1. No, I do not and did not. Her husband had nothing but his changing story of his wife's wishes and her parents would have cared for her. She did not need extraordinary measures to maintain life, but only needed basic human sustenance. All she couldn't do to maintain her life is feed herself. If you argue that point, you condemn all paraplegics.

People have come out of lengthy comas, and there was no definitive evidence that Ms. Shiavo was not brain aware, only conjecture.

2. The Constitution guaranties us LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Congress has no jurisdiction to rule for the termination of life of an innocent. This was criminal overreach and a case of government authorization of the murder of a handicapped citizen, pure and simple.

3. I you have the conviction that you have the right to murder a person who cannot speak for themselves and is just, simply alive and not bound to a mechanical device to keep them alive, than you should be brave enough to end that life as humanely as possible. I would have preferred the outright execution of this helpless woman than the cowardly deprivation of her sustenance, which is the cruelest way to kill someone I can think of.

Terry Shiavo was murdered. She was killed. She was exterminated. She was NOT just "Allowed to die"

That's my opinion. I know ad infinitum the arguments of those who disagree with me and expect I'll see them here from those who still try to make peace with their view. But I, and many others who believe in absolute sanctity of life will never change our view on this.