I really don't know why I bother.
Your position is that it is a state right because the right is not explicity given to the federation.
Correct?
Ok. You are wrong.
Ok?
Wow, you are intent on defrauding yourself aren't you.
No wonder you are a democrat, you are so easily deluded.
The case suggests that there is a constitutionally protected liberty interest in physician-assisted suicide.
Thus, the states are compelled to protect that right. They do not have a choice.
Do you see the difference?
I doubt it.
Assuming you do, the discussion then, revolves around this:
Am I right when I said there is no Constitutional right to suicide?
I say I am. ANd the debate would revolve around the case.
The argument is, does the Constitution protect an individual's autonomy to control his own body, including the right to physician assisted suicide.
And, including the right to abortion, the right to do drugs, the right to refuse medical treatment, etc.
If it does, then to stop euthanasia, one would look at interstate drug issues, etc.
If it doesn't, then your argument that it is a state issue, because the Constitution does not explicityly deal with physician assisted suicide, would be false, and the issue would need to overcome the same type of hurdles abortion had to overcome, to become a federal law. |
