(The following piece was written by me during the Terri Schiavo debacle.  However, even though Terri has passed, the below contents is still very significant.  Why wait for another similar issue; let's discover the details of what we believe right now!  If you don't write it down, do you really know what you're thinking? Send me your comments!)

Vindicate (Progressive) Liberalism, or Reinforce Hope- Our Choice
By Bruce Hedrick, March 24, 2005
The Terri Schiavo saga is far reaching, affecting even our justification for “invading” Iraq. Further, this case specifically –due to its high degree of publicity- has extracurricular elements that cannot be ignored. The world is watching and we must publicly address this problem based on potential political and social ramifications; everyone interested in the spiritual concept of life –whether or not humans are superior in worthiness to the rest of the animal world- and has heard of this case, now must be fully informed of all the facts. Be not deceived; this potential catastrophe involves more than the quality of one family’s life; it involves the near future livelihood, and the “living” evolution of our constitutional republic.
In my mind, our involvement in Iraq has many justifications. Whether or not I agree with the timing of the invasion –which I don’t- Americanism, federalism, natural law and the idea of liberty, individual sovereignty, and the declarative concept of inalienable rights as God-given (Nature and Nature’s God), all are viable concepts that support –even demand- that the strong protect, defend, and ensure all natural rights in all corners of the world for all people. Yes, we are risking the lives of young American men and women, even causing situations in which indigenous civilians are sometimes caught up in fire fights that end in tragic deaths. But for the conservative/classic liberal side, the sacrifice of a few people is justifiable because liberty reaches a near-sacred level, well worth whatever the sacrifice may be; the concept of life trumps the actuality of individual physical life. Freedom has a price and it is a price that cannot be capped, justified by the metaphysical precepts of spiritual Man.

“The uniqueness of America is that we were founded on a creed, a creed that recognizes the spirituality of life, i.e., the concept of life itself.”

So what does this have to do with Terri? The “soul” and “spirit” of Americanism is found in our Declaration of Independence (the essence and functionality are within the confines of our Constitution). If leftist thinking prevails in American politics, the idea that inalienable rights, as noted in our Declaration, endowed upon Mankind by “their Creator,” will become an idea of the past. How does such an accomplishment happen: by changing the way we think socially; by changing (minimizing) the way society feels about spirituality? Terri’s saga has just the elements the Leftists need to make a major impact, not only on current political and social leadership, but also on the young. If Terri, in her apparent condition of a seemingly conscious condition, is killed legally our society is going to pay a very high price by the major hit “spiritual Man” will be dealt. Thus: conservatism: 0; relativism: 10!, destroying the unique American concept of life.
This micro-case also exposes the inadequacies of our media in that the people are not able(?) to be fully informed of the details. Most of us get our news in bits and pieces, and in this case, bits and pieces can and are leading to tragic consequences on a macro-politico/socio scale. To complicate this problem, those bits and pieces are not the same parts for all us; we receive our pieces from various sources, only absorbing those parts that have the most relativity to our own special idealism (desirous comprehension). Thus, even among those folks who hear/read the same exact information, there will be a disparity in what we retain and evaluate as pertinent information. Then, when you add the complication of multiple sources for information, we have a real mish-mash of opinions, and misinformation.
Bill Maher’s recent show is a good example of mish-mash. (Some folks actually watch his show as a source of editorialized political information.) His comments helped to perpetrate the myth of “extraordinary means,” and even seemed to compare the plight of Terri with the relative poor treatment of sled dogs. He spoke out in support of not “keeping Terri alive” (everyone being fed through a tube is “being kept alive?”), and in comparison, his “other important” subject was in support of more humane treatment for dogs that are bred to pull snow sleds. (In Bill’s defense, I doubt he actually consciously meant to lump these two subjects for a singular purposeful [leftist] outcome. To assume so would be giving Bill more credit than he probably deserves.) The irony of this is that some folks will wholly support killing Terri by dehydration and starvation, while crying over all the “work” sled dogs are “forced” to endure. Could Bill, in his infinite wisdom, actually have envisioned such a dynamic scenario? Not likely.
Doesn’t it seem kind of odd: those who are generally spouting off about “democracy!, democracy!;” those who support the idea that state’s rights are an outlived, archaic, limiting (American) concept; those who insist that the law cannot be based in morality, are now upset that the Congress interfered in Florida’s business? Believe me, this fight over Terri’s fate is not being waged between democratically minded patriot Americans who simply have differences in constitutional opinions. The leftists, generally insisting on greater respect for our democracy, could care less that the majority of Floridians, as well as the majority of Americans, are asking for more information related to this case before Terri’s food supply is cut off. Clearly, the inconsistency in leftist thinking is recognizable here.

“This is a fight between those who believe on God and those who don’t.”

