Md. Feeding Tube Case Changes Law

The WBAL Channel ^ | March 29, 2005 | NA

[NJ_gent]

"It would seem to me that a law that allows certain classes of people to be actively killed but didn't allow the killing of everyone would be a flaming violation of the equal protection clause."

Sounds like a good anti-capital punishment argument...

[festus]

Well there is that bit that says to get capital punishment you have to commit a crime............

[Askel5]

It would seem to me that a law that allows certain classes of people to be actively killed but didn't allow the killing of everyone would be a flaming violation of the equal protection clause.

That's a good question.

But I'm certainly the one to ask ... having totally struck out trying to understand the letter of "constitutional" law. (A pity folks like constitutional scholar Ann Coulter are too busy bashing Old Arab wenches and pulling Whoreowitz stunts on campus these days to address such questions.)

I guess we'll have to ask the folks who introducted the concepts of "down breeding", "Genetic Quality", "Hereditary Quality", and the burdensome nature of non-productive individuals (particularly excess children and elderly) to the Congressional Record.

Maybe they are best positioned to explain why some human beings are superior to others.

[NJ_gent]

"Well there is that bit that says to get capital punishment you have to commit a crime............"

Not at all, you just have to be convicted a couple of times of commiting that crime. Regardless of that, the fact remains that we accept the authority of the state to end the lives of citizens under certain conditions. That then shifts the debate to the next logical step: under which conditions do we, the people, condone the state-ordered termination of human life? That's the only real question remaining, and it's one that must be answered fully in each and every individual state before we can begin to put this issue behind us.