March 28, 2005
Why do they care?
Something that has been bugging me for a while and I have finally realized why: Why are the hard core anti-abortion activists bankrolling the Schindlers and using all of their political clout to pressure politicians? It comes down to this: how is ‘viability’ defined. If someone who is in a persistent vegetative state can be considered ‘viable’ then so can a 6 week old fetus. The majority of the anti-abortion crowd could not possibly care less about Terry Schiavo; they only care what a decision of her ‘right to life’ could do for their political cause. The fact that they are entirely willing to ally themselves with convicted child molesters should be a fair indicator of how blind they are to any actual moral issue.
I find myself once again in unexpected agreement with committed conservatives like Reynolds and Sullivan on this issue. The conservatives oppose trial lawyers and their tactics, until they find a need to use them. The conservatives oppose federal interference, until they find a need for it to support a cause they've lost at the state level. The conservatives value the sanctity of marriage so much that they want a Constitutional Amendment protecting it, until they find it more convenient to side with the parents against the husband. I find it endlessly hypocritical and of course 100% expected that the same people who attack Michael Schiavo for having a relationship with another woman while his wife is in the hospital have nothing but praise for Newt Gingrich, who was having an affair and ultimately served his wife with divorce papers while she was undergoing chemotherapy. But as usual for the conservatives, anything a conservative does is excusable and nothing a liberal does is.
Liberals and Democrats are doing themselves no favors by trying to avoid even acknowledging this case and by making vague non committal statements when they do deign to comment. It would be an act of supreme honesty and compassion for a politician (of any stripe) to come right out and say "I don't like that she is in the condition she's in, and if there were any realistic possibility that she could recover I'd be the first to press for it. But all that can be said and done has been said and done. It is now time for leave it in the hands of God."
Rev. Matt,
I can agree that this case has been used politicaly by the “right to life” groups, but you should also admit it is being used by the abortion crowd to protect their views on life/death, what life is deemed as valueable/viable.
At this point she will die, politics are no-longer a factor.
Everything now will be desided by voters, as far as right/wrong.
Its beyond “beating a dead horse”, now its trying to feed a dead horse, as far as the issues go.
To me the entire case is just plain sad.
I agree that the case is sad. I disagree that the ‘abortion crowd’ is using the case at all. As I mentioned, the few people who are coming out to defend Michael in this are a rag tag mix of federalist conservatives, privacy advocates, the occasional liberal activist, and primarily judges in the actual cases. Primarily Republican judges, one might note.
Posted by: rev_matt_y at March 28, 2005 02:54 PMI disagree that the ‘abortion crowd’ is using the case at all.
Apparently you’ve missed the fact that Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry is one of the Schindler family spokespersons, then?
Posted by: ceejayoz at March 28, 2005 03:01 PMWhat is fascinating about libs is their fundamental lack of understanding of anti-reproductive rights (pro-life) people. We see this issue as killing of innocent life, you don’t see it that way. You see it as gettin out of child support.
Posted by: Peter at March 28, 2005 04:56 PMPeter,
You’ve just shown your fascinating lack of understanding for the motives of the pro-choice community.
I guess it’s even on each side.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 28, 2005 05:00 PMceejay, I didn’t make myself clear, sorry. What I meant was the “abortion rights crowd” as opposed to the “anti-abortion rights crowd”. Part of my original point was that Operation Rescue supports a convicted child molestor who is wanted for failing to register in two states and he is one of their key people in the Schiavo efforts.
Posted by: rev_matt_y at March 28, 2005 05:15 PMI have been out of the loop for a few days and I apologize if someone has already brought this up, but today I was listening to Ralph Nader on a news program. He brought up a point I had not thought of, as he was vehemently against removing the feeding tube from Terri. His belief was that this opens a can of worms in allowing HMO’s to use the courts to fight for the right to put to death anyone who they believe will cost too much money to heal. He believes money or saving money will be the result of this presidence.
