I don't think everything is hunky-dory in the Schiavo case at all, but I think we don't serve anyone by going overboard (not to say AT ALL that I don't care about this tragedy)
If Michael Schiavo ignored the sanctity of his marriage, then there has to be a law that addresses that issue for a judge to rule that way. I'm not saying there isn't such a law now, but I haven't heard about it. I mean look. there are people in jail for LIFE under the 3 strikes you're out laws for stealing a few drugstore items and such (not saying it's right). The law says X and judges attempt to rule within those laws.
As for you calling the children of Schiavo "bastards", I think that's out of line completely. They did nothing wrong and are probably suffering right now because of all this.
What I'm really interested in is why you think there is no comparison in the baby "Sun" case. Sure there are differences, but isn't the crucial issue the same? A little baby is taken off life support over the objections of her MOTHER and all other family members. Forget the soap-opera qualities of the Schiavo case, What reason do you see that makes the death of baby "Sun" different?
Just wondering.
First, the "Schiavo "b*st*rds" comment was Not mine. I don't know who made that remark. But that isn't a comment I'd ever make.
Now....you seem to not understand that a judge has discretion. It's not black and white. And you don't allow any room for a judge who may have a conflict of interest, or may not be acting honestly or properly.
As for "life support" in a terminal case, and food & water for a disabled person, well, if you don't see a difference, I can't help you.