Symbol and substance

[Snowden]

This is not part of the story about Terri Schiavo. This is a new thread because it deals with the reason this woman is important to the future of our nation and to the lives of our children and theirs. I've been saying it and nobody seems to hear me. Do you hear this man?



Symbol and substance


By Cal Thomas
Why does Terri Schiavo matter? Why has Congress made a federal case of her situation? Why did the president of the United States return to Washington from Texas to sign a bill created for the express purpose of inviting a federal court to review the case and likely requiring her feeding tube restored while the judge gathers information?
She matters, not only because she has an endowed, inalienable right to life, but also because she is a symbol -- like Rosa Parks was when she refused to sit in the back of that Montgomery, Ala., bus; like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who symbolized freedom by defying Soviet authorities and chronicling the inhabitants and victims of the gulags; like astronauts who brave death to explore space. Symbols have meaning. Terri Schiavo is a symbol in the battle over life-and-death issues that inconveniently, but necessarily, confront us.
Opponents of federal intervention cry "hypocrisy" because conservatives pushing for a federal court review claim to support states rights on issues such as abortion and same-sex "marriage" and think these matters should be left to the states under the 10th Amendment.
But the hypocrisy label can be turned around. Didn't liberals reject states rights when it came to civil rights for African-Americans four decades ago, and didn't they make federal cases out of integrated restrooms and universities? They supported sending federal troops to force integration on unwilling states. They were right to do so then, and conservatives are right to ask the federal government to intervene when a Florida judge has, in effect, ordered the murder of Terri Schiavo by denying her food and water.
Then, as now, when an individual's civil and constitutional rights are denied by a state, there are times when federal action is required. This is such a time.
Terri Schiavo's life matters as symbol and substance. Her case is only the latest in a long series that forces us to choose between two philosophies of life.
One philosophy says we are mere material and energy shaped by pure chance in a random universe, evolving from slime with no Author of life, no purpose for living beyond what gives us pleasure and no destination after we die but the grave.
The other philosophy of life says we are created by an infinite, personal God who has a plan for every life in every situation and circumstance and that no one should take a life except under the most extreme circumstances and only through due process or in self-defense.
The Schiavo case should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a flow that began in with abortion-on-demand and will continue, if not stopped, with euthanasia. When one category of life is devalued, all other categories are soon vulnerable.
Girls who became pregnant by a drunken father and sought abortions were the symbolic beginning of a process that resulted in abortion for any reason at any stage. Now we target the infirm, and soon the elderly will be in our sights because of the pressure on Social Security and Medicare. The "reasoning" will be: Rather than raise taxes, reduce benefits or raise the retirement age, let's eliminate the biggest "drain" on retirement resources -- that is, the elderly and infirm.
Having been conditioned to accept killing, even killing by the state according to an arbitrary standard of who is "fit" to live and who is not, it will be a short step to killing Grandma and Grandpa in their "assisted living" centers, which quickly will be transformed into centers for assisted dying.
Someone will produce a document or hearsay testimony that the elderly person would have "wanted to die" in such circumstances and never intended to be a "burden" to their children. The lawyer will be called, the will read and the inheritance distributed. It will be larger than what would have remained if spent on the recently departed.
These are the stakes, and how the Schiavo case is decided will determine what many of us face in the future.

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.





http://www.washingtontimes.com/comme...0041-6814r.htm

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

She matters, not only because she has an endowed, inalienable right to life, but also because she is a symbol -- like Rosa Parks was when she refused to sit in the back of that Montgomery, Ala., bus; like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who symbolized freedom by defying Soviet authorities and chronicling the inhabitants and victims of the gulags; like astronauts who brave death to explore space. Symbols have meaning. Terri Schiavo is a symbol in the battle over life-and-death issues that inconveniently, but necessarily, confront us.

Those examples are people who spoke or acted. There are witnesses who have testified in court that Terri Schivo twice said she would not like to be kept alive as is happening now. It is not just her husband who is saying this. That is the reason that the courts have consistently upheld the removal of the feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo's life matters as symbol and substance. Her case is only the latest in a long series that forces us to choose between two philosophies of life.

I see us being asked to choose whether or not to respect the wishes of the people involved. As Paul posted about his mother, he and his sister waited a couple of hours to inform the nurses of her death because they knew that the DNR orders would not be respected. They were proven right.

The Schiavo case should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a flow that began in with abortion-on-demand and will continue, if not stopped, with euthanasia. When one category of life is devalued, all other categories are soon vulnerable.

While I do believe that euthanasia is a danger, this is not the case that shows it. The woman herself stated in front of two people besides her husband that she did not wish to live like this.

She is a symbol all right, but a symbol of what happens when a person's wishes are not respected. She is also a symbol for the necessity of getting those wishes down in writing. Even that might not work as Paul and his sister found out.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

I see us being asked to choose whether or not to respect the wishes of the people involved. As Paul posted about his mother, he and his sister waited a couple of hours to inform the nurses of her death because they knew that the DNR orders would not be respected. They were proven right.

