<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" 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"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR><!--[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 vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Interesting point of view, but if the right to
privacy can be limited in case of abortion, why determine it inappropriate
in a person's decision to die? I should think the right to privacy comes
with limits in most instances anyway. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sue H. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=josephc@wsu.edu href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu">Campbell, Joseph</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=scooterd408@hotmail.com
href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com">Scott Dredge</A> ; <A
title=vpschwaller@gmail.com
href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">vpschwaller@gmail.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">viz</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:13
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Rights, Guns,
Abortion, Speech, and Death</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Scott,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">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: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Best,
Joe<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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 style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">
<HR id=stopSpelling align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 10pt; 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: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>