A womans "right to choose" ?

[mr-pirk]

Something I have been pondering lately is the US supreme courts decision of Roe verses Wade.
Basicly the court ruled that since abortion was legal at one time and then it was made illegal at a later time because the procedure was deemed to dangerous to the woman. The ban on abortion couldn't be supported by the arguement that the founding fathers wanted the procedure banned when they wrote the constituion. Therefore it wasn't up to the goverment to decide for a woman to have a abortion but it was up to the woman, a right to privicy issue.
This same arguement applys to sucide and assisting in sucide. Yet the courts have taken a very different approach to thier rulings on it.
If deciding to have a abortion is a personal private intimate choice then surely deciding to end your life is even more so.
The only other arguement for the ban on sucide that I can think of is that of saneness.
I have heard psychlogist <sp> state that wanting to commit sucide is a sign of mental illness. I suppose that is true in most cases. But I have to wonder about those who suffer from cancer, bi-polar, depression, or some other debilatating illness and wanting to end it all. Are they sane enough to make the decision for themselves.
The courts accept it when someone on death row refuses further appeals and asks to just be executed because they don't want to stick around and deal with what they are dealing with. The courts accept that person can be sane enough to make the decision not to prolong his life. So simply wanting to end it all isn't insanity in the courts view and they make allowances for a person to end thier life early.
The courts already accept the "DNR"(do not resecatate<sp&gt agreements people make, Living Wills I have heard them called. Are you not helping a person die if you are a nurse and you don't revive them when you could? Aren't you allowing them to make that decision for themsleves as to weather they want to go on living or not and there by accepting it is the private choice to make?
So if it is a privicy issue why isn't it the right to sucide protected by law just the same as abortion is. I don't understand the courts two different views on privicy. Maybe someone here can explain it to me.
MrPirk

[Dave590]

Often times a courts rulings are decided by which side offers the most compelling argument.

Lawyers are merely actors, the one that can perform the best "act" often wins the case. A good lawyer can take what would otherwise be a straightfoward argument, and turn it inside out and leave anyone listening completely dumbfounded as to what the original argument even was.

The supreme court is supposed to be above that sort of legal wrangling, but the fact remains, if a person were to present themselves before the court, and present a compelling argument (Oscar performance) and all of their facts were checked, rechecked, and presented in "just the right way", then the supreme court really has no choice but to agree.

The supreme court justices write down their opinions, which ultimately become a part of legal history. (There is a name for it, I just don't remember what it is).

[Knightia]

The courts already accept the "DNR"(do not resecatate<sp&gt agreements people make, Living Wills I have heard them called. Are you not helping a person die if you are a nurse and you don't revive them when you could? Aren't you allowing them to make that decision for themsleves as to weather they want to go on living or not and there by accepting it is the private choice to make?
So if it is a privicy issue why isn't it the right to sucide protected by law just the same as abortion is. I don't understand the courts two different views on privicy. Maybe someone here can explain it to me.

Sorry i cant. To me there( the courts) just a extention of poltices & polticans & neither are really the will of the ppl.

The biggist difference between a abortion & killing once self -the baby killed doest get to decide its fate- its so called mother does under there said rights. Why killing oneself is aginst the law im not sure( Christian morals?)
DNR- is not a action - it is letting nature take its course & the person it effects making that choice.(unless they are incapable)- i think that is there right, it is there life- not someone elses- like the babys.

[stealthycat]

I drank a beer tonight and on the bottle it said " Drinking alcohol during pregnancy may cause birth defects "

How ? If there is no living human being there to be affected ? Ahhh, there IS a living human being there, isn't there ?

One more instance where logic and reason that supports one thing doesn't support Roe vs Wade

[bigbulls]

I don't know how many of the laws get passed in this country.

If a person wants to kill themselves then let them go for it I'm not going to be the one that talks you down off of the ledge. No one on this planet has the right to make a person live if they do not want to. I have never understood how suicide can be illegal.

I have heard psychlogist <sp> state that wanting to commit sucide is a sign of mental illness.

Yeah, right. Depending on who you talk to any one of us could easily be deemed mentally ill and locked up in a padded room. Why is there always someone out there that thinks that they have all of the answers to lifes problems?

[stealthycat]

No one on this planet has the right to make a person live if they do not want to. I have never understood how suicide can be illegal

I agree with you. A living human being should have the Right to Choose Life or a Right to choose Death - shouldn't they ?

[bigbulls]

Yes, a LIVING HUMAN BEING should have the right to choose life or death.

Here is a good example: Stealthy might think that I am mentally ill sometimes and vice versa. JK!

[mr-pirk]

Stealty Cat I am not debating the rightness or the wrongness of abortion. I am just trying to figure out how one is considered a matter of constutionaly protected right yet the other isn't.
While I do understand that as court justices die off others replace them with thier own point of view I don't understand how the two different points of view can be brought under the same umbrella of logic.
Mr-Pirk

[hairtamer]

Wow...what an interesting topic.
I don't believe a woman has the right to abort a child intentionally. Yet, I think people who are sick or elderly should...hmmm....Good topic.

[mr-pirk]

Dave I understand your point but the supreme court is supposed to be above that. They are supposed to decide on logic not emotion and I can't understand thier logic in this matter.
Knighta if the courts trust a woman to decide about the potentional life why can't the same court trust a woman to decide matters concerning her own life? You and I are in the same boat there.
Big Bulls you hit the closest to where I am headed "If a person wants to kill themselves then let them go for it I'm not going to be the one that talks you down off of the ledge. No one on this planet has the right to make a person live if they do not want to. I have never understood how suicide can be illegal" although I will do my best to talk them in off the ledge.
Mr-Pirk