I hope y'all are happy....

[dilloduck]

On the plus side, the Democrats would never win another election.

They certainly don't have any problem killing fetuses that most assuredly WILL develop the abiltity to think and become "individuals".

 

[Bonnie]

They certainly don't have any problem killing fetuses that most assuredly WILL develop the abiltity to think and become "individuals".

And even less of a problem having federal courts interfere with states rulings on parental notification and partial birth abortion.

 

[OCA]

And even less of a problem having federal courts interfere with states rulings on parental notification and partial birth abortion.

But do we all see the tangled web here? Conservatives don't want court interference with states rights concerning queer marriage but they want the court to interfere here. Libs don't want the court to interfere here but celebrate Roe v Wade. This is a freakin mess.

 

[dilloduck]

But do we all see the tangled web here? Conservatives don't want court interference with states rights concerning queer marriage but they want the court to interfere here. Libs don't want the court to interfere here but celebrate Roe v Wade. This is a freakin mess.

Agreed--a sane person might think there is some common ground here on which to work out some differences---naaaaaaaaaa--everyone wants things their own way----twist the hell outta them laws to make it happen

 

[no1tovote4]

But do we all see the tangled web here? Conservatives don't want court interference with states rights concerning queer marriage but they want the court to interfere here. Libs don't want the court to interfere here but celebrate Roe v Wade. This is a freakin mess.

I agree with this. States rights have been trampled on in the past by both major parties. However, I still think the FL law should be changed to reflect that people should not end in death based on presumption and supposition. When in doubt err on the side of life.

 

[dilloduck]

I agree with this. States rights have been trampled on in the past by both major parties. However, I still think the FL law should be changed to reflect that people should not end in death based on presumption and supposition. When in doubt err on the side of life.

Amen---she has family that love her the way she is AND is willing to take care of her if given a chance!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Nobody knows exactly what Terri wanted. There is nothing in writing.

There is, all too often, "nothing in writing". Legal precedent gives Terri Schiavo's husband the authorty to make the decisions regarding her medical care. Had he died or had they not been married, THEN, that authority would have passed to her parents. The problem here being that her parents were unwilling to accept the reality of the situation.

 

[dilloduck]

There is, all too often, "nothing in writing". Legal precedent gives Terri Schiavo's husband the authorty to make the decisions regarding her medical care. Had he died or had they not been married, THEN, that authority would have passed to her parents. The problem here being that her parents were unwilling to accept the reality of the situation.

What reality?---that they want to keep their daughter alive but no one will let them---why those idiots!

 

[no1tovote4]

There is, all too often, "nothing in writing". Legal precedent gives Terri Schiavo's husband the authorty to make the decisions regarding her medical care. Had he died or had they not been married, THEN, that authority would have passed to her parents. The problem here being that her parents were unwilling to accept the reality of the situation.

The presumptive ability of the spouse to be able to ascertain her wishes is the issue here. Supposedly the spouse is fighting for her "wishes" according to this particular issue and the ruling of the judge on record. If she had not supposedly stated the wish to die in said circumstance even the husband could not have made the choice for her apparently as according to the judge's ruling it was necessary that she would want this. As there is no way to tell with certainty her wish, they are working off of "preponderance of evidence" rather than the reasonable doubt that would be used to convict a criminal. With the flimsy evidence available we would not convict a criminal to die, but heck we will allow the husband to apply his presumption.

I do not argue that acccording to FL law the decision was right by the court, I argue that there may be a need to reflect on the law and change it to presume life when certainty cannot be gained as to the wishes of the patient.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934>Baby born with fatal defect dies after removal from life support</a></h1></center>
<blockquote>By LEIGH HOPPER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.
ADVERTISEMENT

Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months .... They made a terrible mistake."</blockquote>

Now, for all of you who believe that Dubbyuh can do no wrong, in 1999, then Governor Bush, signed a <a href=http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm>law</a> which permits hospitals to discontinue life sustaining care, even tube feedings, even over the objections of family members. Dubbyuh is a hypocrite of the first water, and he will do whatever he thinks will secure his power base. He will even claim to be a Christian...A claim which has been given lie to all too often.

Citations:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934

 

[dilloduck]

The presumptive ability of the spouse to be able to ascertain her wishes is the issue here. Supposedly the spouse is fighting for her "wishes" according to this particular issue and the ruling of the judge on record. If she had not supposedly stated the wish to die in said circumstance even the husband could not have made the choice for her apparently as according to the judge's ruling it was necessary that she would want this. As there is no way to tell with certainty her wish, they are working off of "preponderance of evidence" rather than the reasonable doubt that would be used to convict a criminal. With the flimsy evidence available we would not convict a criminal to die, but heck we will allow the husband to apply his presumption.

I do not argue that acccording to FL law the decision was right by the court, I argue that there may be a need to reflect on the law and change it to presume life when certainty cannot be gained as to the wishes of the patient.

agreed---all the fuss indicates that many people oppose certain laws---this is the first step in fixing them.

 

[Mr. P]

But do we all see the tangled web here? Conservatives don't want court interference with states rights concerning queer marriage but they want the court to interfere here. Libs don't want the court to interfere here but celebrate Roe v Wade. This is a freakin mess.

That's the way I see it too...
That's (one reason) why I say...everyone BUTT OUT. I don't want the Feds. in my personal life...many here are inviting it, asking for it...GEEZZZZZ...

 

[dilloduck]

That's the way I see it too...
That's (one reason) why I say...everyone BUT OUT. I don't want the Feds. in my personal life...many here are inviting it, asking for it...GEEZZZZZ...

Nice fantasy Mr.P but the Feds are gonna be in your life as long as you live

 

[Mr. P]

Nice fantasy Mr.P but the Feds are gonna be in your life as long as you live

Maybe, but we don't need to invite more...

 

[dilloduck]

Maybe, but we don't need to invite more...

Hopefully the Democrats will understand you wishes-----they love that the fed stepped in to legalize abortion by default. There may be a larger plan in the works and if nothing else, the issue of states rights is being discussed---even by the MSM !!

Liike MM has said--if State laws may be violating the constitution the feds are OBLIGATED to step in and decide.

 

[Mr. P]

Hopefully the Democrats will understand you wishes-----they love that the fed stepped in to legalize abortion by default. There may be a larger plan in the works and if nothing else, the issue of states rights is being discussed---even by the MSM !!

Don't fool yer self..The Democrats are not behind this intrusion.

 

[dilloduck]

Don't fool yer self..The Democrats are not behind this intrusion.

Didn't say they were--in fact I hope it's a grand Republican effort to ultimately reinforce the right of states to make abortion illegal. Ya ya---i can dream on but I like the idea.

 

[Mr. P]

Didn't say they were--in fact I hope it's a grand Republican effort to ultimately reinforce the right of states to make abortion illegal. Ya ya---i can dream on but I like the idea.

I don't think you really understand what you are hoping for.
It's a BIG can of worms.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think you really understand what you are hoping for.
It's a BIG can of worms.

May as well open it up and deal with it---denial is certain to fail.

 

[Annie]

May as well open it up and deal with it---denial is certain to fail.

Mr. P may well be right, that is my misgivings. I agree with the idea of siding with life, but to involve the feds here is opening something that shouldn't be.