Finally Jumping In the Fray
I've remained quiet abou the Terry Shivao case because of three reasons:
1. I find it increasingly annoying that in this age of minimal and false information that anyone not intimately connected to this case should a). have an opinion or b). express that opinion at all.
2. While I am a staunch pro-lifer, I cringe at the tyrannical trap many Republicans have fallen into as they fall deeper and deeper in bed with the frothing-at-the-mouth judgemental religious attitude of evangelical Christians. This type of "My Way is the Right Way So Bow Down Or Feel The Wrath," attitude is the exact wave of policy-decision making that Madison predicted in his Federalists paper arguments (particularly No. 10) and Jefferson feared would come to pass even with a Constitution.
3. There are too many murky details in this case to make it watershed. A baby being born to a mother is clear. If the mother decides not to have that baby then it's murder. Plain and simple. You can call it terminating a pregnancy or whatever but it's murder. Now the question isn't is abortion murder but rather can the individual committing that act deal with that as well as a society tolerate that act. But do any of us know what Terry really wants? Only Terry and she's not talking.
There are too many unknowns about Terry Shivao. I always come down on the side of life, but as a strict constitutionalist and Locke-minded woman I find it appalling that the federal government is interjecting its opinion - however right-sided - into the matter of a family's privacy. Republicans bitch and moan constantly about little government and individual responsibility yet when it comes to causes and issues they champion they throw the rule of law out the window and begin the tyrannical rule that they themselves have always vowed to fight against.
It was Terry Shivao's individual responsibility to create a living will. She did not. She left it in her husbands, nefarious it seems but capable hands. Her husband said it was her wish. And that should have been the end of it until Michael meets St. Peter at the crossroads. But Terry's family interjected and the battle over Terry's life has been raging for more than seven years.
Now the Right to Live movement have taken up the gauntlet and it's become less about Terry and more about inflicting the will of their movement on others. Suicide is not illegal. Because we as Americans have the right to kill ourselves. I know it sounds absurd but we do. We also have the right to live, to try every measure to ensure our survival. And we can't have one right without the other. This is what the zealots fail to understand.
Is letting Terry Shivao starve to death right? Absolutely not. Is letting Terry Shivao be deprived of food and water what we as a society should tolerate? Not if we want to continue as a society to survive. But is the government's interference with a person's wishes to starve to death correct? No, it is not. Because for one simple reason - What if they're wrong? If they're wrong Terry lives, but not in a way she wants to. If they're wrong we condemn a woman to live in a way she finds appalling and contemptible no matter what we think or how we think someone should live. The value of life is precious but only God can place that value for it is only he that gives it. We all know that God could allow Terry to fully recover because he's that sovereign but we're not giving him a chance. We're taking matters of life and death in our own hands and at the same time throwing judgement on others as we do it. It's the brick wall I run up against all the time in the Right to Life movement on the other end of the spectrum.
My zealotry says every baby should have a chance in this world. But my humility says that every adult should meet their maker on God's terms not my terms which are often infused with my humanistic yet irrational belief that I should live forever.
Because lawmakers, the President, Tom Delay, Terry's parents, all the Right to Life folks could be wrong - that Terry wants to live - we have a system of laws in place. We have lawmakers to make those laws and courts and judges to evaluate and make sure we're following the rule of law. And no matter how right we think we are we can't just throw the system of law into upheaval because we want someone to live even though they've said they want to die. Because we haven't let the rule of law prevail we've been forced into a situation that says Terry must be starved to death in order to allow what her husband said she wants. Is it inhumane? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes (whether she wanted to die or not). Is it our decision? NO.
If we don't follow the rule of law and follow the procedures by which we change that law set up in our constitution where does that leave us? That leaves us dependent upon the motivations of the law circumventers. I have no reason to doubt that the Right to Life groups, President Bush, Republicans et. al. have their hearts in the right place. They are fighting more for the side of life here than just Terry's life. I also didn't question Lincoln's motivation. Ending slavery was a top priority. It was morally correct. It was what God wanted. But to make it so government had to interfere violating the rule of law of the land at the time. As a black woman, I'm grateful, but what would the legacy of slavery been like if it had ended at the hands of an individual-spurred Black rebellion than government interference? Yet another topic.
If we allow the crusaders in this fight over Terry Shivao a pass then we allow anyone to come and upset the rule of law and we might not see so clearly their motivations.
Allowing this breach, for good or bad, creates an infallible rule of law. This can allow the evil-doers, the ones who would kill those with less mental faculty, the ones who advocate for the extermination of whole races (Planned-parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her ilk) to do so by circumventing the law. They've already done it with the bogus privacy argument on abortion. If we have the Congress swoop in and advocate overturning judges' rulings on any issue they see fit what happens when the Congress is made up of men and woman not so righteously motivated? What happens if Congress wants to reinstate slavery, to overule all the federal court decisions that wiped out separate but equal etc.? Terry Shivao's case gives this license to do it, precendents.
Do we need to change our system of judging? Yes. Do we need to stop the onslaught of judicial opinions that fly in the way of the will of the people? Maybe. But we cannot do it by usurping the authority of one of three branches. It just opens up a box that even Pandora would be afraid of.
