Posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:26 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
BREAKING ON THE AP WIRE:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
Is murder a religious definition? Is rape a religious definition? Say for example could a slave owner rape and murder his slaves?
But you DO want to stop me. You want to butt in and make yourself a part of a decision that should be between me, my family, and God. I'll make you a deal: you stay the hell out of the room if I'm ever faced with this decision, and I'll leave you the hell alone if you are. Is that so difficult for you? Are you so racked with insecurity that you simply must have the government making this decision for you? Is you faith so weak that you can't live your own life according to your own principles without a statutory mandate?
Quite emotional about this, aren't you.
The very people who never ever want the government to control THEIR lives, want to CONTROL yours, doncha see?
It is a bit odd that some people want to invite Hillary into their hospice and ask her what decisions should and should not be made. I just wish they wouldn't invite her into mine.
Back in "her time" she already tried to make a LIST of 'acceptable' diseases to have which would be covered by her plan.
No thanks.
Quite disingenuous about this, aren't you.
In what way?
I oppose so-called assisted suicide, and you support it.
Couldn't be clearer from where I sit.
By supporting the Oregon "Death with Dignity" law, you are the one inviting government into the equation.
No kidding.
It's the Hillary portion of the electorate that supports the death cult.
He calls me disingenuous, and then disingenuously brings Hillary into the conversation, acting as if somehow those who oppose this radical leftist crud are connected to her.
Actually, it is him and his friends who are supporting Hillary's agenda.
Who wants the federal gov't involved in this decision? You do.
Who wants the federal gov't to stay out of this decision? I do.
Which one of us is inviting Hillary into the equation again?
The Constitution allows the federal government to intervene when the states make immoral laws. It can outlaw slavery in states, as well as other immoral activities. If Oregon decides that selling 12 year old girls as sex slaves (which it may well do with the way it's going), then the Constitution permits the Federal Government to intervene.
The Constitution, which we all revere and value, DOES allow for the federal government to stop the murder of patients by their doctors. The liberal court we presently have has not done that.
Let me ask you a serious question. Did you go to public schools and college? How is it that you are unaware that the laws of our land are based on Judeo-Christian law as they are?
Why were you never taught that?
Scalia and Thomas.
Who wants the federal gov't to stay out of this decision?
Souter and Ginsberg.
You're disingenuous because you frame this as an issue in which people are being deprived of their Constitutional right to life. That's not the case, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread. Therefore, you're either obtuse or you're disingenuous. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went with disingenuous.
You trust the federal gov't to make this decision for you. I don't.
No.
I plan to read through your lengthy post, but let me first state that I never said that the Declaration was a source of law. I used it merely as an indicator that the Founders understood where the source of law came from.
In the second place, I never even vaguely implied that the nation was founded on a 'fundamentalist Christian version of God's law.'
But in those words, I can see where you're coming from, and your condescension toward those who understand that the founding laws of this nation were based on Judeo-Christian tradition and law.
Now I will read your treatise. But don't expect a response.
I make it a practice not to respond to patronization...........especially when I know I'm right, and the one looking down on me is wrong.
The primary role of government is the protection of the lives of its citizens.
You're accusing me of the very things you yourself have demonstrated on this thread, newbie.
Likely you're just another liberal retread.
"Thomas Jefferson wrote that democracy without morality would fail. Where did that morality come from? Certainly not from ourselves."
"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
He said that it 'must have come' from some other foundation.
He drew no conclusion as to where it originated.
btw, Jefferson's theology was weak. I would never use a Jefferson quote as an accurate theological statement. I'm speaking only of the source of our law's being in Judeo-Christian law........something understood by the Founders.
You're mixing apples and oranges here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.