March 25, 2005
Anarchy?
The question is a response to people who suggest that Governor or President Bush should intervene in Terri Schiavo's forced starvation, against the will of the Florida courts.
My answer to Beth and anyone else who believes Governor or President Bush should not intervene, including...
Since I am one, I confidently answer in the negative. No, anarchy is not what I want. However, there is a point at which...
Before you dismiss the assertion as melodramatic, allow me to seed the point with logic.
It is a fact that there is an American citizen being forcibly starved to death in Florida tonight. People are being arrested as they attempt to bring her food and water.
If you believe the forced starvation of this one woman is not enough to risk the stability of the nation, then you must believe there is some number of forced starvations that are acceptable before it's severe enough to risk the stability of the nation.
How many forced starvations are enough to risk the stability of the nation?
A hundred? Nah, tens of thousands would probably die in a civil war.
Okay, tens of thousands is enough. Nah, if tens of thousands were being starved, then more people would be involved, and probably hundreds of thousands would want to fight.
Okay, then...hundreds of thousands.
So, if you believe one is acceptable, than you likewise believe hundreds of thousands are acceptable before it's time to actually do something.
I apologize for insulting your intelligence with this argument, but it doesn't appear you have considered the ramifications of allowing any number of forced starvations to occur. Even one.
The only way to prevent anarchy, is to not allow ourselves to proceed down this path at all. It is a path to destruction. I assert that somebody, anybody, should rescue Terri Schiavo with whatever military force at their disposal.
I say this not because I wish for anarchy. I say this because I wish to prevent that very thing from ever happening in the first place.
Richard
Posted by Richard at March 25, 2005 7:19 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goodrichardsalmanac.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anarchy?:
» This reminds me of a scene from the novel, Starship Troopers. from The Captain's Comments
Captain Midnight, SciFi fan that he is, sees a parallel between Richard's question of anarchy and Johnny Rico's question of when to fight for the life of a single person, as written in Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. [Read More]
Tracked on March 26, 2005 10:07 AM
Comments
Any person, institution or government that seeks my premature destruction thereby declares itself my mortal enemy, and must accept the full range of implications from that choice. However, that does not mean that I want elected officials necessarily trampling the law in my defense.
That only creates precedents that make defending myself more difficult in the future.
Posted by: McGehee at March 26, 2005 3:09 AM
But what if the law is the very thing that seeks to destroy you, as in Terri Schiavo's case?
Posted by: Richard at March 26, 2005 3:16 AM
It's not the law that's destroying Terri. It's her wishes and the wishes of her next of kin to fulfill them.
Posted by: Chris Short (Short Family Web Site) at March 26, 2005 6:31 PM
It's unreasonable to presume she wished to be starved to death.
Posted by: Richard at March 26, 2005 10:57 PM
Chris, the only testimony we have that the current proceedings are according to "Terri's wishes" comes from her husband--who is also her beneficiary, and who stands to gain the most from her death. That he has already moved in with his "fiancee" and fathered two children by her shows me that he is no longer a loving and devoted husband to Terri. Because he has a clear conflict of interest, I must take whatever he says with a large grain of salt.
Had Michael Schiavo stated from the beginning that Terri's wishes were not to be resuscitated or kept alive, and had he stayed faithful and devoted to her, I would be much more likely to believe him. But at this point, I cannot. His adulterous relationship with Jodi Centonze has shown that he places his desires far ahead of Terri's well-being or his marriage oath to forsake all others. If he is willing to break such an oath, how can I possibly believe any testimony he makes in a court of law?
Posted by: Captain Midnight at March 27, 2005 1:30 AM