and
if the people who want her to live think she does have rights
Then
Which group can represent her rights?
So anyone know why Greer decided this guy was the only doctor whose testimony was worth considering?
She does have rights, and so far the courts have upheld them.
Terri has no constitutional rights. Neither do any married women in America. That's what all of these courts who are allowing her to be starved to death are saying, anyway.
Remind me what motivation causes people to work in the "healing" professions. I think it's the same one that causes spouses to be beaten, and dogs to be kicked.
Obviously NOT!!!
She does but according to the courts she allowed for this to happen by confirming it to her husband.
"Rights" are not easy or cheap.
The Constitution does not say that its laws are only for those deemed physically and mentally fit. It would have been a much lesser document if it had.
The "doctor" is deluded and deranged.
Regards, Ivan
Apparently, she has no more rights than an unborne child.
Excellent Message: (Pastor) Frank Pavone's homily on Terri and a call for Civil DISOBEDIENCE
Time to send federal marshals to protect Terri!
Time to call Pres. Bush to write executive order [re: Terri S. in Florida]
As a society we've flung ourselves right down the rabbit hole, and we're never going to pull ourselves out again until the notion that a human being is his own chattel property is completely laid to rest, both in the law, and in the public consciousness. The notion that "I own my body and can do anything with it that I please," is what has given rise to the mess we're in.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368567/posts
Here's a hint:
Cranford is a member of the board of directors of the Choice in Dying Society, which promotes doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
In 1997, Cranford wrote an opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune titled: "When a feeding tube borders on barbaric."
Terri = Dred Scott
This reminds me of the statement made by Supreme Court justices in the Taney decision that black Americans have no rights that needed to be repected under the constitution. I guess today's liberals would have applauded that statement since the courts are never wrong on fundamental issues in their opinion.
We consider ourselves a nation of laws but behind that is a broad consensus among the people on what is right and wrong and what is acceptable and unacceptable in our society. When there is a major split in what people believe should be acceptable on a major societal issue that goes to the fundamentals of our constitutional system --like slavery or abortion or like the right not to be ordered to death by dehydration by the courts if you are ill or disabled -- then our system and its courts will not function to support fundamental values since there is no longer a consensus on that value. Legal systems fail when these disagreements reach a crisis point. It took a civil war to reestablish a new consensus on slavery, the courts were on the wrong side of that one and the liberal judicial system and media is on the wrong side of this one.
The wounded in the herd are the easiest to kill. Most herd animals run from their wounded in fear of being attacked themselves. Who will stand and defend this wounded dear girl and show their true humanity. If we all don't learn a big lesson from this tragedy, that it's easy to hide our inhumanity behind the law, then we are doomed as an advanced specie and will consume ourselves like jackals snarling and attacking other jackals just to have a piece of the recent kill.
...obviously the government nor the courts believe that a human being has any rights unless her/his spouse says so.....