Monday, March 21, 2005
MNR
Last Friday I was reading the DC Examiner and came across the story of William Karanja, a man sentenced to 66 years in prison after being convicted of raping two teenagers and attempting to infect them with HIV. His ever-so compassionate attorney had this to say:
I realize that Madame Attorney has to stick up for her client, but can we knock off the repugnant use of careful language. I'm sure the parents of the teenagers also regret the unforunate errors that will now haunt their children for the rest of their lives. I'm very confident that a few years from now when they wake up drenched in sweat after having yet another horrible dream about this incident they, too, will regret these very serious errors.
It astounds the mind that someone can be so callous in their word choice, but then again this is a culture that hails a woman's right to choose rather than a woman's right to vacuum her as yet unborn child's brains out to make up for the fact that she couldn't be bothered to take responsibility for her actions. And such is a culture that sits idly by in mild disinterest as a woman is allowed to starve to death.
Of course I was getting to that. You'd think I would forget? But what can I add that has not been said by people more talented than yours truly on this horrific case?
I guess I'm supposed to get all wrapped up in moral outrage in the so-called hypocrisy of the Republican Congress' attempts to stop this madness. To tell the truth I'm fifty-fifty on this matter legislatively. But while we debate arcane legal matters a woman is slowly dying due to starvation because a bunch of judges (one, actually, if you study the details of the case) has decided that the husband's sudden realization after several years that Terry had said something in passing at a funeral years back constitutes definitive legal proof that this woman truly did not want to remain alive. Yeah. Right.
Sometimes it's tough to rally the moral outrage at a time like this. Frankly, I am simply beaten and dejected by it all. What about erring on the side of life? What about the medical profession's responsibility to extend life? Have we so completely lost sight of our moral bearings that we don't recognize that this is not a matter of cutting off a life support system, but instead we are willfully murdering a woman (and this is murder, pure and simple) because one man cannot bear burden no one is asking him to carry. Go off with your finace and your two children, and let Terry live.
To be fair, I do not wish to denigrate Mr. Schiavo. I cannot claim to know the workings of his mind, nor can I state with complete certainty that he is acting with malicious motives in mind. But it is difficult to fathom that this man is truly keeping Terry's well-being at the forefront of his mind. No one can prove that she would want to die, and as such it the ultimate in inhumanity to starve this poor woman to death because she has become some sort of burden, or because we deem her unfit for life.
And I suppose that's the greatest moral tragedy of all. All men are created equal, but God have mercy on the poor creature who does not have the same mental capacities as the rest of humanity. Certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to decree what is a lifetsyle worthy of living. A woman in a persistent vegetative state? Eh, she can't function, so off with her. An unborn child in the womb of a single mother? Why, he or she might not get all the toys it wants. Better to kill it in the womb before he or she leads a life of utter misery and depredation and lack of a DVD player.
The wretched hypocrisy of liberals who castigate conservatives as wishing to "force our morality" on others is not lost in this situation. They see nothing wrong with imposing their view of what is life worthy of living upon the world. Poor Terry Schiavo. If only she were an endangered species of animal living in California then maybe she would have some chance at survival.
As it is, the party of death will work to make sure the feeding tubes stay out. What kind of life is it, after all, when you can't enjoy the latest Maureen Dowd column? Now we can get back to the serious work of determining the precise physical and mental characteristics that will allow a human being not to be killed.
"Mr. Karanja is a hardworking 34-year-old who has been convicted of some very serious errors . . ."Serious errors? Raping two teenagers and attempting to infect them with HIV is a serious error? Excuse me, but NO. Accidentally drafting David Wells during a live fantasy baseball draft because you aren't really paying attention is a serious error. Raping a couple of teenagers is more a horribily monstorus act that indicates you are a worthless piece of scum who, if fortune smiles, will have his balls yanked off while not looking and then stuffed down his throat.
I realize that Madame Attorney has to stick up for her client, but can we knock off the repugnant use of careful language. I'm sure the parents of the teenagers also regret the unforunate errors that will now haunt their children for the rest of their lives. I'm very confident that a few years from now when they wake up drenched in sweat after having yet another horrible dream about this incident they, too, will regret these very serious errors.
It astounds the mind that someone can be so callous in their word choice, but then again this is a culture that hails a woman's right to choose rather than a woman's right to vacuum her as yet unborn child's brains out to make up for the fact that she couldn't be bothered to take responsibility for her actions. And such is a culture that sits idly by in mild disinterest as a woman is allowed to starve to death.
Of course I was getting to that. You'd think I would forget? But what can I add that has not been said by people more talented than yours truly on this horrific case?
I guess I'm supposed to get all wrapped up in moral outrage in the so-called hypocrisy of the Republican Congress' attempts to stop this madness. To tell the truth I'm fifty-fifty on this matter legislatively. But while we debate arcane legal matters a woman is slowly dying due to starvation because a bunch of judges (one, actually, if you study the details of the case) has decided that the husband's sudden realization after several years that Terry had said something in passing at a funeral years back constitutes definitive legal proof that this woman truly did not want to remain alive. Yeah. Right.
Sometimes it's tough to rally the moral outrage at a time like this. Frankly, I am simply beaten and dejected by it all. What about erring on the side of life? What about the medical profession's responsibility to extend life? Have we so completely lost sight of our moral bearings that we don't recognize that this is not a matter of cutting off a life support system, but instead we are willfully murdering a woman (and this is murder, pure and simple) because one man cannot bear burden no one is asking him to carry. Go off with your finace and your two children, and let Terry live.
To be fair, I do not wish to denigrate Mr. Schiavo. I cannot claim to know the workings of his mind, nor can I state with complete certainty that he is acting with malicious motives in mind. But it is difficult to fathom that this man is truly keeping Terry's well-being at the forefront of his mind. No one can prove that she would want to die, and as such it the ultimate in inhumanity to starve this poor woman to death because she has become some sort of burden, or because we deem her unfit for life.
And I suppose that's the greatest moral tragedy of all. All men are created equal, but God have mercy on the poor creature who does not have the same mental capacities as the rest of humanity. Certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to decree what is a lifetsyle worthy of living. A woman in a persistent vegetative state? Eh, she can't function, so off with her. An unborn child in the womb of a single mother? Why, he or she might not get all the toys it wants. Better to kill it in the womb before he or she leads a life of utter misery and depredation and lack of a DVD player.
The wretched hypocrisy of liberals who castigate conservatives as wishing to "force our morality" on others is not lost in this situation. They see nothing wrong with imposing their view of what is life worthy of living upon the world. Poor Terry Schiavo. If only she were an endangered species of animal living in California then maybe she would have some chance at survival.
As it is, the party of death will work to make sure the feeding tubes stay out. What kind of life is it, after all, when you can't enjoy the latest Maureen Dowd column? Now we can get back to the serious work of determining the precise physical and mental characteristics that will allow a human being not to be killed.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 11:21 PM
