UGH

There is no middle ground. If you are not with the "pull the tube" crowd, you are a crazedfundamentalistconspiracytheoryirrational spinner.

here and here (see comments in second link for what I"m referring to.)

I swear - unless you totally buy Michael Shiavo's version/view, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG. They argue this from the most closeminded position.

1) I don't know what happened to Terri (Edit), but it appears fishy to me.

2) I don't know what her brain function was - and I don't think anyone else debating this (in the blogsphere) knew either. That was why people were arguing for further testing. A few tests would have settled a lot. It might have eased a lot of pain on the part of the parents.

3) I didn't think an autopsy would show much either way, and neither did many (informed) people on the "save Terry" side of the argument.

4) You can't prove a negative. No evidence of abuse doesn't mean she wasn't abused TEN YEARS AGO. Just like Jacko got off - doesn't mean he didn't do it. Who expected there to be a sign of any sort of physical abuse???

5) A lot of her brain wasn't there? We KNEW THAT. I don't believe I've ever read, though, that they can test a DEAD BRAIN for brain function.

Is this spin? No, I'm not saying my case was supported. I'm not saying anything other than - the autopsy didn't do much to change my opinion. Yet, I'm labeled a nutcase. You know - whatever.