41–50 of 99 posts
Since it's Iowa, he should use Jesus Christ as precedent. Jesus died for the the sins of all mankind. His atonement was not reversed after the resurrection.
We've had to warn you about this multiple times before. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this.
Since it's Iowa, he should use Jesus Christ as precedent. Jesus died for the the sins of all mankind. His atonement was not reversed after the resurrection.
> Since it's Iowa, I don’t understand the connection you are trying to make.
Iowa Supreme Court takes a right turn under Gov. Reynolds https://apnews.com/357e55b3c4ca4432b8a460521f9034ff
If the court finds that he is dead, the prison should follow standard procedure and have the body buried or cremated immediately.
It seems to me that defining clinical death as the loss of heart beat and breathing is outdated and it should instead be defined as the cessation of higher brain activity.[1] Alternately, it seems to me like referring to that as death is playing semantics. It seems to me that the defining feature of death is that you cannot come back from it[2]. I'd be interested to hear other perspectives or if I might be overlookin…
re: your note 2, one might argue that secular laws have no particular business considering whether something was an act of god or not, and that a person who is alive at any given time is therefore, for legal purposes, considered to have never died in the first place.
To be pedantic, you've almost certainly signed valid legal contracts that reference "Act of God" verbatim.
I'm not fully convinced the courts got this one completely right. This is a very interesting legal argument and lays emphasis on the need for legislators to express their intentions in writing more fully as opposed to writing laws with such loose and widely applicable terms such as "Life" without giving the term or their intent in using it more context. If, as the Judge argues, that "he did not legally die as his pre…
The US Constitution lays liberty and freedom at the heart of individual rights conferred upon people from God or a superior force. No. It does not. Go read it again.
The bill of rights, which is a part of the constitution clearly declares that rights are God given and any rights enshrined in that document does not take away from that.
I'd urge you to read the guidelines for HN :https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html , specifically:
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
re: your note 2, one might argue that secular laws have no particular business considering whether something was an act of god or not, and that a person who is alive at any given time is therefore, for legal purposes, considered to have never died in the first place.
> secular laws have no particular business considering whether something was an act of god or not To be pedantic, you've almost certainly signed valid legal contracts that reference "Act of God" verbatim.
It’s the DNR that makes this one tricky. His lawyer should have made the argument that keeping him alive against his will instead of letting him die constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Even if he doesn't get release, I think he will have grounds for a substantial financial judgment. Obviously that's not very useful in prison.
It’s the DNR that makes this one tricky. His lawyer should have made the argument that keeping him alive against his will instead of letting him die constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Even if he doesn't get release, I think he will have grounds for a substantial financial judgment. Obviously that's not very useful in prison.
Ridiculous logic games like this are a pretty good reason why excessive legalese is mocked in mainstream culture - because it is totally disconnected from reality and enthralled with their own existence.