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.
Says everything doesn't it?
If you have to ask what is the difference between the government using it's God-granted authority to execute a duly tried and convicted murderer and granting physicians legal authority to enable a suicide you probably wouldn't understand if I explained it. But nevertheless, it IS morally correct for a government to execute murderers and it IS morally wrong to legalize the deliberate premeditated killing of sick people, whether or not you understand why that is true.
Hitler's government was duly elected by the German people, thus giving it both moral and legal authority to execute murderers. But nothing in any moral code of the civilized world gave his government, or any other government, the moral authority to execute innocent people. However, the USSC just granted the state of OR the same illegitimate authority that Hitler took by force, and by so doing placed itself on the same barbaric moral plane as the 1973 court which authorized the legal murder of pre-birth children.
I'd be careful stepping on His prerogatives if I were you.
If you're a conservative it was the correct vote. If you are a Christian you are sadden by the vote.
I think it was correct and it's sad. However, since I can't stop people from committing adultry I cannot also stop them from committing suicide.
If someone makes their own choice to do something wrong and sinful it is there choice and they will pay the price.
The fact that you willfully misunderstand the most basic and simple right of all, the right to life, says plenty about yours.
Your #722 is very well stated!
Of course not.. because judges rule on inconsistency. They choose to find ways to keep the things they want and get rid of those they don't.
I value the right of the individual to make choices concerning themself. When it comes to the rights of another human being born or unborn I value their choice as well even if I can't hear it quite yet.
But the thing is, you're not I. So you live your life your way, I'll live mine my way...but I guess that's not enough for you, huh? You want to interfere in other's lives.
Nope. I just can't abide your playing God with innocent human life.
Again, show me where in the Oregon law there's the slightest bit of "premeditated killing of innocent people"? This is not about euthanasia; it's about suicide! Please, no more strawman arguments.
Are you willing to entertain the possibility that suicide is NOT a 'victimless' crime?
The right to life is your own right to life. If you want to life they you should have that right protected from people wanting to kill you.
However the right to die is something completely different. If you inflict death on yourself that is your choice but neither that right nor the right to make people stay alive is protected by the constitution.
Being we can legislate either way.. which is why it should be left up to the states.
Actually it's the people that off themselves that are going to hell fast if God deems it just to do so.
You need to get up to speed on the language of this debate:
'Innocent' in context is as opposed to 'guilty of a capital offense'.
Well, I'm not the one playing God! You're the one trying to interfere with an individual's rights. You're the one trying to control the outcome of another's life. You're the one who is trying to legislate restrictions on how a person lives his own life!
I'd say that anyone who is against individual rights is not a conservative, even if you speak in tongues! Heck, I wouldn't call Teddy Kennedy a conservative! ;-)
My head nearly exploded upon reading your #733.
I understand perfectly well what the language is...you are the one who seems unable to comprehend the difference between involuntary euthanasia and suicide! Or are you just playing dumb, and it's really a strawman argument you are trying?
Gutless.
Either they legalize all dispensation of drugs by states, giving states the power to set standards, or they federalize all of it. But this is more O'Connorism, the SCOTUS simply doing what they want when they want and making up bullshit law and keeping federal court jurisdiction even as they refuse to make a brightline decision.
GUTLESS.
Scalia has it dead on here:
"The Court contends that the phrase 'legitimate medical purpose' cannot be read to establish a broad, uniform federal standard for the medically proper use of controlled substances. But it also rejects the most plausible alternative proposition, urged by the State, that any use authorized under state law constitutes a 'legitimate medical purpose.' (The Court is perhaps leery of embracing this position because the State candidly admitted at oral argument that, on its view, a State could exempt from the CSA's coverage the use of morphine to achieve euphoria.) Instead, the Court reverse-engineers an approach somewhere between a uniform national standard and a state-by-state approach, holding (with no basis in the CSA's text) that 'legitimate medical purpose' refers to all uses of drugs unrelated to 'addiction and recreational abuse.' Thus, though the Court pays lipservice to state autonomy, its standard for 'legitimate medical purpose' is in fact a hazily defined federal standard based on its purposive reading of the CSA, and extracted from obliquely relevant sections of the Act." (cites omitted)
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.