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

Skip to comments.

Attorney General Ashcroft Plays "Doctor" in Oregon! [Doctor assisted suicide and a new liberal site]
www.TheAngryLiberal.com ^ | Nov. 16, 2001 | The "Angry Liberal"

Posted on 11/17/2001 3:45:27 PM PST by summer

Attorney General Ashcroft Plays "Doctor" in Oregon!

Just for fun, let's say you're captured by terrorists. After a twelve-second-long trial, you are convicted of "Crimes Against (insert a religion you think is silly here)." You are sentenced to die in one of two ways: 1) quickly and painlessly, or 2) slowly and agonizingly over a period of months while your family is forced to watch. Which death would you choose? Death #1? Really? Guess what? Attorney General John "Major League" Ashcroft is working hard to take Death #1 off of our list of choices and force us to endure Death #2. With the simple issuance of a directive, Ashcroft has signaled that he will ruin physicans in Oregon who help terminally ill patients choose Death #1 under the state's Death with Dignity Act. So much for Compassionate Conservatism.

Ashcroft, former Missouri senator who lost his senate seat to a dead Democrat (Missourians figured that Mel Carnahan at room temperature was better than Ashcroft at 98.6 degrees), was quickly scooped up, along with other Republican losers around the nation, to form the perfect loser administration under presidential second-place finisher George W. Bush. After deciding that a religious fanatic would be a good choice for U.S. Attorney General, Bush's short list included Ashcroft and two others. Bush was then informed that fellow Texan David Koresh was a currently a pile of soot and the Asian community vote-magnet Shoko Asahara had said through an interpreter, "I'd sooner ride the subway," so the nod went to Ashcroft.

Now Ashcroft is taking time that could be otherwise wasted pursuing terrorists in order to pursue doctors. On November 7, Ashcroft issued a directive stating that physicians who helped their terminally-ill patients end their own lives under Oregon state law could have their licenses to distribute federally controlled drugs revoked.

Why would Ashcroft do this? This stunt violates the following Republican principles:

1) The government should stay out of people's lives.

2) If government is needed, decisions are best made at the local level, not in Washington, D.C.

3) If federal oversight is needed, it should be done via legislation and not unilaterally from another branch of government (Republicans whine about "legislating from the bench," except when deciding presidential elections, remember?).

It also violates the following American (as opposed to Republican) principles:

1) Decisions about medical treatment should be made by the patient and the doctor, not a third party.

2) People should be allowed to own their own lives.

3) Government officials should check their religious beliefs at the door when they enter their offices.

American Principle number three is certainly Ashcroft's biggest constitutional nemesis, and his opposition to it probably precipitated his actions in this case. After all, suicide is a sin to Christians, right? If God sees fit to give you an unbearable disease, who are you to argue with Him? Ashcroft' s belief in this principle appears to trump not only his vocational responsibilities, but his political affiliation as well. He is apparently a "Christian" first, a Republican second, and an Attorney General third. We ain't payin' ya for the first two, pal.

Personally, I'm a believer in assisted suicide. If death is to be soon, certain, and agonizingly painful, what better way to go than by looking God right in the eye and saying, "You can't fire me. I quit." Herein lies the rub for Ashcroft. Suicide is disrespectful to his god. Kind of like a woman who shows her face on the streets of Kandahar, right, Johnny?

A federal restraining order is currently keeping Ashcroft at arm's length in Oregon, affording the terminally ill some tangible, if short-lived relief. Imagine having to request legal relief from our own Attorney General.

Suddenly, Ed Meese doesn't seem like such a bad guy after all. . .

. . .The Angry Liberal

11/16/01


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last
I see the Dem Party really trying to make a move, and attempting to focus on health care and other domestic issues, since they obviously can't do jack on various other issues with GW in charge.

I'm wondering how this "Angry Liberal's" position on assisted suicide would be refuted here on FR.

Is assisted suicide solely a religious issue?

It's a very complex issue for me -- I believe there are religious issues involved, and I don't want doctors to abuse their powers, but: I have honestly seen a lot of prolonged medical suffering of others, eventually ending in death of the patient. All the misery beforehand was a great strain on the family members I know.

