Friday, March 18, 2005

Who Has A Right To Live?

It is very strange how several similar issues of life and death have converged at the same time for the convenient evaluation of the priorities of the left which our society has adopted. I am speaking specifically of Terry Schiavo, Scott Peterson,the cleft palate abortion case, and Lee Malvo, beneficiary of the aforeblogged Roper decision from the Supreme Court.

And so I ask the only slightly rhetorical question, who has a right to live?

Let's start with the brain-injured Terry Schiavo. Terry's husband, Michael Schiavo, has refused to take the necessary steps to have a complete neurological work up to determine the exact nature of her condition. So, she may indeed be in a persistent vegetative state as Mr. Schiavo and his lawyer claim. Or she may just be having colossal problems getting coherent thoughts and perceptions to her hands, feet and voice. But they both look the same from the outside. Nonetheless, Michael Schiavo, who no longer has any use for her given that he has a new lover with whom he has already had a few kids, is only too content to let her expire so that he can get on with his life. And despite the input of various neurological experts, Judge George Greer seems interested only in hearing Mr. Schiavo's un-scientific claims that Terry is a vegetable. And while there exists no law permitting his Order to remove the feeding tube, he boldly and illegally issues one nonetheless. I wonder if Charles Schumer would block Greer's nomination to the Federal Bench?

Terry's life is unimportant to her unfaithful husband (who, by the way won a million dollar verdict to pay for her care, but has refused to provide therapy or treatment of any kind for her). No longer a caring husband, it's time that his input regarding her care be disregarded. I hope that his lover is taking careful note of Mr. Schiavo's behavior. She would do well to stay healthy and socially useful so long as she is together with him.

Then there is the cleft palate case. Who among us does not know someone who was born with that very, very minor and easily correctable defect? But to some British abortionists, it was defect enough to justify a late-term abortion, denying him life. Unfortunately, the child wasn't given the opportunity to present his own case as to why he'd rather have a small hairline scar on his face but experience an otherwise full existence. But that tiny defect was enough to eliminate the validity of that child's life.

But Scott Peterson is a different story. He killed his wife and child and dumped them into the bay which his new death row residence will overlook. All because they had become inconvenient given his new love interest--the kind of girl every mother wants every son to bring home--Amber Frey. Scott had such a depraved heart that he, without remorse, murdered and dismembered the woman who trusted him with her life. And in the same stroke he intended to and succeeded in ending the life of his unborn son, Conor. But Scott, who has plenty of resources at his command is entitled to an automatic appeal upon imposition of the death sentence. Because the judge and jury's verdict is somehow automatically suspect because it condemned a murderer of a particularly vile quality to death.

But the funny thing is that death row in California is rarely a place where death is meted out by the state. No, it's the Reaper, coming in his own time, who most often escorts death row inmates from the earth. Because Scott may very well never be executed as there is no deadline by which he must appeal his sentence, or by which any of these matters must be heard.

The protections that exist for Scott Peterson and his ilk are curious. Because his acts render him a completely dangerous and evil member of our species, and yet every safeguard available on the planet is offered to him to protect his life from the wages of his crime, a courtesy he was unwilling to extend to his own innocent wife and child.

And then there is Roper. I spoke about it before, but the effects of it are completely ridiculous. Recall Lee Malvo. Lee thought it was funny to shoot Linda Franklin in the head when he and John Mohammed went on the sniper killing spree in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. But because the Supreme Court legislated its own beliefs, all persons who were under the age of 18 at the time they committed their criminal acts, including Lee Malvo, who knew what he was doing as he did it, and found the destruction of life and family funny, are hereafter spared the death penalty irrespective of the nature of their crimes, simply because they were a few months shy of their eighteenth birthday. Again, his value to society is nil. He is a reprobate murderer. But the value that many in our legal system place on his "right to life" is quite high.

Terry Schiavo offers little to this world in terms of her personal labor, but she fell upon circumstances not of her own choosing. And the same with the cleft-palate fetus. Their lives have become unfortunate disasters, the solution to which, the left feels, is their quiet disposal. In a world when many things are disposable, we have reached the level where even human life has become so when its maintenance is inconvenient. We have allowed this to be couched in terms of the "right to die". But such convenience misses a significant point. That "right" is often exercised upon not by the helpless in a summary fashion, by those who want the messy loose ends of life neatly tied.

And yet the same folk believe that life that exists to destroy has an inherent value that we simply cannot allow to be extinguished.

And you have to wonder whether the radical left considers or even cares about the moral implications of their antisocial policies on the importance of life. Quickly killing the inconvenient and helpless innocent while doing their best to provide barbarians insulation from the wages of their crimes is not only inconsistent, it is simply obscene. Conservatives and others who oppose abortion and euthanasia were stupid to have allowed the left to euphamize murder as "choice" or a "right" to die. Similarly, allowing the left to put the "rights" of the guilty to evade punishment over the rights of citizens to have their laws obeyed was a mistake.

And we find ourselves where we are today. Valuing a murderer's wasted life over those fragile lives which are just begging for the chance to be taken seriously.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Siting to That seems like a completely unbiased source. Maybe we should just have Rev. Robert Johansen adjudicate cases from know on and get rid of all the judges. Come on! It's not just Judge Greer, it's all of the appellate judges to! Are you arguing that they are all conspiring together on this issue? What is Judge Greer's interest? He may have one, I don't know. But I haven't seen anybody present any evidence that he has an interest one way or the other.

2:25 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home