The American Spectator

br> — Murph /p> p> I find myself going through the same process almost every time I read an article by George Neumayr. I agree with nearly every point made, and then he hits me over the head with a whopper towards the end. This time it was “Euthanasia has never been about ending the burdens of the ill but about ending the burdens of the living who don’t want to care for the ill.” I will assume that Mr. Neumayr has never had to deal with a tragedy in his family, where a terminally ill family member just wants to end the pain of the last few days or weeks of their life. The Schiavo case may well be about the husband wanting to release himself from the burden that his wife has become, in his view, but Mr. Neumayr would have us believe that euthanasia in general is always an option forwarded by the family of one who is ill, as opposed to the ill person himself. This is just plain wrong. I can respect the view that euthanasia is wrong, but I do not respect misrepresentations about the dynamics of the family struggle that can ensue when a member becomes terminally ill and no longer wants to live. br> — Nathaniel Pippins br> Sacramento, California /p> p> Liberals, being the advanced and enlightened creatures they know they are, have lurched directly into a solution for the social security problem. Using “quality of life” as the criteria for who lives or dies, we can enter a brave new world of starvation and euphoria for the aged masses. How long before we get to the stage in our civilization where a 25 year old asks the question, “Why should I support you just because you have been successfully sucking air for the last 75 years? What quality of life is that and why am I forced to pay for it?” It may not be as crass as that. As we all know the enlightened ones use nuance in order to get their point across. I’m sure the word triage will be used. Or maybe it will be called “pruning our garden.” If the liberals had their way they would reduce Western civilization to the perfect example of the collective — the ant farm. No unnecessary lives there. br> — Ron Pettengill br> London, United Kingdom /p> p> I believe the progression goes something like this: You have the right to die, followed by the duty to die, which gives rise to the right to kill those who refuse to exercise their right to die or who refuse to fulfill their duty to die. I have wondered since the Berrigan brothers why the media always goes to the radical chic “priests” for ex-cathedra opinions. Are there no bishops, no traditional Catholic priests, no lay parishioners who are familiar with Catholic dogma and Church law? I certainly do not consider myself an authority on matters of faith and morals, but as a veteran of 16 plus years of Catholic education, and a lifetime of parish membership, I cannot find any legitimacy in the expressed opinions of “Father” Drinan. Furthermore, common sense should allow people, even people like “Father” Drinan to differentiate between someone on artificial life support machinery such as an iron lung, and someone who is being fed with a feeding tube. One does not need 16 plus years of Catholic education, or any other kind to understand that depriving someone of food and water is not “allowing her to die,” but rather it is committing murder. The situation can be parsed any way that the leftists choose to parse it, it is still murder pure and simple. br> —