"The dark, repellent, sepulchral face of American liberalism has rarely shown itself as clearly as it has during the past two weeks during the Terri Schiavo tragedy.
Posted on 03/30/2005 9:02:19 PM PST by ElkGroveDan
The dark, repellent, sepulchral face of American liberalism has rarely shown itself as clearly as it has during the past two weeks during the Terri Schiavo tragedy. At every turn, at every juncture, at every public utterance, the liberal infrastructure has been 100 percent consistent in its preference for death over life.
Why? Depending on which liberal you catch on which day it’s because her philandering husband wants her to die (ah, the advances 30 years of feminism has brought); because she expressed a wish not to be kept alive in her current circumstances (a wish no one but her adulterous husband ever heard); or because the sacred principle of states’ rights must be upheld (when can we expect to hear these liberals invoke this principle regarding abortion and gun control?).
Liberalism is so inextricably intertwined with the abortion (death) lobby that it apparently reacts reflexively against any hint of affinity with the “pro-life” position under any circumstances. What else explains the ghoulish, joyful fervor with which feminists and liberals have filled the airwaves the past fortnight with one demand: Terri Schiavo must die.
This case has nothing to do with abortion, gay marriage, taxes, judicial appointments or anything else, even though the New York Times, in an early effort to nail down the “most bizarre logic of 2005” award, saw those trying to keep Schiavo alive as part of the “larger campaign to deny gay marriage and pack the courts with conservative activists.” One wonders what’s finding its way into the Times’ water cooler.
Neither is this case about the “right to die.” No one outside Florida would ever have heard of Terri Schiavo were it clear she had chosen not to be kept alive in these circumstances. This case is about just one issue: the right of an innocent, defenseless woman not to be tortured and killed by the government.
If Terri Schiavo were a mass murderer on death row, had she butchered 10 or 100 or 1,000 people in a killing spree, the ACLU, liberals, and major media would be performing somersaults to demand that every last judicial remedy be exhausted on her behalf before she was put to death. But women who cannot defend themselves against those who would kill them for convenience can expect no such support from liberals. Instead, they are outraged at anyone meddling in her husband’s and the state’s efforts to starve her to death.
Then there is the walking piece of excrement, Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael, who contends she told him she would not want to be kept alive under these conditions. Here’s some food for thought. Nobody else — not Terri’s sister, mother, father, or friends — ever heard her say such a thing. And Michael himself never mentioned it — until nearly eight years after Terri’s accident. During those eight years Terri won a $750,000 malpractice judgment that goes to her welfare as long as she’s alive, while Michael began an adulterous relationship with another woman, a woman he has said he wants to marry and by whom he has fathered two children.
So here is the face of 21st century feminism and liberalism: placing all faith in a man who, cheating on his hospitalized wife, has fathered two bastard children while acquiring a huge financial motive to want his wife dead. And liberals wonder why they have problems with “value voters.”
Conservatives have had their missteps also in this drama, but I think President Bush said it best: “When in doubt between life and death, why not err on the side of life”? Michael Schiavo’s carnal and financial lust should not be enough reason for anyone to consent to the killing of Terri Schiavo.
Our liberals and feminists cannot make the same calculation. Their devotion to the culture of death trumps all other matters. Venal politics, unworthy of this discussion, are sufficient for liberals and feminists to turn their heads from the unhappy scene and allow this defenseless woman to be starved to death.
Anyone looking for the putrescent, cankered core of American liberalism need look no further than the sad case of Terri Schiavo.
"The dark, repellent, sepulchral face of American liberalism has rarely shown itself as clearly as it has during the past two weeks during the Terri Schiavo tragedy.
I don't see this as a liberal-conservative thing.
It's an extremely complicated issue and there seem to be no easy answers.
I know peo-life liberals and pro-choice conservatives as far as the Schiavo case goes.
Whose life?Whose choice?
After all that effort, dangit!
well... to be fair, two other Schiavos (Mikey's side) allegedly heard the wish. It seems weird, though, that while Mikey was earlier claiming he knew of no such wish, prior to the insurance settlement, the other two didn't bother to clue him in.
If you don't produce, you should die. It's all for the good of the hive mind.
It's still true: Liberals want to kill you if you're innocent and helpless. As this author points out, if you're convicted of murder and on death row, they'll spare no effort to keep you alive.
That really says all that needs to be said about liberals. May they rot in hell, every last miserable one of them.
Yes the culture of death is brought to us by the extreme left, to bad the right always goes along.
Man, rather than God, has become the new measure of life in "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
In 2005, it's starvation.
In 2015, it'll be euthanasia that will put even the Dutch to shame.
Yea, the GOP tried (not Jeb, Jeb really tried) just enough to be able to say they tried.
Jessie Jackson going there was IMHO huge, coverage immedately changed and the real facts of the case started to get out. Also Jackson showed that this was not a right/left thing this was a good/evil thing.
ElkGroveDan, Very good post. This issue has helped separate the wheat from the chaff. People of good conscience are on one side, and the would-be conservative bleating phonies are on the other.
I had heard that he was also offered something like $10 million to relinquish his custody of her to her parents, but he refused. If his was a financial motive, why would he turn down that kind of money?
Second if they really do believe that obeying each and every 427000 laws in the book is more important then protcting human life (I can't believe that) well then we are in for one hell of a 21 century.
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.