Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (105353)	3/22/2005 12:49:24 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793835

Only if the guilty is in a PVS, has said he didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means, and his family decides that's best. ....starve and dehydrate the guilty. If it is applied to the innocent, then surely it can be applied to the guilty.

To: KLP who wrote (105353)	3/22/2005 12:57:11 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793835

If Congress has the will to outlaw removing food and hydration from people who are not dying, they have the power to do so. Florida law allows it. Similarly, if the Florida legislature has the will to change the law and prohibit removing food and hydration from people who are not dying, they have the power to do so, as well. As it stands, Judge Greer's order is perfectly within Florida law. Given the loud outrage frequently expressed on this thread, and by conservatives elsewhere, against "judicial activism," I don't see why anybody is complaining when a judge abides by the law.