A commenter makes my point

In response to yesterday's post about the Multnomah Bar Association newsletter article, a blogger from Chicago who goes by the name of Demondog responded. First, let me say thanks for taking the time to read my post and leaving your own! I especially appreciated your comments about approaching debates across the political aisle.

I was also somewhat amused by your post, because I think you (perhaps inadvertently) provided evidence to support my opinion about the media's lack of information.

First, you ask (I'm assuming you refer to the Schiavo situation) why I care. "I realize it's a human life," you write, "but her family even stated that she never wanted to live a life that she couldn't be a part of."

Wrong. The only evidence that Mrs. Schiavo was opposed to life in that condition was the verbal testimony of her husband and his siblings. There was no other evidence, and the verbal testimony was directly contradicted by the testimony of Mrs. Schiavo's family. To ascribe such a wish to "her words" as you did is a stretch at best.

Also, did you intend to come across so cavalierly in that sentence? By writing "I realize it's a human life" and then qualifying this life by suggesting she never wanted to live like that, you seem to say some lives are more worthy of breath. Maybe I misunderstand your point.

Should her name be left out of the discussion? Why? The only valid reason I can see is to respect whatever shreds of privacy the family has left. Certainly this is a debate about her life, but it's also a larger debate about the value of human life in general, and the Schiavo name is synonymous with that effort. And yes, it's definitely about the courts, thus the current divide over judicial nominations and the reason for Ms. Stevens' article.

Back to your question — why do I care? Because of that larger debate about human life. I come from the perspective that we are formed by a loving Creator who endowed each of us with certain unalienable rights, that among these is life. (Sound familiar?) Thus I find myself unable to understand those who would so quickly write the death sentence of a woman because they think they know the unknowable — her quality of life, her wishes — or think they can determine her right to life. Who should determine that she was not participating in life up to the day the feeding tube was removed?

Is this all "intelligent" people have to discuss? (Nice use of scare quotes, by the way...) Absolutely not. It sounds like you're saying that because I've written what I did, I am choosing a shallow fight about ideology, that I have no concern about other issues.

I like it if people don't try to guess my motives and concerns without knowing me first. I chose this "fight" because extreme rhetoric on either side of the political divide, left unchecked, only begets more extreme rhetoric, and I believe it's necessary to point out the extremism in an attempt to nip it in the bud. It may indeed be setting myself up for disappointment, particularly if I expect political opposites to come around to my perspective, but I reject the labels of hatred and intolerance. The people of this country are capable of great, passionate debate about the issues of the day, debate that does not need to fall into character assassination to score points. I believe it is, indeed, compassionate to be concerned for those in society who cannot take care of themselves, whether that be a brain-damaged woman in a fight for her life, or a child starving on the streets.

Am I always consistent in my use of calm rhetoric? Probably not, and for that reason I take your comment as a good reminder to choose my battles wisely, to remember the big picture, and not to assume the worst about others.

Thanks again for your thoughts, and for your wish for a happier place.