Friends of Darwin

He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« A riveting anatomy of hysteria | Main | Congress shall make no law »

March 24, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Count me with Professor Reynolds on this one. I think he very succinctly sums up the rather hypocritical politics on this issue and at the same time laments the politicization of the entire affair.

Believing in "small government" is one thing. Believing in "small government except where I have an axe to grind" is something else.

For years I have heard Democrats criticized (quite correctly) for their endless attempts at social engineering through government fiat. Now we find that a substantial portion of the Republicans feel exactly the same way. If I were a Libertarian Republican I'd be feeling rather lonely right about now.

Yes, I think Glenn is correct too. I may disagree with the experts about what people "feel" when we have no way of knowing... but this case should never have become the national circus it is.

The interesting thing about Hugh's argument... what if the situation were reversed - the parents wanted her dead and the husband wanted her alive and the government said the parents had the right to choose... would he still be arguing on behalf of the parents and brother to get custody of Terri? I don't think so, he's basing this one argument on the position of this set of parents in this matter.

I know people are worried about this creating problems in the Republican party. But, like the Karen Quinlan case from years ago - which was far more cut and dried since it involved a ventilator - this too shall pass. I know this because Karen's case hasn't been cited at all and you would think since it was closely related (right to live or die) it would be brought up by either one side or the other.

Small government is all fine and good, except when it results in the starvation of innocent women. That is intolerable, period. It's something you'd expect to happen in 3rd world countries or communist dictatorships. We overthrew Saddam Hussein and liberated Iraq so that their people could live in freedom. And yet America's shining example to the world is to KILL a disabled woman?


As you should know, ANY government, small or large, to be legitimite, is instutited to secure the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Did government secure those rights for Terri? I do not think so, despite what a bunch of unelected, elitist judges have to say. If your de-facto position on this matter is that government must be so small so that it cannot secure those rights, then all that is left is the anarchical rule of judges who may or may not decide to secure them. Clearly, they are not.

Incidentely, the 14th Amendment was passed specifically to address the problems of state governments failing to secure basic civil rights for blacks. Now we see that a state is failing to secure basic civil rights for a disabled woman. Heavily disabled, but still a human and an American citizen with Constitutional Rights. Small government can never be an excuse to allow the state to commit murder.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Look to the animals

  • looktotheanimals


Blog powered by Typepad