Update [2005-3-26 16:12:47 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando. I note that this analysis is apropos David Brooks and others. I also take it as a response to the tendency of "reasonable liberals" like Matt Yglesias to treat Brook's distortions as reasonable, instead of pointing out the important fact that Brooks' argument are premised on deliberate falsehoods.
For those of you still willing to think about the Schiavo matter, I wanted to offer my response to the radical right wing pundits' claim that they occupy the moral high ground on this issue, and that the response from the rest of us has been murderous (noonan) or coldly pragmatic (brooks).
My answer is that the radical right hasn't taken a moral position at all.
The radical right has not argued for reinsertion based on a moral position. Instead they are disputing the facts and claiming that Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state.
The pvs diagnosis really changes the moral stakes (If she is in a persistent vegetative state, then she is not feeling pain or discomfort. If she is in a persistent vegetative state then the life she is living has no quality to her.)
The radical right is not arguing, for the most part, that a person in a persistent vegetative state must be maintained forever. The rest of us do not take the position (at least in response the Schiavo matter) that it is okay to starve a conscious though impaired individual to death.
The radical right is not arguing that an individual who has expressed a desire to end their live should not have her wishes honored. The rest of us do not (at least in response to the Schiavo matter) take the position that it is okay to terminate the life of a person against their will or where they have been silent on the matter.
The radical right say there are "factual questions" about Terri's condition and wishes that are open and have not been resolved. They aren't arguing a moral position -- they are playing amatuer detectives, marriage counselors and neurologists.
But the questions have been resolved. By a clear and convincing evidence standard in impartial courts.
I guess you can say that putting credence in those decisions signals respect for the rule of law, but it is more a question of recognizing that this is the traditional, fairest and best way to have matters like this decided.
If that position is pragmatic and not moral, that's because we are making it in response to a the radical right which is essentially trying to re-litigate facts in the court of public opinion. That's not a moral position either.
If the radical right wants to come out and say --even if Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and cannot experience pain she still should be kept alive even against her wishes, then a vigorous moral debate could be arise. But that is not the right's position. And if it were is would not have the electricity that they claim now. And most people would disagree with them