What would happen if the United States Congress passed a law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter roymckenzie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

roymckenzie

Guest
What would happen if the United States Congress passed and it was signed into law, a law which states simply that human life begins at conception and ends at natural death? And further went on to say that natural death was the stopping of all brain activity.
 
It would probably be taken into the court system right away and temporarily put on hold while it works its way through the system. It would probably make it to the Supreme Court who would then have to decide how it relates to past legal precedents.
 
That would make living wills illegal. I have every right not to be kept alive by machines just to keep my brain activity going and the government say I’m alive. They would have to specify what is natural death and that is debatable these days. Some might argue that since science is capable of sustaining life beyond the natural death of, say, 100 years ago, that the concept is now different. Who will pay the medical expenses of those on the life support. It is far too expensive and therefore should be left at the desire of the individual. That is alot different than prematurely killing oneself.
 
Good point, jim, although the Government seems to be more in favor of offing people rather than keeping them alive. 😦
 
goofyjim said:
That would make living wills illegal. I have every right not to be kept alive by machines just to keep my brain activity going and the government say I’m alive. They would have to specify what is natural death and that is debatable these days. Some might argue that since science is capable of sustaining life beyond the natural death of, say, 100 years ago, that the concept is now different. Who will pay the medical expenses of those on the life support. It is far too expensive and therefore should be left at the desire of the individual. That is alot different than prematurely killing oneself.
Click to expand...
I think this might be a red herring. The subject at hand is what is life? The costs to society in maintaining the value of life is an excellent topic and can be taken a number of ways. One could logically argue that the revenue generated buy having 33% more people in the country would off set the cost of maintaining life. Another argument one could comfortably make is all human life is made in the image and likeness of God and there fore has infinite value.
The question at hand is what if Congress makes a law and the President signs it stating that human life begins at conception and ends at natural death. The law then goes on to define natural death the ending of all brain activity.
To the best of my understanding there is no machine or man made device that can continue brain activity once the brain has died.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
It would probably be taken into the court system right away and temporarily put on hold while it works its way through the system. It would probably make it to the Supreme Court who would then have to decide how it relates to past legal precedents.
Click to expand...
:bigyikes:

I cannot believe this. This is the second time you have made a post that I agree with! 😛

I suspect such a law would probably be overturned by the courts. To put such provisions into law would likely require a constitutional amendment. But then I am no lawyer, just a cynical American.
 
roymckenzie said:
I think this might be a red herring. The subject at hand is what is life? The costs to society in maintaining the value of life is an excellent topic and can be taken a number of ways. One could logically argue that the revenue generated buy having 33% more people in the country would off set the cost of maintaining life. Another argument one could comfortably make is all human life is made in the image and likeness of God and there fore has infinite value.
The question at hand is what if Congress makes a law and the President signs it stating that human life begins at conception and ends at natural death. The law then goes on to define natural death the ending of all brain activity.
To the best of my understanding there is no machine or man made device that can continue brain activity once the brain has died.
Click to expand...
But recall the case of Terry Schiavo. There was no way she was ever going to function again but they kept her on the feeding tubes which kept the brain activity going. I would not want this and am personally going to write a living will to forbid it. The government has no right to interfere with that decision. The way to define natural death is what would natural death have been before all this new technology came along.
 
As I recall Senator Helms introduced such a bill at the beginning of Congress in 1981, with a good chance of getting it passed. However, Senator Hatch, who chaired the Judiciary committee, sat on it while he and the Bishops worked on their two amendment approach. [The first amendment was to say that they could pass an amendment forbidding abortion. :confused: ] Their first amendment got nowhere and it all went away when the majority was lost in 1983. At that point both Senator Hatch and the Bishops busied themselves with other issues.
 
The ‘fertilization’ part is also not without problems. Do moles and uterine cysts suddenly count as legal dependants?

Also, what happens to ectopic pregnancies, we end about 50,000 to 150,000 of them each year in Catholic hospitals now?

Regarding the Teri S. comment above, it is a difficult situation. ‘Never recover’ does not mean that we can dismiss the infinite value of the gift of life. And, as a general belief, Catholics do not view nutrition and hydration as extraordinary means (though the poor woman had lost the ability to accept either of those without medical assistance). The Church does give us some latitude regarding death with dignity, and there are some situations where even hydration and nutrition are potentially ‘extraordinary care’.

On a personal level, I find I have great sympathy for eveyrone involved, the woman, her parents, the husband. It is easy to pass moral judgement from a distance. But we are all sinners and we have not had to walk in their shoes.
 
