I'm puzzled. I read some of the learned law profs on their blogs today, and they seem quite certain that Congress did a terrible thing passing a law to try to save one woman's life.
Some say it wasn't constitutional, others say it just wasn't wise.
None of them address whether or not it's a good idea to forcibly starve a living woman to death.
If I did this to a dog, or a horse, or a cat, or for God's sake a pet hamster, I would be vilified as a monster (with good reason) and probably arrested. The rage of the masses would be upon me. I would be railed against, sent death threats, and pilloried in the press.
But if a philandering husband decides his brain-injured wife should be forced to die a slow death of dehydration and starvation, that is only worthy of some pontification about the legal issues involved?
They're arguing about whether it's the right of the States or of the Federal Govenment to intervene if a judge has ordered a woman to be starved to death.
God have mercy.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
The legal issues, the constitution, and the "right" to starve a woman to death
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I found this site by accident.
I wanted to let you know that I will be joining in the fast that I saw suggested in the name of Terri Schaivo.
What an inspiring idea.
The starvation of Terri Schiavo is murder. It's not a political battle it's a moral one.
It's fascinating how many people don't have the remotest idea what murder is anymore.
God bless you.
Post a Comment