<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d17829824\x26blogName\x3dWrong+Side+of+the+Tracks\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://wrongjr.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://wrongjr.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d7706307521957129916', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
          CONTACT     |      ABOUT     |      SEARCH     |      RECENT POSTS     |      ARCHIVES     |      BLOGS, &TC     |      RELIGION     |      ENTERTAINMENT     |      MEDIA     |      IDEAS     |     

1.19.2006    |    Federalism trumps life?
Among those who have an inalienable right to life are the elderly, the infirm, and the terminally ill. Since our very life is a gift from God, it is not ours to dispose of, without good and sufficient cause. Therein lies the crux of the debate: what, exactly, constitutes "good and sufficient?" Whatever else it may mean, it surely can't mean that a physician, or anyone else, should be able to intentionally kill a patient.

The recent Supreme Court decision (typical story here) was hailed by the Gray Lady as a victory for federalism. Which might come as a surprise to those who regularly read the New York Times and note that it's never shy about the federales trumping the states when it comes to liberal causes near and dear to the Timesmen's black, shriveled hearts. From the Times editorial, here's a bit of the flavor:
The Supreme Court smacked former Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration when it ruled 6 to 3 that the Justice Department had gone beyond its authority in trying to undermine an assisted-suicide law in Oregon.
You've gotta love it: "smacked" John Ashcroft, who used to be the left's favorite Bible-thumping troglodyte. It is clear that their hatred of John Ashcroft and George Bush counts for at least as much as any newly-found fidelity to Constitutional principles.

They do have half a point, however. It is not usually a good thing for the Federal government to attempt to overturn what the constitutionally sovereign people of the individual states enact. In this case, however, Oregon enacted a law that denies the sanctity of life to a certain class of people deemed to be a burden.

But, the liberal might say, "what if someone is in such dire pain and that they truly want to die?" This is never an easy question, and those who glibly ignore it ignore reality. But the answer can not be to allow a physician, whose oath requires them to do no harm as a first principle, kill a person.

As a God-fearing man, I believe that suicide is an offense against the Almighty, a slap in His face. Take your stinking life; it's no good to me any more. I don't want it.

Those who do take their own lives are to be pitied, and, for extreme cases, perhaps forgiven by God. But there can be no forgiveness for those who kill in some mistaken belief that they are better arbiters of what constitutes a meaningful life than is God.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home






about this blog

I was born, grew up, and went to school in the Bronx, New York -- on the wrong side of the tracks. Got the chance to go to college, so instead of joining the NYPD (the obvious career choice at that time and place), I became an engineer. Spent some years designing things that go boom (or things that take things that go boom to their destinations...), principally for our military. Also took an interesting career turn and for some years was in charge of counter-terrorism for my agency...so I learned something about guns. And when to use them.

I am a believer, in God. Christian. My opinion of most denominations is that they seem to be more concerned with the collection plate and devising intricate rules as to who is in and who is out.

My politics are a mix of conservative and libertarian, as in live and let live. With one exception, I favor small government, maximum personal freedom, coupled with personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions. I also know that there are, and have always been, things that are true, and things that are not. Two problems: Being smart enough to know which is which, and having the guts to act on it. I make no claims...

The exception to small government? I favor a robust national defense, against enemies foreign, and domestic. Or, as Teddy Roosevelt should have said, "speak softly and carry a whole bunch of armored divisions."

This blog will focus on politics, culture, religion, national security. That's pretty much the same territory as the New York Times. Just that I will never label my opinions as "news."



top of page