The Right to Life

The question is not really whether or not Terri Schiavo is dead or alive in that persistent vegetative state in which she and she alone has experienced for over 15 years. The issue is at once more complex and yet at the same time more simple than the packaged groupthink currently being sold to the public. More complex because their many more variables involved in the Schiavo case which must be addressed in order to arrive at a decision based on all the facts.

For instance, the Schiavo case fails to question the motives of cur own Taliban moralists who show no shame in their hypocrisy between word and deed. These fakers and false prophets of American fascism – these frauds who two years ago deceived the beacon of liberty and justice into waging war in complete disregard for human life not constrained by a vegetative state. How dare these war criminals and true believers in false idols. claim the moral higher ground on the mass graves of collateral damage? And how does a man, George Bush for example, choke on a pretzel but not on the words: “those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern”?

And when “felon to be” Tom Delay (an exterminator in texas by trade – albeit insects – technically it is still life) cries that removing Schiavo’s feeding tube amounted to “barbarism” he should be reminded that his president executed more people as the governor of texas than any other governor in the country. When the executioner mocked the existence of those he condemned to death with a smirk i.e. the born again carla fay tucker - that is Barbarism. In Orwellian double speak half the country refers to it today as “compassionate conservative”.

The issue is framed in terms of: does terri schiavo’s husband have the right to have his wife’s feeding tube removed or do his parents have the right to keep her alive – in her vegetative state. The former is based on the acceptance of Michael Schiavo’s claim that his wife would not want to be on life support if she were in a vegetative state. The former is based on the faith of her parents who believe in a religion where miracles do happen. The goal is to keep the nation divided in order for this government which represents the few to conquer more power from the many and in the process become more tyrannical by executive fiat without judicial restraint.

The legal implications are such that Michael Schiavo’s case is based on accepted law reflected in court decisions already made in this case. Meanwhile, the parents, perhaps out of desperation have accepted the support of members of the congress who are now trying to create legislation to reinstall the feeding tube. Should these religious zealots who show no shame in their hypocrisy prevail; the government will deny the right of the individual to die with dignity.

The real question arise when you put yourself in Terri Schiavo’s place – and ask yourself if you would you want to remain in a vegetative state for the rest of your days on this planet. Would you want this or any other government to decide your fate? Unfortunately such a hypothetical question wouldn’t be worth asking those sanctimonious scoundrels who suffer from terminal righteousness because an acceptable response would require a level of honesty beyond the simian grasp of the blood stained hands of our modern day moralists. The unavoidable conclusion is that there is no " right to life" if the government decides how that life will be lived.