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.
Again, by sanctioning and codifying assisted suicide, the state of Oregon is complicit in the killing of the innocent under its legislation.
Without the cooperation of the state, assisted suicide is punishable by law. Under Oregon's law, the state is assisting the assist.
You're quite adept at twisting the issue into something it's not.
Why do you think the courts have the right to allow the killing of those who have never been convicted of a capital offense? It has never been so before in America.
You, the folks in Oregon, and six of our SC justices are the ones that are overturning several hundred years of American law and thousands of years of the traditions of Judeo-Christian civilization.
The onus is on you to explain why you are right and our forefathers are wrong.
By that rationale the state is complicit in everything that goes on that is not outlawed. That's giving way too much power and credit to a goverment body and not enough to the individual. IMHO.
Our lives belong to God, whether we admit it or not.
Proof?
They always have. The supposition has always been that the suicidal are crazy, and need protection from themselves.
Which of course begs the question of whether the supporters of 'assisted suicide' aren't more than a little nuts themselves, eh?
"Since when has the "right" to life been transformed into a requirement to live?"
Kind of like how the "right to trial by jury" doesn't mean that you can't just plead guilty and skip right ahead to sentencing.
You'll have more than enough proof in the course of time...
"Without the cooperation of the state, assisted suicide is punishable by law. Under Oregon's law, the state is assisting the assist."
Huh? Read what you just typed. If the state lets you commit a certain activity, any activity, such as lets say playing golf.. The state is assisting you in playing golf? And if you play golf to the point where it ruins your marriage because you are never home then the state would complicit in that whole chain of affairs?
The first thing to go by the wayside is the fear of God, followed by the abandonment of respect for the innocent lives of those who were made in His image. Shortly thereafter, liberty in all its various forms is the final casualty. This is the lesson of history.
In Oregon's case, it's not a matter of leaving something untouched by law. It's a case of actually CODIFYING and REGULATING the killing of innocent people.
But that's beside the point. The argument that it's just individuals doing the killing, not the state, is even more bogus when we consider that although the states never OWNED slaves, the states were in violation of the 5th Amendment (made clearer by the 13th and 14th later), and complicit in slavery by allowing it.
Why not both?
Certainly - no doubt some people object on both grounds.
That's an inescapable fact.
Roe v. Wade was a horrendous decision for many reasons, only one of them being that it trampled states' rights. This Oregon decision may be disagreeable from a purely pro-life standpoint, but the bottom line is that it should be up to the states to enact their own laws without Big Brother Fed'ral Gubmint coming in to stomp on what these elected legislators have done. It's up to pro-lifers in all states to elect more friendly local and state legislators, certainly, but demanding that the federal government intervene whenever your state's elected officials do something you don't like is conceding to socialism a big first step.
"In Oregon's case, it's not a matter of leaving something untouched by law. It's a case of actually CODIFYING and REGULATING the killing of innocent people."
So by the process of regulating but not banning of lets say again, tobacco use and people eventually die because of this; a state would be an accessory to "killing innocent people"? Even though all of the people consuming the products will be doing so of their own free will?
You're asking my to prove something that you're not going to accept on my word, anyway.
The choice about whether to believe God and/or generations of His followers is a personal one. You'll have to make it on your own. I only hope for your sake it is a timely decision...
Apples and oranges. Try another fruit.
I think the Federal government should be limited, as should the States. One of the very limited functions of State and Federal governments is to protect life. The Federal government should be limited to its Constitutional requirements. It should not be limited to only those functions which are unconstitutional. States should be required to comply with the Constitution. Obviously, not everyone agrees that our Constitution is a good thing.
You'll find that most prolifers are very much in favor of states' rights.
But, there are transcendent principles, codified in the Bill of Rights, that trump states' rights.
Why is this so hard for you folks to understand?
If a state can overrule the right to life, it can overrule the right to every expression of liberty, and soon will.
The U.S. Supreme Court did that long ago.
it can overrule the right to every expression of liberty, and soon will
... and the U.S. Congress is trying to do so, irrespective of what state legislatures do.
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.