03/23/2005: "Every Sperm is Sacred? You've got to kidding right?"

Next in my list of columnist to get the wrath of Ken is Jon Carroll. He wrote this column about Terri Schiavo and Congress. Here is my letter to him:

Mr. Carroll, I was very disappointed in your opinion piece written on March 23rd regarding Terri Schiavo.

I'm glad there is at least one thing we agree on: Terri Schiavo has been placed unfairly in the middle of a bitter political battle she doesn't deserve being inflicted on her. But you go dreadfully wrong in placing all that blame on those who want to see Terri live. This case was taken up by the "right-to-die" political proponents long before it was taken up by the "publicly pious" as you call them. It is worth noting that George Felos is a nationally recognized "right-to-die" lawyer. I'm not saying this in discredit to him, because I believe he honestly believes in the "right-to-die" movement. However, he would not be involved in this case nor would he have been involved for as long as he has if this case wasn't considered important to the "right-to-die" movement. Clearly that movement picked up on the importance of this case a long time ago. Similarly Dr. Cranford, the principle doctor on record in the cases tried before judge Greer, is a nationally recognized doctor in the "right-to-die" movement. He too would not be involved if this case was just about Terri. He too is involved because he believes PVS patients have the "right-to-die".

So while it is clear that the actions of Congress this week represent the actions and influence of a one politicized constituency, we also must be honest that the opposite side is just as politicized. In all honesty, Terri has become a precedent setting case of great national importance. Does that mean she deserves to live? No, of its own right it doesn't. But it does mean that it does belong on the national stage and that Congress is not out of place to be interested in the case.

In that sense this case is just one of a multitude of nationally important cases that, were they held at another time or considered of there own right, would be inconsequential. But just like in cases like Brown v. Board of Education, it is the nature of our nation's government and judiciary that important matters often come to the attention of the nation through a seemingly obscure case. Was there anything unique about Brown? No, there wasn't. Weren't millions of children being educated in segregated schools? Yes, there were. In fact, there was nothing more remarkable about little Linda Brown than there is about Terri Schiavo.

But none of this has anything to do with the merits of the case. Simply being one of a great multitude doesn't indicate that there is merit in either side of the case. In retrospect is quite clear that Brown v. Board of Education was an important and needed case. Without some little, inconsequential 3rd grader, we wouldn't have had this precedent setting case. Similarly it appears that without Terri Schiavo we wouldn't be having this national debate about the "right-to-die". It will surely be precedent setting in one form or another.

Yes this is a political case and yes Congress's involvement speaks of political involvement but to claim that it is single sided political case that is the fault of the "publicly pious" is disingenuous at best.

If you left your opinion piece to simply arguing that folly, I might not have even wrote the above admonishment. However, you also made some disgusting stereotypes that don't belong on the page of the San Francisco Chronicle.

Every sperm is sacred? As a faithful Catholic it disgusts me that you'll use this in what appears to be a serious opinion piece. While I enjoyed the skit/song in Monty Python's movie "The Meaning of Life", I don't find your comments even remotely appropriate. Maybe before you go quoting John Cleese you should do some actual research on the teachings of the Catholic Church and the beliefs of the Americans who stand for the sacredness of life.

It strikes me as funny that you're so quick to deny the sacredness of life (to quote you: "the idea that human life is sacred is not, alas, supported by the evidence"). Not three paragraphs later you bring up some of the great failings of our society: caring for poor children, those sick with HIV and the elderly who are neglected in their old age. Why does it matter if life isn't sacred? Why can't we just discard these children? Why can't we just kill the elderly that no one cares about? Why? Because there lives are sacred too.

Let me give you some advice from someone who has a difficult time supporting any political party: Everyone is a hypocrite of some sort. We all fail to consider all people and all interests. We all favor some group over another and without just cause. That is the nature of our humanity. That is why your tired liberal argument has been discredited. It has been discredited because it can just as quickly be thrown back in the face of those who bring it up because there is always some issue we're failing to consider. It does no good to bring it up. Or said differently, the act of bringing it up makes you a hypocrite.

Finally, it is irrelevant to mention that Congress wasn't there for the last 14.5 years bathing Terri every day. The people who most frequently visited Terri and were most responsible for caring for her are desperately fighting to save her life. While her husband rarely visits and pays for the professional care with a lawsuit won 15 years ago, it is her parents and her siblings who most often visit her. They are the ones who see her daily and brush her hair and help the nurses bath her. If we were solely interested in those who care for the disabled, this case would have been won by the Schindlers 10 years ago.

Ken Crawford
Online reader in Roseville, CA