<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Scott,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I agree with you about the difference between the issue of
abortion and death with dignity. I don’t think that there is a right to
suicide and I don’t think that one could justify suicide by appeal to the
right to privacy. Here are two questions that might help us to see the
difference:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>1/Is it solely a person’s decision whether or not to give
birth (if pregnant)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>2/Is it solely a person’s decision when and how to die (if
living)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think the answer to (1) is “In general, yes; the
pregnant woman has the sole decision” but the answer to (2) is “No.”
(If I understand your initial post to me on this subject, you would strike the “In
general” in the first answer!) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Note, too, that on the issue of abortion I agree, more or less,
with Roe v. Wade: Once the fetus reaches viability, it is no longer just the
mother who can decide (that is why I say “In general …” in
answer to (1)). Once the fetus reaches the point of viability the state has
some say in what happens, as I see it. Anyone who commits suicide, though, is
well beyond viability! So there is no inconsistency here. We are social beings,
our lives are interconnected with others, and with those connections come
obligations that complicate the matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Here is another way to put the point. If a single mother wants
to have an abortion within the first trimester does she owe anyone an explanation?
I think not. (Again, you might extend this to the end of pregnancy.) If she
wanted to kill herself does she owe anyone an explanation? I think she does.
Suicide is not a private decision. “No man (or woman) is an island.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Lastly, in general, I agree with what you say in the second
paragraph below, too. There might be other ways to establish death with
dignity, other than via the right to privacy. Certainly were I terminally ill
and faced with nothing but a short life of pain, I’d like to have a
choice. My Catholic upbringing would likely dictate what I would choose but, in
general, it would be nice if people had the choice. But setting this up in a
safe way that prevents abuse is difficult and I have nothing enlightening to
add to the debate. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>In general, I’m a legal minimalist: the fewer laws the
better. Laws should only be established in cases of clear harms to clear
persons. Otherwise we should be allowed to do as we please.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Best, Joe<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Scott Dredge<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 10, 2008 10:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> vpschwaller@gmail.com; viz<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Rights, Guns, Abortion, Speech, and Death<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>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.<br>
<br>
'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. <br>
<br>
-Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center id=stopSpelling>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:10:37 -0800<br>
From: vpschwaller@gmail.com<br>
To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>
Subject: [Vision2020] Rights, Guns, Abortion, Speech, and Death<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Thank you for your reply<br>
<br>
GS<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>On
Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Campbell, Joseph <<a
href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu">josephc@wsu.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Scott,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Joe Campbell<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Stay
up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live <a
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/" target="_new">Click
here</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>