Euthanasia
Pat Caddell said on TV Saturday that we should not believe the ABC poll about the Schivao case, and he was quite angry about the probably deliberate distortions in the polling method. The euthanasia issue is morally and spiritually complex and treacherous in many ways, of course. (Courts and politics are trivial aspects of the discussion - it is about religion, or at least about spiritual beliefs.) And we are dealing with euthanasia at this point, not Terri.
Andrew Sullivan believes, for example, that it's all about insane Christians and that courts are the bottom line, if they are not God. He's very smart, but who believes that courts are that smart? Terri is the dying martyr .Then there's Frank Rich, the arch-materialist ranter - odd for an ex-theater critic - for whom all of this is a religous scam:The God Racket, From DeMille to DeLay
Peggy Noonan does a great job of explaining the pro-life view on euthanasia: Peggy Noonan and Steyn does too, drawing on a Canadian case: "Like other statist politicians, Mr. Trudeau . . . either didn't see, or resented, that right and wrong are only reflected by the laws, not determined by them. That's how I feel about the Terri Schiavo case. I'm neither a Floridian nor a lawyer, and, for all I know, it may be legal under Florida law for the state to order her to be starved to death. But it is still wrong." No compelling reason to kill Terri Schiavo
There is a debate here which is too deep, and too real, to be left to politicians and courts. I hesitate to compare it to the national debate on slavery, but it could be one of those defining debates that symbolically reflect our national view of existence. And, don't forget, the mainly religious opposition to slavery was based on the idea that Africans have souls. Last week, there was a well-reported case in the Netherlands or Denmark about a later-term abortion of a baby because he had a cleft lip, and the parents wanted a "perfect" kid. Let's have a national debate on euthanasia, which that case clearly was, and its limits, if any. Because this is about values and emotion and belief, not law. And I ask you - Why does this pan out to a left and right issue? Put your replies in "comments," OK?
Addendum: got a few emails noting that the links do not work on this bit - will try to fix.
