Supreme court says..

[txswinner]

Re: Supreme court says..

Darth, Sorry I am a thread thief and have been called on it. Guess I would have just left DJ's answer cause he seems to know everything.<br /><br />Again, sorry off point.

 

[JB]

Re: Supreme court says..

The original wording of the commandment translates more accurately to, "Thou shalt not commit murder." To murder is to take the life of one who is not a threat to your life and against that person's will.<br /><br />Killing in war may be accidental or deliberate, but it is not murder. Killing one who is attempting to murder great groups of people is not murder. Assisting a person who is not going to live anyway in terminating his/her own life to avoid great suffering and cost is not murder.<br /><br />To decide, rationally, to die rather than prolong suffering and drain on resources is a fundamental human right. <br /><br />That's my opinion.

 

[bootle]

Re: Supreme court says..

"To decide, rationally, to die rather than prolong suffering and drain on resources is a fundamental human right"<br /><br />JB, I agree 100%

 

[txswinner]

Re: Supreme court says..

How can you both agree on such a liberal thought presented by a liberal media. Yeah this is very much about leaving citizens rights alone, a liberal point of view. Someone is going to take you two's conservative cards away.<br /><br />I also agree.

 

[heycods]

Re: Supreme court says..

Originally posted by Darth D Invader:<br /> "To decide, rationally, to die rather than prolong suffering and drain on resources is a fundamental human right"<br /><br />JB, I agree 100%

You take a large cal.loaded pistol put it in your mouth angled upward and slightly rearward and pull the trigger. Problem solved, the govt. is not going to take your carcas to court and make you take it back and through you in jail.<br /><br />That solves that problem, you have to deal with your own moral issues.<br /><br />I dont believe I will partake of the other arguement in this thread.

 

[bootle]

Re: Supreme court says..

TXS, A man's freedoms is not and should not be at the mercy of another's creed. It has nothing to do with the trivial politically motivated dogma popularly peddled by a noisy few.

 

[bootle]

Re: Supreme court says..

Originally posted by heycods:<br />

Originally posted by Darth D Invader:<br /> "To decide, rationally, to die rather than prolong suffering and drain on resources is a fundamental human right"<br /><br />JB, I agree 100%

You take a large cal.loaded pistol put it in your mouth angled upward and slightly rearward and pull the trigger. Problem solved, the govt. is not going to take your carcas to court and make you take it back and through you in jail.<br /><br />That solves that problem, you have to deal with your own moral issues.<br /><br />I dont believe I will partake of the other arguement in this thread.

And what of the person who provides the gun? <br />I suppose that you would not mind if they're given a lethal injection for their humane efforts, would you?

 

[QC]

Re: Supreme court says..

Originally posted by Darth D Invader:<br /> A man's freedoms is not and should not be at the mercy of another's creed.

Oh, but it is, in as much as law is steeped in "creed" and your freedoms are limited by the rule of law. That's why abortion is a huge issue, PAS is big, capital punishment etc. etc. The question is when are those beliefs correct for law and when aren't they.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Supreme court says..

Think about this: if I were running an insurance company I would only allow policies that state we will cover your medical expenses up to the point you have been diagnosed terminally ill, then we will maintain “comfort” medications only for 7 days, and only cover the cost of PAS mediations after that. Kind of puts a diff perspective on PAS.<br /><br />Yes, PAS is a slippery slope. I think it is Finland or Norway or one of those countries that recently moved from PAS to allowing two doctors to make the decision to put someone down based on their “quality of life”. A person doesn’t even need to be sick, just old and a burdensome is enough to get the final needle there.<br /><br />

Originally posted by DJ:<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.

Abortion is a right that is protected under the right to privacy, and embedded in the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, as is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So even tho none of that is written in the constitution, they are all constitutionally protected rights...or something like that.<br /><br />The “separation of church and state” is a phrase invented by the supreme court in 1963(?) in reference to the 1st amendment. It is the 1st amend that protects both the right to religion, and the freedom from religion in govt.<br />You may now consider yourself "enlightened".<br />

 

[txswinner]

Re: Supreme court says..

18R Well said.

 

[txswinner]

Re: Supreme court says..

Guess I am confused on which side of the line I am on in this thread. As I read the case, the conservative half of the court wanted to stop the right to euthanasia. I believe it is one's right to end their life if they so chose. Where am I on the issue, left or right.

 

[SwampNut]

Re: Supreme court says..

1. Abortion, as a right.<br /><br />2. The seperation of Church and State.

In the Bill of Rights, they are articles 4 and 1, respectively. I'd have to go type out the paragraphs in the Constitution where they are delineated, as it doesn't have convenient markings like the BoR.