Tuesday, March 22, 2005

The Slow-Motion Murder of Terri Schiavo: Day Five

My morning drives of this week have been accompanied by the surreal sounds of roles being reversed and hypocrisy going unchallenged.

First off, Monday morning brought news of the overnight passage and signing into law of a bill that would force Terri's case to be looked at by the Federal courts. What was most striking were the soundbites of Democratic Congresspeople loudly intoning that their constituents didn't "send me to Washington to interfere in their personal lives and decisions" and how the government had no right to step into this case.


Since WHEN has a liberal ever shied away from imposing the government into our lives? Why are they suddenly so worried that government has become too meddlesome in our affairs?

Could it be because it's more important that this woman be killed rather than let a sliver of light appear in their "death-before-life" agenda?

Well, duh. The Left has always been in favor of tyranny, sexism, racism, slavery and totalitarianism in which THEY are in charge of lording over us who gets what. It's ironic that a common smear against non-liberals - you know, those "Jesusland" troglodytes - is to compare them to the Taliban when it's the Left who is four-square behind this husband's right to slaughter his wife mercilessly as he would a pet he's grown tired of.

Except a pet would be entitled to a more sensible demise.

Today's morning commute brought an "end of life expert" who spoke sooth about how Terri's death would be painless because, well, she's too damaged to suffer pain like higher life forms (like liberals) do. Nice. Possibly a lie, but whatever promulgates the myth that Terri won't be suffering, so don't lose sleep over her tortuous demise, is the rule of the day.

As the rabid comments on the previous post show, the issue isn't whether Terri is going to suffer and whether her rat-bastard husband holds title to her metaphysical pink slip, it's the defeat of the "culture of life" and by extension non-liberals, that fuels the irrational haters of the Left. They don't have a problem with government robbing us through taxation, brainwashing our children in government-run schools, restricting personal liberties across the board, etc. etc. etc. as long as it's THEIR SIDE with the whip hand. The moment Jesusland politicians open their mouths, it's screaming time again.

Now, speaking for myself, I'm not too crazy about all these last minute showboating maneuvers by the Republicans as they cross sides into the "government must act" area, thus chucking what little credibility they had as a smaller-government party out the window.


...while I think they're probably out of bounds, they're at least making a mistake on the side of protecting the helpless. Another smear of the Left is that Red Staters don't give a sh*t about a fetus once it escapes the womb, yet when they try to protect someone who's on the edge of death, the hypocrites switch up without a care for consistency and attack again and again. So, what's new?

My stance on this all along has been in the form of rhetorical questions that no one seems to want to answer:

1. Why is Michael Schiavo so hell bent to see his wife dead? He's got a new girlfriend and kids, but he won't divorce his invalid wife and has aggressively prevented her from receiving therapy, when Terri's family are more than willing to step up to the plate.

B. Why are we being told that a slow torturous death from starvation and dehydration is humane? I've suggested to people that we simply put a gun to her head and paint the hospice's walls with her damaged brain or snuff her with a pillow or a lethal injection like we do with convicts and animals and they look at me like I'm the crazy one. If dead is dead, what's the hold-up?

3. When the Left pays lip service to women's rights and choice, why are they so willing to let ONE MAN have the say-so over her life or death? I'm sure Taliban honchos watching CNNi are scratching their heads over this twist.

This case is a mess and the truism about hard cases making bad law is on full display, but remove all the agendas and bickering and posturing and partisan crap and we're left with a simple question to consider: Is life important enough to go to extremes to protect? If so, just how extreme are we going to get?

The Left is scared that to save Terri would mean yielding from their unholy Sacrament of Abortion and that if we're going to protect this veg, then it's a short step to shooting abortionists next and frankly, that leap worries me as well. While I'm no fan of abortion and believe it's primarily used as de facto "post-conceptual birth control", I believe that if God has something to say about it, he'll handle it in his own manner and all those whackos running around as self-appointed Guardians of Life who MURDER these doctors need to drop dead NOW! It's not YOUR decision, either!

While it's hard to rationalize interference, it's harder to accept why simply pointing out the ramifications of our choices must be squelched by those who exercise their free speech rights by shrieking insane slurs in my comments section - a privilege, BTW, not a right - and unless they're too offensive to remain, I let them stand in testament to the unreasoning hatred that consumes them. Why should I say it when they can prove it?

To conclude, here are a couple of relevant columns from the torrent that are sweeping the Web about this issue. First up, here's Thomas Sowell's "Cruel and Unusual" which says in part:

If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

If nothing else comes out of all this, there needs to be a national discussion of some humane way to end life in those cases when it has to be ended -- and this may not be one of those cases.

And here is Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard's argument in favor of intervention which echo my questions above:

* Terri Schiavo is brain damaged but not brain dead. She is not on life support. She breathes on her own. She occasionally laughs. She reacts to stimuli. She responds at times to her parents. She is not dying, though she needs a feeding tube. A doctor diagnosed her as being in a "permanent vegetative state" but other doctors have disputed that view. Indeed there are legitimate questions about her initial diagnosis.

* Schiavo's parents have offered to take full responsibility for her care, relieving her husband of any obligations whatsoever. They are willing to pay the expenses of her hospitalization and any rehabilitation program.

* Senate majority leader Bill Frist, himself a doctor, has talked to a neurologist who examined Schiavo. The neurologist told him that with proper care of a type she hasn't received there is a good chance that Schiavo's condition will improve markedly.

As usual, go read all of the pieces and if the howlers must spew their anti-Christian hatred all over the comments section accusing me of being a "Jesus freak" - odd considering I'm dreading the 1st of my compulsory annual trips to Church this Sunday - kindly include your response to this question:

Why shouldn't we just shoot Terri Schiavo like a wounded animal instead of a slow, torturous, painful, miserable death at the wishes of her scumbag guardian? (He doesn't warrant the title of "husband" if you think of it.)


Anonymous said...

"Why is Michael Schiavo so hell bent to see his wife dead? He's got a new girlfriend and kids, but he won't divorce his invalid wife and has aggressively prevented her from receiving therapy, when Terri's family are more than willing to step up to the plate."

Maybe, just maybe, the husband is really the "hero" in all of this. He is the one who has endured 7 years of court battles. He has endured being savaged by strangers who don't know him or his wife. He has done all this despite an easier way out-- he could divorce or pass legal guardianship and spare himself all this anguish.

Have you stopped to think that maybe he's enduring all this to see that her will is done? He has given up almost a decade of his life to see to it that his wife's wishes were granted.

What he is choosing is awful and sad, but he is noble for doing it in the face of simpler options. Would that we all had someone like that in our time of need.

As to your other question, nobody wants to shoot her. Of course, thanks to the Hail Jesus crowd, we can't discuss other humane means of ending our lives. There is no option of a slow morphine drip into oblivion. Starvation and dehydration is the only option because that's "hands-off" and "natural".

Dirk Belligerent said...

There have been nurses with sworn affidavits on Hannity and Limbaugh telling a story of a husband who tore pages from her chart, threatened to sue the hospice if they treat her and may've tried to kill her with an insulin injection when he wasn't busy complaining about how much money she was costing him and wondering when "that bitch is going to die".

While the pro-death/anti-Christian people - can't you folks contain your vicious hatred for people of faith or weren't you paying attention to the last Election? (hint: kicking the sleeping dog gets you bitten) - may wish to see him as a noble warrior in the battle to fulfill his wife's death wish, doesn't it strain credulity?

It makes more sense that this guy is a rat than what you propose. Of course, if things continue on this path, she'll soon be dead, he'll be free and you can do a little happy dance of joy...

On Terri's Schiavo's grave.