Kelley writes:
> So, again, as long as the NDY does not object to current
law, which is that it's the individual's/guardian's decision,
then how is the Schiavo case a step toward euthanizing the
disabled in general?
The irony is that disability activists' attempt to redefine disability to include inability works against their desires.
By bringing Terry Schiavo into the fold, they end up in the position that life must always be preserved no matter what since the line between inability and disability has been erased. I doubt that this assault on personal liberty and freedom will be a winning strategy. In fact, I would wager that it would only be among religious fundamentalists that such an approach would find any traction.
To me the smarter route is to emphasize the personal freedom and liberty each individual has to make this decision, and that an individual decision cannot and should not be extrapolated into a universal law. Also, other people and the government should not be allowed to litigate a decision that they disagree with. Again, those who like to follow directions provided from outside themselves will balk at this approach.
The government's responsibility is to protect each individual's right to make and carry out this decision, rather than promote some blanket belief to be applied to all persons like ketchup indiscriminately poured over french fries.
We should always err on the side of liberty and freedom.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Ressiter