Posted on 03/28/2005 11:01:48 AM PST by marshmallow
Mar. 25 (CWNews.com) - The treatment of Terri Schiavo has emerged as a major watershed in the drive toward euthanasia in the US. If I were an enthusiastic proponent of "the right to die," I would not be comfortable with this test case.
There are times when it really is not clear when respirator should be disconnected-- times when it is difficult to know whether or not a beloved relative should be allowed to die in peace. This is not one of those cases.
Terri Schiavo was not close to death-- until her feeding tube was disconnected. She was not, apparently, in pain. She was not "brain dead" by any definition of that slippery term. She was not being kept alive by extraordinary means. Her death would be caused not by the suspension of medical treatment, but by starvation and dehydration.
From a non-medical perspective, it was all too clear that Michael Schiavo has incentives for seeking his wife's early death. He stood to gain a substantial financial inheritance, and freedom to marry the woman with whom he has conducted a lengthy affair. His implacable hostility toward his wife's parents showed all too clearly that he was on a personal crusade to end Terri's life. And those parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, were clear and outspoken in their insistence that Terri wanted to live.
No, this was not a good test case for the "right to die" movement. And yet the advocates of euthanasia have chosen to take a stand in this case, and thrown their full support behind Michael Schiavo. Why?
There are two answers to that question, I think. First, the "right to die" movement is seizing an unexpected opportunity. Second, the pro-life movement has been betrayed-- yet again-- by its political allies.
1) A careful political strategist, plotting a campaign for euthanasia, might have planned a series of test cases, beginning with "hard cases" (a patient who is in chronic severe pain, and terminally ill), and moving gradually forward as public acceptance increased. But with the Schiavo case, the "right to die" movement recognized the opportunity to skip over several intermediary steps, to score a major legal and political coup. If the courts would authorize the starvation of this woman, and if the public would accept it, the entire debate would shift in favor of euthanasia. If Terri Schiavo can be starved to death simply because her life has been judged burdensome, then every person who is disabled, retarded, or senile becomes a candidate for similar treatment. The key precedent will have been set; the principled opposition to "mercy killing" will be thoroughly undermined.
2) But why did the "right to die" movement perceive this enormous opportunity? Because as the Schiavo case developed, they encountered so little determined resistance. The courts sided with Michael Schiavo, and the people's elected representatives-- both in Florida and in Washington-- grudgingly acquiesced.
When they were presented with a judicial fait accompli, legislators could have begun impeachment proceedings to remove the judges who had produced these outrageous decisions. Executives could have intervened directly to save Terri Schiavo's life, claiming their authority to defend citizens from imminent danger. (As I write, there is still a flickering hope that Governor Bush will take that step.) Instead, fearful of avoiding a constitutional confrontation, both the legislative and executive branches announced that they would abide by the court's decisions.
Notice that both in Florida and in Washington, most elected officials (at least, most of those who had the courage to cast a vote) were inclined to help Terri Schiavo. But they were not willing to pay the price of intervention. A generation ago, the federal government summoned the political will to send federal troops into Mississippi, to integrate schools there, in a direct confrontation with state officials. On this occasion, our government has shown that it lacks the will to save an innocent citizen from a court-approved killing.
If Terri Schiavo dies, countless thousands of other Americans are instantly imperiled. And if that happens, it will be because the American forces of "culture of death" showed more political resolve than the pro-life movement.
The words of William Butler Yeats echo in my mind:
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Does this verse say?:
1) If you minister to Christians you automatically get salvation.
2) If you don't minister to Christians you can't have salvation.
3) If you don't minister to enough Christians that you can't have salvation.
4) That Terri is a Christian or anyone else that is helpless is automatically a Christian.
Do you believe that the tube was pulled because she was a Christian and someone unsaved just wants to kill Christians?
No one refusing to feed me if I'm in that state has any worries about their salvation I assure you. Infact none of this scripture applies to that situation at all.
Welcome to Free Republic!
Is "BibleStudier" your first account on FR? If not, please tell us your previous name(s).
With respect to a Christian's duty toward Terri Schiavo, it depends on whether you believe the story of the MSM and the judiciary or that of the conservative and evangelical or Catholic Web sites, talk show hosts, and other media. I believe the latter, because the MSM has an innate pro-death, pro-establishment liberal bias. Additionally, I am inclined to doubt the judiciary because of its corrupt character and positivist, secular humanist view of the law.
