Irrevocable Choice

Irrevocable Choice is a blog about life issues. Those in favor of legalized abortion often use the word "choice." Once completed, the "choice" to destroy a human life either via abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research is IRREVOCABLE. It is PERMANENT. It can NEVER be undone. The innocent life can NEVER be restored.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Murder Presented as a "Right"

Some who advocate the forced starvation and dehydration of Terri Schiavo present this as "her right." How is it a "right" to go through a horribly SLOW and painful process?

Only God has the right to decide when each person dies. There is NO "right to die." There is no "right to die" specified in the Constitution (just as there is no right to an abortion, despite claims by those favoring legalized abortion). Artificial feeding when one can move and react to stimuli (and if these are really "involuntary," why not allow the media into her room to PROVE it for the world?) is NOT an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive. Under that "logic," a baby (one who has actually been born) has to be kept alive by "extraordinary means" since the baby is incapable of locating food, deciding what to eat, etc.

Furthermore, how do we know this is "her" wish? The ONLY 'evidence' of this ALLEGED wish is HEARSAY by her husband. Her husband, who is living with another woman and has had children by this other woman. There is NO written directive by Terri claiming she wants to go through a horribly slow and painful death. Why should an IRREVOCABLE action be carried out merely because someone CLAIMS something was said? WHERE is the evidence?

It's amazing how things like this can be presented. Claiming this is a "her right" and that people are "against her rights" puts a negative spin on anyone who does NOT want to see Terri suffer an excruciatingly SLOW and painful death. It implies that those who are FOR Terri's life (and the lives of many others who do not make the headlines whose lives may easily be ended due to the horrible precedents set in this case) are against her "rights."

I actually have to say this is worse than the language used by those favoring legalized abortion. They at least do not make it seem like they care for the rights of the baby. They do not claim that the baby "would want to die."

Since some who are in favor of legalized abortion do this under the broad umbrella of "women's rights" (except for the rights of the YOUNG WOMEN babies who are aborted daily), their silence over the REAL rights of this woman is rather odd. Where are they? They frequently talk about "women's health." Well, what about Terri's health? Obviously, it is NOT healthy to force her to starve to death in a slow and excruciating manner. Why do they seem to avoid speaking up for medical testing and rehabilitation for this woman? If the husband should not have a say in whether or not a woman kills their child (even though there are certainly times when a husband puts pressure on his wife to slaughter their child via abortion), why does a husband have a say in whether or not a woman dies a slow and excruciating death?