American society is about to enter dangerous territory, in which the slow-motion killing of a woman by her faithless husband will have been sanctioned by the court. After Terri's death, where will we draw the line between one's right to privacy and another's right to life? Are our legislatures to have no say in the matter?
It is inconvenient to Michael Schiavo and to the Florida courts that Terri Schiavo continues to live and that her parents won't relent and let her die of thirst and starvation. If Mr. Schiavo prevails, then every person whose life is considered of negligible quality by a court or a legal guardian could be condemned. There is more at stake here than the fate of one solitary woman. After this Friday, it becomes possible that, in this country, if the unwanted and the weak are simply too burdensome to us as individuals, that the right to rid ourselves of inconvenient lives will be our courts' guiding principle.
Read the whole thing here. Props to GetReligion for the post. I particularly liked the statement that Terri's life is "inconvenient" to Michael and the Florida courts. Doesn't that echo so many of Mother Teresa's statements about abortion, especially this one: "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Remember: Think Before Commenting.