NYTimes editorial

The Times has an editorial dedicated to Terri Schiavo. In one spot, it refers to the "vicious court fight for control of her body". Control of her body? Her body? Do you see what's between the lines here? They weren't fighting for her, just for her body... as if there is a difference. The Times' editors give further evidence of a erroneously dualist anthropology at work within the secular worldview, an anthropology which understands the body not as an inherent good, as good in itself, but as an instrumental good, as a good merely to be used. These error has all sorts of bad implications, as most bad ideas do. For more, read Robert P. George's "A Clash of Orthodoxies".

Then near the end, the editorial reads, "Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the fact that Ms. Schiavo should be allowed to die."

Let me see... how about this: Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the fact that slavery is legal.

Or this: Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the fact that women cannot vote.

Or this: Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the fact that not all human beings have rights.

As well-meaning as this editorial is, it betrays serious, substantial, and consequential errors in thought.