http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-17-scotus-suicide_x.htm?csp=24 <br /><br />Maybe Dr Kervorkian will get his licence back to carry on with his practice....KKNOTTT.
Sounds like they skirted the real issue by using a technicality. <br /><br />Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right.The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses, the court majority said. <br />
How right you are.....That door does swing both ways, however.....<br />A terminally ill person should be able to determine his/her end....Not an idiot like John AshcroftJust because something is "legal" doesn't make it right.
Couldn't have said it better myself.<br /><br />Morality is a lost phenom."Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right."<br /><br />Just because something is "right" doesn't make it legal.<br />
Agreed. Many issues should be left to the States. That is what the constitution says. But, who cares? The constitution is very clear to me. The LAW (passed by politicians) has compromised it.<br /><br /> I'm still looking for two clauses in the Constitution. Please enlighten me. <br /><br />1. Abortion, as a right.<br /><br />2. The seperation of Church and State.How about states rights. Where is all the outrage?
J you touched on something there... who has the most to gain if doctor assisted suicide is univerally accepted? Who has the most to lose if a persons life is prolonged. It's all about the money... follow the money and your true motives are revealed.<br /><br />Abortion? A woman's right? That's what Planned Parenthood says. Wanna know who performs the most abortions in America?? What's that... Planned Parenthood you say??Originally posted by jtexas:<br /> Is it the slippery slope theory that if PAS is allowed soon doctors will start killing people left and right? Prescriptions for death... Or maybe, it's the health insurance lobby: if it's a "legimate medical purpose," insurance will have to cover the cost?
Yes, the Government does have that right-to maintain civil order.<br /><br />You, as an individual, may think that murdering your neighbor is just fine-in your book. Unfortunately, for you, society does not condone that behavior-for now.<br /><br />Freedom is having your rights not infringed upon, in a moral and civil manner. Unfortunately, morals be damned. It's turning into a "free for all".<br /><br />The law, passed by politician lawyers, tends to favor the "law" as opposed to common sense and past moral values.The gov't gets to decide what's "legal". They have no business concerning themselves with what is "right", or moral. That is the individuals job, and it is called "freedom".
Huh?seems that morals are not one size fits all.<br /><br />
I cannot see a connection with Iraq. I see freedom as nothing but good, please explain your favor of torture and mass killings.<br /><br />invasion of Iraq
It's not for me to explain the messages of the teachings of the Bible to a non believer. I believe what I believe. Plus, you would only relate the contexts that you want to-anyway.<br /><br />Old Testament or New Testament. There is a difference and time and events play a factor. <br /><br />I'm not dodging the question, I'm just telling you-factually-that you can't put it in a soundbite, which I'm sure you will anyway.Thou shall not kill." <br />
BTW, the correct translation from Hebrew is "Thou shall not murder". Period. Murder is the wilful killing of innocents.Originally posted by txswinner:<br /> DJ, Let us start with your position on executions and the invasion of Iraq and "Thou shall not kill."