| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Assisted Suicide | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 4 2005, 08:34 PM (527 Views) | |
| cmoehle | Oct 5 2005, 04:38 PM Post #16 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Mike and Jane, besides sliippery slope, your real argument seems to be it's a personal choice just don't involve a doctor or pharmacist or another. What about the doctor's or pharmacist's or other's choice? Why should government interfere in their choice? Ken ""personal choice and individual rights" Republicans" Yeah, right! Right? ![]() In a lecture on the Constitution, Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for president last election, states, and I paraphrase, the problem with Democrats is they want to control your money and the problem with Republicans is they want to control your mind. John brings up an interesting analogy. Here's another. It is likely that the same people who in this case want the federal court to override what the people of Oregon voted into law cry judicial activism when the court overrides what the people of CA voted into law regarding gay marriage. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Even though I predict you will because of another analogy. In court the Bush administration lawyers are not arguing rights but instead the same argument present in the medical marijuana case. Or another analogy, the eminent domain case. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 5 2005, 06:46 PM Post #17 |
|
Member
|
To make this less of a morbid subject I submit the following preference on my part. "I would rather die in my sleep peacefully like my Grandfather ,-- not like the four screaming people in the car with him!" As far as the abortion comment being similar---hardly. Abortion is the self centered act of taking an anothers innocent life. Suicide is the self centered act of taking ones own life. |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 5 2005, 06:53 PM Post #18 |
|
Member
|
It may sound on the surface like my slippery slope argument doesn't hold water--but I can thinkl of other issues in our society where once the door was opened a crack--how it takes on a life of its own forcing the door even wider. pornography gambling Federal intrussion into states rights To name three. As far as the state preventing a doctor or pharmacist from assisting. My answer is--of course the state has a right to control actions of licensed entities. As regular citizens they have free will to assist and accept the consequences. But as a licensed doctor or pharmacist--they are required to uphold the law for medical treatment and issuing prescriptions. |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 5 2005, 07:02 PM Post #19 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Analogy is based on juxtaposing dissimilar things or actions and focusing on a few similarities. John's metaphor focused on your earlier point of not "involving the rest of society"--to quote John: "Abortion is a personal decision best left to the individual without involving the rest of society." as an analogy to your "Suicide is a personal decision best left to the individual without involving the rest of society." Analogy is not a logical argument, just opens the door to insight. Here, that you are arguing against yourself. Besides, you're trying to break the analogy with definitions that aren't shared by all of society: "Abortion is the self centered act of taking an anothers innocent life. Suicide is the self centered act of taking ones own life." Your analogy with porn, gambling and federal intrusion may provide insights, but it does not support slippery slope arguments. Essentially what you're doing in arguing slippery slope is saying it might happen, therefore we must stop it--a shift from the hypothetical to the actual. Doesn't work. Besides, if it did, your "Federal intrussion into states rights" slippery slope just countered your other slippery slope, since this is clearly federal interference in a state's rights issue. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 5 2005, 07:10 PM Post #20 |
|
Member
|
Chris, I know that I interject my own personal bias on some hot button issues such as abortion, right to life, cultural values--and most of my arguments can be labeled that I try to interfer with others personal rights. And I agree that the approach the government is using interjecting commerce into the assisted suicide issue is wrong. The Feds need to stay out of the states business. But I do feel strongly that when a matter that I feel is immoral becomes state sanctioned through a law--that it canmake some of its citizens an unwilling accomplish. I do agree however that free will is at play in all individual choices. And so is the consequences. |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 5 2005, 07:20 PM Post #21 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
All I'm doing is pointing out logical holes. I can't argue your feelings, or beliefs, those are rightfully yours. So what we have here is an array of opinions, and arguments for them, each right for himself or herself. But isn't the question where do we draw that line between justified interference and unjustified? I guess I feel you rather than arguing an opinion are pronouncing judgment when the moral question is where do we draw that line. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 5 2005, 08:02 PM Post #22 |
|
Member
|