A very close friend of mine spent her entire childhood raising her brothers and sisters, while her mother died a very slow and agonizing death. After a dozen painful years, her mom finally died of cancer. During that time my friend never really had a childhood -- or a mother. And, her mother didn't have any real life as the cancer spread throughout her body -- but, she had a lot of pain and suffering.

I'm somewhat torn here. There are moral issues and issues of human suffering. And, if I had cancer -- I'm not sure what I would want done. In my friend's mother's case, that entire family's lives revolved around the mother, as she lay dying all those years. Would it have been less painful for the mother? Or for the family? Would G_d have understood if the family's decision had been to engage in a doctor assisted suicide, if the mother had wanted it -- would it have been forgiven in light of these circumstances?

I don't know. It is not an easy topic for me, because I have seen the suffering, up close, on one side of this issue.
1 posted on 11/17/2001 3:45:27 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: summer
I know that this issue can cause a divide, but I know where I stand....

Please check it outMy Letter to the Editor about Ashcroft and this issue.

Ashland, Missouri (visiting in Nitro WV)

2 posted on 11/17/2001 3:55:01 PM PST by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface
Thanks, I will read it.
3 posted on 11/17/2001 3:57:13 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: summer
As far as I'm concerned, this article should have a MAJOR BARF ALERT warning. There is so much wrong with assisted suicide, it's hard to know where to start.

If someone really wants to kill themselves, no one is stopping them, but don't get doctors involved in that grisly business.

The pressures put on the frail, the elderly, the ill are bad enough without having society encouraging them to ask a "doctor" to kill them. Don't get me started.

4 posted on 11/17/2001 4:02:56 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface
That was quite interersting.

Thanks for sharing it with me.

One of the most surprising statements I read in the subject editorial resulting in your letter, was this one, not on the topic of assisted suicide. I couldn't help but wonder: why wasn't this point made plain by the opposition, at the time GW was getting lambasted for his position?:

[From editorial:]

... Remember last year’s Republican primary, when George W. Bush was asked his opinion about the Confederate battle flag flying over the state Capitol of South Carolina? Some people called it a dodge when he answered that it was properly a question for the people of that state, not for an aspiring federal officeholder. It wasn’t a dodge; it was the statement of a committed conservative....
5 posted on 11/17/2001 4:03:30 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rface
I think that the Justice dept, needs to stay out of a state issue, I don't care how much they morally hate it.

The state of Oregon Passed it twice, not just once but twice, I think the feds have no business in this issue.

I think the above article is hateful and spiteful and hurts the Death with Dignity cause more then it helps. I am NOT a liberal, but in this instance, it is the patients life, and the safeguards built in are more then enough to make sure that it is not abused.

And this slippery slope everyone keeps talking about, it is a no go from the get go. No one would vote for euthanasia at a certain age or any other ridiculous thing people are talking about.

The Death with dignity was a necessary law due to the ridiculous and STUPID laws regarding pain management in terminally ill patients. People were dying in extreme pain because Doctors were afraid to prescribe the drug doses necessary to alleviate the patients pain. Something about addiction or something stupid, the patient is dying, what is the difference if they become addicted to a pain med?

Bottom Line, this is a state issue and the fed's have no place in it, especially through the justice dept!!
6 posted on 11/17/2001 4:07:29 PM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. See post #6, not from me, for a very different view. As for me, I am still thinking about this matter.
7 posted on 11/17/2001 4:10:19 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Thank you for sharing your view. I too was not impressed with the Angry Lib's writing. I appreciate the points you made.
8 posted on 11/17/2001 4:12:10 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: summer
Personally, I think that this is an issue for the state of Oregon to decide. Michigan voters opposed it on a ballot initative. Oregon's backed it.

I don't live there, and neither does Ashcroft. It's none of his business.

9 posted on 11/17/2001 4:15:21 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I think the state should stay our of personal decisions and the medical profession.
10 posted on 11/17/2001 4:20:16 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara; summer
Auntie knows best. I particularly hate seeing Oregonians forced into paying for these death doses for folks on medicare.

