HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar. 21, 2005 The case involving a Florida court's decision to starve Terri Schiavo to death has taken on the trappings of a partisan fight, with Democrats generally coming down on the side of those wanting Ms Schiavo dead and the GOP favoring doing what's necessary to try and save her life. As in all cases involving life, the Democrats tend to be against permitting life to continue where THEY'VE decided that a person's "quality of life" doesn't meet THEIR standards. In other words, they've adopted a culture of death...advocating for killing "inconvenient" babies as well as anyone who's handicapped to the point where they are an inconvenience to someone who's able-bodied. In short, the left seems to be telling us that THEY have the right...nay, the DUTY to decide which of us are enjoying our lives enough to satisfy THEM that our "quality of life" makes it worthwhile to allow us to continue to live. Just another case of the arrogance of the left, apparently, who seem to think that they know what's "best" for all of the rest of us and can't seem to grasp why we resist giving them that power. Some Congressional Democrats are arguing against Congress taking any action...laughably on the basis of "States' rights!" Laughably because these are the same liberals who think it's the proper function of the federal government to control most every functionl of our lives-- except anything which deals with life or death-- with the Democrats, oddly, mostly coming down on the side of death. They advocate for killing our babies for any reason (or for no reason whatsoever.) Now, they're advocating for killing a woman whose life they deem "inconvenient" to her husband or which they deem to be a life without "quality"--with them, of course, making the decision as to what constitutes a quality life. This issue may point out something which I've been saying for a couple of decades now. The left is NOT the philosophy of "compassion." Conservatism is. Oh, the left wraps itself in all sorts of trappings aimed at convincing voters that they "care" about those less fortunate, but they only pay the issue lip service. In reality, they, in general, favor abortion on demand and euthanasia--especially for the infirm and even more especially if those infirm have become a burden on someone who's able-bodied. They pushed for passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), but THEY want to decide which disabilities it applies to. Apparently, this includes "bad nerves," unexplained back pain, obesity and alcoholism, but does NOT include someone with brain damage who cannot speak for herself but who responds to various stimulae. One of their contentions in this matter is that Ms Schiavo isn't "responding" to stimulae, but her smiles, eye movements, attempts at vocalizations and head-turning when someone speaks are all the result of "reflex," sort of like the patellar reflex when the doctor strikes your knee with that little hammer. Nonsense! Anyone seeing those films that her parents succeeded in smuggling out of her room can easily tell that she's responding...NOT reacting reflexively. If she's responding, then she's NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) as her husband's pro-euthanasia neurologist claims. If she's NOT in PVS, then even by Florida statutes, removing her feeding and hydration tubes cannot be legally done. She MUST be given all of the protections afforded any other disabled person-- including food, water, shelter and the right to live out her natural life, no matter HOW much her husband would like to end it. Judge George Greer has chosen to replace her guardian ad litem with....himself! In other words, the very man who has pronounced her life as "not worthy of continuing" is the one person in the world charged with responsibility for advocating for her "best interests." If that isn't illegal, he surely SHOULD be. It certainly is immoral. Finally, Michael Schiavo has stated repeatedly that the reason he doesn't want to divorce her and give her care over to her parents who've pledged to do whatever necessary to protect her, is some "promise" that he claims to have made to her. Again, nonsense! He honored his promise to love and cherish her, in sickness and in health for all of three years after she became disabled, or until he found himself a new "squeeze" with whom he's been living ever since and with whom he's fathered two children. If he wouldn't honor his marriage vows to Terri, why is it so "important" to him that he honor some promise that no one else even knows about? The truth is, Michael Schiavo simply wants to be free of his wife once and for all time and for him to "get on" with HIS life, his wife has to lose hers. ------------ About the author: David A. Jared is a news junkie, semi-retired and an avid golfer who's been writing his first book, "4000 years of chopsticks" for the last 20 years. Email: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net ------------- All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
