Two interesting takes on the Terri Schiavo case:
The first is titled Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo, by Joe Ford:
The reason for this public support of removal from ordinary sustenance, I believe, is not that most people understand or care about Terri Schiavo. Like many others with disabilities, I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead. To put it in a simpler way, many Americans are bigots. A close examination of the facts of the Schiavo case reveals not a case of difficult decisions but a basic test of this country’s decency.
I’m not sure I would have put it this way. I think the words “murder” and “bigotry” are extreme — especially when I take into account the opinions of so many well-meaning (and some not-so-well-meaning) people who have commented on this blog.
Still, I’m not going to be too critical of Ford. He has personal experiences that are relevant — some doctor once tried to kill him because of an anticipated disability.
Go read his piece. It’s very well-written and thought-provoking. (Via Power Line.)
The second piece I want to highlight is titled The Other Self-Righteous Fanatics, by
(believe it or not) Julian Sanchez Jesse Walker:
Much of the pro-death side pretends that they’re neutral bystanders who don’t want to “interfere” with a family’s private business, even as they actively argue for one side of the family dispute. They say they want to respect the woman’s wishes, even as [they] refer more readily to what they’d want for themselves in such a situation. And they warn gravely of a slippery slope to theocracy, without pausing to wonder whether there are any other slippery slopes to worry about.
Amen, brother. Sanchez makes a good argument that current trends may not value individual interests. Libertarians, take note.