SoCalRC said:
The ‘fertilization’ part is also not without problems. Do moles and uterine cysts suddenly count as legal dependants?

Also, what happens to ectopic pregnancies, we end about 50,000 to 150,000 of them each year in Catholic hospitals now?

Regarding the Teri S. comment above, it is a difficult situation. ‘Never recover’ does not mean that we can dismiss the infinite value of the gift of life. And, as a general belief, Catholics do not view nutrition and hydration as extraordinary means (though the poor woman had lost the ability to accept either of those without medical assistance). The Church does give us some latitude regarding death with dignity, and there are some situations where even hydration and nutrition are potentially ‘extraordinary care’.

On a personal level, I find I have great sympathy for eveyrone involved, the woman, her parents, the husband. It is easy to pass moral judgement from a distance. But we are all sinners and we have not had to walk in their shoes.
Click to expand...
Then permit to against Church expectations. If I ever reach the point she was at I do not want the feeding tubes hooked up to me to keep me alive. My living will will state that they are extraordinary means and are not to be used. I want everyone to know they are to let me die at that point.
 
goofyjim said:
But recall the case of Terry Schiavo. There was no way she was ever going to function again but they kept her on the feeding tubes which kept the brain activity going. I would not want this and am personally going to write a living will to forbid it. The government has no right to interfere with that decision. The way to define natural death is what would natural death have been before all this new technology came along.
Click to expand...
Why the arbitrary line of “new technology”. Why not define natural death as what would naturally happen before 20th century medicine came along?
 
goofyjim said:
Then permit to against Church expectations. If I ever reach the point she was at I do not want the feeding tubes hooked up to me to keep me alive. My living will will state that they are extraordinary means and are not to be used. I want everyone to know they are to let me die at that point.
Click to expand...
After all, what does the Church know? It was only instituted by Christ and guided from error by the Holy Spirit.
 
goofyjim said:
Then permit to against Church expectations. If I ever reach the point she was at I do not want the feeding tubes hooked up to me to keep me alive. My living will will state that they are extraordinary means and are not to be used. I want everyone to know they are to let me die at that point.
Click to expand...
Put it in writing. Seriously. If your wishes aren’t clearly spelled out, you could well find yourself receiving extraordinary means.

Even in writing, it is a hard request for Catholics to honor. It isn’t that we dont’ respect you or want to hurt you. But direct euthanasia is never permitted for us and denying you hydration and nutrition is taught to be direct euthanasia.

Your best bet might be: broke, no insurance, and a non-Catholic hospital. I’m joking, but it is also true enough to be sad… 😦

Peace
 
SoCalRC said:
Put it in writing. Seriously. If your wishes aren’t clearly spelled out, you could well find yourself receiving extraordinary means.

Even in writing, it is a hard request for Catholics to honor. It isn’t that we dont’ respect you or want to hurt you. But direct euthanasia is never permitted for us and denying you hydration and nutrition is taught to be direct euthanasia.

Your best bet might be: broke, no insurance, and a non-Catholic hospital. I’m joking, but it is also true enough to be sad… 😦

Peace
Click to expand...
Which is why a bill like this can’t be passed. There are differing views on natural death. I don’t consider it euthanasia to pull the plug on feeding tubes when they are the only things keeping the brain activity going. Otherwise life under that definition might never end.
 
goofyjim said:
Which is why a bill like this can’t be passed. There are differing views on natural death. I don’t consider it euthanasia to pull the plug on feeding tubes when they are the only things keeping the brain activity going. Otherwise life under that definition might never end.
Click to expand...
Please clarify for me how feeding tubes can keep a brain alive without keeping the rest of the body alive?
 
roymckenzie said:
What would happen if the United States Congress passed and it was signed into law, a law which states simply that human life begins at conception and ends at natural death? And further went on to say that natural death was the stopping of all brain activity.
Click to expand...
The Republican party would suffer greatly because the main reason Christians vote for them would be eliminated.

Which is why abortion will never be outlawed in the United States, as much as I wish it were.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
The Republican party would suffer greatly because the main reason Christians vote for them would be eliminated.

Which is why abortion will never be outlawed in the United States, as much as I wish it were.
Click to expand...
And the Democrat party would suffer greatly because its sole reason for existence would be eliminated.

I’m sorry, but you asked for that. This is not a thread about how much the posters might or might not hate the Republican party.
 
In addressing the topic. Such a law would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, given its present composition, because it would cause a conflict between the Due Process Clause and the unfettered “right to have an abortion” the Court found in the “penumbra” of the Constitution.

Changing that would require a reversal by the Supreme Court itself or a constitutional amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top