USP45usp, Thanks.
Novus Collectus
But the lower courts did hear the testimony of (most if not all)those nurses and other witnesses and asked to reconsider as late as 2003. IIR some of the apealed cases (and/or request for apeal) also decided the justification for a new trial. And there was a hearing of new evidence and it was re-examined at least once that I know of.
It was lower court -
singular. There was a short police investigation when a nurse reported finding an empty insulin container in Terri Shiavo's trash can - and what she described as needle marks on certain parts of her body. But this nurse says she was fired right away. This same nurse submitted sworn testimony that she and other staff had been present and heard the "husband" say things like, "When is that b going to die". "Isn't she dead yet?".
Reasonable doubt?
None of the subsequent appeals reviewed the facts, evidence, or called the key witnesses to testify. They merely reviewed lower court
procedure.
I disagree with the use of "natural law" in the first place, but I assume (with respect) that you mean "laws of society".
Well, to be fair I am using a theological term. But it boils down to an ingrained sense of right and wrong; such that some things one has an idea that one is doing wrong - even if not previously explicitly instructed.
There are cultures that believe that life is not the most important thing and justify killing or what we call suicide.
Yes; the primitives and other
uncivilized cultures. This was (and no doubt in some places is still is) quite popular in various forms.
After all, is it not also human nature to place ones life in danger to save ones children's lives.
What? You're totally wrong there.
Serious enough pain would also make many people willing to let their life end or even have someone do it for them if they cannot do it themselves.
Yep, some people have and do give in to such things. But the will to survive is
exceptionally strong. It is part of our nature; and this is attested by many peoples' experiences throughout history. Be it illness, accidents or warfare.
I never suggested that people do any of these things without consience and a personal conflict and I can't see many people doing this because their conscience was numbed
If it bothers them, good - their conscience is working at least. But suicide is suicide, and murder is still murder.
I believe that these decisions are not done lightly but with a serious consideration of all aspects of their conscience. To say otherwise would seem to me to be dismissing their way of thinking entirely just because it is hard for someone to imagine it themselves
I do dismiss it. See above.
The Nazis did it without peoples consent and were only doing it for what they thought were practical purposes and not what they thought of as moral. I honestly think that the Florida woman asked to be let to die if in that situation. I also think that it would be moral to follow those wishes if a family member asked me to do it for them. The Nazi reference does not apply in my opinion
Not true; they had some "introductory" examples where arrangements were made with people who wanted to be rid of their troublesome offspring etc - and capitalized on them as publicity for their "humane" and "noble" agenda. They did this with mentally handicapped as well as the physically handicapped.
Please. The same right to life groups would have fought this just as bitterly if she had this in writing, notarized, and told a hundred people
Right. Suicide is suicide, murder is murder.
They would simply say that she was coerced into singing and telling her friends. (it was hard to figure what your statement said and I think that you are reffering to a living will)
No, living will or no living will, it will progress to where the State will ultimately decide when there are deemed to be special considerations. But standard format "living wills" - the ones many people use without really understanding them - actually work on a default leaving the decisions up to "my physician" etc. .. Guess what.
As far as your last statement. If someone had a naked cherub statue and they passed a law making even drawings and statues of child porn illegal, then they might be breaking the law. If someone was studying the sick brains of a child molestor and downloaded some pictures to see what kind of thing to look for when diagnosing a pedophile, they might be breaking the law.Although some laws have good intentions they can be so broad as to violate the rights of people that have nothing to do with the laws origional intent.
I don't think we need to "study" any minds by having institutions using that stuff under any circumstances. The institutions and the people in them might become a major criminal liability themselves no matter how much "control" on them there is.
But I agree with your general angle here. People take pictures of their babies in the bath tub, on the beach etc in their birthday suits. But I think beyond that it is inappropriate, and at some stage immoral. Whether you have a religious belief on modesty of dress or not, in a civilized society the going the other direction is asking for trouble.
Let's say that there was a new wave of child molesting done at the point of a gun. Would you defend the right to bear arms for yourself even though you know that a future child molestor could buy one and use it to rape a child? Right are rights and even the sick depraved scum of the earth have rights until they lose them.
This is not a good example. Everyone has the right to life - and despite the fact that people are killed with firearms it does not affect the right to keep and carry them.
Historically rights of this kind were not an issue. No doubt this kind of thing has been common since man first learned to draw, then photograph. But this "confusion" between "free speech" and "expression" is insanity. I can not imagine the legislatures and courts at the time of Washington - or Teddy Roosevelt - having to scratch their heads for very long over any "right" to create, sell or distribute explicit drawings or photographs of children (or adults for that matter).
