One last post on Terry Schiavo, and then I’ll let it go. Let me cite from the predictably wrong-headed Brown County Democrats (although, given the byline Rock Island, IL, it isn’t clear if this represents original writing by the BCD’s or if they are reprinting from another source. Evidence that this is original is the presence of the word “malignancy,” which standard fare for the usual BCD analogy of “people we disagree with” and “cancer”):
As of this morning, twenty court decisions have supported the contention of Michael Schiavo that Terri's wish would be for her to be let go. No court decisions have supported prolonging the life form she finds herself trapped in. Those of us who have not heard all the evidence would assume that twenty court decisions would represent well-considered and analyzed judgments, not the efforts of a "liberal" judiciary to deny the "right to life," as claimed by the right wing, but a decision to uphold the right to a dignified and humane death, the right to be released from a helpless and humiliating state.
And then they go
on to say:
To us, the real culprits are the preachers of intolerance, close-minded
invective, and those who detest democracy, because it requires the coexistence
of contending ideas.
It seems odd that those who take the opinions of judges to
be gospel when it comes to the thorny questions of “what is human life and how
should we protect it” should then question others’ commitments to democracy.
(An aside, since when does right to life need the scare quotes?)
I think it is fair to say that in this case many have been revealed as hypocrites on the subject of federalism. While I myself would like the government to step in and protect Terry Schiavo’s life, it is hard for me to find a federal case here (although a 14th Amendment Due Process claim is a possibility). But let’s call many pro-life Republicans hypocrites as they find newfound love of federal intervention into state jurisdictions, and then call many pro-abortion Democrats hypocrites as they rediscover state’s rights. After all the pro-lifers would prefer a state’s rights abortion regime to the present abortion arrangement, while it is an article of faith on the part of the pro-abortion left that it is up to the Supreme Court to write the nation’s abortion code. But there is one consistency. Whatever their varying thoughts on federalism, one side is consistently on the side of life, while the other is consistently on the side of death. This is not to say that those who advocate for abortion and euthanasia are giddy executioners sending people off to their deaths. I would not call them “executioners” and “murderers” as the Brown County Democrats claim they are called (and no doubt are from time to time). Indeed, as the passage above indicates, the Culture of Death thrives on its perceived humanity where people die in a “dignified” manner and are freed from a “helpless and humiliating state.” It is precisely by cloaking itself in the garb of compassion that makes the Culture of Death so attractive. It’s not about denying protection of the law to the unborn and the infirm, that’s just the result. They are for compassion for women who need to be liberated from childbearing to reach equality with men; compassion for the sick who must be freed from pain; compassion for the “unwanted” child who would be better off never having been born.
No one denies that these are difficult moral and legal questions. But what is of concern to this writer are not just the rights of those whose lives are forfeit because they don’t live what we consider to be a “quality life,” but also with what it does to all of us as we come up with argument after argument as to why this or that person does not deserve to live.
In the 1990s feminist author Naomi Wolfe, who would go on to consult for the Gore campaign in 2000 (remember the “earth tone” shirts?), argued medical science was catching up with the “pro-choice” movement. It was becoming clearer each day that abortion kills a human being. Thus, Wolfe argued, feminists simply have to start coming up with arguments as to why it's acceptable to kill human beings. This perhaps reached its pinnacle in the 2004 election when John Kerry told Peter Jennings of ABC news that persons have rights, not human beings, and not all human beings are persons. The unborn, for example, might be biologically human, but not persons with rights. One shudders to think which other humans John Kerry considers “non-persons” who do not deserve protection of the laws. Is it not clear by now, and haven’t the most sober defenders of Terry Schiavo’s life (and there are many sober defenders) made it clear that what is needed is a consistent Culture of Life? The advance in medical science will only make these decisions more and more difficult. Does it not make sense to have as an overarching principle the defense of innocent human life? Individual choice, state autonomy from federal power, the professional discretion of doctors, the rights of families: these are all good things and one ignores them at one’s own peril, but it seems to this writer that they are all secondary goods to the primacy of the right to life. As we form our laws, we must have our priorities straight.
Recent Comments