Assisted suicide is not health care.

11 posted on 11/17/2001 4:23:15 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
If the state stays out of it too, then -- who decides? Are you saying you belive it's a very personal decision of the person who is ill and no one else?
12 posted on 11/17/2001 4:23:53 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Thanks for your post, Dan. I appreciate hearing your view on this.
13 posted on 11/17/2001 4:24:35 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
belive = believe
14 posted on 11/17/2001 4:25:01 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: summer
No one else. Why get the power of the state involved?

Ashcroft is only enforcing the law on controlled substances, by reversing Reno's exemption for one state to use them in killing. If the federal law is going to have meaning, he had to reverse her single exception. The DOJ can't say to CA that docs can't prescribe pot, but Oregon can prescribe lethal injections. It doesn't make sense. The DOJ will prevail in this case - on the basis of the law. And when it does - people in Oregon can still off themselves by whatever means they can get their hands on themselves.

15 posted on 11/17/2001 4:30:48 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rface
GO! Could not have said it better. But I think a good many of the other Christian and the Jewish religions (Orthodox) are against "suicide" or murder with permission.

There was a post

There was a post that the government should stay out of peoples lives. TRUE, but death is another matter, including unborn children. The Constitution guarantess "the right to life..." - but the liberals think it can be changed by lawyers, judges and popular opinion - always citing the need to protect the rights of minorities - double speak all the way.

16 posted on 11/17/2001 4:33:45 PM PST by Henchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
but Oregon can prescribe lethal injections

Where the devil did you hear this? Lethal injections, talk about disinformation. Let me fill you in, since you seem to be so misinformed.

1: the patient must have less then 6 months to live, and given 2 opinions by 2 different doctors.

2: The patient MUST be menatlly competent to make such a decision.

3: Then the Doctor Prescribe the lethal dose of medication to the patient, the patient then picks up the drugs, takes them home, and takes the drugs per doctors instructions.

The doctor ONLY prescribes the drugs, NOTHING more. Now QUIT spreading desinformation. Opinions are fine, but outright lies are unacceptable!!
17 posted on 11/17/2001 4:40:06 PM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
A fundamental principle of modern liberal reasoning is the primacy of federal law over state law and the Tenth Amendment be damned. Your cover is slipping.
18 posted on 11/17/2001 4:41:13 PM PST by athiestwithagun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: summer
Now that I've calmed down just a wee bit, let me first start out by saying that I watched my own mother die a long battle with cancer. It was an honor for us siblings to give back to her in her last days on earth some of what she had given to us. She was well cared for and relatively pain free. The "doctors are afraid to give pain meds" argument is a red herring in most places today. Where it's not, we need to work on that problem, not kill people.

Pretend that you are old, frail and not in too good health. You've got a little money stashed away, maybe a house and a few investments. You love your kids and they love you. You'd do anything for them. Maybe you're a little depressed about getting old and sick. After all, you've lived a good life. Further pretend that your kids are struggling (what kids aren't after all?) and they could really use some of your $$. Can you imagine that you would feel some subtle pressure to "get out of the way?" Even in this "best case" scenario, there would be plenty of pressure.

Now let's change the scenario just a bit. Pretend some of your kids didn't turn out so great, which really depresses you. You are old, you're tired, you're sick. How many cruel comments by your "heirs" do you think it would take for you to ask a "doctor" to put you out of your misery? Do you think that would be in your best interests, or in your kids interests to kill yourself so they could have more material goodies?

What happens if you get really sick, do you really want greedy heirs having the power to tell the doctor to stop your care, even if there is a good chance you will recover? That is what's happening in Holland, you know. Why should the doctors care? After all, it's legal.

I believe that Oregon has a comprehensive medical plan that covers just about everyone. Since the government is paying for your medical care, not you, don't you have a duty to "get out of the way" and save the system some money? Some medical conditions in Oregon are considered "too expensive" to treat, so those people are out of luck. The same is true of Medicare. Once we stop paying for our own care, we become only so much as an line item in some HMO's balance sheet.

