Not exactly. I said it was wrong to kill her (my opinion) and no piled on list of "facts" (meaning other people's opinions) will change it.
Obviously there were doubts. The entire case and the way it was handled was a botched up convoluted mess. That makes killing her even the more senseless. Someone should have called a halt to it. Seeing as how the judiciary refused to halt it, and the Congress was too weak to halt it, and the governor's hands were tied, then I wish there was a way the president could've stepped in. The court ordered killing of an innocent helpless woman who could not speak for herself was a violation of her unalienable rights to life and liberty, and constitutional rights to due process and equality under the law, and was a travesty of justice. When violations of a person's basic constitutional rights have gone this far, and is so clearly wrong, with no effective help from any other branch of federal or state government, who other than the president could possibly stop it?
"Right to die" when it means legalized murder is not a right at all. It's the same farce as "abortion rights." Abortion is murder. "Abortion rights" is a liberal activist made up "right." It does not exist in the constitution. "Right to die" as in a court ordering the death of an innocent helpless human being is murder in the same way abortion is murder. It is not a constitutional right.
The right to life is an unalienable right and a plank in the Republican Party platform. Something is drastically wrong with someone's thinking if he thinks defending the right to life is turning the conservative world upside down.
We've handled these kinds of decisions under our constitution for over two hundred years just fine. The world will not end if the euthanasia enthusiasts are denied.
Sorry, but abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, court ordered killing of helpless individuals, etc., is definitely a slippery slope. Others have called it the culture of death. I can't see how they're that far off the mark.
The court ordered killing of an innocent helpless woman who could not speak for herself was a violation of her unalienable rights to life and liberty, and constitutional rights to due process and equality under the law, and was a travesty of justice. When violations of a person's basic constitutional rights have gone this far, and is so clearly wrong, with no effective help from any other branch of federal or state government, who other than the president could possibly stop it? Thank you! This argument has found its way into my Political Science & Sociology classes. I don't mind pushing the 'truth' to my 300+ students about how Terri's 'active' (vrs. passive)court imposed death sentence was a direct violation of our fundamental rights. Then they all must read Article III of the Constitution to see who has the real constitutional power over the courts and for any holdouts I send them into Article V to tie it up.
The 'separate but equal' argument is a lie; the truth is 'separate and distinct' branches of government with the final constitutional trump card being held by the Congress/the People and the States.
take care,
Van