SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OREGON'S SUICIDE LAW

ap ^

[bvw]

Why not?

[ohioWfan]

I didn't say Jefferson was a Christian. And I certainly never said anything about 'fundamentalist Christianity'.........(your bias is showing TK).

And not one of those quotes (none of which are a bit surprising to me), negate anything I've said.

The Founders had a fundamental understanding of Judeo-Christian law on which they based our laws and Constitution.

The fact that Jefferson didn't want the state to be controlled by the church is a duhhhh! Who does? Certainly not any evangelical Christian I know. That's what the left (and obviously YOU, are afraid of, but its not based on reality. It's based on paranoia).

God's laws are intrinsic in the laws of this land. It's not religion controlling the government. It's a government that WORKS because it is based on higher law.

You're also a product of public education, aren't you? You've got some facts missing in your fundamental understanding of the founding of this nation.

[Dr. Nobel Dynamite]

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.

That's the spirit! When you run out of arguments to make, go with a non-sequitur and follow up with a personal insinuation. Good for you EV, your reputation is certainly deserved.

I think we're done here. Good luck with all that.

[EternalVigilance]

Well, your post certainly verifies my surmise.

[Almondjoy]

Yes.. yes we are.

[Almondjoy]

Thanks I appreciate that.

My wife is carrying twins. They are my first children. She has two from a previous marriage.

We are faced with being asked to take various tests to see if they have downs or cistic fibrois. The answer we came up with is that we don't need these tests. I apply the same logic that I do to someone that is in pain and wanting to die.

I wouldn't ask my wife and gladly my wife agrees that even if there would be a problem we aren't going to abort the problem away. If God thinks we need to raise a child with a disability then that's what we need to do. We can't take matters into our own hands.

I took no offense from your post by the way. You have a very strong belief and I hope you are able to sustain that through your own old age.

[ohioWfan]

Thank you, TAdams! Thank you very much. :)

[ohioWfan]

I note no response to your question, "Why not?" from TK.

I'll be curious as to his/her answer to that question....

[cccp_hater]

Just to get the facts clear:

Oregon's law requires the patient must be evaluated to be within 6 months of death by at least 2 doctors and be of legally sound mind. The doctors cannot directly have involvement in the patients death other than prescribing the drugs to the patient who fit the above criteria. There have been slightly over 200 people who have committed suicide in this fashion over the last 7 years.
I do not believe the actual constitutionality of this law have ever been put before the supreme court (correct me if I'm wrong).

It's funny there are 3 real sides to this equation.

One side is arguing that assisted suicide as practiced in Oregon is immoral and thus the feds have to step in (which can still happen if the congress passes a law specifically outlawing assisted suicide).

Another side (the supreme court) is arguing that the state of Oregon passed a law and the attorney general has no arbitrary right to pull doctors licenses or charge them with a crime under the current understanding of his powers.

And of course there is a third group (the voters of Oregon) who want the end of life decisions to be between themselves and their doctors under a strict definition of law by which a doctor can prescribe a lethal dosage of drugs to a patient with the understanding that a "mercy" killing will be taking place by the patients own hand.

Does this about sum it up?

[Bushbacker]

political values are mostly secular. The three primary influences on the U.S. Constitution were the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta and English Common Law. Those three have a far greater bearing on the document then the Bible

____Before the Constitution, there was the Articles of Confederation....which was junked as unworkable...the Constitution itself was almost immediately amended...so it wasn't considered sacronsanct either at the time...the Constitution provides a legal framework for the unalienable rights given by God and not the state or the people...it is a secular document,yes, designed to protect rights that exist beyond the secular realm.

[Clinging Bitterly]

...had to "watch" what they gave out with "those type of drugs."

It's too bad you had such an experience. A hospice that's stingy with the drugs isn't serving it's purpose. We probably had enough morphine in the house, in several different forms, to kill a team of horses. We were instructed to dose her any time she wanted it (or if unable to communicate - which never happened in her case - whenever it appeared she needed it). But Sacred Heart Hospice (operated by the Catholic order Sisters of Saint Joseph) is one of the pioneers in the business of providing hospice care as a primary function, and are probably among the best at what they do. Thank God for their service, and the insurance to pay for it. It may have helped that she worked at a hospital run by that same order and that the nun who ran that hospital put the best folks she had to offer in charge of all aspects of her care, but I dunno. I have never heard a negative thing about that hospice unit. Of course if anyone ever asked them to help obtain "assisted suicide", I'm sure it would be (politely) refused in no uncertain terms.

[M. Espinola]

This is an extension of the legalized murder which took place in Florida. Some in here are muttering something about "states rights", like it has something to do with culture of death leftist justices are enveloped in and the same ones are also in favour of tax funded abortions. Death from the cradle to the rocking chair, sounds like Nazi eugenics to me.

This is just another example of the radical left instigating the wrath of G-d on this nation.

The three conservative justices who were apposed Scalia, Thomas & Roberts need to be commended for having a soul.

[supercat]

Who wants the federal gov't to stay out of this decision?
Souter and Ginsberg.

Souter and Ginsberg want the the Supreme Court of the U.S. to have authority over those decisions. In this case, what they wanted went against what the administration wanted, but Raich demonstrated that this isn't about federal government's authority, but rather whether the administration's actions go against the Court's political interests.

[supercat]

Once you acknowledge that, the CSA objection becomes pretty meaningless, and more of an apparent political ploy, and not a legitimate legal objection.

I do not think it much of a stretch to say that deliberately causing a person's death (as opposed to alleviating pain in such fashion as may as a side-effect hasten death) is not a legitimate medical function. It is certainly contrary to the Hippocratic Oath which is supposed to underly the practice of medicine.