I think the fear among the pro-life group is that another precedence is being established. The pro-abortion group believes the child has no rights & the mother has the right to determine life or death. In the Terri Schiavo case it is the husband who has been given the right to determine life or death for his wife. Given to him by the courts. Two thoughts:
1. Could a judge rule in favor of a parent (to put to death) a child who is retarded, or handicapped?
2. Where is the pro-women’s group fighting for Terri’s life: since it is her husband making the decision to kill her.
You will say, “This was Terri’s wish”. But you only have the word of a faithful loving husband…sure!
Blaine,
Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. While it may not look like that from a “pro-life” standpoint, I am sure that most pro-choice people would like for there to never be another abortion performed. However, they see that in some cases, the woman’s life could be devastated by the birth of the child and that in those cases the woman should have the right to choose. I personally believe that life begins at conception, but that does not mean that it is impossible to have an abortion.
On the other hand, I am sure that not all pro-life people are pro-life in all circumstances. Is not an innocent Iraqi civilian’s life worth that of an unborn child’s? Is not the life of a convicted killer worth that of any other life?
I see no good in the use of this terminology. It is just yet another harmful use of the English language to deceive the average person into thinking that there are only two sides to a complex argument.
Posted by: Ryan at March 28, 2005 07:17 PMBlaine:
You obviously have not heard of the Baby that was disconnected from lifesupport over the parents objection because they COULD NOT PAY THE BILL anymore. The Texas Law the Hospital used was signed by George W. Bush.
Posted by: Aldous at March 28, 2005 07:53 PMCan we PLEASE stop talking about Terri Ssciavo, pretty please? Isn’t there ANYTHING else going on that deserves the focus of our society at this point in time?
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 28, 2005 08:30 PMRhinehold:
“Isn’t there ANYTHING else going on that deserves the focus of our society at this point in time?”
Ooh! Ooh! The Michael Jackson Trial!
Posted by: Zeek at March 28, 2005 10:30 PMWhat about the Colorado Supreme Court trial, where the death penalty sentance was overturned because the jury consulted the Bible. That’s pretty interesting. What I find so strange about this whole ordeal (I may be completely ignorant) is the use of Leviticus or Deutoronomy, which include the lines:
Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot!as the source for support of the death penalty. Shouldn’t Christians be consulting the word of Jesus over the word of Moses for the law of the land? After all, Jesus created the new covenant, and shortly after His death, the Apostles decided that it was unnecessary for Christians to follow Jewish law. Shouldn’t Jesus’s “turn the other cheek” suggestion take precedent over the laws written by Moses, for Christians at least?
If the Bible is even a source to consider, that is.
Posted by: Ryan at March 28, 2005 10:41 PMLiberals and Democrats are doing themselves no favors by trying to avoid even acknowledging this case and by making vague non committal statements when they do deign to comment.
rev_matt,
Apart of agreeing with the majority of Americans to stay out of this personal, private matter, I’d hope my Dem leaders interpret that also as keeping their mouths shut! Any such public pronouncement by the Left - regardless of how appropriate and empathetic your suggestion - would be distorted by the Right, politically.
The only people trying to bait the Democrats into speaking out on the Schiavo case, are Fox News (furiously trying to do damage control) and the rest of the media, attempting to manufacture discord to keep their audience transfixed. One of the rules of politics, is if your opponent is self-destructing, shut up and get out of the way!
I’ve also read, that this case has solidified the bond between leading social Conservative Evangelical and like-minded Catholic groups. However, the Catholic church is said to be planning an campaign offensive against the Death Penalty, in the near future.
Does this mean pro-Life groups and Randall Terry will return the favor, and support their Catholic brethren?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 29, 2005 12:24 AMThat would be something to see. Don’t Catholics and Protestants have an innate hatred for one another? Isn’t that the heart of the problems in Ireland for the last couple decades?
