Kobun Heat said:Right. Let's say I had two puppies, one in each hand. I tell you that I'm going to kill both of them. But, I say, if you sign this paper I'll only kill one of them. Wanting to improve the general situation for puppies, you do so. Then one puppy goes in the woodchipper.
Is it fair to say that you are in favor, then, of killing some puppies?
I love the dramatic analogy; I guess patients whose quality of life is too poor are now puppies. But regardless, I'd say yes. Bush has been wholly inconsistent in, shall we say, his "err on the side of life" policies, regardless of the status of patients. He's been directly responsible for losing hundreds of lives of inmates and indirectly so of soliders thanks in large part to his wreckless approach to the Iraq war.
However, that said, the bigger issue here, and the far less subjective one, is the blatant abuse of executive and legislative power to attempt to override the checks and balances of the judicial system, all to interfere in a trifling personal case of all things. We're talking about going against about 20 judges' decisions now, and it's safe to say that both parties have had more than enough of their day in court.