ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR! Incorrect. Thank you for playing. Please pick up your home version on the way out.
Logic, not MY logic, says that the right to life is fundamental. And I'll ask you one more time concerning the action of one ending the life of another: By What Right?
Physicians used to bleed people. Hell, the guillotine was an instrument of medical euthanasia. And no one said the courts are all wrong. Just the Florida ones....
You have not read the medical factsl.
Where did you come from? Do you know how to read?
ORECON, with regard to "the medical facts"; you asserted in 227 that "All doctors agreed, only one quack thought he could work with her." In #270 I how that assertion is self-refuting, and contradicted by the historical evidence.
Second, in your frequent appeals to the mere fact of certain laws and court decisions as being dispositive of the issue, I wonder if your opinion hinges on a presupposition of legal positivism; ie that law is just a social construct - that there are no necessary moral constraints on the content of law or the decisions of judges - that by definition there is no such thing as an unjust or unwise decision of a court, no matter how absurd or immoral the outcome. Am I correct to think that your philosophy of law is one of legal positivsm?
Cordially,