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.
People of faith need to pray for more voluntary vacancies on The Supreme Court.
What Oregon voters need is an educaiton on The Law Of Unintended Consequences.
**People of faith need to pray for more voluntary vacancies on The Supreme Court.**
Amen to that!
They can. There's nothing in the federal law against allowing the people of each state to decide these difficult moral choices. The people of each state have always had the decision.
They just can't use controlled substances to do it. I suspect we'll hear from Congress on this.
Do you really believe that this is the objection of the Justice Department?
I once read that Utah leads the nation per capita in suicides. If true, this wouldn't surpise me.
Having said that, is there any evidence that those who commit suicide in a red state are conservative or could it be that many don't feel like they fit in?
There is a seperation between church and state however. That seperation was then reflected in the 1st Amendment, State Constitutions and discussions of of law contemporary to the founding of our Constitutional Republic -- it is not G-d and G-d's laws that are seperated and walled out of Federal authority, legislative and judicial informing -- it is the divisions and particulars of sects. It is fully allowed and reccommended by the Founders that what we today call "religion", in that part which contains its most common basics between sects, whether Christian and Jewish at least and inclusive to some extent of others: Native and Muslim, that those basic tenets of "religion" be included in our laws and even are necessary foundations of our laws.
These religiously informed legal concepts encompass laws against murder, against theft and kidnapping, against adultery, against false testimony. hese may today to seem as "secular", they are not. On the positive side, laws which define marriage, which provide for equity in contract, that provide for agency and fiduciary duty -- also religiously informed.
Or whether doctors use a bludgeon, smother with a plastic bag, or a .45 in the mouth? Some ways are unacceptable that's all, controlled substances among them.
I'm sure these "doctors" can find another way to kill their patients. They're smart.
I believe this is their stated objection.
Do you really believe that these death doctors took the Hippocratic Oath? Or did they take the Hypocritic Oath?.
Trying to get banned? Keep it up.
To: highball; Beelzebubba; robertpaulsen; All
robertpaulsen decrees:
They just can't use controlled substances to do it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do those morally opposed to the practice justify opposition to a particular means?
Why bother? Just to be a pest to inconvenience others with different moral views?
1,085 Beelzebubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To: robertpaulsen:
- Do you really believe that this is the objection of the Justice Department?
1,086 highball
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To All:
No paulsen doesn't really believe "controlled substances" are morally evil.
He truly believes in government control.. On any grounds.
It's that pesky authoritarian socialist thing.
1,087 don asmussen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trying to get banned? Keep it up.
1,093 paulsen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feel free to tell us all, -- what part of what's written above is 'bannable', -- considering your positions posted on this thread?
Or, better yet, you might try to refute our observations.
But in any case, its obvious that you are trying to manufacture a way to get me banned, just as you have in the past.
"And why does anyone morally care whether doctors use carbon monoxide, bloodletting, or morphine?"
Or whether doctors use a bludgeon, smother with a plastic bag, or a .45 in the mouth?
Some ways are unacceptable that's all, controlled substances among them.
I'm sure these "doctors" can find another way to kill their patients. They're smart.
Get a grip paulsen. -- Doctors in Oregon are not allowed to "kill their patients".
Its assisted suicide, not murder.
And I suppose you think abortion is merely "assisted termination of a fetus".
Whatever. This is Oregon's issue. If the citizens of Oregon wish to allow suicide in their state, that's their decision. Just don't use federally controlled substances, that's all.
Oregon's legislature passed a law and the Supreme Court updeld it. That's the way it is supposed to work. The 10th clearly states that except where clearly enumerated, the State's reign supreme over the Federal government.
Get a grip paulsen. -- Doctors in Oregon are not allowed to "kill their patients".
They are allowed to assist in suicide, not murder.
Whatever. This is Oregon's issue. If the citizens of Oregon wish to allow suicide in their state, that's their decision.
Thanks for conceding the main point.
Just don't use federally controlled substances, that's all.
Back you go, - in circles. The narcotics used are the best substances available.
In this issue, feds are trying to control suicide, not 'substances'. -- And they are not empowered to control either one..
The "main point" of the article was federal objection to the misuse of controlled substances, not federal objection to Oregon's suicide laws.
Thank you for not letting me down by missing the point altogether.
If the citizens of Oregon wish to allow suicide in their state, that's their decision. Just don't use federally controlled substances, that's all.
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.