Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (260091)	5/31/2002 6:44:00 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

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.