SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OREGON'S SUICIDE LAW

ap ^

[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.

[EternalVigilance]

I think YOU should be on the Supreme Court. :-)

You stated it perfectly, and far better than I could have.

Thank you!

[IranIsNext]

The purpose was to establish a government of laws that would protect and secure each person's Creator- endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.

And how can this be if as you state a person's life belongs to the state? Because you have made it very clear that you think a person only has a right to their own life when fundies think it should. A person dying of cancer's right to life is nonexistent, their life is property of the state, essentially. What they do with their life is restricted by only what would be considered "holy" or something or other like that.

[gogogodzilla]

Sweet, that just means that all the liberals, who find this good and wholesome, will be the ones lining up for the Doctor assisted suicide.

Ensuring that conservatives, who would not consider suicide, increase their percentage of eligible voters.

Liberals... they want to kill off their unborn replacements... and die as soon as possible. No wonder Europe's population is shrinking dramatically.

[EternalVigilance]

Since you didn't answer my question, I'll assume that you agree that no one is being deprived of any constitutional rights in the case of assisted suicide.

Such an assumption would be delusional, and completely in contrast to what I clearly stated.

[IranIsNext]

"Fine. Unfortunately many here on FR feel that physicians are totally responsible for everything that goes wrong with their patients and demand that our gov. step in to micromanage health care"

Hillary Care in first gear.

[Borges]

The state wouldn't be killing anyone. This would be the domain of an invidual and his family. The question is does the state have the right to stop them.

[red irish]

I live in pain constantly and here lately the doctors seemed worried about me taking too much pain medication, that they control. In fact one of the medications they wanted me to try was not a narcotic here in Ky but was in Ohio. And the side effects were just plain awful. They also know how much I hate taking medicine but the pain can be so severe that I can barely stand it. So I guess if I can not take the pain anymore will they give me enough medicine to die with dignity? No I forgot I have to already dying?!

[IranIsNext]

SOme object to suicide as a matter of moral principle, others object to any nanny.

Why not both?

[EternalVigilance]

And how can this be if as you state a person's life belongs to the state? Because you have made it very clear that you think a person only has a right to their own life when fundies think it should. A person dying of cancer's right to life is nonexistent, their life is property of the state, essentially. What they do with their life is restricted by only what would be considered "holy" or something or other like that.

Is that the only way you can debate, is to lie about the stance of your opponents?

No one here claimed that any citizen's life is 'the property of the state'. You made that up.

Our lives belong to God, whether we admit it or not.

[Aquinasfan]

The God-given, unalienable right to life is dead in America. The horrors to follow will not be pretty...

Yup. States have no God-given or constitutional right to legalize murder.

[Dr. Nobel Dynamite]

If you disagree, then please state why you think anyone is being deprived of a constitutional right in this case. You haven't done so yet.

Because a right exists does not automatically mean the government can mandate that right be exercised.

Why do you think Congress should be given more control over the end of your life than you are?

[EternalVigilance]

The question is does the state have the right to stop them.

And, throughout American history, of course the state has the right to prevent the killing of its citizens.

A rather large 'duh' factor there...

[Aquinasfan]

So much for the lock-step Catholic voting block. Kennedy's an asshat.

CINO

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Read post 533.

And just to clarify, I'm not for suicide. I find it to be a coward's way out of life. However, as I understand it, this law requires a patient's approval before he offs himself.

[Borges]

Let me rephrase and ask if the state has the right to prevent a citizen from taking their own life. Do you think the state chase around the suicidal and restrain them?

[RobbyS]

Now maybe the Court will defer to Referendums in California abd Colorado? What gives here? Oregon's morality is closer to O'Connor's? It has always been among the least religious states, a hive of the KKK for instance.

[Gelato]

Please explain to me how the state is killing anyone in an instance of assisted suicide.

Oregon's law sanctions and codifies assisted suicide. The state is therefore complicit in the killing of the innocent via its legislation.

Without the law, the state would punish those doing the assisting, as in the case of Dr. Kevorkian.

[IranIsNext]

"If I was termanally ill, I would want this option, I dont see why Conservatives are against this. Its your life."

"Four spelling mistakes in one line. A new FR record?"

Wow, he made several grammar mistakes. Now what does that have to do with what we are arguing about again?

"BTW, many conservatives are offended because God is offended."

Looks like some people need to go easy on the shrooms, or at least tell a doctor about the voices in their heads. Because how else would they know what pisses God off? Unless they are claiming to be the Messiah. But isn't that heresy?

Don't worry, God disavowed collective punishment after that rain storm thing. I think. You will be saved, the rest of us however will be going to hell.

[IranIsNext]

"Regarding States Rights, most liberals and conservatives are highly principled.


If the state agrees with their position, they are for States Rights.

If the Federal Government agrees with their position, they are for Federal Rights."

Fair enough. ;-)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since when has the "right" to life been transformed into a requirement to live?