Are you talking morally, religiously, civilly, legally, ethically, for principles, what? That's one of the problems with mixing up religion and civil marriage.
In many relgious references, it's a covenant, not a contract. But the judge acted on the law, not on religion.
However, for the purposes of argument, it is ridiculous if delaying someone and making him put his life on hold, is a legitimate tactic. Mrs. Schiavo's rights didn't disappear just because people intervened and interfered with Mr. Schiavo's life. Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo shouldn't have to pay the price of someone else's meddling. That's a leftie-type tactic...like trying to bribe a man to sell off his wife's custody and stop fighting for her rights.
If I urge you to break your contract with your partner and you break it, the contract is still broken.
Yes, but you've lost any moral high ground.
they are all examples of process trumping the natural law and individual rights.
And thus people fighting against Mrs. Schiavo's rights, trying to deny her right to die, were on the side opposite the Constitution.
Garbage. If Doctors tell you that your daughter is not brain dead and that she has cortex and may be functioning at some state of consciousness and you don't fight for your daughters life, you are not much of a man IMHO.
Oh, just any doctor? How about modifying that to "if a neurologist who has examined your daughter and doesn't advertise in the National Enquirer..." Oh wait, you can't.
What part of FLAT EEG don't you understand?
Guilt about what?
I was referring to the abuse allegations. It is pure speculation that there was a guilt motive, but it's no less shaky than the "theories" floating out there about Mr. Schiavo...and I'm saying it's only a hypothesis. (I've not seen the video myself.)
If you're going to call this a right-to-die case then you'll need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Terri wanted to die. Not just, this-witness-seemed-more-credible-than-that-witnees, but proof. Do you have it?