What does the Declaration of Independence (Which by the way IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND) have to do with when life support is pulled from terminal patients? And yes Terri was deemed terminal because she was in a PVS. Happens dozens of times each week in America.
More sophistry afoot. If Terri was terminal than so are you and I.
More sophistry afoot. If Terri was terminal than so are you and I. Terminal means you are going to die OF the disease... not die WITH the disease.
Try the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article One, Section Two of the Florida constitition.
They ARE the law of the land, and they explicitly prohibit taking the life of any person who hasn't been convicted of a capital crime.
The Florida constitition also explicitly includes the disabled.
Or are you in agreement with these judges and politicians who are now pretending the Bill of Rights doesn't exist?
"And yes Terri was deemed terminal because she was in a PVS."
No one dies from PVS. It is NOT a terminal illness. It might PERMANENT, but it is NOT terminal.
The DoI, albeit NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND, explains why our Founding Fathers thought governments were instituted among men. The reason I mentioned it is because (like many other really confused people on FR) you were expressing sincere confusion that the government would get involved in the business of preventing people from killing other people. I was trying to help clear it up for you. Check it out. Again, it's called "The Declaration of Independence". You can probably find it on the web.
And yes Terri was deemed terminal because she was in a PVS
I guess you're right that she was "deemed" terminal. Of course, in reality, "PVS" or not, she was not terminal. The fact that she survived 15 years proves that, QED. I am not sure why I am supposed to care what she was "deemed" over what she was in reality. Jews were "deemed" useless eaters. Shall I defer to that judgment as well? I am talking about reality, not "deemed". If she was "deemed" something that contradicts reality, maybe the "deemers" were wrong and foolhardy. In fact, that is my point.
Happens dozens of times each week in America.
You're probably right. Which... makes it.... ok? Try again.
Obviously, you have not read the Quinlan case ruling from New Jersey:
""
The Attorney General of New Jersey intervened as of right pursuant to R. 4:33-1 on behalf of the State of New Jersey, such intervention being recognized by the court in the pretrial conference order (R. 4:25-1 et seq.) of September 22, 1975. Its basis, of course, was the interest of the State in [**652] the preservation of life, which has an undoubted constitutional foundation. n1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 The importance of the preservation of life is memorialized in various organic documents. The Declaration of Independence states as self-evident truths "that all men * * * are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal is inherent in the Constitution of the United States. It is explicitly recognized in our Constitution of 1947 which provides for "certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life * * *." N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 1. Our State government is established to protect such rights, N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 2, and, acting through the Attorney General (N.J.S.A. 52:17A-4(h)), it enforces them. ""