I’ve yet to hear one liberal enunciate in
the Terri Schiavo case the principle that moral law supersedes man's law.
But whether they defer to reason or to revelation, I’ve
heard scores of conservatives articulate the a priori truth in this
case. Which is:
Notwithstanding my own belief in the right
to die, the only authority that has jurisdiction over Terri Schiavo is
Terri Schiavo. In the absence of a living will or a clear directive from
her, a court’s decision—no matter which court—cannot be equated
with her will. Ditto her husband’s hearsay. We simply don’t know—and can’t
divine—Terri’s wishes, although it’s reasonable to assume that if she
wanted to die, she didn’t wish for the death she’s been dealt.
As a society, we have no right to
decide Terri’s fate; ours is an obligation to do her no harm—to
uphold her right to life in the absence of a directive from her, and in
the overwhelming presence of evidence she is being harmed. (How do
cognitively competent people know Terri is being harmed? Hmm… let me see:
does being starved qualify—in the absence of clear, persuasive
evidence one has requested such treatment?)
Federalism, discovered belatedly by
liberals, is not the issue here; the right to life is. The level of
decision-making is immaterial; what matters is the decision. Had a federal
court found for her life, the decision ought to have been hailed as the
right one—one consonant with natural justice. No one has the right
to kill an innocent human being. By logical extension, it matters
not who saves her—which state or federal official—just so long as
For natural rights antedate the state
apparatus. Although federalism is an excellent principle, it is not a
religion. Predicating Terri’s right to life, as it has been, on the
outcomes of a judicial review is to concede that the courts have a right
to deny her life. As
I’ve written, to the extent the law upholds natural rights, it’s good;
to the extent it violates the right to life, liberty, and property—it’s
bad. In this particular case, it doesn’t matter who upholds the
right to life, just so long as someone does.
Terry’s condition is yet another
irrelevance: The party that wants to err in favor of killing says she is
in a “persistent vegetative state.” The cautious camp claims she is
"minimally conscious." Like federalism, Terri’s medical condition is also
immaterial in this particular case, the premise of which is that
her right to life depends on state-of-the-art medical expertise.
Aside from having a hard time disguising
their collective God Complex, most doctors are reductionists. They think
squiggles on a machine are an accurate map of the whole person.
That a person is more than the sum of his or her parts is not a
proposition they often entertain. For example, it took doctors a long time
to “discover” what mothers have known all along: Newborns do a great deal
with their heavy, wobbly heads. In response to stimuli, my own
three-week-old girl used to crack a broad smile. Her pediatrician (this
was admittedly a while ago) cautioned she was windy, not amused.
Naturally, when the jovial child began chuckling at three months (to this
day she finds her mother a scream), shoulders shaking and all, I didn’t
tell him. Who knows what St. Vitus’ dance he’d have diagnosed?
The point being, the (disputed) state of
Terri’s cerebral cortex does not give the state the right to cause her
If the case of poor Terri
Schiavo has taught me anything it is how utterly loathsome liberals are.
In their ever-so “progressive” zeal
for euthanasia, they’ve
discovered principles for which they’ve hitherto had nothing but contempt.
In the liberal vernacular, States’ Rights are synonyms for discrimination, that is,
Schiavo. Now Democrats
shriek louder than
Dixiecrats ever did that the intervention by a federal court in a
so-called state (or personal) matter undermines this “cherished”
principle. (So they know about the 10th Amendment?)
The only kind of marriage liberals had
ever glorified is the gay kind. But thanks to Michael
Schiavo, the sanctity of marriage is fast becoming a liberal sacrament,
with the proviso it has to involve “mercy killing.” It took Michael
Schiavo’s devoted efforts to starve and dehydrate his wife to restore
liberal faith in the institution. As we know, liberals, inexplicably, have
insisted over and over again that Terri Schiavo’s husband is his
helpless wife’s sole and indisputable guardian. Furthermore,
to liberals, males have always been the guilty party in just about
any heterosexual interaction. Michael’s monstrous single-mindedness
has changed all that.
“We are a nation of laws” is the
latest—not last—in liberal two-facedness. The law, after “due process,”
has sentenced Ms. Schiavo to death, therefore die she must. Illegal aliens
are trampling the rule of law and States’ Rights as we speak. Show me a
Democrat who’ll support the right of State residents to refuse to teach or
medically treat these lawbreakers.
Consider the liberals’ “let nature
take its course” chant. They generally believe “nature,” the animal
kingdom in particular, is the appropriate metaphor for
civilization. It would apparently do humans a whole lot of good to imbibe
even more animal “ethics” than we already practice.
What distinguishes civilized beings
from animals, primitive societies, and liberals is that they don’t see
nature as an exemplar of all that is fine and good. To the contrary: the
civilized don’t abandon the burdensome or the enfeebled to nature. When
some of us do, others will always strive to rescue them.
The tragedy of Terri is a testament to how
irreconcilable certain liberal leanings are with civilization
©2005 Ilana Mercer
Exclusive to WorldNetDaily.com