Because I believe the conservative and religious reporting, and reject the MSM and judiciary viewpoint, Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state, she can be (or could have been) rehabilitated, Michael Schiavo has acted against his wife's interests and is compromised because of his extramarital relationship and his potential financial gain should Terri die, and the judicial review is inadequate and Judge Greer compromised. Therefore, as a Christian, it would be my duty, to the limits of my ability and in light of my other responsibilities, to help her survive.
"As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." (Galatians 6:10)
Either God is in control, or He sits in heaven, just wishing there was something He could do about evil.
Some people feel justified in using their own imaginations -- or, better yet, their superior human intellect -- to make Him into something they can feel comfortable with, something "reasonable." After all, 'God is love,' and we all know what love is. So, God must be [insert favorite adjective here]. That's the kind of thinking that leads people to believe something about how "God would never subject good people to eternity in hell, and I'm not a bad person -- I haven't ever maimed or even hurt anyone too badly, let alone murdered or raped anyone -- so, since I'm not so bad, I'm sure a loving God would forgive me and take me to heaven..."
Why, just a week or so ago, I read one FReeper's rant about how her God wouldn't do such-and-such; her God "is a loving God." A loving God would never cause [insert worst tragedy here]!
I can only wonder what such people do with the God who turned Satan's attention to Job ("Have you [Satan] considered My servant Job?" Satan quickly turned Job's life into what most would consider a 'living hell'). How about God who commanded the Israelites to destroy entire cities and all the inhabitants (including women and children)? Or, the God who flooded the entire world and wiped out all of humanity, save for eight people. Oh, of course; that's the God of the Old Testament! Well, guess what... God has not changed. Read the Revelation sometime if you want to see the real destruction yet to come at the hand of the Almighty.
The Bible does weigh in on this matter, by the way. From the book of James:
2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
I never said we're supposed to sit by and watch evil prevail. My point was to refute your post by stating all power and all authority are granted by God. Don't confuse that with whether and how we should respond to evil.
If that's not what you're saying, then I don't know if I can imagine your point.
Where has all the "outrage" (real or imagined) been for the last 20 years while doctors have been "killing off" all of us handicapped people? Or is it some are just buying into the emotional aspect of this individual case?
You cannot take a breath outside of God's will; the same goes for Hitler, Saddam, Pol Pot, OBL, etc. He knows precisely what you're going to do this evening, tomorrow, next month, next year, and every remaining second of your life. He knew everything you and the others I mentioned would ever think or say or do before He ever created them.
There's a big difference between willing something to happen and merely allowing it. I already know that it's up to mortal man to prevent Mrs. Schiavo from dying. It just seemed earlier like you were implying that as preventing her from dying is against government policy, it is also against God's will. Now I don't know what you're saying.
LOL. "Mortal man" cannot prevent her dying any more than he can give her life. If God wants her to live, she will live. If He allows her to die, she will die and get on with eternity.
It just seemed earlier like you were implying that as preventing her from dying is against government policy, it is also against God's will.
God gave us the government that we have. Whatever power the judges have, they received from Him. No court decree catches Him by surprise. No judge can make a ruling without God's allowing it.
Before He ever set Creation in motion, He knew what lay ahead for Judge Greer, Michael Schiavo and Terri Schindler. Yet, He went ahead and created them anyway. If He wills that you succeed in your quest to sustain her earthly life, you will have success. Just as God is able to get morphine to Terri Schiavo, He is able to get water to her. He is able to soften and harden people's hearts, even Judge Greer's and Michael Schiavo's (if they need it).
You picked one phrase out of my post ("The government -- which would have no authority unless it was given from above...") and denied its truth. I reaffirmed my position.
If you care to argue any of the statements I have made, please do so.
You're using inconsistent terminology - "wants" and "allows". As if God wouldn't "allow" her to live or "want" her to die.
"Allowing" means not standing in the way of something happening. To that extent, I'd agree that God doesn't seem to be standing in the way of anything in Mrs. Schiavo's case. That means (drumroll please) it's up to mortal man to act, as I said before. And read over what I quoted from the book of James again.
Are you ready to say He wouldn't?
Maybe this will help... Although the Gospel is simple, God's mind is not. His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways.
What I do know is that He is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, just, love, eternal, unchanging, sovereign and holy. Thus, I have no need for worry. In the end, everything turns out exactly as it should, whether or not you or I do the right thing.
That's where we disagree. There are things in history that have turned out exactly as they shouldn't, because people of good conscience failed to act. In many cases, it could well have been because they assumed God would make everything right.
And as I've quoted, the book of James agrees with me on this.
Everyone who has a living will.
Next question?
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.