Posted on 04/01/2005 4:59:24 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
How are we to explain liberal's and leftists' support for disconnecting Terri Schiavo from her feeding tube and making her die a slow death, while she is guarded by police officers who prevent anyone from even putting a drop of water to her lips? And how are we to explain the liberals' belief that conservatives, who want to prevent this horror from occurring, are religious dictators intruding into a purely private matter?
Most people think that the liberals are driven by their pro-abortion ideology, which takes the form of opposition to the Christian idea that Terri's radically limited life is nevertheless a human life and so worthy of protection. But that can't be the liberals' whole motivation. To demonstrate this, let us suppose that Terri's husband Michael had wanted Terri to go on living on the feeding tube, or, alternatively, that Michael had handed legal guardianship to Terri's parents and they had wanted her to go on living on the feeding tube. In either of those cases, the liberals would have had no problem with Terri's continued existence. The issue of her living or dying wouldn't even have come up.
In other words, the very factors in this case upon which the liberals' supposedly principled anti-life position seems to be based are contingent. If Michael had not wanted Terri to die, the liberals wouldn't want her to die either; indeed, they wouldn't be thinking twice about the case, notwithstanding their current expressions of horror at the idea of a person living her whole life on a feeding tube. And since, in this hypothetical scenario, the liberals themselves would be consenting to Terri's living in that condition, they obviously wouldn't be calling conservatives "theocrats" and "religious fanatics" for wanting the same thing that the liberals themselves would be agreeing to.
Therefore the liberal position cannot be simply that a person in Terri's situation ought to die. Rather, the liberal position seems to be that personal choice—Michael's personal choice—ought to prevail.
But this explanation also fails to hold up, as we can see from the following considerations: (1) Terri's parents and siblings love her and want her to live; (2) Terri's parents and siblings are convinced that Terri has consciousness and is not in a vegetative state; (3) Michael has two children by his common law wife of many years, and so logically ought to divorce Terri and let the guardianship revert to Terri's parents. Given these factors, Michael's right to decide on Terri's life and death ceases to seem so sacred. Why, then, would liberals side so absolutely with Michael's (highly doubtful) right to have his wife's existence terminated, while they completely dismiss the Schindlers' (correct and understandable) desire to be made her guardians and to save her life?
If individual rights and personal choice are the liberals' bottom line, why must the personal preference of Michael, who has (understandably) moved on with his life, be seen as inviolable, but the personal preference of Terri's parents, who have not moved on with their lives but want to care for their daughter, must be equated with theocratic tyranny and resisted at all costs?
Michael's right of guardianship stems from his status as Terri's husband. But he's given up that status in all but name by starting a new family. Since when are liberals so solicitous of traditional marital bonds and the rights of husbands over their wives—let alone the right of an estranged husband to have his wife killed?
Liberal famously regard marriage as an ever-changing institution, to be reshaped to suit changing human needs. Why then do the liberals treat the Shiavo's marriage, and Michael's rights proceeding therefrom, as written in stone, even though it has long since come to an end? Why don't the liberals simply call on Michael to divorce Terri and let the Schindlers take care of her?
As all these questions suggest, there remains something mysterious and uncanny at the heart of the liberals' position on this issue. Their passionate conviction that Terri must die cannot be explained in terms of any recognizable liberal perspective, whether a disbelief in the soul, the desire to dispense with a less-than-complete human life that inconveniences others, a devotion to serving the rights and desires of individuals, or an easy-going attitude toward the traditional bonds and duties of marriage. Therefore, I would argue, their position on the Schiavo case can only be explained as stemming from something extrinsic to the case itself, namely their bigoted animus against conservatives: since conservatives support Terri Schiavo's right to live, liberals must oppose it. As a liberal professor recently said to an acquaintance of mine (and these were his exact words), "Anything Tom DeLay and those conservatives are for, I'm against."
