Tuesday, March 22, 2005


Fred Barnes has boiled the Schiavo debate down to three points, but the aspect that has me in "deep thought" mode is this:
True, there is an arguable federalism issue: whether taking the issue out of a state's jurisdiction is constitutional. But it pales in comparison with the moral issue.
It is on that specific point that I am debating. On the one hand, it seems distasteful on the face of it to weigh cold "federalist principles" against the emotion-packed desire to see life preserved. On the other, is there a place in government, true conservative government, for emotionalism? I'm just thinking out loud. It's a difficult thing. The problem is, despite all of Michael Schiavo's apparent "problems," how do we know he isn't telling the truth? Believe me, I'm sympathetic to the "err on the side of life" argument too. No matter how this situation is resolved, the debate will go on, and the repercussions will be felt for years.

No comments: