Why Do Democrats Believe the Constitution is Alive but Terry Schiavo Wasn't?
First, I told the Constitution to lay down. It didn't do so. I told the Constitution to jump. It didn't do so. I pinched the Constitution, but it didn't flinch. I tickled the Constitution, but it didn't laugh. I deprived the Constitution of any form of nutrition, but it did not decay or cease in any of its basic functions. I was beginning to get discouraged. The Democrats promised me that the Constitution was alive, why wasn't mine?
Did I have a defective Constitution? What was wrong?
Well, I tried this several more times before coming to the following conclusion: the Constitution is not alive. The document itself is not living. But this began to confuse me. What was considered alive to Democrats? To be honest I couldn't find a consistent answer for you, because the exact same principles were applied to a human being and they decided that she wasn't worth keeping alive.
Unlike the Constitution, Terry Schiavo required a sustenance of nutrition - after all, it was only by depriving her of that were the Democrats' wishes finally met and she died. Unlike the Constitution, Terry Schiavo reacted to commands and voices. Unlike the Constitution, Terry Schiavo followed objects with her eyes like balloons. Unlike the Constitution, Terry Schiavo was able to identify loved ones when they entered the room.
Most importantly, unlike the Constitution, when certain parameters weren't met, she died.
I suppose there's no firmer way to make someone a "neo-con" than to tell them that the alternative is a party that empowers documents of paper with the gift of life, but has absolutely no qualms depriving it of a woman. I tried to follow the logic in all honesty, there had to be a reason why "women's rights" and "woman's right to choose" were such stinging issues to the Democrats and Liberals, but it's not quite like trying to figure out why someone moved their king in chess into a position that allowed checkmate, this would require me to effectively want for someone to starve to death.
Perhaps this wouldn't be such a bothering issue, if every time the reality of Amendments are brought up, the Left are wholly opposed to any notion that the Constitution is not a "living" document. It's "alive" and we need to respect that it "changes with the times", because after all, this piece of paper with ink is alive - certainly more alive than Terry Schiavo right?
I'd like to be able to go in-depth as to why there is such a brazen inconsistency here.
But truthfully, it's not something I'm able to wrap my mind around, only to point out as it is. The Democrats believe a piece of paper is more deserving of "life" than a human being.
Published by Chadd De Las Casas
I was born in Valencia, California in 1987. It's ironic that I turned out to be a writer, since my first exposure to it was an essay about why I hate writing. I am also the owner of the Content Producers Wiki. View profile
- Constitution Day: Holiday and HistoryYou may not get the day off and there may not be any picnics, but get ready for Constitution Day on September 18th, 2006.
- Why We MUST Celebrate Constitution DayWhy it's important not just to celebrate the US Constitution, but to keep it alive
- The Constitution and Sectional Discord in the 1850s Part IIDuring the 1850s, the safeguards to the relative stability of the Union during prior decades steadily began to crumble. Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison also began to condemn the U. S. Constitution for its al...
- Part II of Democrats of 2007 USA = National Socialists of 1934 Germany?The second part of an op-ed series detailing parallels between the Democrats in the US in 2007 and the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930s.
- JonBenét Ramsey's Parents Bear Some Responsibility for MurderJonBenét Ramsey's parents are somewhat responsible for her murder, as they failed to keep her safe, and in fact placed her in harm's way by sexualizing her and making her into a beauty pageant queen.
- Immanuel Kant: A Philosopher's Perspective on Terry Schiavo
- TV Networks Watch Death Closely: Terri Schiavo, Pope John Paul II, Six Feet Under
- Definitions of Living Wills and Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare
- Living Wills, End of Life Decisions and Organ Donation
- Antonin Scalia and the Judicial Branch are Causing a Lot of Concern
- Prepaid Legal: The Next Boom
- Jim Clayton: The Timothy Sexton AC Content Producer Interview
- The Constitution is not a living document.
- The Constitution is not alive.
- People are alive.
18 Comments
Post a CommentUpon autopsy, Terri Schiavo's brain weighed less than half what it was supposed to from a lack of oxygen. She was completely blind due to brain damage. The only part of her brain that wasn't affected from lack of oxygen was the part that controls your basic functions, such as breathing and your pulse. Her brain had shriveled to the point that there was no chance she would even recover a little. She had no self awareness. Part of a persistent vegetative state is that the person can blink and look and cry and smile like a 'regular' person but it's all reflexive. If a patient is going to recover they pretty much do by 3 months. By six months virtually no one recovers and you have a shell of a person that can sit their for decades. Terri was that way for over 15 years. No thank you.
How sick of people to think that sitting in their armchairs typing on their computers, they get to have some kind of say in the life or death of a person. The larger "scheme of things" is if there is a question, then you err on the side of life. It's the only decision you can undo if an err has occurred.
I honestly don't know CA - that's why the constant Democrat obsession with death, be it Terry Schiavo or babies halfway out of the vagina, has me so confounded. There shouldn't be such a bloody obsession with killing people.
what possible politcal gain could there be for letting a woman die???? In fact, it was the Republicans in trying to pander to the Christian Right that made the issue into a political football. Fortunately, the vast majority of the public saw it for the cynical ploy that it was. The Republicans tried to exploit a personal family tragedy into motivating their base against the "God hating" Democrats.
It is not, and was not an issue of cost. the state was paying for it, and her parents were willing to pick up the tab. it was an issue of what the wishes of terry schiavo were. The Courts, after 10 years of litigation found that in fact the husband had proven that it was her wish not to remain in that state if it were ever come to pass. By your rationale, if i tell my spouse that i would not want to remain in a vegatative state. they should still keep me alive against my wishes?
Again, to say that the Democrats wanted her dead is unfair and untrue. This is a very complicated and nuanced issue. To boil it down to the level you just did in the previous comments is just plain wrong.
Negative, I propose that if there is ever a choice between life and death in an innocent being, you always elect life. You do not kill them for your convenience. In this case it came down between the wishes of the Democrats and the Republicans, one wanted her dead, one wanted her alive. You should ALWAYS fault on the side of life. Always.
in the larger scheme of things, do you propose that the Senate of the United States pass indivdualized legislation for every person who has been potentially wronged, or may suffer grave harm and settle factual all factual disputes between parties in matters of life and death?
the fact that she showed "signs of life" is, at best, debateable. but from my limited understanding, the weight of the medical evidence showed that she was in a vegetative state from which she would never recover. After years of litigating whether Ms. Schiavo expressed her wishes to her husband, the state courts concluded that she in fact had done so. I am at a loss here, as to how this scenario results in Democrats trying to kill her.
i guess i never understood what he had to gain by fighting to take his wife off life support. was there life insurance? was he paying for it out of his pocket?