Posted on 04/01/2005 2:54:16 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
On March 31, 2005, thirty years after feminism’s hey-day in the 1970s, a woman died from dehydration, on the orders of her adulterous husband, who was supported by the courts in his quest to end his wife’s life.
On February 25, 1990, Theresa Schindler Schiavo collapsed in her home and suffered significant brain damage. In 1992, Mrs. Schiavo’s husband Michael was awarded a $1,050,000 malpractice settlement, of which $300,000 was allocated for Mr. Schiavo’s loss of consortium and $750,000 for Mrs. Schiavo’s rehabilitative care. Mr. Schiavo subsequently refused to allow rehabilitative care for his wife.
There are other reasons to doubt Mr. Schiavo’s good will. According to the affidavit of Carla Iyer, a nurse who cared for Mrs. Schiavo during the mid-1990s, Mr. Schiavo “would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would die” whenever she contracted an illness, such as a cold or urinary tract infection. “’I’m going to be rich!’” he would exclaim, and “talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat” and a trip to Europe.
On other occasions, according to Ms. Iyer, Mr. Schiavo would ask, “When is that b---h going to die?” and “Can’t you do anything to accelerate her death?” During this time, Mrs. Schiavo was capable of limited speech, reports Ms. Iyer. One of her “most frequent utterances” was “Help me.” Ms. Iyer reports that she would record Mrs. Schiavo’s words, as well as Mr. Schiavo’s, in the patient’s chart, only to find them deleted by her next shift. Ms. Iyer’s affidavit was dismissed as “incredible” by Florida Probate Judge George Greer, who allowed the March 18 removal of Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube, which led to her March 31 death.
In 1997, Mr. Schiavo became engaged to another woman, with whom he now has two children.
Since the mid- to late-1990s, Mr. Schiavo sought to have his wife’s nutrition and hydration terminated, claiming that she would want to die. The feeding tube was removed and then reinserted twice before the final removal on March 18.
Mrs. Schiavo’s parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, fought for years to prevent their daughter’s death, but federal and state courts found over and over in favor of Michael Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo consistently denied the Schindlers access to his wife’s medical records and even refused to allow them to be by her bedside at the moment of her death.
That court after court could find in favor of the death desired by a woman’s cold-hearted, adulterous husband over the life desired by her loving, heart-broken parents shows the corruption of modern culture. Theresa Schiavo’s death also marks a milestone in modern culture’s embrace of feminist values.
Premier among these values is the wholesale rejection of the sanctity of life. Feminism’s most significant victory was the 1973 legalization of abortion-on-demand. Alan Guttmacher, then president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, hailed the U.S. Supreme Court's verdict in Roe v. Wade as bringing the nation "a step further toward assuring the birthright of every child to be welcomed by its parents at the time of its birth". This bizarre notion that abortion protects children’s rights is rooted in a materialistic view of life, according to which its value is not absolute but is instead subject to its perceived utility. Over the last three decades, the power of this materialistic view of life has expanded to threaten not only the unborn, but also the old and the disabled, like Terri Schiavo.
At the same time that feminism forged the cultural rejection of the sanctity of life, it has also forged the cultural rejection of the sanctity of marriage. In the 1960s, feminists began to see success in their push for no-fault divorce, which they claimed would make it easier for women to leave abusive husbands. Since then, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, as have cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. Massachusettshas legalized homosexual “marriage”. And large numbers of Americans claimed it didn’t matter when a married President of the United Statesengaged in sexual activity with an intern in the Oval Office.
Against this cultural backdrop, Michael Schiavo waged a campaign to end his wife’s life while conducting a long-term sexual relationship with another woman. The courts ignored the obvious conflict of interest, and talking heads reflect modernity’s moral dissonance by insisting that Mr. Schiavo loved his wife and at the same time claiming that there’s nothing wrong with his “moving on”, the euphemism for shacking up with another woman while his wife lay disabled and denied care.
Once life and family have been trashed, the hard work of providing care for them is devalued as well. Caring for a family isn’t a real job, the feminist culture tells us. Neither is community work. In her affidavit, Ms. Iyer even describes a fellow nurse who “made many comments about Terri being a waste of money, that she should die”. When “an unusual number of patients seemed to die” on this other nurse’s shift, Ms. Iyer reports, she would say, “They are old - let them die.”