This reactiveness is a symptom of the extremism that has taken over left-liberals since 9/11. As the conservative writer Jim Kalb points out, prior to 9/11, even when liberal positions were disastrously wrong, they still had a more or less predictable, liberal logic to them that a conservative could understand. But since 9/11, liberals in their hatred of Bush and of conservatives have descended into sheer irrationalism, in the process giving up even those liberal principles that were decent. Thus, prior to 9/11, liberals would no doubt have taken the Schindler's side, as representing the rights of an oppressed and helpless individual. But after 9/11 (with some notable exceptions, such as Jesse Jackson), they do not.
What is it about 9/11 that has had this effect on the left? The post-9/11 world has placed liberals and leftists under an unbearable pressure. The Islamist attack on our country propelled us into a conflict, perhaps a decades-long conflict, with a mortal enemy. But liberals can't stand the idea that we have an enemy, let alone a mortal enemy, a "them," whose very existence justifies our use of force. Therefore such an enemy must be seen as a product of "root causes" generated by us. Further, in keeping with the inverted moral order of liberalism, the more threatening such an enemy really is, the more vile must be the root causes within ourselves that are creating that enemy. The more wicked our enemy actually is, the more judgmental, greedy, cynical, dishonest, uncompassionate, racist, and imperialistic we must be for fighting him. If our enemy seeks a theocratic dictatorship over the whole world (which is the case), we must be seen as seeking a theocratic dictatorship over the whole world, even though there has never been anything remotely like a theocratic dictatorship in our entire history.
Thus the liberals' helpless rage, both against the war on Islamic theocracy and against the conservatism that has become dominant in American politics as a result of that war, takes the form of a floating indictment of conservatives as the real theocrats. This attitude is then projected onto any issue that may arise between conservatives and liberals, such as the battle over the fate of Terri Schiavo: Terri's right to live is passionately backed by conservatives; conservatives are theocrats; therefore Terri is a symbol of theocracy, and therefore Terri must die.
Is it reasonable to threaten a public temper tantrum because people disagree with you? I say that is no voice of reason.
Very good. Except I am not so sure about majoritarian process. The judges are produced by politicians who are elected by majoritarian processes, and the blind judge was elected and reelected directly.
It is indeed the conflict between man-made law and Divine Law, but a majoritarian process produces man-made law also. The Left embraces man-made law because it is fundamentally a statist idea.
Think. Sometimes it takes time, as information develops, to put two and two together. For years, people believed a different lie by Michael, that Terri "collapsed" out of some exotic affliction which has never been explained or medically corroborated, and which is statistically preposterous. Not until we get past that falsehood does the Schiavos' fight back in 1990 become important.
>> I'm supposed to believe this woman?
Why on earth not? It is a perfectly believable human story and and it dovetails with others' observations.
It also fits statistics. Domestic violence is the most common cause of death or severe injury to healthy young women.
>> How come the doctors didn't say a f***ing thing about this being caused by abuse?
That's an easy one. Michael concealed the bone scan, which would have provided a "perfect defense" for the doctors he sued. The bone scan report was not discovered until 2002, ten years after the fraudulent malpractice suit.
>> Sorry, there is no evidence of that, aside from a deposition solicited by the Schindlers' lawyer, and Gibbs has, IMNHO, engaged in enough chicanery...
Of course there's evidence -- his wife's broken and now dead body is rather poignant evidence. A deposition is also good evidence. And yes, Michael did tell that lie to the investigating police, it's on the record.
My habit is to return fire when fired upon. Don't like it? Then avoid the nasty remarks to me.
"Those who seek to avoid war should avoid the pinpricks that precede the cannonballs." -- Napoleon Bonaparte
So? They've undoubtedly been watching for years.
Good. Maybe they will learn some things. Granted, you have to put some "truth" and "bigot" filters in place when scanning through some of the posts, many posters here have actually helped get at some of the truth the mainstream media and authorities missed until days later, or deliberately didn't report because they were too lazy to dig deeply enough from their cushy offices or it didn't fit their agenda to mold the opinions of the American people.
