Posted on 03/21/2005 7:27:38 PM PST by DoughtyOne
Yes this is another commentary regarding the starvation of Terry Schiavo. Perhaps you've read more than your fill on this topic. If so you can take heart. As it looks right now, there won't much more written on this subject. Terry is dying. Some would say at the hands of another.
This isn't going to be an advocacy of that death. It's not necessarily going to be an advocacy of life either. Instead I intend to touch on some interesting inconsistencies that have sprung up around this case like spring flowers around old decaying pasture patties.
I am not here to damn Michael Schiavo's actions. If that damnation is deserving, Michael will have made that case better than I ever could. Instead I find myself pondering the answers to questions, questions that aren't limited to Michael Schiavo by any means.
Starvation! Now there's an action packed word that most of us have progressed through life rarely if ever seeing described in neutral or even blissful terms. Of course that was before the continued existence of Terry Schiavo was the center of the discussion. Now starvation is described in glowing terms. "It's peaceful. The person starving can actually enjoy the experience. If there were a way to go that was optimal, this would probably be it."
As a young boy I spent Halloween night going door to door like all the other kids. Unlike all the other kids, I wasn't asking for candy for myself. Instead I was asking for small donations of cash or canned goods that would be used to supply families in need at Thanksgiving and Christmas with groceries. Now I actually feel guilty. Had I known they would have been experiencing blissful moments without that food, I wouldn't have done it. Honest.
U.N.I.C.E.F., the Children's Fund, heck there's quite a few agencies out there dedicated to trying to deprive children all over the world of peace, bliss and the optimal existence. I wonder if the Justice Department is drawing up indictments as I type?
As I see it Terry Shiavo's one fatal mistake, if there could be just one in this sad situation, is that she didn't drown her five children first, didn't mutilate some family or perhaps a few children, rape some woman and cut her arms off, shotgun people to death, kill a sitting Senator running for the Presidency or perhaps cut the child out of some woman's stomach before killing her. If Terry had done any of these, she would not be in danger of imminent death. The A.C.L.U. would have filed a myriad of motions designed to keep Terry alive. Some circuit court of appeals would have stepped in, and just like that, Terry would be insured of another twenty, thirty or even fifty years. If the end was near, they'd be claiming that death by electrical shock, injection, hanging, the guillotine, shooting and yes even starvation would cruel and unusual.
Where is the A.C.L.U.? Where is Michael Farrel? Where are the socialist candlelight vigils. Where are the fan clubs that always spring up? Where are the young men that can't wait to be a suitor to Terry? Oh yes, she didn't kill anyone? I forgot.
Money is sometimes considered a motivating force in cases like this. It's a powerful motivator when the husband, the state, insurance companies or the federal government has to pay the fees in whole or in part. There's no doubt about this. Strangely enough, we have plenty of money to pay for the healthcare of between ten and twenty million individuals who are not citizens of the United States. Surely money couldn't be a motivating force in this case could it?
Some have said that Michael is only doing what a dedicated husband should do. They say he is trying to carry out the wishes of his impaired wife. His actions to this point have all been motivated by a dedication to her. I don't know Michael. I don't feel qualified to make an assessment regarding him, although I must admit I am not completely neutral. You see, if Michael is only doing what a dedicated husband would do, what are the parents, siblings and other relatives of Terry Schiavo acting out of? Are they to be characterized as selfish non-caring reprobates looking for a warm spot in the glow of television camera lights? I don't think so, but some people don't really have an answer for this question. I'd like one.
John and Ken were rattling off big-time on this topic this afternoon. John was angry as could be that the Executive and Legislative branches of our government had intervened. A lot of other people were too I'm sure. If these two bodies were striking down California Proposition 187, or Arizona's Proposition 200, immediate intervention would have been a thrilling prospect to many, but admittedly not John and Ken. Now that the question is saving a woman's life, aw, what's the hurry? Besides, it must be unconstitutional.
On this forum we advocate for 'right to life' all the time. The unborn are assumed by many to have a right to life that should not be taken from them. Today we see many who think a woman who is clinging to life whether intentionally or not, should not have this same right. If Terry does have constitutional rights, I'm just dumb enough to think it's up in the air which is most protected, Terry's right to die or her right to live on.
We are told that Terry lives in a vegetative state. She does not have awareness. Killing her would therefore be painless. Strangely these same folks turn around and make the argument that Terry would not want to live like this. Why not? Does she know what is taking place? They say no. Does she have mental faculties? They say no. Is she in pain? They say no. What pray tell is the impetus for killing her then?
We put a man in prison for assisting alert individuals who had chosen death. Today our nation is poised to kill a woman who is not alert. In fact, that's the strongest argument death advocates have. Terry can't tell us what she wants, so death it is. Sorry, Jack, you should have known better than to help euthanize someone capable of making their own decisions. Next time, if you limit your activities to those who cannot express themselves, you'll be a hero. You see Jack, those who expressed themselves were defenseless. A woman who can't speak, write or otherwise communicate isn't.
You were not acting in their best interests Jack. Death advocates are acting in the best interest of Terry. Just ask any of them. They'll tell you.
At other times in history, we have seen the citizens of nations claim that certain decisions their courts and governments made, were not their fault. "We didn't know." This evening we as the citizens of the Republic of the United States of America know.
For the record, Terry was not suffering. Her condition was not deteriorating. She was not facing imminent death. She was stable. With nourishment she could have lived on for years. Alas she will not.
Even now I will not argue the case for keeping Terry alive. No, the flourishing inconsistencies that are offered up by those who seek to see Terry Schiavo dead, could not be improved upon, to that end.
PDF
http://www.hotr.us/articles/schiavo/starvation_is.pdf
eBook
http://www.hotr.us/articles/schiavo/starvation_is.lit
Try this one for size
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/terri.htm
Well written commentary, Ron. There is no reconciling the Left's lies.
You have a gift for prose.
Excellent post! I shows the absolute both-sides argument of the pro-death left and RINOs.
Well done, DoughtyOne!
Good job, except it is the dehydration which will kill her.
It takes a month or longer to starve to death.
Thank you.
I just keep thinking that as a child, I heard of the evils of Nazi Germany, and their murder of the inconvenient, and undesirable elements in society.
I am haunted that we have now become that which I was taught to revile because of it's absolute evil.
bttt
I have been repating over and over today that Hitler did this with the full cooperation of the judges, courts, politicians and doctors!
i think that in Florida, as well as in every state, someone should take the laws written to protect animals/pets from inhumane treatment and substitute each mention of animal and/or pet and insert "human patient." What's good for animals/pets should be good enough for humans.
Thanks, I've printed this one out to share with neighbors. Beautifully stated.
Thank you for the post.
Let us continue to pray for Terri, her family, and our country.
Thanks, DoughtyOne. Beautifully said.
Good points. I was eating lunch in my car and I was tuning around the radio to the local Pittsburgh talk stations and there is a local talkshow hostess named Lynn Cullin. She said, "dying by starvation is peaceful." I almost put my right fist into the radio.
BINGO! This glaring inconsistency seems to be above 90% of the typical person's ability to reason, otherwise, Felos and the scummy husband could not get away with statements like they made yesterday, claiming how horrible it is to reinsert the tube. ("It is dastardly to make Terri go through a painful operation to put the tube back in" blah, blah, blah
You Get It.
Pretty Good.
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.