True; but that was in a case where the instructions were written down - the patient had been fully prepared and left instructions signed and witnessed. In such a case, this scenerio we are subjected to in this Schiavo case would not happen - it may have gone to court, of course. However, the fact of the signed instructions would have cleared it up immediately.

While I do believe that euthanasia is a danger, this is not the case that shows it. The woman herself stated in front of two people besides her husband that she did not wish to live like this.

I disagree, Katie. This may not be the case; but this is one case that will set a legal prececent, and upon the verdict in this case, other judgements will be made. And euthanasia is going to be the law of the land. Once we disregard the value of human life in one form - any form - it is the beginning of the end of human life being held sacred.

We also see in Europe the fading away of Christianity - the one religion that puts this value on human life. It's fading here somewhat too, and with the influx of other religions, it may not be the prevailing religion by the middle of this century. With this case giving the power of euthanasia to the federal government, others being decided according to this one, this case could be the one that turns the tide.

She is a symbol all right, but a symbol of what happens when a person's wishes are not respected. She is also a symbol for the necessity of getting those wishes down in writing. Even that might not work as Paul and his sister found out.

That is beside the point here; it has little or nothing to do with the case in hand. This woman is a focal point for one reason and one reason alone - to make a law giving the federal government say as to whether or not people have the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution. For the people of this country, now and in the future, the only real importance in this case is what it does to the law of the land in that respect. Another blow to the Constitution? Is that what we need here?

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

True; but that was in a case where the instructions were written down - the patient had been fully prepared and left instructions signed and witnessed. In such a case, this scenerio we are subjected to in this Schiavo case would not happen - it may have gone to court, of course. However, the fact of the signed instructions would have cleared it up immediately.

But the 'damage' would have been done. She would have been resusitated.

I disagree, Katie. This may not be the case; but this is one case that will set a legal prececent, and upon the verdict in this case, other judgements will be made. And euthanasia is going to be the law of the land. Once we disregard the value of human life in one form - any form - it is the beginning of the end of human life being held sacred.

Those testimonies are in the court records. Schiavo is a bad case to prove that she is a symbol.

That is beside the point here; it has little or nothing to do with the case in hand. This woman is a focal point for one reason and one reason alone - to make a law giving the federal government say as to whether or not people have the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution. For the people of this country, now and in the future, the only real importance in this case is what it does to the law of the land in that respect. Another blow to the Constitution? Is that what we need here?

If her stated wishes, witnessed by her husband and two friends, had been respected, she would not now be kept alive by technology. This was not her wish.

[JohnRN]

Originally Posted by Snowden

We also see in Europe the fading away of Christianity - the one religion that puts this value on human life.

Unfair Gramma! Are you saying my parents, being devout Hindus, don't respect human life like Christians do?

Originally Posted by Snowden

It's fading here somewhat too, and with the influx of other religions, it may not be the prevailing religion by the middle of this century.

I doubt it. The numbers for Christians hasn't changed much over the past two decades... and even if they have, it's not because of new religions, but more because people are opting into agnostic/don't believe route...

Originally Posted by Snowden

With this case giving the power of euthanasia to the federal government, others being decided according to this one, this case could be the one that turns the tide.

But the law of the land already states that this is a legal possibility - that the "health care proxy" decides what treatment is to be given and what is NOT to be given! It's a perfectly sound law! And believe it or not, Michael IS the proxy for Terri! Not just by original law... but by many court rulings over the past fourteen years!

Originally Posted by Snowden

That is beside the point here; it has little or nothing to do with the case in hand. This woman is a focal point for one reason and one reason alone - to make a law giving the federal government say as to whether or not people have the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution. For the people of this country, now and in the future, the only real importance in this case is what it does to the law of the land in that respect. Another blow to the Constitution? Is that what we need here?

Personally speaking, the right to "Liberty" is the most paramount right...

[Snowden]

[

QUOTE=John.]Unfair Gramma! Are you saying my parents, being devout Hindus, don't respect human life like Christians do?

I worded that badly, John. About the only thing I know about Hindu life value is the ancient practice of suttee, which I think is history; and more recently of husbands killing wives - something to do with dowries. But I doubt if this is because of them being Hindu; they could be of any or no religion. The newspaper articles I read didn't say a word about religion. I should have left out the word "the" - saying "it is one religion that respects human life," which it is. Not all do, as we know. I was thinking strictly in terms of Europe - not the East or Mid East or any other part of the world.

I doubt it. The numbers for Christians hasn't changed much over the past two decades... and even if they have, it's not because of new religions, but more because people are opting into agnostic/don't believe route...

That's a problem, of course; but the percentage of Christians is certainly less now.

But the law of the land already states that this is a legal possibility - that