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