Replacing the value that used to be placed on life and on marriage and family is the new value of choice, which is really a code word for selfishness. Women facing unplanned pregnancies may choose to terminate them. An Oscar-winning movie glorifies the murder of a young woman whose paralysis ends her boxing career and, with it, the cheers and applause without which she doesn’t choose to live. We’re even supposed to believe, on the basis of her adulterous husband’s word, that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to be dehydrated to death, and, apparently, large numbers of people do. In all these cases, the value of self supercedes the value of life.
Marriages end at the request of one or both parties, because “it’s not working out” or “we’re not compatible”. Two selves clash, and actually trying to work it out would in some way diminish one or both. Any children involved will understand and be supportive, because they’re better off when their parents are “happy”.
Fulfillment comes not from building and caring for a family, but from career success and all its material trappings—money, power, prestige—in other words, from serving one’s self instead of one’s family.
The irony is that this exaltation of self favors the powerful. The unborn, the old, and the disabled are at the mercy of those on whom they depend. The spouse who makes the most money--usually the man--fares far better after divorce than the one who makes little or nothing, as well as the children for whom she usually retains primary custody.
It’s because feminist values favor the powerful that feminists are so often in the awkward position of having to defend men who have harmed women. Leading feminists, like Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women, defended Bill Clinton, on the grounds that his affair with an intern was consensual—in other words, of her choosing as well as his. NOW even opposed charging Scott Peterson with the murder of his unborn son Conner, on the grounds that the nearly full-term Conner wasn’t a person yet.
Michael Schiavo alone was empowered to speak for his powerless wife, and his obvious reasons for wanting her to die were overlooked, while his claim that she would have chosen death is accepted.
The law is supposed to protect the powerless from the powerful. But by ruling against Terri Schiavo’s parents again and again, the courts have perverted justice to enforce the same might-makes-right ethic that would prevail under anarchy.
And Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo lies on the feminist altar of self. May she rest in peace.
Leslie Carbone is the author of Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform.
=== For starters, there's the 20 million little girls they helped kill in the abortuaries...
If we're talking 40-45 million unborn slaughtered by legal abortion, I'd peg the number of female children substantially higher than the number of male children.
After all, the GOP didn't discover in 1970 a "right" to predetermine the sex of children for nuttin'.
If the situation were reversed, and Michael was lying in the hospital bed, I bet Terri would have fought to keep him alive, to give him rehab, to do the right thing.
Many men, unfortunately, have a "practical" side to them that allows them to rationalize making a cold, hard decision to let an inconvenient person die.
I was referring to your quote regarding "Self" and my comparison to the feminist. Guess I didn't do such a good job.
If I were determined to sell my soul, I'd at least make it a world cruise.
I am glad this got written. I tried very hard to find the words but kept hitting a wall. Surely by NOW we put no credibility in the "women's movement" or a la Bill Clinton "only if she's walking
away (!)".
I agree. Being a man and being married to the same lady for almost thirty five years now I understand some things well. Feminism isn't for Women. You ladies out there that are great women know who you are and the men that know you know that you are great women. In my mind men and women are different though they are equal. The world needs men and it needs women. The communist faction that wants to have some women think that women are being put in second place is wrong and it is only causing trouble. Ladies, the ones of you out there that standby your man and that your man stands by you are the Best of the Best. God Bless You and you are great ladies.
Thank you. An acquanintance of mine from my high school days got this book about Wallflowers, ppl who just sit or stand around observing things without comment.
There is alot to be learned by observing everything.
One hundred and five boys are conceived for every one hundred girls. Unless a large number of abortions are performed specifically to destroy female children, there are more boys killed by abortion than girls.
As though the killed children could just line back up in the queue?
When I was in high school, soon after Roe vs. Wade, there was a large Planned Parenthood poster in the girls' bathroom, showing a pregnant woman with the words, "It is unfair to babies to force them to be born unwanted."
Actually, has it not always been the case that the woman is in charge of the household and the family? Sure, the man traditionally is the breadwinner, but the wife is in charge. It's a huge responsibility, but how does it put women in second place?