Posted by: Taylor at March 29, 2005 06:52 AMDon’t Catholics and Protestants have an innate hatred for one another? Isn’t that the heart of the problems in Ireland for the last couple decades?
The Troubles in Northern Ireland have a strong religious component, but it’s also based on class, nationalism, and several other issues.
In America, Catholics and Protestants often disagree, but it rarely rises to the level of hatred.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 29, 2005 12:13 PM…. or maybe they care because they genuinely value human life in all its forms? Maybe with the notable exception of death row inmates?
I don’t think the issue is as complex as you make it out. Most of my pro-life friends are just that. It doesn’t really matter what the definition of viability is. Human life is, for them, a simple construct made up of “human” and “living.” Brain dead, 6 weeks old, etc.
I know its tempting to relegate countering opinions to some kind of dark, strategic mechanism of thought, but I think in this case you are overlooking the Ocham’s Razor of it all.
Posted by: Damon at March 29, 2005 03:36 PMHere I go with some rebuttals:
Ryan:
I am sure that most pro-choice people would like for there to never be another abortion performed.
Typical propaganda from the Religious Left. Planned Parenthood claims that they would like for abortions not to be performed. At the same time, their number of abortions performed increased 6% last year, and composed 1/3 of the company’s revenue (taxpayer dollars contributed to another 1/3). Do you believe them? I don’t.
Shouldn’t Christians be consulting the word of Jesus over the word of Moses for the law of the land?
If one assumes biblical infalibility (many Christians do), there isn’t a conflict. Christ said, “I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it”. According to the book of Romans the law still applies to those not in Christ, and it still has some value to society. It was the legalistic MANNER in which the religious elite interpreted the law that Christ challenged. Christ challenged the stoning of a woman for adultery because the religious elite who were stoning her had mixed motives (probably lusting after her, if you look at the passage in context). He had mercy on one of the two criminals crucified next to him, but he didn’t challenge the use of the law to punish them.
I had been in favor of the feeding tube removal up until now for constitutional reasons. Now, having seen the dialogue here, I’m on the verge of changing sides for historical reasons. See Terri’s website. Granted I don’t buy all of their arguments, but it presents some perspectives that haven’t already been voiced on this blog.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 31, 2005 10:02 AMBREAKING NEWS: TERRI SHIAVO HAS DIED (within minutes of this post)
Posted by: Gandhi at March 31, 2005 10:06 AMThis is what really annoys me: (from CNN, the liberal counterpoint to Fox)
“Thursday morning, O’ Donnell said that Schiavo was in her final hours of life, and police have prohibited her blood relatives from spending time with her.
O’Donnell, one of the family’s spiritual advisers, said that her parents and siblings were “begging to be at her bedside…but are being denied.”
Michael Schiavo was Terri’s guardian and controlled who may visit her and when. “
Posted by: Gandhi at March 31, 2005 10:11 AMGandhi,
Are you saying that the excerpt you gave shows liberal spin? I don’t see it.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 31, 2005 10:29 AMNot at all. I’m saying that it’s a “safe source” for all you liberals :)
Posted by: Gandhi at March 31, 2005 11:52 AMSo you’re annoyed that Michael wouldn’t let her side of the family visit, not annoyed with the way it was reported. That makes sense. I didn’t understand.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 31, 2005 11:59 AMOn the whole “pro-life” “pro-choice” thing …
The single solitary reason I am prolife is because I strongly suspect (though I’m not absolutely sure) that life begins at conception. Hence, abortion is killing that life. I wouldn’t call the mother (or the doctor) a murderer - I sincerely doubt either one considers the baby a human being, so they’re merely wrong, not murderers. It is a pretty fundamental issue for me, and for most.
Now, let me see if I understand the other side. Unplanned pregnancies (which are perhaps the majority) can be enormously life-changing events. Many single mothers find themselves permanently poor, because they have to support their child. Many unwed mothers (particularly young ones) are ashamed of having the world (particularly their parents) find out that they’re pregnant. An unplanned pregnancy is extremely scary and threatening. Some pregnancies are life-threatening - the mother is in danger of serious harm if she carries the child to term. Therefore, the easiest solution to all those problems is to abort the child, preferably secretly.