1. I find it increasingly annoying that in this age of minimal and false information that anyone not intimately connected to this case should a). have an opinion or b). express that opinion at all.
2. While I am a staunch pro-lifer, I cringe at the tyrannical trap many Republicans have fallen into as they fall deeper and deeper in bed with the frothing-at-the-mouth judgemental religious attitude of evangelical Christians. This type of "My Way is the Right Way So Bow Down Or Feel The Wrath," attitude is the exact wave of policy-decision making that Madison predicted in his Federalists paper arguments (particularly No. 10) and Jefferson feared would come to pass even with a Constitution.
3. There are too many murky details in this case to make it watershed. A baby being born to a mother is clear. If the mother decides not to have that baby then it's murder. Plain and simple. You can call it terminating a pregnancy or whatever but it's murder. Now the question isn't is abortion murder but rather can the individual committing that act deal with that as well as a society tolerate that act. But do any of us know what Terry really wants? Only Terry and she's not talking.
There are too many unknowns about Terry Shivao. I always come down on the side of life, but as a strict constitutionalist and Locke-minded woman I find it appalling that the federal government is interjecting its opinion - however right-sided - into the matter of a family's privacy. Republicans bitch and moan constantly about little government and individual responsibility yet when it comes to causes and issues they champion they throw the rule of law out the window and begin the tyrannical rule that they themselves have always vowed to fight against.
It was Terry Shivao's individual responsibility to create a living will. She did not. She left it in her husbands, nefarious it seems but capable hands. Her husband said it was her wish. And that should have been the end of it until Michael meets St. Peter at the crossroads. But Terry's family interjected and the battle over Terry's life has been raging for more than seven years.
Now the Right to Live movement have taken up the gauntlet and it's become less about Terry and more about inflicting the will of their movement on others. Suicide is not illegal. Because we as Americans have the right to kill ourselves. I know it sounds absurd but we do. We also have the right to live, to try every measure to ensure our survival. And we can't have one right without the other. This is what the zealots fail to understand.
Is letting Terry Shivao starve to death right? Absolutely not. Is letting Terry Shivao be deprived of food and water what we as a society should tolerate? Not if we want to continue as a society to survive. But is the government's interference with a person's wishes to starve to death correct? No, it is not. Because for one simple reason - What if they're wrong? If they're wrong Terry lives, but not in a way she wants to. If they're wrong we condemn a woman to live in a way she finds appalling and contemptible no matter what we think or how we think someone should live. The value of life is precious but only God can place that value for it is only he that gives it. We all know that God could allow Terry to fully recover because he's that sovereign but we're not giving him a chance. We're taking matters of life and death in our own hands and at the same time throwing judgement on others as we do it. It's the brick wall I run up against all the time in the Right to Life movement on the other end of the spectrum.
My zealotry says every baby should have a chance in this world. But my humility says that every adult should meet their maker on God's terms not my terms which are often infused with my humanistic yet irrational belief that I should live forever.
Because lawmakers, the President, Tom Delay, Terry's parents, all the Right to Life folks could be wrong - that Terry wants to live - we have a system of laws in place. We have lawmakers to make those laws and courts and judges to evaluate and make sure we're following the rule of law. And no matter how right we think we are we can't just throw the system of law into upheaval because we want someone to live even though they've said they want to die. Because we haven't let the rule of law prevail we've been forced into a situation that says Terry must be starved to death in order to allow what her husband said she wants. Is it inhumane? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes (whether she wanted to die or not). Is it our decision? NO.
If we don't follow the rule of law and follow the procedures by which we change that law set up in our constitution where does that leave us? That leaves us dependent upon the motivations of the law circumventers. I have no reason to doubt that the Right to Life groups, President Bush, Republicans et. al. have their hearts in the right place. They are fighting more for the side of life here than just Terry's life. I also didn't question Lincoln's motivation. Ending slavery was a top priority. It was morally correct. It was what God wanted. But to make it so government had to interfere violating the rule of law of the land at the time. As a black woman, I'm grateful, but what would the legacy of slavery been like if it had ended at the hands of an individual-spurred Black rebellion than government interference? Yet another topic.
If we allow the crusaders in this fight over Terry Shivao a pass then we allow anyone to come and upset the rule of law and we might not see so clearly their motivations.
Allowing this breach, for good or bad, creates an infallible rule of law. This can allow the evil-doers, the ones who would kill those with less mental faculty, the ones who advocate for the extermination of whole races (Planned-parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her ilk) to do so by circumventing the law. They've already done it with the bogus privacy argument on abortion. If we have the Congress swoop in and advocate overturning judges' rulings on any issue they see fit what happens when the Congress is made up of men and woman not so righteously motivated? What happens if Congress wants to reinstate slavery, to overule all the federal court decisions that wiped out separate but equal etc.? Terry Shivao's case gives this license to do it, precendents.
Do we need to change our system of judging? Yes. Do we need to stop the onslaught of judicial opinions that fly in the way of the will of the people? Maybe. But we cannot do it by usurping the authority of one of three branches. It just opens up a box that even Pandora would be afraid of.
posted by trime @ 8:21 AM
0 comments
