[Vision2020] Rights, Guns, Abortion, Speech, and Death

Mon Nov 10 22:50:39 PST 2008

I know this is address to Dr. Campbell, but I'll chime in anyway with my 2 cents.  I don't believe that 'right to privacy' is the proper way to go after the 'death with dignity' issue.  In certain cases privacy would be a conflict of interest as the case where 2 brothers plot to kill their parents under the guise of 'death with dignity' so they can inherit the family jewelry store to solve their current financial crisises before immediately getting into new ones.  BTW, have you all seen the movie 'Before the Devil Knows You're Dead' starring Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei, and Albert Finney about 2 brothers who come up with an ill-conceived idea to rob their parent's jewelry store?  I don't recommend it since it gave me nightmares for this first time since I watched 'Open Water' the nightmarish movie Carl Westberg recommended.

'Death with Dignity' should just be argued for and against on some other grounds.  Pick something else other than 'right to privacy'...maybe avoiding excruciating pain in the last 6 months of a terminal condition.  Although I think there are already loopholes in the law that allow this.  One of my girlfriend's ex-boyfriend had some rare spinal cancer about 15 years ago and when his 6'4" frame became emaciated to the point where he looked like a 60 pound Auschwitz victim, his doctors gave him a very high dose of morphine targeted to suppress his pain and one of the side effects was that this dosage was that it killed him within 48 hours (this was according to one of our other friends so I can't vouch for the accuracy / legality of this approach).  Personally, I think it would have been more humane to administer this treatment (if guaranteed effective) a little earlier before wasting away to skin and bones, constantly throwing up bile, being forced to endure months of the worst case of dry mouth anyone can ever imagine, etc.  Maybe there are hard-to-imagine worse cases than this that could be used in favor of shaping 'death with dignity' laws.  And once again, you need to somehow maneuver through the crowd of Bible thumpers although every single one of them who fought to prevent Terri Schiavo's feeding tube from being removed, all said 'she's in a far better place' after she died / was murdered. 

-Scott

Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:10:37 -0800
From: vpschwaller at gmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Rights, Guns, Abortion, Speech, and Death

Dr. Campbell - so taking this one more step, should and would these "rights" be extended to those who choose death with dignity?  Does not the right to privacy similarly ground the "right" to choose the timing of one's death as well?

Thank you for your reply

GS

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Campbell, Joseph <josephc at wsu.edu> wrote:

Scott,

I've been reading your posts lately about the possible
threat to the 2nd amendment given the recent Obama election and, although I
find your thoughts and arguments interesting, I am in firm disagreement with
your view. So I'd like to say what I think about the issues. I've
made these points before but I don't think I've made them all to
you.

First, you mention a lack of consistency between liberal
views on abortion rights and liberal views on gun rights. Some of the confusion
may be settled if, instead of talking about abortion "rights," we
talked about the right to privacy, the right upon which the "right"
to abortion is founded. Granted the right to privacy is not an explicit right,
not explicitly noted in the bill of rights, for instance. But the argument is
that several of those rights would make no sense were there not a prior right
to privacy. We could talk about whether this argument is good or bad at a later
point but for now let's just assume that there is a right to privacy that
grounds the "right" to abortion.

No one thinks that we have an absolute right to privacy, one
that should not be infringed under any circumstance. In a court of law, for
instance, a lawyer might ask a defendant questions about his private life that
might be deemed inappropriate under normal circumstances. Yet the defendant
cannot, or cannot always, refuse to answer on the basis of his right to
privacy. A search warrant allows police to investigate the drawers containing
your undergarments. Similar examples abound.

Consider next the right to free speech. That right is not
absolute either. I do not have the right to slander you, to libel you, to tell
lies about you, or even (I would say) to insult you. I have a right to speak
freely and in so doing I might insult you but that does not mean that I have a
right to insult you. I looked up 'human rights' in an on-line
dictionary and got: "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans
are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of
thought and expression, and equality before the law." I am entitled to
speak freely but I'm not entitled to insult you. Still, in an effort to
ensure the former we might have to put up with the instances of the latter.

I would say the same about the "right" to abortion,
which I would not call a right at all. I have a right to privacy and what that
ensures is that the government cannot tell me when I should and when I should
not have a child. That is my decision. Provisions should be made that allow me
to make that decision on my own, without government intrusion. That gives me
limited access to abortion. The "right" to abortion is founded on
the right to privacy, and since no one thinks that the right to privacy is
unrestricted, no one should be in favor of unrestricted abortion
"rights," though as in the case of free speech the initial right
may be important enough to allow for behaviors that others would deem
offensive. Such is the price of freedom.

It is no mystery when rights should be restricted, for no
one has the right to deprive another of his right. My right to free speech
cannot restrict your right to privacy, so restrictions against, say, my
broadcasting your home address and phone number are appropriate. In general,
when my acts are likely to lead to harm to other persons, the law may
intervene. My rights go only so far. What counts as a harm? What counts as a
person? These questions complicate the matter but clear answers in each case
abound, and in those clear cases laws may be made restricting certain behaviors,
behaviors that would otherwise be protected.

Thus, your view on gun rights seems to be far more extreme
than what I take to be the liberal view on abortion and speech and rights in
general. In the latter cases, we recognize restrictions all the time. In fact,
there are many restrictions to speech and abortion that are already imbedded in
the law. Few liberals want to do away with laws against slander or laws against
third trimester abortion since in those cases the harms are clear. (In the latter
case, I am not talking about the harm to the fetus, I'm talking about the
harm to society in general, which might override the woman's right to
what goes on in her own body once the fetus has passed the point of viability.
That is how I understand Roe v. Wade.)

Someone above – I can't remember if it was you
or Dan or someone else – talked about the right to bear arms extending to
hunters and gun collectors, as if we had rights to hunt or rights to collect as
many and as diverse a collection of toys as we individually deemed fit; that
the second amendment protected the collection of any gun by any person for
whatever reason. That is like saying that because I have a right to privacy
I'd have a right to your house were that the place that I felt most
private. The second amendment says nothing about hunting or collecting. Nothing
at all, for there are no such rights: not in the bill of rights, not in heaven,
not on earth. These are privileges at most, not rights.

Nor is our right to bear arms unrestricted, as you seem to
suggest. If it were, why not allow citizens to obtain nuclear arms? The reason
is that the chance for abuse and harm is great. The implication is that in such
cases, the restriction of arms is justified. To think that nuclear arms offer
the only such case is absurd. Ergo, there is no unrestricted right to bear
arms. That is a myth.

I understand that Americans have a fascination with guns,
just as they have a fascination with privacy and with speech, and given those
fascinations a tolerance for pushing the bounds of those rights should be
respected by all parties: conservatives should appreciate the attempt from
liberals to push the boundaries of our rights to privacy and free speech, and
liberals should appreciate the attempt from conservatives to push the
boundaries of our rights to guns and free speech. (It seems that free speech is
a right of which we all agree, though how that right should be manifested is
something about which we don't always agree.) Toward that end, I'll
try to be more respectful of your attempts to keep your toys. But not to the
extent of affording easy access to nutcases like the Moscow and Virginia Tech
murderers. Clearly there is a problem with current gun laws but one that we
should be able to solve without infringing on your right to protect yourself,
or even your "right" to have a little fun!

Best,

Joe Campbell

=======================================================

 List services made available by First Step Internet,

 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

               http://www.fsr.net

          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081110/95a473f2/attachment-0001.html 