March 23, 2005
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of HappinessPosted by Bryan
I've read the legal ruling and grasp its basic claim. I'm not a lawyer, and don't pretend to be. I simply go back to the beginning, and I see that the right to life is an undeniable, unalienable right. The fifth amendment is the only place I can find where these undeniable, unalienable rights can be denied or taken away. The fifth amendment's deprivation of said rights are contextually applicable against individuals accused of committing a criminal offense.
The fourteenth amendment, on the other hand, offers expressly explicit protections against undue denials and deprivations of the fundamental rights bestowed upon us by our Creator. To me, this amendment affirms as law the declarative statement that defined the establishment of our nation.
The plain language of our nation's basic laws is thusly: By default, you are guaranteed life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
With the actions of the courts denying Terri Schiavo's right to these unalienable rights according to the fourteenth amendment, The United States is Oh-fer-Three in its triple guarantee to her. Sadly, the only accomplishment in this sad affair is the very public torture of a most innocent victim. All of America's citizens should fear the precedence being established. Slippery slopes are rarely drastic, dramatic steps that victimize the populace. They begin as minute drop-offs in the curb of public opinion where only the most vulnerable are victimized, thus eliminating any foothold of resistance when broader, more egregious offenses yank the rug from beneath the broader population. Make no mistake, the denial of Ms. Schiavo's unalienable rights is a tentpole in the circus of a new law, offering a promise of government-sanctioned (or at least government-validated) euthanasia for generations to come.
May God forgive our transgressions and hear our prayers to radically, drastically and immediately change our nation's heart so that we would desire to pursue life.
March 23, 2005 2:25 PMI've thought of this angle, but don't know if it really applies in this case. If you have a "right to life", don't you - by default - have a "right to death"?
Posted by: Tony Rosen at March 23, 2005 3:35 PMDeath is not the opposite of life, it is the cessation of life. As such, it's "guarantee" is not a reflexively axiomatic. Death needs no constitutional protection, for it comes to everyone, and once it's gone, man, it's gone (to paraphrase Jack Handy).
However, the right to "life" must be constitutionally protected, for it can be taken away by those who would choose to do so. The right to die cannot (which I think is Michael Schiavo's shaky argument, given his questionable motives and treatment of Terri). The means by which death comes to a person is life's great variable, and no government can offer guarantees or promises on how a person (much less one who cannot speak for herself) should come to it (save those who earned the deprivation of their basic civil rights because of criminal offense).
Posted by: Bryan at March 23, 2005 4:10 PMI think the most humane way to handle it is to think what you would like to happen to you. I think that's pretty much the Golden Rule If I was being kept alive by a feeding tube, and couldn't otherwise communicate my wishes to my family, I would like the feeding tube removed, especially if I had been in that situation as long as Ms. Schiavo.
Check out http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000558.html for my political views on the matter.