Looking at the Forest, not the Trees - (America's moral tipping point-Terri's judicial murder)

Normally I add a paragraph of two of explanation of my subject matter for the benefit of any readers that may not be familiar with the subject that I am addressing. In this case, if you have not heard of the Terri Schiavo case, I suggest you quit now and read something else.

Maybe no other case in recent history, including the O. J. Simpson and Scott Peterson cases, has generated as much controversy as the Terri Schiavo case. I can’t begin to count how many articles and opinions and I’ve read and heard in the past couple of weeks. I’ve written a few myself.

While there has many conflicting and confusing aspects to the Schiavo case, there are three overriding issues about this case that I find most disturbing.

The first is how, without a document that conclusively detailed Terri’s wishes, Michael Schiavo was granted the right to deny Terri food and water, that is, starve her to death. I can’t get on an airplane without showing documentation, how in the world can someone be granted the right to effect the death of another on hearsay? Without a bona fide living will, Michael Schiavo’s request to remove Terri’s feeding tube should have been immediately dismissed.

With the state courts sanctioning this action and the federal courts avoiding the issue, it appears that it is open season on anyone for whom someone else can make legal decisions. How is Terry Schiavo any different than a child with cerebral palsy that is unable to communicate of care for him or herself? If that child’s parents decide that the child would not want to continue to live in that condition, what is to stop them from starving that child to death? How would such a case be any different than the Schiavo case?

Second, every person needs food and water daily to survive. Those are basic needs, not “life support” in the sense that a respirator is life support. It is very different to remove someone from a machine that maintains his or her life than it is to deny them food and water. What legal precedent exists to not only deny institutionally provided food and water, but also prevents anyone else from providing a person food and water? People are arrested and convicted for denying food and water to horses. It is insane that the state can condone legal starvation of a human being.

The third aspect of this case that I find contemptible is the conduct of the courts. There is little question that there are unanswered questions in this case, but yet all the courts refused to consider any of those questions. If new DNA evidence surfaces in the case of a death row inmate, there is no question that the case is reopened, but why not for Terri Schiavo?

When Congress passed the law that authorized a de novo review of the case, the federal courts thumbed their noses refusing to reopen the case. Do you think that would happen if new evidence surfaced in the Scott Peterson case? It appears that Circuit Judge George Greer made up his mind that this case was closed regardless of any additional evidence that may have come to light.

This case is tragic on many levels, but none more tragic than the way Michael Schiavo forced Terri Schiavo to live out the last years of her life. Could she have been rehabilitated? Could she have had any sort of a life? We’ll never know. If there was anything worse than the fate that was forced upon Terri Schiavo, it is the knowledge that the same fate could befall anyone and this government is no longer a government “for the people.”

As is the case with so many issues today, most people shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives thinking that this doesn’t affect them. The bottom line is that we are all affected. This case established that one man could decide that a woman wanted to die and the government let him, no actually enabled him, to kill her.

Jan A. Larson is currently employed in private industry in Texas. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Nebraska, a Master of Science degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Colorado State University.

>>"Unfortunately, every state in the Union has laws on the books to allow euthanasia. Terri has simply awoken us to this fact, and is a call to arms to get the laws changed to make euthanasia illegal.

>>"Terri is not America's tipping point. Roe v Wade was America's tipping point. Terri's killing, and others like her, are along the down slope."<<

This comment seems to raise the bar on the article. The article's title says, "(America's moral tipping point-Terri's judicial murder)." This parenthetical appendage is apparently an editorial addition composed by CHARLITE. It is not unwarranted. But it does not go far enough.

Your comment, TheDon, goes farther, raising the bar to the larger issue of legalized abortion: "[Terri's judicial murder] is not America's tipping point. Roe v Wade was America's tipping point. Terri's killing, and others like her, are along the down slope."

I would go even farther, however.

It is not a matter of coincidence that Terri's case came up just before the imminent death of Pope John Paul II has come up. Nor is it a matter of mere coincidence that the Holy Father's death is lingering for days now.

Nor is it a mere matter of coincidence that the Vicar of Christ on earth left the hospital and returned to the Vatican appartment just as the news of Terri's death spread worldwide and the Pope's health took a mysterious turn for the worst that nobody in Rome nor in the media has been able nor even willing to explain or address.

God works in mysterious ways.

How could all these things be working together like clockwork?

The moral ground of the "tipping point of America" hinges on the practice of contraception. According to the encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, once a nation embraces the practice of legalized contraception, they have entered the slippery slope toward legalized abortion, legalized euthanasia, legalized mercy killing, and all manner of deviance.

