Bump.
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Dr. Keys is so fundamentally off base here it's not funny. This is a horrible argument that only advances big government. I see so much hypocrisy here it's mind boggling. All of you who whine and bitch and moan about the government "knowing what is best for you" on so many issues, but think that if you're terminally ill it should be able to force you to stay alive and suffer for several months to several years. Hypocrisy to its very core!
Many of you also do not approve of even medical marijuana. You would force terminally ill patients to use cheap quality artificial pain killers or dangerous natural ones like injective opiates. Whatever happened to the concept of dying with dignity? Have none of you that support Keys's argument here seen a loved one or pet waste away because someone kept them alive longer than their body naturally could sustain? I have, and I swore that I would never allow that again.
So ultimately, f*$% off Ashcroft and your big government loving administration. Let the people have control over their bodies and their lives. Oh wait, that would imply we should actually be a free society in deed and not just name and wishful thinking alone. I think the ramifications of a society that is actually free in deed and not words alone are too great for many of you to handle.
"The Declaration of Independence states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator – not by human choice – with certain unalienable rights, foremost among which is the right to life.
Exacty who our 'creator' is, - has been a matter of some dispute, and in any case does not exclude human free will as the basis for our rights. -- 1st claim refuted.
If the Declaration of Independence states our national creed, there can be no right to take any innocent human life, not even one's own, for this is to deny the most fundamental right of all.
The right to end your own suffering can hardy be claimed to be an 'innocent' taking of life. -- The law in question has plenty of safeguards to insure it is an entirely voluntary decision by an aware adult that has an inalienable right to make it. - 2nd refuted.
The right to life is unalienable. That means we may not justly trade it away for some perceived improvement in our material condition, as we might sell the title deed to our house or car. If we kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our life. We act unjustly.
- An unjust act against whom? There is no victim. --- An informed personal choice is made to end our own terminal illness, not to 'improve our material condition'. --- Death is hardly an improvement of the human condition. ---- 3rd claim refuted.
We usurp the authority that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights.
Keyes presumes to know our creators basis for authority. - 5th false claim. -- And he repeats his 1st claim, that he knows the basis of our rights. He does not. His opinion is nothing more than just that.
Keyes should stick to defending his political views of the constitution. -- He allows his religious views to lead him into defending the very type of authoritarian state he otherwise detests.
No one can sanction the murder of an innocent life - neither before they have the opportunity to be born, nor those that for whatever reason choose to have theirs ended.
The pathetic attempt to justify it is an simply an escape for cowards - to assuage their own guilt while morally being able to claim that they did not kill themselves. Would any of them choose to stand before a firing squad to exercise their "choice"?
What was the name of that movie where people died at age 30 (willingly of forcefully)? "Logan's Run"?
Be sure to note the yeoman responses by Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
Maybe Dad wants to fight for his life, but he can't speak for himself at that moment. Playing God can be very dangerous.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.To say that someone has a "right" to physicisn-assisted suicide is to use the same convoluted logic that went into the Roe v. Wade decision.