What are we going to do? On the one hand, abortion is killing an innocent baby if life begins at conception. On the other, a young mothers life may get horrible if she carries the child to term. In very rare cases, the mother could die. I really don’t know what to say about those very rare cases. If there is any government funding going to abortion, I would prefer that money be used to go to extreme lengths to save both lives. This is the twenty-first century - there has got to be a way to save both. At least, we have to try.
I figure that if we do ban abortion (and I would like to, except maybe in the most extreme circumstances), we also need to put a whole lot of effort into making adoption a viable alternative to abortion. Surely, we can streamline the process so that an mother who isn’t prepared to take care of her child can put it up for adoption in a safe, confidential way. I realize that her family will probably still find out. I just want help to be available to encourage young mothers to carry their children to term. Whether or not we ban abortion, we should do this. As has been said before, almost nobody likes abortion (except maybe people profiting off of it).
Some people on the pro-life side have been extremely vocal and hateful in what they say. I’m sorry, and if I’m ever around such a person, I will try to get them to shut up. Some people make death threats and bomb clinics (this is rare, and not often carried out by any organized anti-abortion group). I oppose such people and such groups.
However, some people on the “pro-choice” side have also gone too far. For starters, calling us “anti-choice” is unfair. If you call us “anti-” anything, please call us “anti-abortion.” The mother should have a choice - but she should not choose to end her child’s life. There are other ways, other choices. Carrying the child to term and keeping it herself or putting it up for adoption are two of them. We are “anti-” only one choice, so please be more specific. However, we are also called “anti-woman” and accused of wanting women to die or to bear the consequences of their sin. Neither myself nor any of the pro-lifers I know are like this, and I will personally dress down any pro-lifer like this that I run across. We are not evil, we are not hateful, we are simply people with a conviction that life begins at conception and believe, based on that, that abortion is morally wrong. Please treat us with respect, and don’t tell us to shut up about it. To many of us, this is an issue of life and death - they hardly come any more serious.
It just occurred to me that there’s a question a pro-choicer can ask a militant pro-lifer. “Would you, if you could, take this pregnancy from this woman and bear it yourself, if it was the only way to keep it from being aborted?” If that person is like me, my thoughts immediately panic, wondering how my wife and I would support a child. But, honestly, I would. I couldn’t take them all, but I would take as many as I can, which would be at least one more. If they wouldn’t, then I’m not sure they deserve the label “pro-life.”
Posted by: Daniel at March 31, 2005 06:54 PMSissy -
If, by “idiot,” you mean that I used language clumsily and unclearly, you’re quite right. I think my ideas should have been expressed in better English and proper grammar.
My last remark in the previous post might be a little extreme, but I still think it’s valid.
Posted by: Daniel at April 1, 2005 07:15 PMI just love it that Daniel would ban abortions except in extreme cases. Who sets the “extreme” limits? I may just have to agree with Sissy.
Posted by: ray at April 1, 2005 08:31 PM“Extreme” - Cases in which the mother is probably going to die if the baby is delivered.
Rape and incest are also extreme cases, but in those I’d still lean on saving the child’s life, while recognizing that it’s a horribly difficult choice.
Like I said, this is the twenty-first century - there should be virtually no medical occasion in which a mother should have to choose between her own life and that of her child. But, if there was … ouchy. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.
Posted by: Daniel at April 1, 2005 10:14 PMThe Terri Schiavo case is encouraging legislatures to put forward laws that have the courts become the final decision makers, rather than the family. Specifically, they want to make the removal of a feeding tube a court issue, rather than a family issue.
What if this happened to you? What if you personally saw your spouse in this condition, and you knew that they would not want their life prolonged in this manner? Do you really want the judge to be the final word, and not you?