Major stories have been broken here.
Several freepers have picked up on some things that everybody else missed.
And there is stuff on here that is raw human emotion. I've seen plenty of that on the other side, too. We are all human, after all, those of us that aren't diagnosed as vegetables yet.
Hope you're saying that when you try to get on an airplane, or get pulled over.
Aren't you supposed to be preparing for your major temper tantrum now?
Don't you have more people's religious beliefs to spit upon?
What are you going to do, call everyone who believes in God a very bad name???
I can't wait to see it. Perhaps I should cancel my dinner plans and stick around.
I am certain as a "spokesperson" for the GOP the "religious right" deserves a good stomping by you.
You're exactly right. Genuine Christians, who are thoughtful, mannered, refrain from ad hominems and insults, however, are people I can agree with.
Aren't you glad you are so much better than we ignorant knaves, oh great one?
For what, refusing to be intimidated into silence? I don't plan on ever getting on an airplane again as I'm afraid of flying and don't want my stuff in my purse stolen and not returned.
I do know better than to mouth off when I am pulled over on the very rare occasions I have been and humbly submit to their authority. I am kind of afraid they will shoot me or something if I get the wrong one on a lonely dark road at night.
Most of my experiences with law enforcement have been positive, and I helped them solve a murder case. And believe you me, you have to be damn careful if you give them helpful information that they won't use your phone to try to find out if a criminal is home when your relative has given them the information they need for an arrest warrant. Caller ID and all that.
Joe, you're not ignorant.
You only play ignorant on Free Republic.
For participating in a forum that went way the hell over the top in terms of acceptable discourse. Guess what? When people talk about judges meeting "fatal accidents" and such, the authorities tend to not be very humorous about it. And they tend to look rather dimly on those who associate with those people.
Sweetie, you'd better have the cleanest damn underwear in all history if you're ever in an accident.
Right, if I were merely ignorant and not truly evil then I would occasionally make a mistake in your favor.
I have thought about the other. There are some nice, decent human beings who hang out here. When they all leave, I'll leave, too. The regular newsgroups are much worse. They say terrible things about people like us, religious conservatives, call us bigots, fanatics, blaspheme God, can't wait until the pope is dead (say much worse than that about him) threaten to turn people into their isp's when they don't like what they say, death threats, seriously crazy people, and even try to find out where people live and either stalk them, offer money to have their kids harmed, turn them in to their church leaders, use filthy language, etc., none of which is allowed here. I must have forgotten a lot of things. I haven't seen anything that bad here 'cuz the mods are smart enough to flush that kind of stuff.
That is not going to scare me away. There isn't any other site on the net like this one that I have found. In spite of the vitriol, I talk to some folks here who ease my loneliness and I can find common ground with on some topics.
Not for long.
That places you in the same category unless you are here to provoke people into going over the top and making threats, etc.
And now we have the standard liberal argument: "It's not my fault, he made me do it, society made me do it."
WTF ever happened to taking personal responsibility?
Yeah, I've been threatened with that, too, when I don't go along with the groupthink, which I don't always do. Then things have gone ugly for me, but I usually weather the storm. I took a real beating on the harp seal thread. I'll stay away from those for awhile.
I don't know what's got you so upset about me. Sometimes I post something and wonder if there will be a knock on my door. That doesn't stop me from posting.
I'm already on so many lists, what's one more? I am not going to live in fear the rest of my life. Once we live in fear of the government, or the opposition, we are done.
I agree. As to their being empty, tell that to the people against whom they are made. Usually they get irate rather than scared, and I haven't monitored any of the really sick groups. I kind of admire that. I would lose a couple of nights' sleep at least.
We ordinary joes can't afford private bodyguards. At least, I can't.
You haven't seen anything that bad here? I have.
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.