(From
My Website.)
Can someone please explain to me how, exactly, "Right to Life" applies to this Terry Schiavo thing? Seems to me that arguing to prolong her life is about fifteen years too late. What's next, campaigning for Reagan's re-election?
"Life" is irrelevant here. Sure, she has a right to live, but I wouldn't call not having any brain function above reflexive muscle movements "life" as far as humans are concerned. Her brain is partially liquefied. One can only be in a vegetative state for maybe a year and a half before complete and irrecoverable damage is wrought. It's impossible for her to "wake up". It will never happen. (Well, I suppose aliens with godlike technology could happen across our planet and do some kind of reverse-deterioration backwards-time thing on her brain or something, but it I wouldn't necessarily call that at all likely. Nor is the idea of God swooping down, ignoring all of the other people in this world who are actually suffering and aware of it, and twinkling up some magic restoration inside her head.)
(More below...)
Her brain will not reconstitute itself, and she will never be anything more than a shit- and piss-factory. I know it's hard to come to terms with, but it's true.
So if you were in that condition, would you want to live? That seems to be the question of the day. Fifteen years and counting of, well, that. Not that you'd really be aware of it, of course, but if you were given a choice at the "moment of impact" of either a) dying right away, or b) spending fifteen years and counting with no more brain function than the parts responsible for digestion, heartbeat, breathing and reflexes, which would you pick? (Psst, by the way, Christians, would you really want to prolong your entry to heaven?)
But the... the tape! They... they had the... with the... the... she moved! Did you see that? She wiggled a little! You know, that same four bloody seconds of footage they keep looping on Fox "News" and such, to try to make it seem like she's still capable of thought and recognition. That whole thing is like some kind of grotesque, pathetic rendition of Monty Python's Parrot Sketch.
"This woman is brain dead!" "No she isn't!" "Yes she is." "No, look, she just moved, see?" "You nudged her." "I did no such thing!"
It's understandable for her parents to not want to let go. It's hard to say goodbye to loved ones, especially your own children. It defies the expected order of things when your kids die before you do. But ultimately, it's greedy to keep her in that condition just so that they don't have to say goodbye and deal with the subsequent emotions of loss. Do their wishes supercede hers? Yeah, maybe they're willing to take care of her, because it's just like having an overgrown, perpetual baby and they already dealt with that at the start of her life, but how is that for her? How would you like to be someone's living Baby Soggybottom doll? It's hard to say goodbye, and I don't blame them at all for not wanting to, but they're really only keeping her alive because of their own feelings, not hers.
Let's speculate on the husband's motives for a second, since they've been repeatedly called into question. Why is he doing this? Some claim it's for "the money", whatever that means (most of "the money" has been going to her care, save for apparently a couple hundred thousand that he already received, as I understand it, for loss of his spouse), but he turned down the offer of a million dollars from a businessman in California. That's one million dollars to not do something. "Let your wife be a living doll for her parents for another, what, five or ten years, and I'll give you all this money." But, no, he turned it down.
What about the new woman? Well, he already has a life with her, so how is he really held back at all by Terry? I don't see her arguing with him over infidelity. Some people are making a big deal over his moving on with his life, but it's not like Terry will be coming back at all ever.
So what is it, then? Why does he persist? Well, wouldn't you feel like a jerk if someone you loved told you, "if I end up with a liquefied brain, operating only on my brain stem, please let me die completely" and you didn't do everything in your power to fulfill their request?
It's called "mercy", by the way. Even if she didn't expressly state that she would rather die than exist in this condition, they really ought to let her go. It's disturbing. (Though, I don't really agree with the method, despite the fact that she's totally unaware of it and won't feel any pain. If she's going to die anyway, you might as well just inject her with something and be quick about it.)
"How's the hypocrisy?" "A little heavy. You might want to put on a coat."
Stop the presses, the president is coming back early from vacation to sign some emergency legislation! What a joke. Why didn't he stay in Texas and write something up to save that irrecoverable baby that was killed under his "Futile Treatment" law? Well, because he's a hypocrite. The same applies to every other elected official who made such an enormous deal out of all of this. Grandstanding assclowns. Their tendency to try to capitalize on tragedy is disgusting.
And hey, they're for the rights of individual states, remember? Well, except for when they think they can appeal to their Christian base (like that memo said) for political gain. "Let's pretend to give a shit to get people to like us more! Even though a lot of our our records indicate that we actually favor letting her die." Gah, I blanked on his name, but one particularly vocal republican congressman actually wrote in his book that babies born with a condition very similar to Terry Schiavo should be harvested for their organs.
And, hey, let's focus on this instead of the twenty thousand starving Afghani refugees who are actually aware of the pain in their bellies, because we care so much about life.
All of these so-called Christians who have been trying to keep her alive turn my stomach as well. Can't let gays marry, right? It would destroy the sanctity of the Institution of Marriage! But, wait, Michael Schiavo's just her husband. What gives him the right to make any decisions regarding his wife?
These people aren't pro-life, they're pro-birth and anti-mercy. Quality of life is irrelevant to them; what matters is that something exists. Terry Schiavo hasn't been "alive" for fifteen years.
In all seriousness, why should we even give the arguments these people put forth any respect at all? You can't abort a cluster of cells because it's a "potential life", yet it's totally okay to execute criminals regardless of their "potential innocense"? It's almost like they're arguing against themselves FOR us. There's no consistency at all, yet they want us to listen to them? How does that work? And how would we even be able to follow any of their legislation? "People should be able to kill each other, but people should never be able to kill each other." Yes, and why is it that we're still taking you seriously, again? I'm not getting it.
Fortunately, the courts have been acting in favor of Terry Schiavo. It's sad, but it's in her best interests and, reportedly, her wishes. This isn't about her parents' pain, it's about her. Hopefully, within a week, she will finally be at peace. God, if there is a god, rest her soul, if she has a soul.
Though, honestly, why is this any of our fucking business at all?