It’s not an issue of “pro-life” or “culture of death”. It’s an issue of being able to make the choices for your family that you know they would want made. Doctors and hospital ethics committees ALREADY have the power to refer cases to the courts when they think families aren’t acting in the best interest of a patient. Now, we’re going to move towards REQUIRING the courts to make these decisions?
This is the same issue as the pro-choice, pro-life crowd. You want to REQUIRE the courts to be involved with abortions unless strict criteria are met. These laws should be enacted because “who would really be adversely effected by this”.
But people ARE affected by requiring courts to butt into their personal decisions. Decisions like this:
http://www.fwweekly.com/issues/2004-08-04/metropolis.asp
With only a few days in which to make a decision, Julia and her husband, after much soul searching, determined that the best outcome was not a brief life filled with suffering and surgery. “Our son would not have lived longer than a year or so, and he would have required surgery after surgery just to achieve one year,” Julia said. “We decided that termination of the pregnancy was the only caring option.” She recalls how the couple spent time saying their final goodbyes. “My husband held my hand as I prayed and handed Thomas over to heaven,” Julia said.
There ARE 22-week old babies who will be born only to live one or two years in extreme agony. Shall we sanctimonously tell the parents to do everything to prolong the life of these children? That it is wrong to abort them, and right to watch them live in agony instead? Shall we tell them that we have the moral high ground about which type of death they are choosing for their child?
These “targeted” laws do more harm than good. Life is varied, complex, and filled with hard choices. Just because you don’t know someone personally who has found themselves in these sorts of decisions, doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and certainly DOESN’T mean you should have the right to make their decisions for them.
Posted by: Julia at April 3, 2005 09:24 PMJulie:
You asked what I want as a prolifer. Well here goes:
1.Overturn Roe v Wade. This turns it back to the States. I live in Washington State which is a blue state. Abortion will always be legal here. I live next to Idaho. My assumption is that abortion would be illegal there. Basically, get it out of the Courts and into the legislatures. If a woman lives in a “red” state and wants an abortion, she can go to a “blue” state and get one.
2. On right to die. I am only worried about the decision when there are no clear instructions. When there are no clear instructions err on the side of life. It is ok to disconnect life support. In addition, when life support means we the people pay for it, law should trump personal requests. If you for instance want to live forever on a ventilator, it’s fine by me as long as you can right the checks. When the money runs out, your rights run out, because you are using my money (taxes). Then Congress or the State Legislature should pass laws to regulate how long you get life support.
3. In the case of Michael Shiavo’s, when a spouse after a period of time obviously moves on, Parents, or siblings should have an avenue to challenge guardianship. Living with a new woman, and having two children by her is compelling enough for me. Guardianship should be callenged when there is such an obvious conflict of interest.
4.This should work when the situation is reversed. (When the spouse wants to keep the person alive but has devoloped an obvious conflict of interest that could not have been anticipated when the patient made their decision).
I would not interfere with your right to die/live, as long as you are not asking me as a tax payer to pay for it through tax dollars.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 5, 2005 10:26 PMCraig,
The whole issue at hand here is that if there is a conflict in oral testimony, it must go to the courts, and if the courts find the testimony to be “clear and convincing” that you would want life support removed, then they abide by your wishes.
The courts did allow the Schiavos to challenge Michael’s guardianship, they did allow his oral testimony to be challenged. This will be the same situation for anyone.
My husband knows I do not wish to be hooked up to machines. My parents may not believe him. They may contest him in a court of law.
Why should I be forced to live, trapped in a situation I have no wish to be in, because my parents do not wish to see me go?
Who does it hurt to err on the side of life? It hurts the individual who does not wish to live in that manner.
The laws are fine as they are. If Terri’s parents were guardians, then the outcome would still have been the same. Abide by the patient’s wishes when clear and convincing evidence is presented.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at April 6, 2005 04:59 AM
