A
Anonymous
Guest
Red Robin said:What ? Are you confused. Go back and read your post that said we didn't have machines to keep them alive. The case to which I refered never went to the supreme court . Dylan, remember?Oldtimer said:Red Robin said:So essentially you are making the argument that the Constitution is not relevant in this type case. Much like the antigun lobbyist argument which is that times have changed. I disagree OT . Our laws have to have a witness rock, a basis, a survey marker that is constant . If not we'll be blown with the wind.
Thanks for the discussion.
No- The Constitution is very much alive- and by the Supreme Courts refusing to hear the case which affirmed the lower courts rulings that the husband had legal standing- they left stand the basic argument I have been giving...That this is an issue between the legal guardian (husband), doctor and God to decide....
Well I'm a mile ahead of you :lol: I was talking the Schaivo case-- which in the Supreme Courts Schaivo decision pretty much left the same ruling...
I'm not going to argue with you- but in my opinon its a decision to be made by family, doctors and God- not government....
You still never answered whether you would want to live or a family member to live in the state either Dylan or Schaivo were in......But thats OK- because it should be a personal issue of your own....