The Last Words. Hopefully

I'm going to stop saying "this is my last post on the subject of Schiavo." Every time I say that, I end up saying something else later. So what I will say is that I hope this is my last post on the subject.

Here are a couple good columns from two of my favorite writers.

David Brooks of the NYTimes sums up nicely the two different positions to the Schiavo argument. Actually, I think it nicely covers my debate between John, in a general sense. [NOTE: NYTimes login required]

As Brooks writes,

"What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force."

In case you've been too lazy to sign up for a FREE NYTimes login, here are some other money quotes:

"The core belief that social conservatives bring to cases like Terri Schiavo's is that the value of each individual life is intrinsic. The value of a life doesn't depend upon what a person can physically do, experience or achieve. The life of a comatose person or a fetus has the same dignity and worth as the life of a fully functioning adult.

Social conservatives go on to say that if we make distinctions about the value of different lives, if we downgrade those who are physically alive but mentally incapacitated, if we say that some people can be more easily moved toward death than others, then the strong will prey upon the helpless, and the dignity of all our lives will be diminished."

and

"The core belief that social liberals bring to cases like Ms. Schiavo's is that the quality of life is a fundamental human value. They don't emphasize the bright line between life and death; they describe a continuum between a fully lived life and a life that, by the sort of incapacity Terri Schiavo has suffered, is mere existence."

It's worth reading as a sort of "last look" at the issue.

____________


Well, almost last look, because Christopher Hitchens latest column is also a good read. It stems from the Schiavo case, but covers a whole slew of things.

Among other things, I hadn't realized that Hitchens seems "pro-life." Or as he writes,

"My own bias is very strongly for the "choose life" position. I used to have horrible and exhausting arguments with supposedly "pro-choice" militants who only reluctantly conceded that the fetus was alive but who then demanded to know if this truly was a human life. I know casuistry when I see it, and I would respond by asking what other kind of life it could conceivably be. Down the years, there has been an unacknowledged evolution of the argument. Serious Catholics no longer insist that contraception is genocide, and "pro-choice" advocates have become quite squeamish about late-term abortions. Sensitive about consistency in the "life ethic," the church has also moved to condemn if not to anathematize the death penalty. Things were improving slowly. Until now."

Anyway, Hitchens isn't at all happy about the whole Schiavo press/political affair, calling it a "most stupid and degrading argument."

Read it. It's entertaining and well thought out.