Supreme court says..

KaGee

Admiral
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
7,069
Re: Supreme court says..

The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses, the court majority said. <br />
Sounds like they skirted the real issue by using a technicality. <br /><br />Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right.
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: Supreme court says..

Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right.
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 Ashcroft ;) ....JK
 

JB

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
45,907
Re: Supreme court says..

"Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right."<br /><br />Just because something is "right" doesn't make it legal.
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: Supreme court says..

As I said, that door swings both ways....JK
 
D

DJ

Guest
Re: Supreme court says..

"Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right."<br /><br />Just because something is "right" doesn't make it legal.<br />
Couldn't have said it better myself.<br /><br />Morality is a lost phenom.
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Supreme court says..

Can somebody please 'splain the "against" position. Is it the slippery slope theory that if PAS is allowed soon doctors will start killing people left and right? Or that euthanasia is just around the corner? Prescriptions for death or some other twilight zone scenario? Or maybe, it's the health insurance lobby: if it's a "legimate medical purpose," insurance will have to cover the cost?
 

treedancer

Commander
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,216
Re: Supreme court says..

How about states rights. Where is all the outrage?
 

bootle

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
1,028
Re: Supreme court says..

Is this where one's so called dignity becomes at odds with one's sense of so called morality? :confused:
 
D

DJ

Guest
Re: Supreme court says..

How about states rights. Where is all the outrage?
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.
 

PW2

Commander
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,719
Re: Supreme court says..

The difference, JB, is only I get to determine what is "right" (for me, at least)<br /><br />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".
 

KaGee

Admiral
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
7,069
Re: Supreme court says..

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?
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??
 
D

DJ

Guest
Re: Supreme court says..

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".
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.
 

bootle

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
1,028
Re: Supreme court says..

It seems that morals are not one size fits all.
 
D

DJ

Guest
Re: Supreme court says..

seems that morals are not one size fits all.<br /><br />
Huh? :confused: <br /><br />Morals, as defined by many generations, are known as the Ten Commandments.<br /><br />So, speak out-ALL. Which of the ten are you vehemently opposed to?
 

txswinner

Banned
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
2,326
Re: Supreme court says..

DJ, Let us start with your position on executions and the invasion of Iraq and "Thou shall not kill."
 
D

DJ

Guest
Re: Supreme court says..

txs,<br /><br />
invasion of Iraq
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 />
Thou shall not kill." <br />
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.
 

PW2

Commander
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,719
Re: Supreme court says..

DJ wrote><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 />Huh?? <br /><br /> Where did that come from? According to the Oregon law, the ill person has to be of sound mind, and they have to have at least two doctors opinions that they have a terminal disease and less than six months to live.<br /><br />I don't get to decide for anyone other than me, and even then I have to pay a couple of stupid doctor bills to boot.<br /><br />When do I get to decide for others? If and when I do, I certainly have a few candidates to nominate, however!
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Supreme court says..

Originally posted by txswinner:<br /> DJ, Let us start with your position on executions and the invasion of Iraq and "Thou shall not kill."
BTW, the correct translation from Hebrew is "Thou shall not murder". Period. Murder is the wilful killing of innocents.
 

txswinner

Banned
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
2,326
Re: Supreme court says..

DJ, You always dodge the questions that can not be answered by the right. Then the response usually includes something to the effect well you don't listen.<br /><br />And careful with the name calling "non-believer" that is sort of hard core when you address a true Christian raised by Methodist preacher. In the true light of Christianity your remark is forgiven.
 
Top