A call for Moderation

The current heat surrounding the case of Terri Schindler-Schaivo underscores the need for moderation.

Rather than continue to hold the national will captive to the extremists on either side, the majority in the middle need to step up to the plate and assert themselves.

What we are saying is that there aren't only two choices in this matter. It is reactionary to assume that a husband must either decide to kill the wife, or not decide to kill the wife. All that many people are asking for is that each husband be allowed to decide on his own whether or not to kill his wife. A pro-choice policy like this respects the right of any husband to control his own life, in a manner that any of us would expect.

The rabid anti-choice crowd makes specious arguments like, "...rather than kill her, why don't you divorce her, put her up for adoption by a husband, or family member, who might treasure her for what she is?" They hope, by such duplicity, to close the door on the "exceptions for the life or health of the father" clause.

After all, if several competent doctors can be located to testify as to the emotional and financial harm that may come from this wife being allowed to carry the secrets of the marriage out into the public view, along with any insurance jackpots, irreparable harm can be prevented from being inflicted on the father. By closing this door, future wife killing may again become relegated to the back alleys, and away from the controlled sterile and safe environment of the courts.

This is the perfect argument in favor of the "living" constitution. What better vehicle to decide who gets to keep on living? But only the timid will stop there. Past injustices may be corrected by extending this concept to the out-moded statutory rape laws, for instance.

The outrageous logic that has always prevailed, is that those persons too young or too mentally ill to be able to consent to sexual use by adults, are presumed to have declined consenting and submitting to sex. Why not instead ask the only person who reliably knows whether consent was involved? Why not ask the accused rapist? Their word should prevail.

Strict constructionists would peddle the notion that what the law means is exactly what the law says. That if the majority of the people wish so badly to remove provisions from the laws of the State, or the Federal Bill of Rights, that currently inhibit what seems the prudent thing to do, then they must do what is prescribed in such cases... convince enough of their neighbors to change the laws, or amend the Constitution.

The far more cost-effective and prudent method is to find a judge with enough wisdom to appreciate the correctness of their argument, and simply have him/her issue the directive that this wife needs to be killed.

By removing the ability to "adjust" the laws protecting the helpless, we hamstring ourselves as a society, to be constrained on how we treat these, the helpless among us, by mere writings on paper, and our fidelity to these dry...laws.

Many protections already exist to protect the common wife. She can prevent herself from ever gaining weight, or aging, or losing her armcandy appeal. If she does not fervently apply herself to these tasks, is this not really a tacit plea to be put out of her misery? What husband could not sympathize with Terri Schiavo's husband? What wife honestly would not?

After all, "...for better or for worse...", doesn't have to be taken to extremes. Where are the moderates?

Neither, then, does rape, or property rights, or any of a number of issues inconvenient to that elite segment of society that sorts women into USDA Choice, Prime... and the lesser utility grades.

I can't argue your point. We may be approaching what I would call the "torches and pitchforks" moment, where an uprising of the people, as expressed through a march such as Jim Robinson is organizing, is necessary to stop this outrageous judicial assumption of power. But it has to be done smartly. My problem is, that once such a movement is started- it is absolutely imperative that it succeeds. You don't strike at a king unless you know the blow will succeed. A second or a third upswell will have much less impact on the national level. Therefore, we need to make sure our ducks are all in a row. If we have 99 facts correct, and 1 "fact" wrong, the opposition will trumpet that 1 wrong "fact" across the media to drown out all coverage of the 99 true facts. We've all seen the tactic, and we need to prepare for it. Every fact presented, when this protest occurs, must be thoroughly and absolutely vetted and provable. The "evidence" must be not only compelling, but far more crucial- it must be un-discountable. It must survive a media trashing, and a media embargo. If the "fact" is not that hard, it may not only be unhelpful, but may quite easily be turned against us. To restrain the power of an out-of-control judiciary is not a "beachhead unopposed". The ones who can only see their agenda advanced by judicial fiat will not sit by idly. This will be a big battle. Our powder has to be dry. If we misfire, we will lose. And we may lose more than just credibility on this issue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.