. The decision will be based on the feelings of a judge. If he feels she should continue he will rule that way. If he feels she should die, she will die. Luck of the draw. Sucks, but thats life. Tens of thousands of children that must live with handicaps and all attention goes to one person who probably doesn't know she is alive. WEIRD!

47 Some people can be really dumb. Terri has been in a vegetative state for 15 years with no chance of rehabilitation. You can just deny the laws of nueropyhsics by claiming some heirarchy of religous belifs will bring her out of the state. this is not being "for life". its about being logical, and not being swayed by the medias biased opinion and the video footage 5 years old. Religon cant save this vegitative women, separation of chruch and state people. stop being fucking stupi. she wished to have the plugg pulled, let her have control of her life by her wishes and put religon to the side. let her go in peace.

48 i farted

49 Rusty Shackleford is Dale Gribble's alias on the show King Of The Hill.

50 TERRI DESERVES TO LIVE! SCREW MICHAEL SCHAIVO

51 Terri is living an artificial life, there is no point in her living anymore, her mind is dead. She can't live a normal life, I know it must be hard for the parents, but its the right choice, its her time to go.

52 Okay, first and foremost, have any of you friggin' conservative morons ever thought about the possible hundreds of thousands in this country who are currently on artificial life support? What about them? Is Terri any better than them just because she is a media circus seal? You people are so media-minded! We have other things to worry about in our country and lives than some lady whose life or death is honestly none of our business! How would you like it if your family posted your blank stare all over the papers and internet like some fu**ing guilt-trip story?! How would you like it if morons, instead of going to work or being productive, line up outside your hospital with tape over their mouths? Maybe you wouldn't like that so much, would you? And I already know what you 1-track minded conservatives are going to say..."Well, Poor Terri didn't get a say in it." Of course not, because she's brain-dead! Has been that way for 15 years!!! Not much of a life living on a hospital bed for 15 years, is it!! Open that bed up for someone who may walk out of there someday. All you people say you sanctify life, but some of you nuttier ones are out there putting hits and bounties on Michael Schiavo....so much for sanctity of life. Not to mention how much you care about unborn babies...yeah sure, you care about them when they're in the womb...but what about when they're out, huh? You want your tax dollars going to yet another unwanted child? Of course you don't. When's the next time you care about them?......Military age, because then, they fight and die for some worthless war in which the country we're trying to save doesn't even want our help. You want a just cause...you yourself are a just cause, work at it.

53 Terri Schiavo died at 9:05 AM this morning.

54 If you would have known Teresa as we did, you would have known for 20 years of her life she spoke of nothing but life. In a mere 5 years Michael claimed to know Teresa better than her family. Teresa would have never had wanted this. She would have never wanted her family to be denied access to her bedside, to be cremated, she would have never wished her mother, father, brother, sister such pain. She is with God now and no words justify this tragedy. To the rest of us who knew her well may we be at peace with Teresa

55 im glad she died who really cares bout her?? well she will rotton in hell just like the pope is doing now.