Some other examples include, but are not limited to, national requirement to participate in ritual satanic child sacrifice and human killing for entertainment, wherein anyone who refuses to participate actively would be commiting a capital crime punishable by becoming eligible to become one of the future victims of human sacrifice.

No, the moral turning point of America is the practice of legalized contraception. This proposition (in Humanae Vitae, arguably Pope Paul VI' only great achievement) was the reason why so many people at the time raised voices of defiance against Humanae Vitae. It is the reason that Pope Paul VI was said to have been hesitant to publish it as it was written, but it had been reportedly shown to Saint Padre Pio, who had had a mere year to live, and the good Padre had told the Pope to publish it without revision.

Some confused Catholics today think that nobody should tell the Pope what to do. But here is a curious exception: the Pope asked for St. Pio's advice, and he gave it to him, and the Pope followed his advice. If he had not done so, today we would not have this clear moral principle to guide us. As it is it will garner disagreement and conflict, but without the encyclical, what I am writing would be more difficult to defend.

Padre Pio has made my typing here nearly effortless! St. Padre Pio, ora pro nobis! (Note: new tag line!)

If Pope Paul had not taken the advice of St. Pio, today we would not be able to look at Terri's tragic story and JPII's physical demise in light of the higher moral ground to which I am referring so effortlessly. JPII's "slipping in and out of consciousness but not in a coma, vital organs shutting down," and the curious spectacle of the media scrambling for additional news stories to dredge up while the world is obviously hungry for more "updates on the condition of the Pope" are merely pieces in the puzzle. All the pieces fit perfectly to make the larger picture for those who have eyes to see.

Let the reader understand.

This is not changing the topic of this thread. It is the same topic, although perhaps not the same topic that was intended by CHARLITE. Nor, I would point out, was the topic of "America's moral tipping point" the intended topic of Jan A. Larson.

"America's moral tipping point" is the topic of this thread, and legalized contraception, not Terri's judicial murder, is America's moral tipping point.

Terri's judicial murder and Roe vs. Wade were both along the slippery slope from America's tipping point, legalized contraception.

Substance abuse would seem to be another thread. The control of pharmaceutical medication by the FDA and the medical/pharmacy industry would seem to be another thread. But CONTRACEPTION IS SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

Am I saying that everyone should be required to have a prescription to get a condom? No, I'm saying that condoms should not be commercially available.

"Dream on," you say? "What a whack-o," you say? "Get lost," you say? Isn't this "FreeRepublic?" Don't I have a right to freedom of speech here? Am I inciting a riot?

These are not fighting words. These are words of peace.

I don't suppose there is any chance of a free market stopping the production of condoms and other so-called contraceptive devices while there is still a demand for them. What will be necessary is a worldwide popular loss of intent for the purchase of such implements of moral destruction. And such a change in the hearts of men can only come from divine intervention. While I do believe that such intervention is soon to come to the world, that IS another thread.

All the pieces fit perfectly to make the larger picture for those who have eyes to see.

Let the reader understand.

This is not changing the topic of this thread.

St. Padre Pio, pray for Terri Schindler (Schiavo), and pray for Pope John Paul II.

Kyrie eleison.

You rightly assert that contraception that prevents conception is morally different than contraception that prevents implantation or that causes abortion. But even though it is less immoral to prevent life from beginning than to destroy it after it has begun, is it moral?

Consider:
3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
Psalm 127:3-6 KJV

How moral is it to, in essence, say to God, "Uh, thanks, but no thanks. I mean, don't get me wrong; it's a nice reward, and all but, uhh, You keep it"?

The man of faith affirms that God is faithful and seeks to know His counsel in all things and humbly yield to His perfect will. Is it not hypocrisy, then, for this man to second-guess the Almighty regarding the bearing of children? Is this not -- sin?

Certainly it is sin. This is no less than the sin of unbelief; a lack of trust in God to do what is right: "God, we don't think You'd do this like we want it done so, if You'll excuse us Lord, we'll just handle this issue ourselves." One may as well say plainly, "God, I do not trust You with this one."

This kind of "I trust you with this but not with that" thinking works with people; we do it all the time. We assume that a 10-year-old can be trusted with sharp scissors, but they're not ready to be trusted with the family car. That assessment is perfectly fine, but it is entirely inappropriate -- blasphemous, actually -- to make the mistake of applying this kind of selective trust to God, because doing so makes the silent assertion that God somehow can't deal with the issue at hand; that He isn't really Who He says He is.

So, yes, it is less immoral to prevent a pregnancy than to abort one, but don't break your arm patting yourself on the back over it.

From this excellent,erudite blogger: http://cellasreview.blogspot.com/

Why are so many so exercised about the Terri Schiavo case?

