How To Murder Your Wife
Vol: 41 Issue: 25 Friday, February 25, 2005
At some point today, yet another judge will rule on a question that has been bedeviling the greatest minds in Florida’s legal community for more than ten years.
The question? Should the State of Florida murder a disabled woman named Terri Schindler Schiavo?
This isn’t a question of taking someone off life support and stopping machines from keeping somebody alive biologically who would die naturally without them.
That is an entirely different argument. If a person’s vital organs have failed and are being replaced by mechanical surrogates, unplugging the machines is not a case of interfering with life, but rather one of interfering with death.
In this case, the issue before the courts is whether they should order food and water withheld from a patient in order to starve her to death, since she is unable to feed herself. So this is a case of interfering with life.
Death is being induced, not held at bay.
And they can’t seem to figure out what is right?
Hmmmm. (“Should we kill somebody? Or not? What to do?”)
When I think of Florida’s finest legal minds trying to decide this question, I get a recurring mental image of two eggs frying in a pan.
Admittedly, there is a lot of background for these befuddled guardians of the law to sort through, but you’d think they’d have time to look through them.
After all, if they don’t kill her, Terri Schiavo isn’t going anywhere.
For instance, one might consider her ‘husband’ and his crusade to kill her. There is some evidence that his crusade may have begun with the injury that put her in a coma in the first place.
Terri’s parents allege that Michael Schiavo exhibited a pattern of abusive behavior. Terri’s own records suggest she had been physically abused.
And a SENTIENT judge may want to consider Michael’s motion to have her immediately cremated — after death, if necessary, but to Michael, it doesn’t seem to matter either way. There’s a clue in there, somewhere, Judge.
If that isn’t enough reason not to finish murdering Terri Schiavo, then there is the question of a possible conflict of interests. Terri Schiavo’s ‘husband’ has two children by the woman with which he has been living for ten years.
He hasn’t divorced Terri to this point, because as her husband, he’d get the balance of the $1.2 million judgment currently been whittled away at by Terri’s inconvenient continuing existence.
While the judges ponder whether or not these issues are relevant to the question at hand, (which is, remember, should the state KILL her?) the governor of the state (whose opinion one might presume the finest legal minds in the state might at least consider) got the legislature of the state (also elected by the voters) to pass a law protecting Terri Schiavo from murder BY the state.
The finest legal minds in Florida decided the state legislature exceeded its authority by passing a law protecting a disabled person from being murdered at the request of her husband so he and his girlfriend can enjoy her estate.
Hmmm. Legislatures pass laws, governors sign laws, courts enforce laws, judges make up new laws. . . something goes ‘clunk’ in there someplace. . . .
And before you know it, ‘right to die’ becomes ‘right to kill’ and morphs into ‘right to murder’ — by using a judge’s gavel instead of a ball peen hammer.
One of the most striking aspects to this spectacle is the absence of genuine interest being shown it, especially among the mainstream media. Think of it for a second.
Why wouldn’t a decision by a judge to kill a woman at the request of her philandering, [essentially bigamist] husband whose sole motive is to salvage her trust fund by withholding the care it was awarded to provide, be news?
It was headline news when Scott Peterson murdered his wife so he could be with another woman. Why isn’t it headline news when Michael Schiavo asks a JUDGE to murder his for the same reason?
Because Terri Schiavo is an impediment to the overall political agenda of the left, which is to advance the same kind of ‘progressive thinking’ in ‘women’s reproductive rights’ that made abortion on demand a multi-billion dollar a year industry into ‘the right to die with dignity’.
The Schiavo case is one in which we are ‘sliding down the slipperly slop’e too soon, threatening to expose the dark side of the agenda prematurely.
The ‘right to die’ industry is potentially just as lucrative ans the ‘right to choose’ – and it sounds so, umm, progressive! Not to mention easy to advertise. (How hard can it be to find dying people who aren’t enjoying the experience?)
Everybody dies eventually, and if the euthanasists can gain the legitimacy of the abortionists, there’ll be as much money to be made in taking a life — or preventing one — as there is in saving one.
(That explains the silence of the medical community)
But, like any ‘progressive’ agenda, there have to be some sacrifices made to foster the greater good, and Terri Schiavo has evidently been chosen.
If the mainstream media were to shine the light on the Schiavo case, less progressive minds in America might start to re-think their support for letting the state decide if somebody’s life is worth living.
They might even begin to question the wisdom of the current environment where the state is allowed to decide if somebody’s life is even worth allowing, and before you know it, the ‘right to choose’ and the ‘right to die’ might be forced to compete with the archaic notion pf some obscure ‘right to live’.
Amazingly, THAT right is among the hardest ones in the whole constitutional framework for modern jurists to definitively pin down.
They’ve discovered so many exceptions to the right to life that soon, one may have to apply first for a permit.
Indeed, the words ‘right to life’ immediately twist in the public consciousness into ‘anti-(your-agenda-here)’.
The Apostle Paul argued that in the last days, society would become twisted, to the degree that things like treason and incontinence [unrestricted moral behavior] would compete for headlines with ‘despisers of those that are good’ , those ‘without natural affection’ and ‘lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God’ for the most ‘progressive’ thoughts of the day. [2nd Timothy 3:1-5)
Those who, “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:25)
Paul noted that, “even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. . .” (Romans 1:28)
It is hard to imagine anything that runs more contrary to the best interests of humanity than the decision to give the state the authority to decide when [or if] somebody ELSE’S life is worth living.
Yet that is the debate quietly raging in Florida, while the mainstream media concentrate on diverting our attention to the Michael Jackson trial.
“And when these things BEGIN TO COME TO PASS, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)