We all like to think that we will be lucid and in charge toward the end of our lives and that our relatives (heirs) will have nothing but our best interests at heart. We are living in a dream world. Most people who commit suicide are depressed, and treating the depression is the most compassionate thing we can do to help them over the hump.

You talked about seeing the problems in your friend's household, but perhaps they learned valuable lessons in caring for their sick mother. I know I am a better person for having the privilege of caring for my mother in her last days. I learned many things about myself and about her that I never would have known if we hadn't had that time together. Was it easy? No, of course not, but it was definitly worth it for both of us.

If you think most old, sick, handicapped people are just sitting around waiting for their doctors to be able to kill them, I think you are mistaken. If that was so, many more would be committing suicide on their own. Most people want to go on living even if their lives aren't all that we would want them to be.

Did you know that there is an organization of handicapped people called "Not Dead Yet"? They are mightily afraid that the current push for assisted suicide will put even more pressure on them to "get out of the way." Don't they have hard enough lives without having to justify to society that they have a right to keep on living?

19 posted on 11/17/2001 4:41:22 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Henchman
See, but here is what I would expect some to argue:

OK, so you're AGAINST abortion, AGAINST assisted-suicide -- fine. But -- you're FOR the death penalty? What happened to your pro-life position?

Note: I'm just playing devil's advocate here, for purposes of a polite discussion.
20 posted on 11/17/2001 4:42:15 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Annie, Thanks for your post #15. I appreciate it.
21 posted on 11/17/2001 4:43:24 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Aric2000, it might be helpful for all to know you are residing in Oregon. (And, it might not be.) But, I wanted to mention it. And, thank you so very much for the information you are providing here on this thread.
22 posted on 11/17/2001 4:45:09 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
In addition to other very good points you make, I think this is an outstanding point you make here:

Most people who commit suicide are depressed, and treating the depression is the most compassionate thing we can do to help them over the hump
23 posted on 11/17/2001 4:49:46 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
Really appreciate your entire post #19. You gave me a lot to think about. Thank you so much, AP.
24 posted on 11/17/2001 4:51:03 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
Your scenarios really don't mean anything. It should be a persons choice. NO ONE elses!!

If a person has less then 6 months to live, is competent to make the decision, and feels that dying in pain and helpless in a bed is NOT the way they want to go, WHO ARE YOU to tell them they are wrong? It is NONE of yours or anyone elses business!!

The state of Oregon voters passed the law, and now you "conservatives", lovers of individual and states rights want a federal agency to stop it.

hypocrites, you are all hypocrites!!! Conservatives my eye!!
25 posted on 11/17/2001 4:53:45 PM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
A little side note about CA doctors prescribing pot for pain control.

The CA law was sold to the public as a compassionate solution to intractable pain. It was never any such thing. If the promoters really wanted to help those in pain, they would have attempted to get pot treated like other controlled substances. i.e., prescribed by a doctor and dispensed by a pharmacist.

It was nothing more than a backdoor attempt to legalize pot little by little.

BTW, before someone jumps on me for misrepresenting Oregon's health plan, let me say that I don't live there, and I probably should have kept my mouth shut. :-) I probably got at least part of my comments about the plan wrong. I'm sure the good folks here will let me know where I am in error. :^)

Thanking you all in advance. :-/

26 posted on 11/17/2001 4:56:26 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Sorry about that, but if you are going to call yourself a conservative, at least be consistent....

The state voted it in, NO WHERE is it unconstitutional, the feds need to mind their own business. If you personally do not like it, then do not move here, visit here or buy anything from Oregon, pretty simple if you ask me!!
27 posted on 11/17/2001 4:58:46 PM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: summer
"1) The government should stay out of people's lives."

That is a Republican principle? You could have fooled me. That kind of nanny-state intervention has been a Republican strong suit. "They" only sream about it when a Democrat does it.

2) If government is needed, decisions are best made at the local level, not in Washington, D.C.

Again, that is NOT a Republican principle. George Bush even wants to federalize private schools fer cry'n out loud.

3) If federal oversight is needed, it should be done via legislation and not unilaterally from another branch of government (Republicans whine about "legislating from the bench," except when deciding presidential elections, remember?).

