Federally Enforcing Right to Life

worldnetdaily ^ | April 22, 2002 | Dr. Alan Keyes

[Gelato]

The right to life supersedes all other rights. It comes first.

Suppose a man states that it is pursuing happiness to kill off his annoying coworker? Suppose he says he cannot be happy as long as that coworker is alive, and then he kills them? If the right to be “happy” is a higher good than the right live, than society would have to oblige this man.

I recommend you read Keyes’ speech at Missouri Right To Life. If you argue that you can deny yourself your own rights, you are saying there are no unalienable rights. If you allow an exception to the right to life in the case of suicide, who's to say that the exceptions will stop there?

[humbletheFiend]

Thankfully, however, the Fifth Amendment prohibits everyone, including the states, from taking life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

Assisted suicide is a form of homicide, but not all homicides are criminal. As just one example, homicides committed in self defense are not deemed criminal in any state, although state laws vary with respect to the boundaries of that particular defense.

The Fifth Amendment was adopted as an express limitation on the exercise of Federal power. I can think of no one connected with the adoption of the Fifth Amendment who thought that that amendment would serve as a limitation on the right of states to determine for themselves which homicides should be made criminal or non-criminal in their own jurisdictions.

More importantly, what I think you may be missing is that Dr. Keyes does not appear to be relying upon the Fifth Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. Instead, he seems to be looking to the Declaration of Independence as a source of Federal power. That is what I find to be most remarkable about his analysis of this problem.

[AppyPappy]

The right to life is a civil rights matter, therefore, it is a federal matter. A person does not have less worth from state to state. A black man in California has the same civil rights as a white man in Texas. It's not OK to kill either one.

[dheretic]

No just government can ever force you in sound mind to exercise a right. Perhaps you are also in favor of penalizing those that can, but don't vote?

[humbletheFiend]

One thing has been missing from this discussion: the Declaration of Independence is a political manifesto, not a framework of government.

Yours is the traditional view and that's what I find so amazing about this piece. It's really hard for me to imagine what would have been said by the members of the Continental Congress if they had been told that, despite any limitations in the Articles of Confederation, they had the power under the Declaration of Independence to write the criminal laws for each of the states.

[tpaine]

"There is no provision in the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to exercise authority over medical procedures"

So, I guess you would abolish the FDA and let each state make their own decisions on matters relating to medical drugs and interstate commerce.

The FDA was formed to set interstate commerce standards for pure food & drugs.

-- Not to enforce federal laws regulating their uses. - Thus. -- There is no provision in the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to exercise authority over drug usage or medical procedures, --- is a true statement.

And stop using the silly 'So,' as a prefix for your attempted straw men diversions.

[AppyPappy]

No but the government can stop you from taking away someone's right to life ie killing someone.

[freeeee]

the Fifth Amendment prohibits everyone, including the states, from taking life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

The 5th Amendment restricts the power of the state to non-consensually deprive an individual of life, liberty or property without Due Process.

It no more prohibits an individual from voluntarily taking their own life any more than it prohibits an individual from giving away his own property. The Constitution limits the power of government, not individuals.

Alan Keyes argues that you cannot give away unalienable rights, even if you don?t want them.

Really? I'll keep that in mind the next time someone wants me to waive my 4th Amendment rights and consent to a search.

[Dimensio]

Suppose a man states that it is pursuing happiness to kill off his annoying coworker? Suppose he says he cannot be happy as long as that coworker is alive, and then he kills them? If the right to be “happy” is a higher good than the right live, than society would have to oblige this man.

I never offered a ranking order for the rights of life, liberty and happiness (or the pursuit thereof), I was just asking why we don't seek to prevent people from giving up the latter two if we're going to federally enforce the first.

In your scenario, the individual in question is trampling on the supposed right to life of his co-worker. In pursuing his happiness he is denying the rights of another. I can see why that would be considered a "bad" thing.

