Peterson to Die, Schiavo to Live
Here's what we just don't get. The very same people protesting to "save" Terri Shaivo's life are very likely hopeing Scott Peterson's last breath contains some nasty gas. If all life is sacred, shouldn't Scott Peterson be left to a life of solitary confinement for the rest of his natural days?
Here's another thing. Terri Schiavo doesn't have some trust fund that her husband Michael can unlock when she dies. Why then would the man spend the last ten years of his life to trying to pull the plug unless he earnestly believed she would have wanted to die? Micheal Shiavo could have easily moved on with his life. Only love could motivate someone in such a way.
Meanwhile, Terri's parents have been the ones behind a push to reinstate her feeding tube. Sympathy is all they deserve. Certainly they are holding onto some false hope that Terri will (1) come out of her vegatative state and (2) be perfectly fine or at least, have the ability to be rehabilitated. While its a bit of hope, its likely neither will occur.
So again, we're still wondering, why is the state executing people but forcibly keeping others alive?
Here's another thing. Terri Schiavo doesn't have some trust fund that her husband Michael can unlock when she dies. Why then would the man spend the last ten years of his life to trying to pull the plug unless he earnestly believed she would have wanted to die? Micheal Shiavo could have easily moved on with his life. Only love could motivate someone in such a way.
Meanwhile, Terri's parents have been the ones behind a push to reinstate her feeding tube. Sympathy is all they deserve. Certainly they are holding onto some false hope that Terri will (1) come out of her vegatative state and (2) be perfectly fine or at least, have the ability to be rehabilitated. While its a bit of hope, its likely neither will occur.
So again, we're still wondering, why is the state executing people but forcibly keeping others alive?
3 Comments:
"We kill people to show that killing people is wrong."
And all that jazz.
The reverse is true as well. The same people trying to kill her are against the death penalty.
To say "kill her" of course implies a predisposed opinion that no one has a right to die.
Without a feeding tube, Terri would have simply died of natural causes-- starvation. To say "kill her" implies that the state is proactively terminating her life.
The removal of a feeding tube may lead to death, but it is not killing. Patients do have a right to refuse treatemnt. In this case, we are relying on the testimony of her Schiavo's husaband that she would want to have refused treatment. Under the law, husband and wife are afforded legal protections as if they were one preson-- shared debt, shared wealth, protection against testifying against one another. So for a husband to decline treatment-- the feeding tube-- is no different than a patient refusing chemotherapy.
It is indeed hypocritical for someone to "Cherish life" while supporting the death penalty. By its very nature, the death penalty involves taking life.
Death penalty opponents don't necessarily cherish life. Opponents may in fact support things such as military action. They may oppose execution because of cost, or because of racial bias.
A square is rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
If you believe that Terri Schiavo's life is so sacred that despite her own wishes [as expressed to her husband prior to her vegetative state] she cannot be allowed to die, then you must be against taking life in combat, in self defense, and through state sponsored execution, because, after all, life is sacred. However, to oppose the death penalty does not require that you cherish life as sacred, and therefore can support the removal of the feeding tube.
Post a Comment
<< Home