So Republicans (along with Democrats) are blatant hypocrites. Tell me something I don't already know.

It also violates the following American (as opposed to Republican) principles:

1) Decisions about medical treatment should be made by the patient and the doctor, not a third party.

Actually, the AMERICAN principle is that decisions concerning one's body should be made by that person ALONE. If he/she wishes to consult a doctor, that again should be THIER CHOICE.

2) People should be allowed to own their own lives.

Two words: Drug War.

3) Government officials should check their religious beliefs at the door when they enter their offices.

Two words: Rainbow Farm

One thing is ABSOLUTELY, and without question a truism -- Ashcroft IS NOT, I REPEAT IS NOT a Christian. He is just a run-of-the-mill Talibon zealot thug. He gives true Christians a very bad name.

28 posted on 11/17/2001 4:59:37 PM PST by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
You are absolutely right. It is not any of my business if someone wants to commit suicide, although I think the compassionate thing to do is to treat their depression and help them with their pain problems so that they can live out their last days in relative comfort.

That being said, I also don't think that it is in the best interests of society to license doctors to kill people. If people want to commit suicide, they can do it on their own.

29 posted on 11/17/2001 5:00:04 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Wow. A very passionate rebuttal, on your post #25. I'm going back and forth so much here, my head feels like I am watching a world cup tennis match on this thread. Your serve.
30 posted on 11/17/2001 5:04:19 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
"A little side note about CA doctors prescribing pot for pain control."

They want pot -- let them drink alcohol, eh?

Once pot is "controlled" as you suggest, the price would sky-rocket, and yet another method of controlling pain would be out of reach for those without insurance, and would give even MORE ammunition to the Socialized Medicine crowd.

My father died of cancer. It was a slow death. He smoked pot. It helped. That's all I know. It worked for him. You would have me believe that my father is a criminal. He was a Godly and righteous man.

BTW: The pill form of THC (the active ingredient of marijuana) depends on the person's ability to keep down what they ingest -- an IMPOSSIBILITY for those with accute nausea. Smoking IS the best option. THC pills also costs $10.00 per pill -- making a month's supply cost well over $600.00 (I know because I paid for them). Marijuana cost me $20.00 a quarter, and was more effective. I'd do it again in a heart-beat -- screw the government and their "compassion"!

31 posted on 11/17/2001 5:10:57 PM PST by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: summer
Here is a resource for you:

Death As a Salesman Video
by Brian Johnston

Get more info. and request a copy today!

Video excerpts:
Interview with Brian Johnston
Interview with Joni Eareckson Tada

 


32 posted on 11/17/2001 5:11:29 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
Well! Your post #28 really threw me for a loop. With all due respect to you and others on this forum, and I am not trying to turn this thread into a different discussion -- are you saying you believe that abortion is the "American principle"? Just curious -- as that's what I concluded from your comments here:

1) Decisions about medical treatment should be made by the patient and the doctor, not a third party.

Actually, the AMERICAN principle is that decisions concerning one's body should be made by that person ALONE. If he/she wishes to consult a doctor, that again should be THEIR CHOICE.

33 posted on 11/17/2001 5:14:40 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
If people want to commit suicide, they can do it on their own.

Now, is that what the "Hemlock Society" is all about? I don't know much about it.
34 posted on 11/17/2001 5:16:16 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"hypocrites, you are all hypocrites!!! Conservatives my eye!!"

I am glad I found this site. If for no other reason, it has taught me that Republicans are just Socialists posing as Conservatives, while Democrats are Socialists posing as Liberals.

They are so much alike, it is scary!

35 posted on 11/17/2001 5:16:54 PM PST by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
So, if the pill form doesn't work, why not let the pharmacist dispense it in smokable form? The cost is another matter that can be solved without making drugs legal and readily available to anyone.

I am not a libertarian. I am a coservative.

36 posted on 11/17/2001 5:17:22 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: summer
"are you saying you believe that abortion is the "American principle"? Just curious -- as that's what I concluded from your comments here:"

I am glad you asked that question. No, abortion is NOT a right. It is murder.

I support the Bill of Rights. The foundation of ALL other rights, is predicated on the right to life.