In all actuality, I prefer that the courts and federal/state/ and local government would tend to matters like roads, border protection, and search and rescue type missions--while leaving the moral issues in the hands of those most affected--the individual. We do need to protect ourselves from act of violence and fraud through the efforts of our police departments I just have not seen where it does much good to point ones finger at another when we all have enough faults of our own to work on. I simply try to show some different ways of looking at issues and since my life has been about considering humility, grace, and my Saviors teachings in all matters--well I just seem to come across as a nitpicker or old busy body. So please forgive my passion. I seek only to interject my opinion and not to force it down anybody elses throat. |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 5 2005, 08:22 PM Post #23 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Nothing wrong in interjecting your personal opinions even passionately, nor my reacting to yours with my own, seems to be what it's all about. Shouldn't such deeply moral issues as life and death go further than expressing opinions? The dialog in court on this case is a pitched battle, though argued more on the grounds of administering federal regulations, the individual be damned. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 5 2005, 08:29 PM Post #24 |
|
Member
|
As much as I would prefer that the states themselves leave the matter of suicide in the hands of the individual--and have no laws concerning this--I think we will lose as citizens if the long arm of the Federal Courts allow Federal interference through these regulation laws. The Federal Government will use a win in this case to seek precedent in other issues where their noses don't belong. |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 5 2005, 08:32 PM Post #25 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Even if we disagree on what the outcome should be, we do seem to agree on where it should be determined, the more local the better. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 5 2005, 08:39 PM Post #26 |
|
Member
|
I think if someone wants to do themselves in under the circumstances required by the Oregon law (over 18, terminally ill etc), then it should be their perogative to do so without interference. What I do have trouble with is their being assisted by another. Particularly if that other person is being legally sanctioned by the state to do so. Healthcare providers should be in the business of saving lives (that old hypocratic oath thing ). Any patient congnative enough to make their own health care decisions always has the right to refuse care that would prolong life. And, there is always hospice care and pain management to make people comfortable. In fact often times the pain management does hasten death. About the slippery slope argument. Hypothetical? Not necessarrily IMO. I think that once assisted suicide is the law of the land, there may be some that feel pressured by family to take that way out, when they truely don't want it, but feel pressured to do so as not to be a burden to their loved ones. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 5 2005, 08:53 PM Post #27 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
So the state who licenses physicians should decide, not the federal government. The state has decided, by popular vote. It leaves it up to the physician's or pharmacist's choice. Sure there might be, but that's hypothetical, speculative, useful for scaring an emotional response, not a reasonable one. In fact, the state has been keeping records on this program over the years, and they do not, iirc, support slippery slope. There has not been a rush to Oregon like there once was for gold. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 5 2005, 09:32 PM Post #28 |
|
Member
|
Chris Can't that also be interpreted as tyranny of the majority? That's what courts are for, to protect individuals from that tyranny. A minority thinks that assisted suicide is unacceptable and has asked the court to decide based on constitutional law. On the states rights stance, I heard that the new Chief Justice Roberts asked an attorney if it would be OK for a state to pass a law allowing no control on controlled substance like morphine. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 6 2005, 04:32 AM Post #29 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
There you're right, I believe, Tom. Amendments and laws passed by referendum may express the will of the people, but when that restricts rights constitutionally protected, the court needs to step in. The minority that thinks assissted suicide is unacceptable is nto asking the court anything. It is the Bush administration--was Ashcroft initially--running an end-around on federal drug regulations in order to impose its moralist beliefs on the individual and state. What gets me riled is the typical moralist deception involved. Rather than address the issue directly, like the respectible people here on this and I'm sure other forums, these moralist do-gooders use any means (federal drug regulations) to achieve their ends (imposition of their brand of morals). The federal drug laws were created to fight drug addiction and prevent the sale of snake oil. Dishonesty of this sort is immoral. Do we really want these people running if not ruining our lives? To Judge Roberts I would say nice try at reductio ad absurdum but haven't you created a straw man? For, Tom, as you initially posted, the Oregon law stipulates rather restrictive conditions under which drugs may be prescribed for assisted suicide. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



Yeah, right! Right?




1:04 PM Jul 11