Being Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Is Not an Oxymoron

I totally agree with the following statement issued by the White House after president Bush signed a law intervening in the Terri Schiavo case, "our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life." I wish this were the case in the U.S., but it isn't! We don't have a comprehensive public policy that reflects this. Life is, well, valuable. But, we must also ask, what kind of life?..
Liberals are pro-life! We believe in protecting life and enhancing it with quality, and individual choice! We are humanists and therefore we hold the presumption in favor of life when it clearly matters. When the self-appointed guardians of human life worry about when two cells meet in early stages of gestation, or when there is no brain activity/identity,while they do little otherwise to enhance people's quality of life, then they are clearly missing the point. Intentionally? You decide.
The Republicans circulated a memo in the Senate which said that the Schiavo case would "excite" the conservative base and would be "a great political issue!" This president and Congress have not acted with such expediency before. For example, Bush didn't rush to Washington after getting the PDB in August of 2001 (a month before 9-11) which said that AlQueda was planning to attack in the US using highjacked airplanes, and when other terrorism warnings were "blinking red!" He didn't come back from his vacation either when the tsunami killed 150,000 people recently.
Had the Schiavo case happened in Texas, it would have been over by now since the then governor Bush signed a law giving the spouse and the patient's doctors the final say in matters of life and death. Want more of hypocrisy? Let's see, Bush signed a law in Texas that the state can turn off life-supporting devices in cases like Schiavo when the patient has no insurance to pay for the indefinite extraordinary care, even if the family wants such care to continue! How's this for having double standards?
Oh, could the White House please explain to us how the president's statement applies to his record of executions as governor? "Take, for example, the case of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded man of thirty-three with the communication skills of a seven-year-old. Washington's plea for clemency came before Governor Bush on the morning of May 6, 1997. After a thirty-minute briefing by Gonzales, Bush checked 'Deny' just as he had denied twenty-nine other pleas for clemency in his first twenty-eight months as governor".[Mitigating circumstances included] the fact that Washington's mental handicap had never been presented to the jury that condemned him to death."- NY Review of Books,1/13/05.

My contention is that those conservatives, the rapture right, and president Bush don't really care about human life after it exits the womb. I simply don't understand how their religious morality makes them fight so hard against abortion--assuming that the fetus at any stage is a human life worth defending--but as soon as it's born it's not much of their concern any more! I wonder how many Americans have died in the last few weeks, while the Schiavo case is being fought over, because these poor souls didn't not have adequate, or any, health care.... If we, as we should, defend life, shouldn't we do whatever we can to protect it and enhance it? Many Americans die because they're poor--they cannot afford even basic medical care. In addition to promoting democracy the president should also try to reduce the 20,000 deaths that occur every day around the globe because people are poor--no access to clean water, vaccines, medicine, and, because this president has cut off funds to any international agency that gives out condoms, talks about family planning, AIDS prevention, etc.

Terri Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for 15 years. Her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid, in other words, her brain is gone. It cannot be reconstituted. In the last seven years, all the impartial courts and the doctors involved have consistently agreed that she's in "a persistent vegetative state ...with no hope of a medical cure", and the courts have backed her husband's decision (based on Terri's own expressed wishes) to end the artificial life-support treatments. The federal courts have the power to intervene had a fundamental right been abrogated. Last Friday, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal to intervene.
The so-called compassionate conservatives, again, are using a wedge issue to gain political points, though it seems they've miscalculated on this one.
An ABC poll showed that most Americans oppose, by broad margins, the federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. However I don't think personal choices and medical decisions should be made by popular polls. A responsible adult should have the right to his own privacy, including to choices of medical treatment, and use his person in any way seem fit to himself. Furthermore, a person should have the right to end her life in a dignified manner, even with professional assistance, when confronted by a terminally dilapidating disease.
The good thing this case has brought to us is that so many people are talking about the subject and taking the time to think and express their own preferences when confronted with a similar situation on their own. Everyone should have a "living will" [obtainable easily, like this form from the NYS Bar Association] which makes clear what a person wants done in his last days. Talk to your family, friends, your doctor about your wishes. It may be unpleasant to confront one's mortality, but it's the responsible thing to do, for you and your loved ones. Responsibility and choice go together, and this is liberalism.

Every human life is precious, has the same value and dignity. Our society, our laws, our courts, our elected officials should reflect this. We can debate when human life begins, but we have to use the best tools at our disposal--the scientific method & knowledge-- to understand and make decisions in the personal and public spheres. Religious beliefs (which are many, varied, and often contradicting each other) may serve as the believer's moral guide, yet, such beliefs are not facts and therefore shouldn't be imposed on others who don't share them.
The defenders of life, liberals among them, also care about the quality of life after birth, and in the final stages of our physical existence. Being a free person also means having the liberty of choice, especially when it involves one's own self. It is indeed a matter of life and death!


ADDENDUM TO THE ORIGINAL POST
Because several people and the irresponsible media have been throwing around accusations and claims of conspiracy, I'm adding this "footnote."
The US Supreme Court declined, again, on 3/24/05, to take up Schiavo's case, which means all courts have consistently ruled in agreement regarding the course of action and who acts on behalf of Terri Schiavo. There have been over some 20 state and federal judges who have examined all evidence in the last 7 years and heard hundreds of hours of testimony, pro and con.
Every neurologist testified in the case has said Terri is in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS, which I realize is different that coma) and every physician involved has concurred that she has no hope for recovery. Removing the artificial life support, again, won't make Terri suffer. This article explains what happens to the body of a PVS patient.)
This brings us to the sphere of the ridiculous claims: There is this former Schiavo nurse, Carla Sauer Iyer, who claims that Michael Schiavo had been abusive towards his wife, and other allegations about Michael's motives. The judge in the case dismissed Iyer's claims as "incredible!" Even Terri's parents (who are fighting against the tubes removal) did not seek Iyer's testimony! But you wouldn't hear this on any self-proclaimed "fair and balanced" network.
You will hear this, though: the claims of a convicted crook and a charlatan, Dr. William Hammesfahr, who says that he can help Terri Schiavo. He thinks Terri is not in a coma! You wouldn't hear that this doctor has been disciplined by the Florida Medical Board. You wouldn't hear that he had earlier advocated that Terri Schiavo didn't need a feeding tube! You wouldn't hear that this doctor is a member of a religious group that does not accept an individual's choice not to be kept alive by artificial means! Ten years of court decisions have upheld the findings of many neurologists who all have testified that Terri is in PVS.
This begs the question: are those people, who are opposing the removal of the tubes, also against a person's right to choose her treatment under a terminal/irreversible condition? I know the answer, do you?

The U.S. Living Will Registry can provide you with lots of information and forms for the particular state living wills, organ donation, and health care provider/community partners.