[William Terrell]

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Sorry, let me try again.

There are countless adults who couldn't live without the physical help of others; Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawking are two of the most notable. Are you suggesting they really don't want to live?(TS)

I'm suggesting that if food were to be served to Terri only on her request, she would starve to death. Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawking have nothing to do with that. They are obviously conscious, aware and direct their own lives, and make the production to keep them going.

There is no possible comparison.

[supercat]

There are millions of people in this country who are incapable of feeding themselves, or of even coherently expressing a desire to be fed. Many (indeed most) of these people would gain those abilities if efforts were made to teach them. Absent such efforts, it's unlikely that they would be able to gain such abilities on their own.

Should parents be forbidden from caring for these people, on the basis that they can't care for themselves and may or may not want to live?

[supercat]

Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawking have nothing to do with that. They are obviously conscious, aware and direct their own lives, and make the production to keep them going.

Were it not for years spent in therapy, Stephen Hawking would be absolutely incapable of making his wants and desires known. His conciousness, which to you seems obvious, would not be so had it not been for the work of many people. Without such efforts, his apparent level of conciousness would likely be even lower than Terri's.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"I'd say, using your assumptions, that if she wanted to live, she would be able to without help."(WT)

Your original comment is above. I then asked if Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawking want to live because neither one, like Terri, can live without help.

In your last response to me you added additional qualifiers presumably because I pointed out the absurdity of your original comment.