I knew the overall quality of the *Shaivo finale* thread had seriously deteriorated when the Nazis (the Internet discussion weapon of choice) were pressed into service as an example of the implications of people's arguments against keeping Schiavo alive.
The invocation of Hitler et. al. pretty much marked the end of quiet give and take.
As the high velocity ammo flew back and forth I found myself wondering just what the *pro life support apparatus* argument (for lack of a smoother term) was.
What was Marta getting at?
On a few occasions she gave us this link:
And from that homepage this press release site:
<http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/press.html >
There's a release posted there that I found intriguing --
Disabled Activists From The South Are Demonstrating At Terri's Side.
<snip>
Pinellas Park, FL, March 21, 2005 -- "Disability Rights is a progressive cause in the tradition of civil rights movements. Progressives should get this -- it's not 'life' versus 'choice,' but the right of people with disabilities to live, " proclaimed Eleanor Smith, a person with disability, "and we are here in Florida to tell the world about this disability issue. Capital criminals have habeas corpus in federal court, yet Ms. Schindler-Schiavo only crime was being a disabled person!"
<snip>
The facts are that Terri Schindler-Schiavo is not a 'vegetable' nor 'in-valid' but a person with a disability using a feeding tube and no other 'life' supports. She is not terminally ill nor has failing health except denial of food and water by the court.
[...]
And there it is.
The fundamental difference between Marta's arguments and those of almost every other person who's offered an opinion on this matter here is that Marta, I think it's safe to say (and I'll gently accept correction if I'm wrong) sees this as a disability rights matter. From that POV, Schiavo is not an irreparably damaged shell of a once fully alive human being, but a disabled person in need of protection from predatory, uncaring or misunderstanding non-disabled people.
This is why everyone's counter-arguments -- crafted mostly from the right to die concept and related notions -- fail to make any headway. I think it also explains why the cheap, Nazi reference made its way from mind to keyboard so easily. If everyone's arguing that a DISABLED person should be killed, this position is no different in spirit from the Nazis' program for exterminating *defective* people.
Which is rubbish, since no one here is arguing that a disabled person should be killed but this is the background I believe we've all been missing.
The real debate then, is whether Schiavo is in fact disabled (in the sense we usually mean when we use that word) or no longer even present -- merely a shell without a ghost.
Of course, that would be an endless discussion and very vulnerable to emotional excesses.
.d.