If all was investigated medically and fully proved, why were they so unwilling to have a new look by new eyes at the facts? Their decisions to ignore the federal law to relook, showed there was something they did not wish seen.That was the same argument the left used against going to war to oust Saddam...give inspections one more chance. Rush Limbaugh dismissed that POV and I agreed. But Limbaugh has since showed his inconsistency by taking the opposite position, the one you argue over the Shiavo case. But then consistency seems to be a problem for many conservatives. Even recently Limbaugh has claimed through his attorneys that there actually is a Constitutional right to privacy. Something he's always claimed never existed.
There is. however, a Constitutional right to privacy written into the Fl. State Constitution. Put there in the late 80s by a vote of the general population of Fl. to amend their Fl. State Constitution. Simple ballot question.
You are diverting the entire argument.
When you believe that God determines when we are born and die, it crosses over different instances of lawmaking abuse. If you believe that man is out of his realm when killing off the weak in society, it will show in any discussion of a manmade law that furthers the right to kill others.
This is not inconsistent. Your attempt to discount based on frivilous other issues is merely an attempt to discount Rush's views that this was wrong.
What about the views of Hannity, Jeb Bush, Pres. Bush, Tom Delay, Fred Barnes, Krauthammer and tons of others? All inconsistent?