Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Another prescription from the good doctor.
1 posted on 04/22/2002 7:28:24 AM PDT by humbletheFiend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: A Citizen Reporter; Ahban; alcuin; Amelia; anniegetyourgun; AppyPappy; Aquinasfan; ArneFufkin...
Ping!

2 posted on 04/22/2002 7:31:49 AM PDT by humbletheFiend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
The Constitution, and all federal law, has the single and unifying purpose of constituting a federal regime of ordered liberty by which the people, in their God-given equality, govern themselves in dignity and justice.

Bump.

4 posted on 04/22/2002 8:01:12 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
Once again, a 'conservative' who ought to know better shows a stunning ignorance of federalism. Which is to be expected, so long as Big Government grows to his liking.

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."

8 posted on 04/22/2002 8:18:54 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
Like most all politicians Keyes is willing to twist and create new meaning for our Constitution if it advances his position. There is no provision in the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to exercise authority over medical procedures. Since the Constitution does not address the issue the decision is entirely the States unless he now wishes to pretend in this one instance that the Federal Governments Usurpation is legit and justifiable, but then he will have grant the power to the Federal Government on other issues.
11 posted on 04/22/2002 8:42:50 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
Someone please cite the particular Article and Section of the United States Constitution which gives the federal government the power to force people to live. No generalities, specific Article and Section.

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.

26 posted on 04/22/2002 9:37:17 AM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend; yall
Alan Keyes claims:

"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.

43 posted on 04/22/2002 10:17:28 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
Did anyone see Alan Keyes interview of the Thomas More Law Center guy last week? I was wondering if the abortion-breast cancer issue came up. Anyone watch that? Would love a report, please. We don't get MSNBC on our cable line-up. For victory & freedom!!!
51 posted on 04/22/2002 10:25:53 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
One thing has been missing from this discussion: the Declaration of Independence is a political manifesto, not a framework of government.
56 posted on 04/22/2002 10:32:41 AM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
I would disagree with Dr. Keyes that the DoI frames our government - ideologically yes, legally - no. The DoI did not create a government - it seceded from one. I firmly believe in state sovereignity, but even at that level the decision to legalize murder is wrong.

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"?

95 posted on 04/22/2002 11:39:13 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DLfromthedesert
bump.

Be sure to note the yeoman responses by Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

107 posted on 04/22/2002 11:57:41 AM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
Once we go down the road of euthanasia, it can eventually get so far out of control that some will wonder what happened. Those advocating euthanasia may one day be put to death because a relative is impatient for his or her inheritance. After all, a relative might say during the fight against cancer, some disease, or an accident, "Dad's suffering........Just let him go."

Maybe Dad wants to fight for his life, but he can't speak for himself at that moment. Playing God can be very dangerous.

141 posted on 04/22/2002 2:48:06 PM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
the people of oregon voted on it. twice.
157 posted on 04/22/2002 8:18:17 PM PDT by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: humbletheFiend
Perhaps the best case to be made against euthanasia and abortion is to appeal to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
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.
182 posted on 04/23/2002 12:49:53 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson