Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So suicide is OK as long as someone assists you in it? Could a healthy person who is sick of living commit suicide so long as someone assists them?

---

Sounds like you're not up on this topic. You would have to establish residency in a state that offers assisted suicide. Here's this note:

In order to be approved for Physician Assisted Death, which is currently legal only in Oregon and Washington, the terminally ill patient must:
-be eighteen years of age or older
-be a resident of Oregon or Washington
-be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him or herself
-be diagnosed with a terminal disease which will result in the end of the patient's life within six months.
Two physicians must agree that these criteria have been met.

http://physician-assisted-suicide.we...s-for-pas.html

I know what the law says. I'm asking you about the moral foundation of the law. Why allow some people but not everyone? If it's OK to commit suicide when you have a terminal disease, then why not when you have a disease that is very painful but not terminal, or why not when suffering from chronic depression? And why would you need a doctor to assist you? Why not just jump off a cliff, or shoot yourself, or swim out into the deep waters and drown? Why be so restrictive? Can you answer that? Isn't this just legalized suicide made to appear "civilized" so we can still look at ourselves in the mirror and feel moral?

As a society, there have to be set rules, otherwise the "SYSTEM" breaks down. This is exactly the tactic of anarchist and communists: Upend the institutions and break down the order of societies to take control.

It's obviously okay in two states if certain requirements are met. States can set their own laws and define their own morality for themselves. Laws are subject to change and morality redefined by that state. You can question or complain about someone else's morality, but can you make them adopt your morality? I suppose you could try, but the final outcome is up to them.

Quote:

---

States can set their own laws and define their own morality for themselves. Laws are subject to change and morality redefined by that state. You can question or complain about someone else's morality, but can you make them adopt your morality? I suppose you could try, but the final outcome is up to them.

---

If we adopt the view that morality is changeable, then we are on a slippery slope. The static nature of morals is exactly what Jefferson appealed to in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." His entire line of reasoning falls apart instantly if someone eliminates the "Creator", and that is exactly what we are doing.

Endowed by THEIR Creator. Do we all have the right to approach the relationship with the Creator that we understand in our own way? Can that relationship not GROW as we GROW?

Quote:

---

Endowed by THEIR Creator.

---

His appeal was to "all men", and that he considers there to be one specific creator is clear by the fact that he capitalized "Creator". You have to the right to approach any god you want, but Jefferson's appeal was to "unalienable" rights and "self-evident" truth. He did not regard those to be changeable, and thus his appeal was that, since God gave those rights, it is not in the proper authority of governments to take them away. It was a brilliant appeal that we are now casting aside.

We know Jefferson didn't mean slaves since he owned them, but that changed eventually and gradually over time as we grew as a nation didn't it? There you go.

And why? Because the moral values in the Declaration were considered to be permanent and not subject to the whims of people.

Anything in America can be voted on, and changed and thats how change occurs. With or without a civil war. Come on you know better than that. Wonder why Jefferson didn't say endowed by THE Creator instead of THEIR Creator? Because whatever you interpret as your Creator is VALID, even if you convert from one religion to another, no matter the name you give your Creator.

The appeal was to ALL, not some even if we are still working on a more perfect union, meaning a works in progress. Something to strive for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And why? Because the moral values in the Declaration were considered to be permanent and not subject to the whims of people.

---

Was Jefferson's Creator the same as his slaves' Creator?

Quote:

---

Anything in America can be voted on, and changed and thats how change occurs. With or without a civil war. Come on you know better than that. Wonder why Jefferson didn't say endowed by THE Creator instead of THEIR Creator? Because whatever you interpret as your Creator is VALID, even if you convert from one religion to another, no matter the name you give your Creator.

The appeal was to ALL, not some even if we are still working on a more perfect union, meaning a works in progress. Something to strive for.

---

You MUST pay closer attention. You are referring to changes in law. I am referring to changes in our moral standard. It is the latter that Jefferson attempted to etch in stone.

Quote:

---

Was Jefferson's Creator the same as his slaves' Creator?

---

It was the very moral standard that Jefferson and the founding fathers established that formed the basis of the appeal for the end of slavery, so your objection is actually an affirmation of the genius of Jefferson. Thank God people in that time understood the difference between changing laws and changing our moral standards.

Do you think the Creator of unborn children, which you never, ever stir yourself in the slightest amount to defend, is the same as Jefferson's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Do you think the Creator of unborn children, which you never, ever stir yourself in the slightest amount to defend, is the same as Jefferson's?

---

Please answer my question. A Yes or No will suffice.

(The Creator has handed over to men and women the ability to create children.)

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.

---

I wasn't judging anyone, V7!!!!! I am wondering if Jefferson's Creator is the same one as the slaves' Creator. Is YOUR Creator the same one as the slaves' Creator? -- or Jefferson's Creator?

"Enlightenment"? meaning we've improved our understanding of the Creator? As I watch and read the news, it doesn't seem like there has been much improvement.

JL/

Quote:

---

You MUST pay closer attention. You are referring to changes in law. I am referring to changes in our moral standard. It is the latter that Jefferson attempted to etch in stone.

---

Is not ones laws the reflection of morality on the national level? I submit yes, especially given the cultural, racial, and religious diversity of it's people. EQUAL protection, freedom, justice under OUR law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: It is patently WRONG to judge history, the actions of historical figures, or the actions of a nation while viewing that history, those figures, or the actions of that nation through the prism of today. We don't do that with the Bible, or at least we shouldn't, and we definitely should not condemn someone like Jefferson based upon a morality sprung forth through the enlightenment of many, many generations in Jefferson's future or modern times.

Our Founding Fathers were divinely endowed, that is the only explanation for how they were able to generate such a miraculously inclusive and enviable document like the U.S. Constitution: They are beyond reproach.

---

They are humans and while it was a good thing they established, it had flaws as most human endeavors are flawed. Divinely endowed though or beyond reproach is rather a stretch but they done good for the times and circumstances we were in and every generation that followed should be inspired to keep strive to fulfill the promise of a more perfect union.

No one is attacking them at all as it was a different time but as we evolve we can be better can't we?

Quote:

---

Please answer my question. A Yes or No will suffice.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Is not ones laws the reflection of morality on the national level? I submit yes, especially given the cultural, racial, and religious diversity of it's people. EQUAL protection, freedom, justice under OUR law.

---

Laws are a reflection of some standard of morality. That's why it's important to be careful what standard you use.

Or what lawmakers you elect.

Quote:

---

Or what lawmakers you elect.

---

Absolutely.