That isn't to suggest that people should suffer in agony. Alleviating pain is a legitimate medical function, even when doing so may shorten a person's life. Very large doses of pain killers may cause a person to die in minutes who would otherwise have lasted days, but if they allow the person to have a few minutes of quality time free from pain, that would be fine. But there's a difference between prescribing painkillers in a situation like that, and prescribing drugs whose specific purpose is to cause death.

Too bad the government seems wont to go after the doctors who prescribe pain killers when they serve a legitimate medical purpose, but can't go after doctors who prescribe poisons.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I do not think it much of a stretch to say that deliberately causing a person's death (as opposed to alleviating pain in such fashion as may as a side-effect hasten death) is not a legitimate medical function.

---

We probably agree, and about abortion as well.

Why not let the people of each state decide these difficult moral choices, since you and I are currently unavailable to impose our values on them the way the leftists seem to want to on us?

[supercat]

Why not let the people of each state decide these difficult moral choices, since you and I are currently unavailable to impose our values on them the way the leftists seem to want to on us?

The CSA provides that doctors shall be forbidden from writing prescriptions except when they serve a legitimate medical function; it gives the Attorney General some authority to determine whether a particular usage qualifies. I do not think such restrictions are constitutional, but their constitutionality was not raised as an issue in this case.

Stipulating that the CSA is constitutional, I do not see Ashcroft's determination that deliberate death is not a legitimate medical function to be an abuse of power. I find myself very much in agreement with Judge Thomas; IF one accepts that the CSA is wholly constitutional, the legitimacy of Ashcroft's actions must necessarily follow from that. That does not mean that I believe the CSA to be wholly constitutional, but since nobody in this case particularly challenged that, Judge Thomas couldn't either.

[TKDietz]

I don't really understand how you can look to the Constitution and say that it is based in Judeo-Christian law. What exactly in the Constitution is coming from "Judeo-Christian law? As for our other laws, understand that the federal government had very few of them at the time. Our "founding fathers" didn't write a lot of laws. Those laws Congress did write in the early years after the Constitution was ratified were for the most part all about running the country efficiently and handling the problems of the day. They were not writing laws micromanaging people's lives back then because back then they had a much better understanding of their Constitutionally limited functions. Back then, as was intended, states ran their own internal affairs. They policed themselves. State laws were in many cases derived from Judeo-Christian backgrounds of those who wrote them. Certainly not all of them were, not even most. But religion has always influenced law making. No doubt about that.

I personally do not like laws that are designed specifically to make people live how those who write them think God wants them to live. I do not trust government to make religious determinations for the people. People are going to differ on what God wants or expects of them. Some are not religious at all and I think it's wrong to impose religion on them. I prefer natural law, which in most cases is going to work out to be the same as laws based on religion anyway. We should look at what we all know is right and wrong, regardless of our religious background or lack thereof. If we are going to ban conduct we should look at what conduct is actually harmful to others and that which carries with it a great risk of harm to innocent people. We need to look at whether conduct is justified or excusable. In my opinion, and I'm sure you'll disagree, law making should be something we approach through reason and not through religion.

This great opposition to Oregon's assisted suicide law by so many bothers me because I see it as an attempt for one or many to impose their religious beliefs on another. That's all that is really going on here. Oregon's law appears to be a very limited law that only covers certain instances where someone of sound mind who is dying a painful death can end his life sooner to avoid the agony he is bound to suffer in the coming weeks or months. I personally have a problem with telling someone they must endure agony, needless suffering. The question of whether God will forgive their actions is really one between them and God. It is not for me to decide or anyone else. They may not believe in God or they may believe that God doesn't want them to suffer anymore and would permit them this transgression. This is a very personal question that I think we should let people answer themselves under these circumstances. We are after all a free country. Shouldn't we allow people to make this decision themselves? If these people will burn in Hell for it, that is their own fault. It's their risk to take.

The other problem I have with this is that I do not think this is the sort of thing the federal government has any business getting involved with. The feds want to tamper with a democratically enacted state law. This is Oregon's law regarding something not within the Constitutionally granted powers of the federal government to interfere with. It does not affect me. It does not affect you. It doesn't hurt anyone except perhaps those who knowingly and voluntarily participate in it. It is not "interstate commerce." It comes under no other enumerated power of the federal government either. It is none of the feds' business. They need to take care of their own affairs.

Anyway, that's all I have on this. And to answer your other question, I went to a Catholic prep school and both Methodist and Presbyterian colleges. So I guess you can't really blame my ignorance entirely on public schools.

[TKDietz]

Well the question was kind of stupid anyway so I didn't really feel like dignifying it with much of a response. Rape and murder are not definitions, religious or otherwise. They are crimes. They are crimes because they are against the law. They would be against the law in a theocracy or a country entirely devoid of religion because these are the types of things we all know to be wrong, regardless of our religion or lack thereof.

[kindred]

Six nazi (national socialist) judges are now on the non supreme abort.

[bvw]

In Saddam's Iraq, murder of Kurds abd Shi'as was permitted and performed, at least when his cohort did the murdering, and so too was rape allowed to Saddam and his sons, and other high-mucky mucks.

In Nazi Germany, Jews and Gypsys were fodder for a bright hunt and killing in the morning before breakfast by officials.

In Rome and most other places and times where slavery was widespread, rape of slaves was not a crime, and most killings of slaves were either not criminal or not prosecuted.

Murder and rape are constructions of social definiton, and without those defintions being informed be what in our modern times we cubbyhole as "religion" those defintions do become deadly and miserable for some out-of-favor classes of persons, such is the tale of History.