Hey! I resemble that!
I take it you learned a lot, too much even. It's amazing wwhat ppl say when they out in public and think ther's no one else there but them. ;)
And I doubt that many of those who would not want a feeding tube *would* want a judge to threaten to arrest anyone who offered them ice chips or a sip of water by mouth or any nutrition or hydration by "natural means."
The refusal of an implanted feeding tube might (in certain, very clear cases), be ethical, but the prohibition of natural feeding is murder, plain and simple.
And that is a fact that I'm sure everyone on FR will agree. The distinction is, however, is it legal or moral murder? Now personally, I believe euthanasia is a massive display of the lack of faith in modern medical technology and playing God on an unconscionable scale. But others might disagree. Some see euthanasia as humane, especially if it involves prolonged suffering.
Imagine that Michael isn't a scum bag, that Terri did want to die. What now? Should this be legal? Is it moral? What would our Founding Fathers think? Then this is where "facts" come in to play. Certain things are absolutes. But there is also a lot in life that falls into that annoying and confusing gray area.
Most abortions are done simply to get rid of the child, regardless. Many abortions are obtained to rid a defective. I'd wager the rest are a matter of sexual preference.
In fact, once you factor in the US's yeoman's work in extending "women's healthcare" worldwide, I'd say it's probably the leading cause of abortion in many nations where they still are open to normal-sized families but prefer sons to daughters.
Because China has probably the most draconian population control policies on the planet, I suspect the underlying demographics that are muddled or vary a bit in other nations reach an extreme there. The disparity between men and women is too drastic for words in a nation where you only get the one choice and must pay dearly for a second child.
But this study, although it is centered on the experience in India is interesting (and applicable) in many respects. I find it fascinating, for instance, that one region actually outlawed amniocentesis for the simple fact that too many female fetuses were being aborted when it was used simply for sex selection.
But first -- and this is new to me! -- I think it's important to realize that , indeed, sex selection can be made at the 4-8 cell stage of a human life!! Did you know that? I didn't know that!
A slate of interesting articles on sex selection here.
So ... by the fourth cell, it's possible to tell whether the new life is male or female. Did you know that the natural division of labor between men and women is written in the first cell? While both are critical, I don't think that my vaunted reputation as misogynist will be damaged unduly if I point out that Dr. LeJeune is not a sort to throw words like "genius" around loosely ...
Now what is a human being? That's very simple. A human being has to be human, has to be a being. Then a human being is only a member of our species.
An egg of a chimpanzee can't be a human being because it is a chimpanzee being. But every time that genetic information is human, every time that this message which is at the beginning of life which is alive and which is life, as soon as this message is really a human message, then this life is a human life.
And if it is a being, this being is a human being.... Now it is what is meant by the methylation processes, the message is well-written and everything is written to make a human being, to be a human being.
But at the moment of fecundation, part of the DNA coming from father is underlined in the male way, and the DNA coming from mother is underlined in the female way. And, therefore, the fantastic discovery was never expected ten years ago. Nobody predicted it--that, in fact, the father underlines instructions to make immediately the membranes inside which the embryo will develop itself, so to speak, its space capsule; and to make the placenta which is the body by which it will take the nutrients from the vessels of mother.
That's underlined on the sperm, not on the egg. But on the egg what is underlined is all the tricks of the trade to make the spare pieces, which if they are put together will build an individual.
Now it is extraordinary because it was a moving observation for geneticists to see in this one millimeter and a half sphere of living being this separation of the tasks which we see in ordinary life. And the man in biology builds the membranes which is the shelter and the placenta which is a gathering food system. On the other hand it is up to the feminine genius to underline the way how to manufacture a baby.
And all that is written in the first cell.
I hope you don't mind the long-ish quote. But I love to read it over and over. It's just beautiful. Facts can be ugly sometimes. But the truth, at heart, always is beauty.
bttt
I do not think it would have been right to murder Terri Schihavo, even if she had wanted to die. I know plenty of people who planned suicide and did not go throught with it, and now they so glad that they lived. No, murderers are just not acceptable and not needed. It is better to save life than to kill.
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.