I think that it is your essayist, not those of us who protested the Federal involvement in the Schiavo family tragedy, who displays the same sort of cultish tunnel vision as the Nazi leaders. But I am forcing myself to refrain from detailed comments until the end of the month. Hopefully, by then, passions will have cooled, and sober reflection will be possible.
I think there needs to be plenty of open discussion on the comparison to Dred Scott, the issue of federal jurisdiction, what "due process" means in a civil case, inalienable rights and the 14th amendment, etc.
...and I agree the 'discussion' does not need to involve Nazi Germany. We have plenty in our own history to reflect upon.
From the essay: Inalienable rights are those you have just by being a person, a living human being....Because they are permanent and absolute, you cannot lose them or give them away.
Inalienable rights....are rights such as life and liberty that are annexed to and made part of every individual person.
By the logic of this article, the feeding tube could not have been disconnected even if Ms. Schiavo had executed a notized affidavit of her desire to do so, had made a videotape explaining the circumstances under which tubes should be removed, and her entire family agreed it was what she wanted.
According to this article, her wishes do not matter because she does not have the power to give away her "inalienable right" to life.
If people are going to accept that article as an argument for keeping her intubated, then they oughta drop the arguments about Michael Schiavo being a scumbag, or a lack of evidence of her intentions, etc. Because the author would hold that her intentions/desires do not matter.
And I'm not saying what her intentions were in this case. I think they were unclear, and the tube should not have been removed if members of her family were willing to take care of her. But that really has nothing to do with the article.