Florida: Land Of Abuse and Criminal-Coddlers

World Net Daily ^ | 3-29-2005 | Mychal Massie

[Pendragon_6]

The Terri Schiavo case is not about a right to life or a right to death; it is about a right to humanity, protection under the law and morality. These basic provisions having been denied her, Florida, indeed America, becomes no better than the societal sewers of the world that sanction indiscriminate euthanasia.

We have been led to believe that our system of government protects the innocent, the helpless and that our laws are humane and moral. Terri Schiavo has shown us that such is not the case. Judge Greer has shown us the intolerable inflexibility of the courts toward all but the corrupt.

A reader's sister wrote: "I remember the first class I took at paralegal school where our professor, who was a lawyer by the way, said the law is not moral and that you should never believe for a minute that morality and the law cross paths, nor does one have anything to do with the other. I think most people want to believe the law was founded on moral grounds but unfortunately, as we often see in these rulings, it is not." (Used by permission without attribution).

It is hard too argue in favor of morality in law when what amounts to a former spouse, a man with a common-law wife and two children some 15 years after the fact, is given standing to make life-and-death decisions despite there being capable, willing parents. How can this man be common-law married to one woman yet still make decisions for Terri, whom he has not divorced? Is that not tantamount to bigamy? At the very least is it not a direct conflict of interest?

Where is the morality in Florida's law when the starving of an animal is punishable by imprisonment of one year and a $5,000 fine, but the starving to death of a vibrant human being is considered humane? Where is the morality in a judicial proceeding that recognizes a right-to-die activist (Dr. Ronald Cranford), who advocates starvation of Alzheimer's patients, as a credible authority in Terri's best interest? Cranford has recommended starvation for those who have not needed feeding tubes. (See "Starving for a Fair Diagnosis" by Rev. Robert Johansen, National Review, March 16).

Continued

[bookworm100]

Pretty, Pleasant or Prosperous

The current attitude toward doctor-sanctioned involuntary death is that to live a person must be pretty, pleasant, or prosperous.

Pretty, as in not malformed (will obese people be next?) or one of the “pretty (famous) people.” No one suggested that Christopher Reeves needed to be “put out of his misery.” Other disabled people are fair game if they are a burden on their families. Especially, pretty, as in not brain damaged. Pretty as in “not elderly.” There is an overwhelming belief that a person who has “lived a long life” is ready to “move on.”

Pleasant as in not grumpy, crazy, or weird. Any of these will earn the decision to “put them down”

Prosperous as in rich enough to afford independent care. No one offered to starve Rose Kennedy when she got a feeding tube.

Soon we will become a nation of plastic, youthful, fatuous followers.