I've certainly commented enough on the Schiavo case. But my email box and the comments of the Schiavo threads runneth over. Below, a guest writer weighs in. Below this, two very differing comments gleaned from the comment pile. Links to the Schiavo threads are at the end of this post.
Pat,
Read your post on Terri. You made a very brave statement--Tell me the truth. That retards like Terri offend you and should be killed. I feel I need to add another dimension to this.
The murder of this innocent woman is, if not the opening shot across the bow in our so-called culture war, then the first cannon shot across said bow. Let me tell you how I see it...
Our current culture war is a death struggle over a 200+ year-old ideal, enshrined in our founding documents, that our rights come from our Creator. You don't have to be religious to see the benefit to all of us in this. Our Creator is anything we want Him to be--Christian, Pagan, Hindu, the moon, our neighbor, et al. But He is only within us, not in any other man (or church), therefore we rule ourselves, because through our Constitution it is said that we hold all of our rights and only lend them out, as we see fit, to a government of men. These men can only rule us in ways that we tell them they can because they afford us absolutely no rights whatsoever, only God (or Vishnu) does.
Therein lies the rub, Pat. One side of the culture war strongly believes this, and the other side believes that our rights are granted to us through men. Through government. Dare I say even through our beloved Constitution. Because one small oversight occurred during our founding. Only the Declaration of Independence says "Endowed by our Creator," not the Constitution. Ipso facto, we have rights only given to us through our government, say the truly frightening among us (including John Kerry).
And here enters the most horrifying battle yet in this protracted war.
Let me recall what I heard recently on Washington's WTOP News Radio (not talk radio, mind you. News.) Entirely paraphrasing now--
A velvet-voiced radio talent ponders "Why are the religious-right--people who hold true, firm, moral beliefs in a higher power--now turning to secular forces to save Terri Shiavo? Why don't these believers put their faith in God to save Terri. If it's truly God's wish to save Terri then he will not let her starve. He will perform a miracle. Otherwise..." Well you see where this is going.
A woman is horribly starving to death because (a) she is an inconvenient, helpless, and painful visible reminder that WE are not God, we are frail and imperfect (and therefore not in any way cut out to be God) and (b) those forces in our society that want to rule us, to become God, will show us that God does not have any power or mercy, only men do. Men can take away life and God can't do a damned thing about it. Let George W. Bush and his merry band of religious fools put that in their pipes and smoke it. It is a sweet revenge for these folks. You can see it in the goose-stepping liberals' eyes and hear it in their arguments. They do not argue about Terri Shiavo, have you noticed? They bring up conservatives and what they've done in the past, what legislation they've passed or passed on in the last session. They never fail to bring up universal health care and somehow try to hold Terri hostage to it. "If you crazy religious-right people would have passed Hillary-care, none of this would have had to happen..." I am absolutely not exaggerating. Every single day I have heard someone bring up the uninsured in America in relationship to Terri Shiavo. What the hell is that about?
It is a wresting of power from God and those who believe in him.
Sweet, sweet revenge.
I am not a religious person, Pat, but here I want to say, "God bless Terri and her family, the Shindlers." I am praying for them all harder than I ever thought I would. In doing so I am praying for our nation. This is a frightening time. May God have mercy on our souls.
Well, I'm all ranted out.
~~~~~~~
How many of us have said, "I don't want to be put on life support"? I do not believe until now that any of us understood what that meant. Did any of us consider that we could starve to death? Did any of us consider that we would be allowed to dehydrate? I don't think so. I just always thought it had to do with my heart stopping and in essence I had died. But, I never considered that if I lived that I would not be given medical treatment. Terri is alive. Living and breathing on her own. Do we have a right to kill her? I say no emphatically NO! Where does it stop?
A friend of mine in a period of 10 years had three heart attacks, congestive heart failure two times, and a triple by-pass. Had they not resuscitated him the first time, the second time, the third time and on and on he and I would have lost 10 years of our life together? He was not denied medical treatment that gave him back his health.
I know a woman who lives in a nursing home; she was born severely mentally challenged. The family was told she would not live 3 or 4 years. Today she is in her 60's. What a joy she is to the family. She can't walk, she can't talk except for a few words, but OH can she smile and respond. Now, do we put her down because her brain does not function the way your and mine does. Where do we stop?????
What kind of law allows a spouse to say, "It is not convenient for me to have this spouse around so therefore I am going to say she told me she did not want life support"? What kind of law is that? Now, we have friends and family who are willing to care for Terri and only the husband, "who has a lot to gain" wants her dead. Does anyone but me see a conflict of interest?
My question, why does one judge and one husband have all the authority here? Put the feeding tube in and have a jury trial. Isn't that what America's judicial system is all about?
What next, baby doesn't look right – starve it to death, parent is in the way – let them die of thirst. What about that rebellious teen that has had a car accident – lets just cremate him or her and be done with it.
WHERE DO WE STOP!!!!!!!!!!
--
Posted by Wilma to The Kaitlyn Mae Book Blog at 3/23/2005 12:39:21 PM
~~~~~~~
"Tread softly into rumor and innuendo"? There is no such thing. You are peddling rumor, innuendo, gossip and outright lies in your effort to cloud the minds of those who read about this case(and your own)and thus completely obscure the real issue, which is that the court found more then once that Terri Schiavo expressed a wish to her husband and others that she had no desire to live this way. Some of you are doing this because you genuinely care about her, and have a misguided belief that you know more about the case then the numerous judges who have heard hundreds of hours of testimony by witness. Some of her "supporters" couldn't care less about Terry herself; for them she is a pawn in their struggle for a "culture of life", which apparantly would keep people alive against their own wishes. And for most of those in Congress she is merely a tool for their own self-aggrandizement. You ask "Given all of the questions, what is the problem with keeping Terri alive a bit longer?" The harm is...the courts have found she did not wish for a life this way. The harm is that you're willing to deny that choice of her, for your own selfish emotional or political reasons.
--
Posted by Xanthippas to The Kaitlyn Mae Book Blog at 3/23/2005 11:45:06 AM
~~~~
Links to this Blog's Schiavo threads
Schiavo Thread 1
Schiavo Thread 2
Schiavo Thread 3
No comments:
Post a Comment