No, this is not a fight between legitimate variations of democratic idealisms; it is a fight between constitutional patriots and atheistic humanists (relativism). And unfortunately, there are many, many sheople on both sides who have no idea what the real fight is all about. We have become so burdened with time-consuming details and insider bickering, enthralled by sound bites, and confused by multiple-meaning buzz words; we are on political overload only able to stay afloat by jumping on the sensationalized bandwagons. All the while, our Constitution is continuing to bleed, falling away from our Congress, being shunned by our Supreme Court, and being pulled away from the people’s-at-large conscience.
Why not give Terri legal representation? The law compels any jurisdiction, civil or criminal, to appoint counsel any time one’s liberty is at stake; don’t you think “liberty” would include the very essence of life? Anyone facing a single day in jail must have counsel; Terri is facing death. It seems to me that this right to counsel would negate, if not render unconstitutional, the current laws of Florida. (Further, relative to the laws of Florida, Judge Greer acted as legal guardian of Terri when he ordered her feeding tube removed. And, according to Florida law, legal guardians are required to physically and personally visit their guardianship when making relevant, significant decisions. – Judge Greer has never put his eyes on Terri, and even if he had, Judge Greer is legally blind; what could he even see? Can he look into Terri’s eyes and find them to be, or not be, the window to her soul? Further, I have to wonder if someone who is blind can be a competent guardian?) There is evidence of bone fractures occurring one to two months prior to Terri’s debilitation. It is purported she told Michael, her estranged husband, the night before she was found on the floor that she wanted a divorce. Nurses who have taken care of taken care of Terri say she is coherent and responsive with strong signs of feelings and emotions. Can she feel pain?, how about a simple pinch test. Why not an MRI? Why does Michael want immediate cremation? We know Michael’s unbending decision to not divorce Terri is not due to religious concerns; we know this because of his long standing current girl friend (who some media refer to as his common law wife.) So why doesn’t he divorce her and allow the parents to determine Terri’s future? Is it because of the money? Michael’s own words tell us Terri is already dead, at least in his mind. But not in mine, not in the mind of her parents, and not in the mind and hearts of all of us who at least hope for a spiritual precept to human life. A friend of Terri’s once heard her say, in relation to another person who was debilitated, “where there is life there is hope.” I couldn’t say it better myself.
Don’t be fooled about Terri’s condition; we cannot compare the need for a ventilator, or a heart machine, with the inability to feed one’s self, as Michael’s own words have tried to do. Terri is not being kept alive any more than a new born is being “kept alive” with feedings. TERRI SWALLOWS HER OWN SALIVA; haven’t you wondered why there isn’t a clearing tube in her mouth?? If you have the capacity to clear your own mouth, you have the capacity to instinctively swallow food. A nurse that previously took care of Terri says she fed jello to Terri, and she swallowed without choking. So many questions, so much at stake, so little time.
The concept of life requires (demands) sacrifice to appreciate its precious nature. Life has a chance to fulfill its destiny only when “it” prevails at least to struggle in figuring itself out by “finding” its Maker, ala., success. But can we have such success, or the hope of success, if we treat life as only physical in nature?

“Today’s societal actions shape the views of future generations.”

Leftist/humanist thinking leaves no “room” beyond a metaphysical depth to life. Though it takes intellectualism to the nth degree, humanists dance mightily over and around issues that point to those areas of life that cannot be tasted, smelled, touched, counted, etc., and Terri’s case is a good example: Absent spirituality, life is measured by its ability to produce and/or affect its environment relative to how that form of life is suppose to interact. For instance, aborting an unborn baby is acceptable if it is determined the (eventual) child will be physically deformed. In Terri’s case, I’ve heard journalists asking supporters of Terri’s parents, “If you think Terri is capable of interacting with her environment, why doesn’t someone ask her if she wants to live.” The inference I draw from this type of question is that there is a limited plain on which communication between people is possible; when the level in which we interact seems to switch to a spiritual plain humanists tend to back away. “Flights of fancy,” “superstitions,” they say- ideas of a spiritual nature are downgraded as archaic and only for the weak and ignorant.
If we are accepting that Terri is a vegetable then why is she being fed morphine as she slowly dies by malnutrition? Surely, to allow (order) a death in this manner, we’re sure she’s not coherent and cannot feel and or relate to anything in this physical world, right? Then why the morphine? Are we thinking that maybe-kinda-sorta she is definitely probably no longer aware of her self or her surroundings? What? You mean there is a chance she might BE aware – conscious? You mean we think there is a chance she is still inside that body, and yet we are still bent on killing her, even by torturous means? Oh, let’s ease her pain as we force her to wilt away. Let’s ease her pain while we force her parents to view her slow demise; the nose bleeds, the cracking and drying of the skin, the swelling of the tongue, the recessing and shrinking of her eyes.
Shall we allow this case to vindicate and strengthen atheistic humanism, or will we use this case to continue building on the preciousness and sanctity of the gift of life. We have a choice; that is, if we act quickly. If there’s a chance for error, let’s do so on the side of Life and Hope. I think that is what Terri would want.