I recommend you read Keyes’ speech at Missouri Right To Life. If you argue that you can deny yourself your own rights, you are saying there are no unalienable rights. If you allow an exception to the right to life in the case of suicide, who's to say that the exceptions will stop there?

So Keyes (and you, apparently) argue that by allowing a person to voluntarily abdicate their own personal rights we slide down a slippery slope where we can decide to remove the rights of others on a whim?

Sorry, but I don't see the logical connection.

[Gelato]

They are doing harm by allowing someone to live in pain when there is no cure. If the patient is terminally ill and requesting to be euthenized under those circumstances then the government is committing a human rights violation by stopping the doctor. The doctor has an obligation to treat the person and keep them from the pain of sickness and injury when his/her services are retained. If the retainer can only live in pain then the doctor must, if asked to, help that person die in a humane way. The 5th amendment applies only to trials, it no more restricts the actions of the public than the 1st amendment. It is a bill of rights for a representative republic, not a democracy.

Are you saying that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of life only during a trial? It actually states the opposite! It states that the only time it is permissible by law to take life is through “due process of law”--i.e., through proper trial and conviction. The Fifth Amendment expressly prohibits life from being taken under all other circumstances.

Further, the Hippocratic oath prohibits doctors from giving “deadly medicine to any one if asked,” and even from suggesting it.

If you want it to be permissible for doctors to take life, you will have to throw out the Hippocratic Oath and you will have to amend the Constitution.

[humbletheFiend]

The right to life is a civil rights matter, therefore, it is a federal matter.

If the right to life is a civil rights matter and therefore a federal matter because it is described in the Declaration of Independence, would it not follow that the right to the pursuit of happiness is also a civil rights matter and therefore a federal matter because it is also described in the Declaration of Independence? See if you can imagine there to be any limitations on the powers of a Government that is authorized to see to it that its subjects are not deprived of the right to the pursuit of happiness.

[Gelato]

You argued that the right to happiness is greater than the right to life.

The right to life must come first. Period.

[Dimensio]

You argued that the right to happiness is greater than the right to life.

I did? I thought that I was simply arguing that a person should be able to voluntarily abdicate their own right to life, I didn't think I was assigning a ranking order.

[Gelato]

The 5th Amendment restricts the power of the state to non-consensually deprive an individual of life, liberty or property without Due Process.

Wrong. It prohibits ALL PERSONS and ALL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES from taking life without due process of law.

[tpaine]

Silly reply. --- I don't claim to know what is in Keyes mind. -- I refuted his words, his claims in the article above, and showed them to be illogical & false.

Defend keyes opinions, if you can, or attack mine. -- But don't claim that my critique is based on some sort of mindreading.

[Gelato]

Really? I'll keep that in mind the next time someone wants me to waive my 4th Amendment rights and consent to a search.

Unalienble rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, cannot be rescinded by definition.

[Gelato]

You stated that your right to life must bend to your right to happiness.

[dheretic]

1. If the hippocratic oath prohibits doctors from fully performing their duties then let's throw it out the window; its "services" are no longer required if that is the case
2. You wouldn't need to amend the constitution if you actually read the friggin bill of rights. The 9th amendment says that just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And it's not denying anyone life. It's making their last days on Earth bearable. The states are under no obligation to prosecute everyone for every action that results in way in someone dying. If they were then a lot of people would be on death row right now. No one would work in the defense industry for fear of a malfunction killing military personnel, no one would work in the embedded systems section of the computer industry, heh no one would work for tire manufacturers!

[freeeee]

Wrong. It prohibits ALL PERSONS and ALL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES from taking life without due process of law.

The Constitution is a framework for government. It is not a legal code for citizens. Aside from treason, piracy and counterfeiting, (and previously alcohol), it does not constitute criminal law. The fed lacks a general police power, as all those were left to the states per the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution was meant to set limits on government power. To turn those limits on citizens while removing them from government is the height of irony.

[freeeee]

Unalienble rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, cannot be rescinded by definition.

I can't rescind my right to property? How can I give someone a birthday present???

(Hint: consent)