This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« What if? | Main | We are all Terri Schiavo »
March 22, 2005
Robert P. George on Terri Schiavo (and more!)
Princeton professor Robert P. George is interviewed in today's NRO. An important read, with a great quote:
The other thing that Congress is being accused of is interfering in a family decision. Now look: Terri Schiavo has been abandoned by her husband. Michael Schiavo took a vow to be faithful to Terri "in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, 'til death do us part." But he has not been faithful; he has not forsaken all others. He has set himself up in a marriage in all-but-name with someone else, a woman with whom he already has two children. He has disrespected Terri and, indeed, forsaken her. Now he is seeking to bring about her death by starvation. Notice something wrong with this picture? Terri's parents and siblings, by contrast, have never abandoned her. They are prepared to shoulder all the burdens, including the financial burdens, of caring for her. They want to provide the therapy that many medical people who have observed Terri, whether at the bedside or by videotape, believe can help her. No one expects a full recovery, but it may be possible for her to make genuine progress. That possibility will be foreclosed, however, if she is killed by deliberate starvation before it can begin.
Over at the Boar's Head Tavern, Michael Spencer is expressing a few reservations. Concering Spencer's use of polling data, I refer you to Jim Geraghty's post about the political fallout of this case. Peggy Noonan fans take note, as well. Listening to local talk radio it's quite obvious that the media has been hugely successful in distorting this case. I would wager that the average American is unaware that Terris not in a coma, nor is in a conclusive state of permanent vegetation. I would also doubt that most people are unaware of Michael Schiavo's successful attempts at moving on with his life in the form of a new relationships and children.
It should be noted that conservative opinion on the Congressional bill has been mixed, but Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Andrew McCarthy and Ramesh Ponnuru have come down in favor. Jonathan Adler and Jonah Goldberg have slightly differing opinions. Does anyone else find it interesting that Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, overwhelmingly come down on the side of both life and intervention, while non-religious conservatives are more concerned with the issue of Congress' work? I think we must be cautious about our law-passing, but this situation seems alright. I'll admit I can't defend that point too much, but, frankly, I trust Mark Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru's legal opinions.
I had a bad day. But not that bad.
And finally, with a tip of the hat to the BHT, this article in Baptist Press is pretty doggone conclusive, in my humble opinion.
Posted by Matt at March 22, 2005 07:02 PM