37 posted on 11/17/2001 5:19:25 PM PST by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
Serious physical medical problems in my family have caused me to have very close contact with certain doctors at times in my life, and even the most conservative of them have told me there are very important medicinal benefits to be gained by smoking pot for certain people who are sick.
38 posted on 11/17/2001 5:20:15 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
Re your post #32. Thanks for the info. I will check it out.
39 posted on 11/17/2001 5:21:23 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
Re your post #35 -- for the record, I am a former Dem and now an independent. I lean to the right on some issues, and to the left on others. Sometimes I am undecided. Like here.
40 posted on 11/17/2001 5:22:28 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: summer
Interesting you should bring up the Hemlock society. I don't remember all the details, but I believe that Derrik Humphery, founder of the Hemlock Society, "encouraged" his first wife to commit suicide when she got breast cancer. When his second wife came down with the same malady, I think he was unsuccessful in getting her to commit suicide. There was a big blowup in the papers about it a few years ago. I don't remember the whole story. Maybe someone else here does. My dear husband wants his dinner now, so I'll have to leave you all for a while. If no one remembers the story, I'll try to track it down later tonight. Have fun here on FR. TTYL.
41 posted on 11/17/2001 5:22:32 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
In light of your post #37, then, would you rewrite in any way what you wrote, as quoted in my post #33?
42 posted on 11/17/2001 5:24:10 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
"The cost is another matter that can be solved without making drugs legal and readily available to anyone. "

And just how would this be done? More government? The pills cost less than 5 cents to produce. They are sold anywhere from 6-10 dollars EACH. You are advocating price controls. Price controls are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (Besides the fact that they have never worked from a historical perspective)

California had a system of distributiuon, but that low-life Ashcroft sent in his storm troopers to shut them down. (Gee we must have won the War on Terrorism if he could spare that many people to shut down these distribution centers).

Why on earth should ANYONE be forced to pay for something that they can grow themselves anyway? That's not compassion. That's a shake-down for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical Complex.

43 posted on 11/17/2001 5:26:32 PM PST by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
Re your post #41 - huh! I don't recall any of that, but I do remember hearing something about them trying to teach people how to committ suicide -- which I thought rather odd at the time. I think later I read such goal was the purpose of their organization.
44 posted on 11/17/2001 5:26:57 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
Re my post #42 -- And, BTW, I am not implying you should rewrite anything; I am just trying to follow your logic here. And, well, I can not align your subsequent stated position about you being pro-life with what I quoted from you originally. I just can not reach a "pro-life" conclusion by reading what you originally wrote.
45 posted on 11/17/2001 5:28:59 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: summer
"In light of your post #37, then, would you rewrite in any way what you wrote, as quoted in my post #33?"

I do not understand the question (I can be dense).

A person has the right to live their PEACEFUL life as he/she sees fit. Murder is not peaceful. It obviously infringes on other's rights -- ergo, abortion is not a right.

I am consistently pro-life -- even to my opposition to the death penalty.

46 posted on 11/17/2001 5:40:55 PM PST by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
I was talking about what you wrote here, as this is what people who call themselves "pro-choice" usually say:

Actually, the AMERICAN principle is that decisions concerning one's body [a woman's body] should be made by that person [woman] ALONE. If he/she wishes to consult a doctor, that again should be THEIR CHOICE.
47 posted on 11/17/2001 5:47:37 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: summer
Yes but I clarified that statement -- I thought.

A person has the right to self-determination -- not the determination of others to their detriment.

Is that clear? Perhaps it would be helpful if you stated your position.

48 posted on 11/17/2001 5:51:14 PM PST by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
What's the difference between assisted suicide and killing unborn babies? And how can medicos participate in either evil practice and still "do no harm?"
49 posted on 11/17/2001 5:58:55 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
It's not clear to me, because: does the line I put in bold above stand as you would like it to stand? That's all I want to know. Because: your line, in bold above, is the same line used by people who hold the OPPOSITE point of view (on abortion) than you! So, your line above, in bold, is a bit confusing, that's all! :)
50 posted on 11/17/2001 5:58:57 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

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.

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