Oregon Ping
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
Posted on 10/06/2005 5:25:16 PM PDT by Mike10542
I've been wondering, what is the proper vote in the Oregon right to die case. Is it to let Oregon to do what it wants because of state rights? Or does the question of preserving life weigh more heavily. Which is the way a strict-constructionist, originalist, texulaist, etc. would vote on this case. I read that Thomas might go one way, while Scalia and Roberts another. Is it the case that this case has no definite answer? If so, will the CJ's vote give us a good idea of what he would do in future cases around state rights. Someone told me that even if he rules for the federal government, we should by no means take this to mean he wouldn't defer to the states on most other issues. Any help from legal freepers?
Just like Thomas vs Scalia and Roberts, there is a diversity of opinion on this issue here. Some of us are for Oregon, some of us are against assisted suicide. Its one of those issues that reasonable conservatives can disagree upon.
Oregon Ping
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
Isn't it her(his) body, and she(he) has the right to do what they want to there body?
States' Rights. It is a case of crime- murder in this instance. It is up to the stats to define crime except in Federal jurisdictions like DC, military bases, etc. As reprehensible as it is, it is simply not a federal question. Abortion is the same. It is not the ubsiness of the courts or the feds to ban it or require that it be permitted except in federal jurisdictions and there it is not the business of the Court.
Conservatives can disagree but constitutionalists cannot. It is up to the states to define crime and punishment.
Indeed, why not just call it an "abortion" of the soul?
That issue would be larger than what is under investigation with this case.
As with the ruling that homosexuals can engage in sodomy without it legalizing consensual adult incest, prostitution, and a variety of other sexual offenses, so other acts in private or done to one's own body (like drug use) are not under consideration by these rulings.
Politically, my opinion is that the government should not be required to provide any type of assistance to a person seeking to end their life nor should a physician be party to the deliberate taking of life.
Morally, I believe that suicide is absolutely wrong because it is giving up on God, as if most people who would consider it believed in God.
Better yet, let Oregon do what it wants AND make clear that in all 50 states, a citizen's life is his/her own, not the government's, and that a citizen is therefore free to decide when and if to end his/her life. It is a vile notion that in a free country, the government should have the right to force unwilling citizens to extend their lives in misery, and to force them to incur major expenses for taxpayers and/or insurers (in some cases after forcibly bankrupting the citizen-patient with bills for unwanted medical and nursing care, and thus depriving the citizen of his/her rights to pass on his/her property to the heirs or charities of his/her choice).
That all goes along with what I said. If you make it a part of the Constitution then it is, indeed, a federal question. Until that point it is not the proper concern of the federal courts.
If you would federalize everything you think is wrong then you might as well get rid of those pesky state governments altogether and turn it all over to the Nine Man Oligarchy.
Let your conscience be your guide ~ Bump!
If you make it a part of the Constitution, there is no question and the 9 men (or 7 men and 2 women) in black robes don't get a say.
That is, indeed, how it works.
Doctors help the suffering terminally ill end their lives nationwide with overdoses of pain killers. If the truth were known it is probably more common for a terminally ill patient to die from these overdoses than from the actual illness.
Why do we have double standards when a human has no chance for survival and is suffering compared to other animals? For the terminally ill animal the common moral logic is to "put it out of its misery". Not so for humans even when the suffering person requests it (except in Oregon).
You do realize that I want to die it's none of your or the government's business. Does that help you figure out your vote?
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.