Don’t play stupid. Shooting your son in the head is murder. Taking patients off life support isn’t so considered by the law, even if it should be. Neither the governor nor the president have the power or responsibility to change that by fiat.
I’m done playing.
Talking down to those who disagree with you and who provide examples to support their positions is what most “liberals” do.
And also I don’t think you’re as knowledgeable about the Schiavo and Gonzalez cases as you think you are — but that’s just me responding to your rudeness.
You play stupid when you suggest all laws written are legitimate. In the Schiavo case she was denied food and water -in essence she was starved to death -executed by the state via a law you regard as legal and a due process she was not a party to.
Those who were and are in office like either Bush have sworn to uphold the Constitution which enumerates unequivocally the inalienable right to life that all have been endowed by the Creator.
The fact that you play stupid as far as basic principles may not be your fault -you may just be another one of the useful idiots the left is counting on.
Starving someone to death isn't murder? Terri wasn't on "life support" she was just receiving her food through a tube. Feeding someone isn't "life support" in the same way giving them an artifical heart-beat or artificial respiration is. Everyone alive needs to eat.
Don’t play stupid.
I wasn't playing stupid. It's a perfectly valid argument technique called (I think) reducto ad absurdum. And you clearly got my point. The next-of-kin argument is the wrong argument. If you want to continue your "life support" argument, that may make sense. But the next-of-kin argument is simply foolish.