Monday, March 21, 2005
Liberals Gone Feral!
It's hardly an original observation to say that the problem with the counter-culture was that it was just that: an essentially reactionary movement, certain about what it despised, yet lacking any worldview of it's own. I'd only add that I'm sure that Liberalism's elite (Cherie and her ilk) do have a certain vision in mind, it's just that they realise if they explained it in public they'd get lynched. Nevertheless, the common or garden Liberal is a lot more certain about what he hates than what he likes.
I wasn't going to blog about the Terri Schiavo case, not only because there are about 300 million people better qualified, but also because it's one of those issues that's purely moral. There's no political aspect to it, it's more metaphysical than ideological. Right ?
Hey - anyone know if there's a treatment for chronic naivety ? In the comments to this post at Biased BBC Susan points to this thread at DHYS. I haven't seen the Left this buzzed about a potential death since Reagan got shot. At least this means that if we can just get Ian Huntley into a coma then the Left will let us nail him.
But no. The Left isn't really talking about euthanasia, they're talking about sticking it to Adolf McChimpler and his hordes of crazed Christian Fundies. That's the true measure of the hollowness at the centre of modern Liberalism. They're cheering on a killing just for the chance to flick two fingers at the religious right.
Let's be clear about this. The Christians oppose euthanasia, just like they've always done. It's the Left that's backflipped for political advantage. If a Right-To-Life campaigner had suggested a hypothetical case along these lines, the Left would've gone bananas. Never mind Right-To-Lifers, this case doesn't even rise to the level most pro-euthanasia campaigners argue for:
The Patient Has To Have Expressed The Desire To Die: That means living wills, not single, off-the-cuff comments recalled years after.
The Patient's Surrogate Has To Consent: That's a patient surrogate as in a family member, not some guy who wandered off years ago but never got round to doing the paperwork.
The Patient's Surrogate Has To Be Independent: In other words, not ready to score a huge wodge once the patient shuffles off this mortal coil.
We Should Be Sure Of The Diagnosis: And if there are conflicting ones then....
In Case Of Dispute, Default To Safe: If even Bin Laden is presumed innocent it's a bit much for someone to get whacked based on balance of probabilities.
It's possible to be pro-euthanasia and still oppose this case. In fact, I would argue that, whatever eventually happens, this case could become a strategic disaster for euthanasia campaigners. Not only has the Left's simlar strategy of casting Christians as illiterate redneck morons not been entirely successful electorally, but pro-euthanasia campaigners can't have their cake and eat it. It's hard to argue that there is a morally-serious case for euthanasia while giving house room to people seemingly prepared to kill someone merely to spite the Jesus freaks.