« New York Times Now to the Left of Pravda | Main | Down with the Easter Bunny »

This is powerful. GOOD to bring it out like this.

You could have put a German shepard in the top picture and in Florida you'd be put in jail for starving it to death (but not apparently for starving/dehydrating Terri).

If that doesn't show that the left is whacked out, I don't know what would.

Indeed.

http://thoughtsonline.blogspot.com/2005/03/are-we-pot-or-kettle-ace-wizbang.html

Stark. Amd true!.

It is this very ignorance, insensitivity, and hubristic elitism that is driving the stake deeper and deeper into the heart of the Left. How many elections do they have to lose to get the message?

Related: does it simply blow away anyone else out there that this is all happening on the eve of Holy Week?
Next thing, they'll be prohibiting the Easter Bunny. Oh wait, they are.

This is a brief and powerful juxtaposition but it only points out an irony of our moral milieu and doesn't frame the real issues. Some of the comments in response to your thought provoking article seem to view this a "liberal" problem. This is not a liberal-conservative issue. It is first and foremost an ethical-moral issue and only secondarily a political issue. The questions are:

(1) Do we have the right to refuse medical treatment?
(2) Who has the right to make this decision for us when we are unable to do so?

If you don't have an advance directive, whom do you want to make end of life decisions for you -----your spouse (religiously, historically and ethically the first in line in this decision process) or Congress?

How many of you have legally valid end of life documents prepared? If you don't have one, this isn't some abstract philosophical-moral-ethical-political exercise. You could be the next Schiavo.

As Harry points out, the Terri Schiavo issue is more complicated than it seems, despite the strong emotional reaction it evokes. Civilization is held together by laws, and we need to be very careful about circumventing them.

From a purely legalistic side, it is apparently up to Terri's "husband" to determine whether she lives or dies, and Michael Schiavo wants her to die. But put a human face on it, and you start asking yourself why he wants her to die, and whether he is still her husband in any meaningful sense after raising a family with another woman, and whether Terri's family, for whom she is still very much a living person, should have any say in this.

Where this becomes political is in the spontaneous reactions at either end of the spectrum. Tom Delay has been bending over backwards to save Terri's life. Barbara Boxer and Carl Levin have been doing what they can to end it. These reactions shouldn't have surprised anyone, if only because of the implicit link to the abortion debate. If you can't kill someone with severe brain damage, how can you justify killing an unborn baby who would probably have an entire healthy life to look forward to?

The link posted in the comment above by GC is to a libertarian argument against preventing Terri's death. It's a little harsh on conservatives, but makes some valid points. But yesterday afternoon, when a Democratic strategist came on Fox News making libertarian arguments in this case, I had to laugh out loud. Here was someone who would probably advocate regulating how many times you have to chew a mouthful of food before you can swallow claiming that it was intrusive on the part of the government to try to prevent an estranged husband from killing his wife.

If there is one lesson most everyone should agree can be drawn from this, it is that you need to be extremely careful who you marry.

In contrast, the John Couey issue isn't complicated at all. That guy needs to die.

Perhaps, VH. Per Harry, I feel that a huge lesson is that you indeed should have a living will (which I and the Significant OtherHunter do)... but it's not even that simple in this case. There is some honest debate among neurologists, for example, as to whether Terri is really in a "persistent vegitative state". She responds, she laughs. Simple spinal cord reflexes? or Humanity? When in doubt, what's wrong with chosing the cautious, Conservative route: to protect life, liberty and the persuit of (potential) happiness for all in society, especially the most vulnerable? This is what I see the Congress doing, not thwarting states' rights or political grandstanding (despite that embarrassing GOP memo... the points of which were at once obvoius and cynical).

As we know, Liberals, such as those activist FL judges whom we've known from 2000, can choose to filter the facts to argue in any way they like. And, they want to make Terri die, plain and simple. Apparently the key neurologist, which the FL courts have used to uphold the tube-pulling as requested by that (two-timing, estranged, yet legal) husband, is an avid supporter of euthenasia. Convenient, eh?

Indeed, even more stinky is that the husband never brought up the notion that Terri's wishes were to die rather than to live on in such a state -- until seven years AFTER her catastrophic medical condition started--I believe he waited until after some medical malpractice settlement (someone set me straight). AND, I believe she'd been getting speech and walking therapy at one point, with some positive results (also uncorroborated by this humble brain-dropper). So she's been taken off the feeding tube at least twice, and one time, for six days. How much has that further damaged her... and she can't even get a hearing in a federal court, a right allowed your garden-variety mass murder-rapist on death row?

Um, maybe it does come back to: choose spouses carefully, and support capital punishment. You're basically right as usual, VH...