There seems to be no end to the variety of cases where children suffer as a consequence of a custodial fight between parents (both birth parents and adoptive). Today's entry: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/31/shaken.baby/index.html
So you are OK with someone spending over 80% of their entire life as a machine-driven veg? Or did I misinterpret? The only reason the scum-bag father wants this kid kept alive is so he doesn't get slapped with Murder-1.
You misinterpreted ... or I was unclear. I just posted this FYI and am definitely on the mother's side. What is interesting to me is that these cases involving a triangle of competing interests (father/mother/child or adoptive parents/birth mother/child) seem to be endless in variation. It is fairly frequent that a new case arises that challenges the legal system, often with life-creating or life-sustaining technology playing a signifcant role. Here, obviously the father could be charged with murder if the child is allowed to die, even though pulling the plug is would be a more immediate cause of death. However, I wonder if California could charge the guy with murder NOW on the basis that the child is already "dead." I think it is an open question.
My feeling has always been that if the being is only sustained through a tube pumping oxygen into their lungs, then they're already dead. When the brain is gone, so is the body. They're basically oxygenating a cadaver. Sad.