Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

Status
Not open for further replies.
ReillyT said:
His opinion conflicts with the opinions of the majority of the doctors that have evaluated her. If there were a higher standard of proof (which I favor), it might be easy to say that whether she can be rehabilitated hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, that is not the standard prescribed by the state legislature and the courts have followed the law.

I have no opinions (nor the knowledge to form them) about Michael Schiavo. I don't know if he blocked rehabilitative treatments or (if he did) why he did so.

Maybe we should hear all evidence instead of suppressing it preemptorily.

Oh yeah. because (non judge) humans are fallible.
 
ReillyT said:
His opinion conflicts with the opinions of the majority of the doctors that have evaluated her. If there were a higher standard of proof (which I favor), it might be easy to say that whether she can be rehabilitated hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, that is not the standard prescribed by the state legislature and the courts have followed the law.

I have no opinions (nor the knowledge to form them) about Michael Schiavo. I don't know if he blocked rehabilitative treatments or (if he did) why he did so.

Well, even with the doctors aside, it still sucks that the decision to let a woman live or not is left to what the law allows and what the law doesn't. At least, as it pertains to this thread, there aren't a lot of people coming up with phrases to avoid stating the simple truth: she's starving to death.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Maybe we should hear all evidence instead of suppressing it preemptorily.

Oh yeah. because (non judge) humans are fallible.

Dr. Hammesfahr's opinion wasn't suppressed. He presented his findings to the court. It was considered and given thoughtful analysis by both the trial judge and the appeals court that upheld the decision. It is in the trial record and you can read about it if you look it up on the internet.
 
Jimmyeatworld said:
Well, even with the doctors aside, it still sucks that the decision to let a woman live or not is left to what the law allows and what the law doesn't. At least, as it pertains to this thread, there aren't a lot of people coming up with phrases to avoid stating the simple truth: she's starving to death.

Everything about this case sucks.
 
ReillyT said:
Dr. Hammesfahr's opinion wasn't suppressed. He presented his findings to the court. It was considered and given thoughtful analysis by both the trial judge and the appeals court that upheld the decision. It is in the trial record and you can read about it if you look it up on the internet.

Yes. Judges ignore what they want to even when the evidence is admitted.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Yes. Judges ignore what they want to even when the evidence is admitted.

Read the record of the court proceedings. The court did not ignore his testimony. The evaluated it and dealt with it thoughtfully in their opinions.
 
ReillyT said:
Read the record of the court proceedings. The court did not ignore his testimony. The evaluated it and dealt with it thoughtfully in their opinions.

I'm sure they came up with a lot of longwinded bs as to why they ignored it, sure, I believe that.

We should err on the side of life.

Why do you hate humanity?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
I'm sure they came up with a lot of longwinded bs as to why they ignored it, sure, I believe that.

We should err on the side of life.

You don't even have the fair-mindedness to read their opinion before you start bashing the judges. Don't be afraid of knowledge RWA.


rtwngAvngr said:
Why do you hate humanity?


I don't hate humanity, but I am often disgusted by it because of people like you.
 
ReillyT said:
You don't even have the fair-mindedness to read their opinion before you start bashing the judges. Don't be afraid of knowledge RWA.





I don't hate humanity, but I am often disgusted by it because of people like you.

Don't be afraid to question the wisdom of judges. You like to be on that fat judicial fleshpipe, don't you? mmmm mmm good.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Don't be afraid to question the wisdom of judges. You like to be on that fat judicial fleshpipe, don't you? mmmm mmm good.

Question with reason, not ignorance. Of course, since you seem to be lacking in reason, do what works for you.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Don't be afraid to question the wisdom of judges. You like to be on that fat judicial fleshpipe, don't you? mmmm mmm good.


RWA it hurts that you are so quick to abandon conservatism. I thought more highly of you at one time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top