The following is a March 22nd re-post from the National Exam. Enjoy!
The Terry Schiavo matter is a disappointing display of governmental control. The entire subject is of such a personal nature involving a grieving family that I almost feel judgmental writing about it. Of course, as we are reminded seemingly by the hour, this debate, this silly overblown debate, is about life, death and choices.
Pro-life, Pro-choice, whatever you call yourself it’s all so old. The labels themselves are as inaccurate as those who claim to abide by them. Once again, however, the nation gapes at Florida with political eyes to see how the first campaign issue since the November presidential election will unfold. Yes, that’s right, life and death was a campaign issue- largely a Neocon debate engulfed by Democrats. You see, just because the campaigns end, the issues don’t. When candidates depend on such private matters as abortion and gay marriage to dominate the political scene, and when they enlarge the debate to a national crisis stage like Bush did in 2004, these issues just don’t go away as easily as many think. These are the very issues Bush campaigned on, this is the state of the union, and the monster that has been created and it will get worse.
Is Schiavo really about a choice? Is this matter really about life and death? Yes, it is about choice, but not the public’s choice. And it’s certainly not about the public’s death. I don’t know how much more private a matter such as this could be. Why won’t people just leave it at that?
Protestors, or supporters, I’m really not sure how to refer to either side, pray for the life of Schiavo and demand for the repentance of those who either refuse to pick a side or those who don’t believe the same as they do. Why are people so worried about everyone else’s sin?
I had a Republican friend tell me that this debate is really about abortion and Roe v. Wade and everything to do with life and death decisions. From a distance, the debate appears that way, but the Schiavo case is much deeper. There is no doubt, however, that the issue eventually boils down to abortion rights. And since the Neocons have made abortion such a crisis and of such religious importance, and because I don’t want to talk about Schiavo, I think we all must stop and ask: What sort of choice are we talking about? And since this debate will not go away, I think it’s time Democrats reconsider the abortion issue and for Republicans to stop trying to be so righteous.
Abortion is not a joyful choice. I don’t even think abortion is a woman’s issue nor do I believe that abortion is merely only a woman’s choice. The overall result of abortion is the ceasing of human life. I do not know of any woman who would joyfully make that decision and then brag about her right to do so. Women do not leave abortion clinics celebrating their right to abortion like they left the voting booth in 1920 when voting for the first time.
There must be an understanding that abortion is not a Liberal issue involving women being treated equally. It’s about tough personal decisions brought about by many different circumstances, all of which are about life.
Yet, life does not stop at birth. So the Pro-life people are just as clouded in their thinking as the people they detest.
Amazingly, people who declare that being Pro-life is about saving lives are eerily the same ones who want welfare dismantled, who want Social Security phased-out, who call any and all social programs communism, who hate taxes and demand that they should not be responsible for hand-me-downs to people that they think choose to be poor. If this debate is about life then shouldn’t we really talk about life, including birth and upbringing? How can people claim that babies should be born no matter the circumstance, counting babies being born into poverty, drug addiction and a vicious cycle, be so against the moral aspects of life after that baby is born?
I don’t think I’ll ever understand either side.
This debate is not about life and death. It’s about labels, and labels are a very lazy way to do politics. Because of our laziness, we have created a nation of hysteria. Not to mention of hypocrites as well.
4.14.2005
What Sort of Choice Are We Talking About?
Posted by Chris at 5:03 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
One thing tha upsets me about the media coverage of the Terri Schiavo case is that they lead Americans, including myself, to beleive that Congress and George Bush actually enacted legislation to reinsert the feeding tube.
That is and was totally wrong. Congress, including a great majority of Democrats, voted only to have this case heard once more in our court system. They wanted to guarantee that all avenues for help had been passed.
People say that once Bush saw that public support was against it, he backed off, when has public support ever entered his choices? He and congress only attempted to give Terri one last chance, not alter the future.
I gotta disagree with you here some Craig.
Congress worked at record speed to pass legislation to give the federal court authority to reconsider- which Bush did sign.
Now there had been something like 32 other court rulings- including federal courts and the Supreme Court- that the wishes of the husband, which the courts believed was the desire of Terry, to have the feeding tube removed. Every avenue had been exhausted.
If Bush and others only wanted "this case heard once more in our court system," then their motive and overall goal was the hope that the court would rule differently and overturn the previous 30-something rulings. Or why intervene at all??
Bush would not have signed the jurisdiction if he had wanted the ruling to remain the same, or if he had thought that his actions would not bring some change.
I don't think Bush would have taken such a political risk unless he thought the court would have struck down the last ten years of decisions.
And, yes, after his poll numbers dropped because of his intervention, he backed off. Republicans and neocons will say it's because of gas prices, which boggles me because gas prices are actually something Bush can control and something he personally makes millions from, and yet he does nothing to ease prices. All in all, it's favoritism towards the wealthy while exploiting a poor grieving family for political gain.
I'm with MJ on this one, and the recent statements from Senator John Cornyn and Congressman Tom Delay only strengthen my belief that in fact Congress wanted the courts to reinsert the feeding tube at least until all federal appeals were exhausted.
I also beleive that they wanted the feeding tube reinserted, however, I don't think that Bush was willing to send anyone personally to do so. I really feel as if he killed two birds with one stone on this one; he reached out to the family of Terri to show that he supported them and also showed that he understands that courts do have some power in making decisions.
I think DeLay's comments following the course of events regarding the judges were out of line, but I understand his positions.
Yeah Heretic I agree.
Given all the rhetoric during the so called "crisis" (Tom DeLay and the ever famous talking points memo)leads me to believe that Bush wanted nothing more than a reversal in court decisions.
I just don't believe Bush's intervention was an innocent action for more judicial appeals.
His motivation had to be that he wanted the tube reinserted, which means Bush disagreed with the entire body of the judicial system.
Thanks for commenting Heretic. Good to see you around.
thanks for the visit - i'm going to make one of my own, here on political notio. - mikey
Post a Comment