Got news for you. We're all certain to die. My facts were regarding the right of states to establish their own right-to-die laws without federal intervention, and the fact that Congress selectively chose this case -- one out of thousands -- to make a big media show out of. Reeks of exploiting a family tragedy for political benefit.
BTW, I personally think it is much worse to starve a conscious baby over the objection of its mother than a person in a persistent vegetative state whom the courts have ruled would not want to continue life in her current situation.
than a person in a persistent vegetative state
Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state.
Number 1: Got news for you. We're all certain to die.
Well, you're the one who made the point, presumably to justify the cruel starvation of a conscious human being.
Number 2: My facts were regarding the right of states to establish their own right-to-die laws without federal intervention, and the fact that Congress selectively chose this case -- one out of thousands -- to make a big media show out of. Reeks of exploiting a family tragedy for political benefit.
The discussion of a facetious "right to die" demands clarification of who's "right" is it? So, in your opinion, who own's the "right to die"?
I'd like to have a discussion with you about this if you don't mind, so I will leave your last point for later if you're game.
Truly without malice, who own's the "right to die".