Price To Pay: Abandoning Principles

[Merlin1047]

I still say (as does the constitution) that LIFE is a inalienable right. If the courts are not going to protect that right, then congress must. That is my take and I'm sticking with it. That does not mean I totally disagree with you. In many ways, I do agree. However, in this case, I believe that Terri's rights were not protected by the courts and when the courts don't protect somebody's rights, who will? The Congress should.

Again, if a living will or even somebody other than her "husband" or his family had said that is what she wanted, then I would have no problems. I just truly believe this has become not a "mercy" killing but a "convenience" killing.

Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word "rule". I read that to mean "to hand down decisions". Apparently your use of the word intended to say that judges are attempting to "govern" from the bench. If so, I take little issue with your sentiment. Except that in this particular case, I don't believe this to be so. If anything, the problem has been that the courts have had flawed and inadequate law on which to base their decision.

 

[dilloduck]

Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word "rule". I read that to mean "to hand down decisions". Apparently you meant to say that judges are attempting to "govern" from the bench. If so, I take little issue with your sentiment. Except that in this particular case, I don't believe this to be so. If anything, the problem has been that the courts have had flawed and inadequate law on which to base their decision.

Bingo---what's the harm in keeping Terris' body alive while we try to get it right. What she supposedly wished for 15 years ago was botched by her hubby--can we try to get that right too or do we just have to stop her heart from beating because she may not be sentinent? I still don't see this need to kill her. No one is being harmed by keeping her alive but much harm is being done to people by starving her to death.