Brittany Maynard is dead now...

Rest in Peace

http://www.people.com/article/britta...l-brain-cancer

So sad.
My heart goes out to her family.

She did it her way...

The question in my mind is "Why did she have to move". Why can't we all die as we choose if we so choose in each and every State.

Is freedom of choice a States rights issue?

Why do some of you scream about giving control of your life to the State? Why not scream for more personal freedom in Federal , State and local municipalities?

So why, then, must thousands of other Americans suffer because of antiquated, inhumane laws?

if you had no point, shir-LIE-turd, then why post this at all in a political forum.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

She showed so much grace and strength. God bless her.

"Goodbye to all my dear friends and family that I love. Today is the day I have chosen to pass away with dignity in the face of my terminal illness, this terrible brain cancer that has taken so much from me … but would have taken so much more... The world is a beautiful place, travel has been my greatest teacher, my close friends and folks are the greatest givers. I even have a ring of support around my bed as I type … Goodbye world. Spread good energy. Pay it forward!"

I agree. And every state can put it up for a vote, can they not ? If it were put to a vote in Texas, i would give individuals the right to decide.

The question in my mind is "Why did she have to move". Why can't we all die as we choose if we so choose in each and every State.

Is freedom of choice a States rights issue?

Why do some of you scream about giving control of your life to the State? Why not scream for more personal freedom in Federal , State and local municipalities?


Originally Posted by WTF

I agree. And every state can put it up for a vote, can they not ? If it were put to a vote in Texas, i would give individuals the right to decide. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What kind of logic is that?

Giving a group of people the power to decide your individual rights? Who cares if it is Federal or State limiting your individual rights? You seem to think it quite all right for the State to do so.

Everyone should have the power to decide their own fate. It should not be put up to vote.

Certain rights that do not hurt others , should be universal.

This state rights crap is just another form of control.

You are willing to give an even smaller group (judges, the SCOTUS, Senate) the right to make those decisions for you.

Unless you are advocating to get rid of the Republic and go to a system without government, representatives, courts, etc.

Is that what you are advocating?

What kind of logic is that?

Giving a group of people the power to decide your individual rights? Who cares if it is Federal or State limiting your individual rights? You seem to think it quite all right for the State to do so.

Everyone should have the power to decide their own fate. It should not be put up to vote.

Certain rights that do not hurt others , should be universal.

This state rights crap is just another form of control. Originally Posted by WTF

Some people believe we need some basic rules in order for civilization to exist.
I agree that rights that do not hurt others should be universal. In the WTF utopia, do we need to state that as a rule or do we just assume it to be so?

Death with dignity is something I am sure we all hope for.

This young woman certainly did that.

All I am asking you state rights lovers is the difference between the Feds limiting your rights vs the state. You guys act as if being run over by a bus is better than a train.



.i freely admit my goal is to fuck Ms Universe not my prison guard. You guys act as if fucking your prison guard is a step up.What good is that if at the end of the day you are still in prison?

All I am asking you state rights lovers is the difference between the Feds limiting your rights vs the state. You guys act as if being run over by a bus is better than a train. Originally Posted by WTF

Because that's the way the Government is set up through the Constitution and Bill of rights.
No one is arguing that it's better to be run over by a train. We just want the federal government to respect the rights as they were set forth.

We see the Feds trample on the Constitution all the time. No system of government is going to be perfect just as a system of no government at all won't be perfect either. Anarchy like Communism is great in theory but in practice it falls apart because of the human element. There will always be someone that rises to power and when they do they will start making rules if for no other reason than to preserve their power.

What the Constitution does is try to limit that rule making power at the top and give the people more say and choice.

As it is right now, thanks to the people of Oregon, I at least have the choice to move there and exercise my right to decide my fate. I appreciate that they have made that decision.

Hopefully, other states will follow suit, as usually happens when something like this comes to the forefront, and the people of each state can debate and decide rather than letting the Federal Government dictate their own set of morals.

What kind of logic is that?

Giving a group of people the power to decide your individual rights? Who cares if it is Federal or State limiting your individual rights? You seem to think it quite all right for the State to do so.

Everyone should have the power to decide their own fate. It should not be put up to vote.

Certain rights that do not hurt others , should be universal.

This state rights crap is just another form of control. Originally Posted by WTF

States rights is more an argument about which government should have the final say and interpretation of rights. In the states rights argument, each state shouldn't be overruled by the Feds. It renders the individual states, with their elected legislatures and governors, as powerless and the Feds supreme, in contravention of the original desires of the states to be more autonomous and freely exercise their rights as they understand them.

States' rights as "code word"


During the heyday of the African-American civil rights movement, the term "states' rights" was used as a code word by defenders of segregation. In 1948 it was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by white supremacist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond.

Democratic governor George Wallace, of Alabama, who famously declared in his inaugural address in 1963, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"—later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!" Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.

In 2010, Texas governor Rick Perry's use of the expression "state's rights", to some, was reminiscent of "an earlier era when it was a rallying cry against civil rights."During an interview with The Dallas Morning News, Perry made it clear that he supports the end of segregation, including passage of the Civil Rights Act. Texas president of the NAACP Gary Bledsoe stated that he understood that Perry wasn't speaking of "states' rights" in a racial context; but others still felt offended by the term because of its past misuse.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights