Friday, March 25, 2005

The narrow view

I pride myself on trying to see the various sides of issues and circumstances. I try to see the good in everyone. It is one of the most interesting differences between Tammy and I. I trust everyone until they give me a reason not to trust them. Tammy trusts no one until she has a reason to trust them. (Interestingly enough, she said she had an immediate trust of me, which undoubtedly surprised her.) I do not see the lurking conspiracy behind every event.

That being said, It never fails to amaze me when I run into those that do see the grand workings of the conspirators. They see the invisible strings which tie all the conspirators. They see the trail of deception. They see the web of lies. Above all, they see all those that oppose them as narrow minded or uneducated.

It may be true that there are things about which I am narrow minded. There may be things about which I do not have room in my little world upon which to compromise. I have, however, prided myself on my ability to accept that there are other sides, other views, and other opinions. I respect your right to believe that which you believe, regardless of how radically different than what I believe.

Once again, that being said, I have managed, in my last few posts, to address issues that are important to me. They are, namely, the intrusion of the government or other agents of morality, into the private affairs of the free citizens of America. I have not commented on my view about ending the life of a terminally ill patient in a vegetative state. I have not commented on my position as to whether the spouse does or does not have the right to 'pull the plug'.

Some seem to have missed that point. I am not interested in discussing the merits of the case. I am not interested in discussing the life and death decision. In my own life, I am aware of my wife's opinion if it ever occurs to her. Whether I agree or not, I will honor her wishes. My opinion and her wishes are not your business.

The can of worms that I did open was the intrusion of the Federal Government and the practice of groups on both sides to attach their names to a personal issue to further their cause and increase their donations. If you want to discuss that, feel free. If you want to talk about a 30+ year old dad that brings his 14, 12, and 10 yr old children out to interfere with that LAWFUL process and cause them to be arrested, feel free. Is this the morality we want to teach our children ?
We teach our kids to look both ways before crossing the street. We teach them to wait until there is no traffic. Then, we look and judge that we can make it and walk across the street with traffic in view. What are we teaching our kids? Are we teaching them by what we say or by what we do? How can we teach our young to respect the law and then teach them not to respect it? When we teach conflicting lessons, we leave it to the kids to decide to which they want to listen.

We are raising a generation that has no respect for the law and no idea how to fix what is wrong in it. You do not fix a sinking ship by throwing things at the hole from the outside. You fix it from the inside. You cannot fix the problems in the Government or society by standing on the outside throwing things. You have to be inside and apply pressure and work those changes, from the inside. Lawlessness and disrespect leave you on the outside. Do not be hypocritical. Be who you are, but be who you are from the inside.

That is my can of worms. That is my narrow view.


Anonymous said...

Over and over and over the law has been violated in this case and one mistaken ruling has been perpetuated over and over and Greer has continued to blindly ignore the law and Constitution. And his brethren in the higher courts have upheld a mistaken ruling without reviewing the merits of the case----just to protect George Greer.

And that’s what Congress tried to fix.

Their action to try and save Terri’s life was to pull the case away from the autonomy and blatant tyranny of George Greer. The legislative intent of their action signed into law by President Bush was to allow for a de novo review of the merits of the case and to allow Terri Schiavo to live while this review occurred.

She is being denied that review.

Anonymous said...

Florida Constitution, Article I Section 2: All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty…No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

The Florida judiciary has determined that it can deprive Terri Schiavo of her right to life simply because she is disabled and allegedly has no hope of recovery.

This court system has defined a very simple rule, and it is this: The courts have the final say, State Constitution be damned.

The wanton disregard for Article I Section 2 has created a constitutional crisis which cannot be solved within the very system which created the crisis – the Florida courts.

Anonymous said...

If, in fact, Terri Schiavo wants to live and is going to be denied that right, the prospect of a court-ordered removal of her feeding tube is no less horrifying than that of a person being buried alive.
I realize that some believe that many advocating for Terri's life are using her for their own political purposes and that even Terri's parents, the Schindlers, are putting their own selfish wishes to keep Terri alive above those of Terri herself.

But do we actually believe that loving parents -- parents who would eagerly trade places with Terri in an instant -- would place their own comfort above their daughter's? If not, how can we possibly believe they would fight to prolong her suffering? In examining this case from a distance, isn't it much easier to believe Terri's parents' assessment of her desire to continue living than that of her adulterous husband, whose conflict of interest should disqualify him from guardianship in this case and participation in this decision?

And isn't the essential argument of those wanting the tube removed that Terri's wishes ought to be honored? Since Terri left no legal document directing her death in these circumstances, shouldn't the system require clear and convincing evidence that Terri indeed would want to die in these circumstances? Yet the court is relying on the hearsay evidence of Terri's estranged husband, Michael.

The question is whether as a society we want to resolve these very difficult, doubtful cases in favor of death.

We call ourselves a civilized society and we're letting this woman's death drag on and on and on, and it is public. We are starving one of our own citizens. The government is starving one of our own citizens.

I just wonder how many times doctors have advised to "pull the plug" when the patient's condition was not necessarily terminal, but the "quality of life" of the patient was deemed, by the doctor, not to be worth saving.

And now we're removing a feeding tube from a lady who otherwise isn't remotely terminal. How many other people who cannot feed themselves will be in jeopardy after this? Tell me what the difference is between, say, an Alzheimer's patient who can't express a desire to live and who can't feed himself versus Terri, who presumably can't express her desire to live.

I understand the sentiment of those who believe that conservatives are being hypocritical when it comes to using legislative bodies to overrule specific decisions in singular court cases. But I also understand the bizarre and extraordinary exceptionality (is that a word?) of the circumstances involved in this case. We are talking about a state sanctioned murder of a human being who possibly wants to live and we are talking about this constituting a turning point in licensing the government to euthanize the rest of us in different circumstances. These are gravely serious circumstances.

I am not concerned with the political ramifications of this right now. I am interested in Terri's life. We are watching a state sanctioned murder unfold before our eyes.

Stacey said...

I have to say, I don't agree with government intrusion. They intrude far too much as it is ...

I am scared at times about the way some children are introduced to political and social issues, especially when the lessons seem to be of a fanatical nature.

I'm trying to teach KC - that it's okay to have an opinion, it's okay to express that opinion, but those opinions need to be articulated and demonstrated in a healthy, productive, lawful way.

Opinions are open to debate, but it's how you debate that makes it worth the effort.

Happy Easter. I hope you and your family enjoy the day.