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.
I don't believe that and thankfully that is not what our government is based on.
This was not a states rights decision at all. Look at who voted to uphold the Oregon suicide law. They have absolutely no concern over states rights. This is strictly a right to die/kill decision. They are terrified of any decision that might even open the door a fraction of an inch that the government's responsibility to protect life trumps the idea to an absolute right to not be inconvenienced by a baby or an aging adult that must be cared for.
"Oh, so you don't believe in the Bible?" - Of course, not. Not a penny. I happen to be an atheist with libertarian leanings. Thus I consider this SCOTUS decision an excellent one, and if I somehow was added to that court, it would have been 7-3.
For assisted suicide, yes. For abortion, I disagree. A terminally ill sane person can make any decision he/she chooses about his/her living or dieing. No law will ever prevent that. And they must ultimately live (in the afterlife) with the consequences of their decision. God does not want to see assisted suicide, or any suicide, I believe, but people always have choice. An unborn child is a different matter. It should and must be protected.
No bias there.
The issue to me, however, is that no doctor should be writing prescriptions to help someone kill themselves. It's a breach of medical ethics, and contributes to the culture of death.
But the fact that it's morally wrong doesn't give the federal government the authority to step in. This is quite different from the Terri Schiavo situation, where a woman was murdered (without her consent). I believe Congress could step in in that case, as it was a denial of her federal civil rights.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
Hey! Might as well capitalize on a very overworn RINO phrase!
FReepers In Name Only!
I do think it could be a close moral call if one does not take a strongly Christian view concerning suicide. Suicide (but not euthanasia) has been accepted in many cultures in various circumstances (not least military failure) as a voluntary choice. As a Christian, I reject suicide, but I am not sure I can rightfully impose that choice on others in imminent death situations.
The law doesn't give a state the right to a person's life, it only gives that person a right to his or her own life. Self-determination.
But that is completely different from the issue of this case, which was federal power over the state. If it were taken to the court at all, the issue of whether assisted suicide is right needed to be brought by those internal to Oregon, through the courts of Oregon, to the Oregon Supreme Court. Nobody outside had any business in the matter, but the feds decided to expand the drug laws to cover this.
Felos de se.
You should know I have a serious problem with that concept as it applies to self, absent another felony against another. The victims of victimless crime laws are the people.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Life is an unalienable right, an endowment of the G-d, the Creator. A just and lawful Government may not declare murder legal, nor suicide.
So if you want to kill yourself it's ok but if you want to use marijuana for cancer they throw you in jail and confiscate your house. Our government is insane.
Which can lead to terrible and more painful consequences if you don't know what you're doing, and investigation of whomever supplied you with the pills for murder.
Great plan.
In the strictest classical liberal/libertarian sense, the above is correct. However, the conservative movement doesn't not consist merely of such. The concepts of states rights and the Constitution mean nothing if the fundamental right to life is not protected.
That's bad. During the hearings I got the impression that he would support state sovereignty. I guess that goes out the window when his personal beliefs kick in. But I'll have to wait until I read the dissent before deciding whether Roberts is a bad justice.
"So a doctor can help a patient die with lethal drugs, but can't help a patient live with medical marijuana. Go figure."
Whoops, I just said that before I read your post. My point was that the government is insane. Not only insane but dangerous.
My answer followed your confusions expressed as a post by five seconds. See above.
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.