To sleep! perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub

Dr Kevorkian was recently released from prison after serving 8 years. I was always a bit of a fan of his. Modern medicine extends the life of people who previously would have died much sooner. And it often just extends their suffering and the suffering of those who love them.

For those cancer patients in great pain — who are going to die — if they wish to end their suffering should they not be allowed to do so? With assisted suicide they can do so with dignity and minimal pain. What are the alternatives? Slit your wrists? Blow your brains out? Leave a bloody horrible mess for your loved ones to clean up? Is that the final memory that you wish to leave your children? Or what if you are truly unfortunate enough to contract some horrible debilitating disease? Should this happen to me, I would prefer that my children remember me as strong, independent, and healthy. I would not want to burden them with the disgust of cleaning up my vomit or changing my diapers. Nor to leave them with sad memories of me wasting away in frailty. Should I be so unfortunate I would not want to inflict this on those I love. I would instead probably choose suicide, but I would not want them to have to clean up my spattered brains from the walls. I would want to end my life in a practical, reliable, clean, and as pain free method as possible. Thank you, Dr. Kevorkian for promoting this alternative.

To me it is a contradiction that conservatives tend to oppose assisted suicide and the right to die. I see a direct extension from the root of conservative philosophy to the freedom to end one's life. At the root of Conservatism is the belief in responsibility for one's own life and actions. Conservatives believe in the autonomy of the individual. My life is my own. It does not belong to the State or the King. So IF my life is my own, then who can tell me that I don't have the right to end it?

Unfortunately, many conservatives do not grasp this crucial right. Most conservatives, having religion, and in the West generally Christianity, they believe that God gave us life and therefore only he has the right to take it away.

I understand the argument but I do not agree with it. I sure don't remember "Thou shalt not commit suicide" as one of the Ten Commandments. And I don't think "Thou shalt not kill" covers it, as I also don't think that covers killing in defense (personal or national), or in punishment. If God had meant for us to never take our own lives then he should have worked it in there — perhaps instead of that one about graven images. Somehow that was more important.

Does the Bible prohibit suicide? Not that I can find out. I am no Bible scholar, but my search revealed the following key points: The 4th century theologian Augustine posited that suicide was "self-murder" and therefore violated the Sixth Commandment. Later, Thomas Aquinas opined that suicide was contrary to observed nature and therefore contrary to God's ordained laws.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1911

Eventually Christian doctrine held that suicide was a mortal sin.

http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/ideas/suicide1.html

On a personal note, the first I ever knew about the "sin" of suicide was from Hamlet. In the graveyard scene the gravediggers, talking amongst themselves, wonder why a woman who killed herself is receiving a Christian burial…

"Is she to be buried in Christian burial that willfully seeks her own salvation?"

No Christian burial for suiciders back then it would seem. On the other hand, many other religions and cultures (the Japanese come to mind) respect those who take their own lives, especially for honorable reasons.

I find these arguments against the right to die to be unconvincing. I see no holy message from God against it (and frankly, that wouldn't mean much to this "reluctant atheist" anyway...).

A Little Backbone Please?

I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Never crazy about the guy but with choices like Reverend Gore and John (Lurch) Kerry, he looked pretty good. He’s definitely disappointed me a few times. His appointments of Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales were pretty obvious mistakes — made up however by stellar appointments such as Roberts, Snow, and Bolton (although that last one is sadly undone). And now his America-destroying pro-illegal stance... Well, on with my point.

What’s wrong with Bush, really? I’ve thought for a long time that his worst quality is that he’s just a ridiculously bad public speaker. The only reason he did well in the debates against Kerry is because he was debating Kerry. I guess the Dems decided to play weakness against weakness... Good plan.

But I do believe though I’ve come to understand what I don’t like about Bush — He doesn’t fight back. He’s weak. He’s a microcosm of modern America. He’s got enough gumption to do what he thinks is right, but he is disappointingly silent in his own defense (and, yes, I do watch Fox News). He’s attacked by the main stream media 24/7, but when has he ever reamed any of his attackers a new one? In recent memory I can remember only incident even remotely close — when he chided those attacking his immigration "reform" as spouting "empty rhetoric." Sadly, he was attacking his own party and political base. Thanks, G.W... Why can’t he get some balls when the libs attack him? You’ve seen those White House Press briefings... Ostensibly an opportunity for the press to ask questions, it has turned into a spear chucking, foot frying, monkey poo flinging contest to see which “journalist” can score the most points. The reporters' so-called questions are merely attempts to trap, discredit, and embarrass the White House (funny, it wasn't like that during the Clinton presidency...). Why does the White house even bother with this weekly flogging? At least Tony Snow knows how to deal with these hecklers (although sadly he’s forced to carry water for Bush on this sickening immigration "reform" giveaway).

At any rate, the problem with Bush is that he has just enough backbone to begin to do what’s right but then he is weakly, foolishly, and ineptly silent in defense of his policies to the American public. The "Great Communicator" he's not. And, in my opinion, this is EXACTLY what invites attacks against him. The libs know they can fling poo and Bush (like Jesus?) will just turn the other cheek. That’s why he’s like a microcosm of American foreign policy (and why I don’t think Jesus would make a good President). We’ve proved to our enemies that we can’t stand the heat in the kitchen. That’s what the whole Mogadishu / Black Hawk Down lesson was about. Bin Laden has said so! Show weakness and you’ll continue to get attacked (this of course is not a new lesson from history but a very old one). Fortunately Bush knows this about Iraq. But somehow he doesn’t know this about the DNC.