I think I can nail down with some precision at least a partial answer. We are exercised for this reason: the Terri case demonstrates beyond all doubt that the range of human beings protected by law in this country has narrowed once again; and what is to stop it from narrowing still further? My friend Bill Luse puts the matter very simply and elegantly: “A permanent vegetative state is not a terminal disease. It does not threaten one with death. It is simply a condition of her life, the life she happens to be living, and which some think she should not.”

We concede that Terri's hopes for recovery lie in miracles only. We concede that the law has been (as far as we can tell) properly followed, the appeals properly adjudicated, that, in short, the law gives to Michael Schiavo, and the those operating as his agents, final authority over Terri's life.

We concede these things but still say: it is an unspeakable injustice. For what, in the end, have we thereby conceded? Only that some conditions are not curable; and that the law can be used to perpetrate wickedness, such as the murder of the innocent. Who will deny these things? The sudden veneration for the law that has sprung up among Liberals is a somewhat perplexing thing. Even the most sullen reactionary will not deny that there is truth in Saint Augustine's dictim that an unjust law is no law at all. That a thing is legal does not mean that it is right. Not long ago the television was full of images of various local magistrates defying duly enacted law to “marry” homosexuals, and not a word of protest from the legalists of the Left. Five years ago, also in Florida (as John Fund points out), the Left was happy to endorse the Federal Administration ignoring court orders to send a boy back to Castro's little prison state, and, again, not a word of protest from the legalists of the Left. Like I said, perplexing.

But not so perplexing when one realizes that these cases, like the Schiavo case, have been so vexing precisely because they go to the heart of the old tremendous questions: who we are as a nation, our character and destiny as a people organized for action in history.

If you have the urge to have sex, in the bonds of marriage, but do not do so, is that immoral too?
Yes.  St. Paul, the Apostle, clearly asserts this in his first letter to the Church at Corinth, wherein he wrote:
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer;
I Corinthians 7:3-5a KJV

Is it immoral not to be married in the first place, never to have children?
There are two separate questions, here.  Answering the second, regarding children, per my previous post [14]; I think scripture is fairly clear that, while it is not immoral not to have children (perhaps due to infertility, etc), it is immoral to try not to have children.  The first, regarding celibacy, ties into your next question, so I'll deal with it below.

Some faiths do not allow their clergy to marry. Is this not denying God?
No.  Jesus had this to say about chosing celibacy:
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Matthew 19:10-12 KJV

Note that Jesus clearly states that this endorsement of celibacy is not universal, but that those who are able to accept it should do so.  Also, let the reader not be distracted at Jesus' placing the discussion in terms of eunuchs, as such were quite common in that day and all would readily grasp the broader implication of his discourse as it relates to them that are not eunuchs.  That is, if those who are not eunuchs can accept it, they do well to live as though they were He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The Apostle Paul addresses the matter of celibacy in this way:
32 But I wish you to be without care. The unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, how he shall please the Lord;
33 but he that has married cares for the things of the world, how he shall please his wife.
34 There is a difference between the wife and the virgin. The unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but she that has married cares for the things of the world, how she shall please her husband.
35 But I say this for your own profit; not that I may set a snare before you, but for what [is] seemly, and waiting on the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any one think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.
37 But he who stands firm in his heart, having no need, but has authority over his own will, and has judged this in his heart to keep his own virginity, he does well.
38 So that he that marries himself does well; and he that does not marry does better.
1 Corinthians 7:32-38 Darby (Public Domain)

Barring the clergy from marriage simply imposes that only those who are able to accept celibacy should pursue the ministerial calling.  This is no denial of God, but only a reinforcement that those whom God calls to remain celibate are more free to focus upon the things that please God, and that such is a preferable quality for one in clerical ministry.  So, this does not deprive the priest of a happy marriage rather it reaffirms that he ought have been of a settled mind regarding celibacy before.  In fact, I would frame it in this way: no man ought to pursue clerical office in any denomination barring clergy from marriage unless that man is wholly committed to celibacy from the outset; being at peace with the issue and having fully laid it to rest in his own heart and mind.

One can go on and on along these lines of thought.
Yes, and I really think that the issues are worth discussion, because many perceptions about them are fairly easily affirmed or refuted in scripture.  So I think this exploration is healthy.  Ultimately, however, there is no substitute for personal study of the Bible, for which I strongly recommend a tried-and-true two-step approach: open book, insert face.

So, I think it is a distinct moral difference that is something worth patting oneself on the back over.
Don't get me wrong; I did not mean to imply that there was no moral distinction; there is.  But the difference is not between immoral and moral, but between immoral and less immoral.  Since less immoral is still immoral, if we engage in patting ourselves on the back, let us do it with sobriety, as those who recognize that, while we have done well, we could have done better.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.