Why Do Democrats Want Terri Schiavo Dead?
I've written before about the case of Terri Schiavo. In brief, my position is that I do not believe that physicians should actuate death. Society may make that choice, but I will not carry out the sentence. I didn't spend ten years in training to starve people to death.
Although my take on this case has not been politically oriented, it seems that the lines have been drawn between Democrats and Republicans. As stated by NPR this A.M.: Democrats are coming down hard on the side of pulling Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
Why are the Democrats so hell bent on killing Terri Schiavo? This is quite baffling. Democrats, who demand life be preserved for
- homicidal maniacs who have low IQ's
- homicidal maniacs who are 17 years old
- sea turtle eggs
How can one simultaneously insist on preserving turtle eggs and not preserving a living woman?
Worse, the arguments I consistently hear from those who want Terri dead don't make sense. Their positions are rife with illogic, such as:
Terri is not Really Alive
I have actually heard bioethicists (on NPR -- from the University of Miami Medical School) talk disparagingly about those who insist that Terri Schiavo is alive. Whaa?? That's right. This BIOETHICIST'S claim is that because our personalities and powers of thinking are located in the cerebral cortex and Terri's cortex is destroyed (Query to bioethicist: All of her cortex? Have YOU seen the MRI's?? Is there a specific volume of cerebral cortex below which you make this asseveration?) Terri is therefore actually NOT ALIVE.
Well then I ask you, is she dead?
That becomes the salient question, because it seems that we are having a debate over when we are ALIVE, but certainly we all know when we are DEAD, don't we?
Is there anyone who will stand up and announce to the world that Terri Schiavo is, by definition, DEAD??
Terri Won't Feel Pain if We Pull the Tube
The argument is that because Terri is essentially decorticate, she will not feel the pain of starvation and dehydration. But If Terri cannot perceive pain, then she is not currently suffering and faces no future of suffering, so there is no humanitarian reason to kill her ( if such a thing exists).
Terri Can't Feed Herself
The argument that Terri cannot feed herself is patently absurd and dangerous. Alzheimer patients, amputees, infants, and those with severe mental impairment are unable to feed themselves. Would we kill them?
Terri did not Want to Live Like This
Contrary to popular belief, Terri did not make her wishes clear. Her husband claims that after seeing the story of Karen Quinlan on television Terri expressed the idea that she would not want a similar fate. Of course, Terri's fate is not the same as Karen Quinlan's, and Terri's husband's motives have been called into question.
If Terri had seen a show on the potentials for stem cell research leading to neuro-regeneration technology, and had expressed approval, would her fate be different?
The Stance on Stem Cell Research
During the last presidential campaign I heard Democrats pounding away about the imminent miracles of stem cell research. Democrats were praising the astounding potential of this technology, including the report of neuroregeneration in frogs.
So if in five years cerebral neuroregeneration is a reality, can we prosecute Terri's tube-pullers for murder?
What is the Motive of Democrats?
Therefore, by the Democrat's own argument Terri has no comprehension about what is happening, or whether or not her wishes are being fulfilled. Terri will experience nothing adverse, physically or mentally, as a result of letting her live and letting her loving parents take care of her as they wish.
Who with a daughter would not take the same stance as Terri's parents given the above? Who of you would not care for your daughter in similar circumstances? Who of you would pull that tube out of your daughter?
The Line of Life
The Democrats, who cry about rights for the eggs of animals, disparage all of those who speak about the right to life for a human. I am not one who can be characterized as a "right-to-lifer" but I have no problem in saying that without THAT right, all other rights are extinguishable and irrelevant.
It is my opinion that the reason the Schiavo case has garnered so much attention is because it is about drawing lines. We have to draw lines somewhere, and Terri Schiavo is the line of life here. It would be a grievous error for the State to insist that we kill her, because, clearly we must ask: "Who is next and under what newly contrived circumstance?"
Terri Schiavo is alive, in no discomfort, well taken care of, and did not clearly express the desire to die, as her opponents insist. For the State to be mandating that we pull out people's feeding tubes should be a frightening event for everyone who ever gave a dollar to the ACLU, and I cannot understand why that organization is quiet in the one situation where their principals are so in jeopardy.
I should have known better. The ACLU HAS weighed in on this case AGAINST the life of Terri Schiavo. What else would you expect? They did not come out for her right to LIVE...they came out for her right to DIE.
Let me see...how does it go? DEATH, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS??
Thanks again to the ACLU.