Monday, March 28, 2005
Cunning History?
There's just a blizzard of comment and reflection on the Terry Schiavo case today, the Monday after Easter. The coincidence of Easter with the expiring of Terry's life makes this story so potent; it's easy to imagine this will grip us for some time to come.
There's no shortage of good writing on the many aspects of the case. Wretchard at The Belmont Club follows up his March 26 post, "The Butterfly Takes Wing", with an addendum. (In the first of these Wretchard provides many links to other writing on the affair.)
Mark Steyn, in his Sunday Chicago Sun Times piece, asks "Who are we to know?"
Hugh Hewitt (just start here and scroll, scroll, scroll), who has been tireless (even if at times tiresome) in his advocacy of Terri's right to live, has provided valuable contributions (including this one which has links to much good writing - not least Andrew Sullivan's contribution).
Wretchard (again) wrote on Easter Sunday about what faith means ("Live and be not afraid"), and links to excellent contributions by Donald Sensing (here and here).
Donald Sensing asks, "What about Terri's soul?"
John Podhoretz talks reason on 3/25: "despite the opinions of fanatics on both sides, neither view has a monopoly on virtue."
And in a distinctly less dramatic tone, Michael Barone says that the midnight attempt by Congress and the President to enable the courts to reconsider the feeding tube issue was not a cynical ploy, as critics maintain; it was the acting out of a healthy moral conviction, which this country possesses on both sides of the aisle.
There's no shortage of good writing on the many aspects of the case. Wretchard at The Belmont Club follows up his March 26 post, "The Butterfly Takes Wing", with an addendum. (In the first of these Wretchard provides many links to other writing on the affair.)
Mark Steyn, in his Sunday Chicago Sun Times piece, asks "Who are we to know?"
Hugh Hewitt (just start here and scroll, scroll, scroll), who has been tireless (even if at times tiresome) in his advocacy of Terri's right to live, has provided valuable contributions (including this one which has links to much good writing - not least Andrew Sullivan's contribution).
Wretchard (again) wrote on Easter Sunday about what faith means ("Live and be not afraid"), and links to excellent contributions by Donald Sensing (here and here).
Donald Sensing asks, "What about Terri's soul?"
John Podhoretz talks reason on 3/25: "despite the opinions of fanatics on both sides, neither view has a monopoly on virtue."
And in a distinctly less dramatic tone, Michael Barone says that the midnight attempt by Congress and the President to enable the courts to reconsider the feeding tube issue was not a cynical ploy, as critics maintain; it was the acting out of a healthy moral conviction, which this country possesses on both sides of the aisle.
A lot of sophisticated people are clucking at the actions of Congress and George W. Bush that attempted to save the life of Terri Schiavo. This was pandering to the religious right, we are told, a cynical partisan ploy by Republicans, an intervention by an activist, even ayatollah-like, federal government into a state court case and a family dispute.... I do think much of the criticism and condescension is misguided. And I think that the response of elected officials reflects one of the great strengths in our country: a confident belief in moral principles that stands in vivid contrast with what we see in much of Europe and in the supposedly sophisticated precincts of this
country.
A cynical partisan ploy by Republicans? Not really. It is possible that Democrats, if in control, might not have summoned a special session. But this was not a purely partisan issue. Democrats did vote for the bill and made its passage possible....
On the Schiavo issue, most members of Congress, on both sides, were not indifferent but acted on moral convictions in a difficult situation. They were trying to do what they believed was right. They deserve respect, not contempt.
# posted by mds : 9:34 AM
