It struck me, when he mentioned the "right-to-life position", that for some of these people "right-to-life" is an inapt description. More accurate would be something like "duty-to-life", wherein you are obligated to go on living for as long as medically possible. Obligated to impose extraordinary means to keep people alive as long as possible. Regardless of the wishes of the people involved.
Because, they say, to withdraw treatment and to allow a person to die is "murder". God will take them when He is ready.
The problem is, God didn't invent modern medical technology. And we are becoming more and more capable at keeping people's bodies alive. Can this really be God's will?
Suppose we reach the point where we can sustain the physical function of the body indefinitely. Must these living corpses be kept 'alive' in perpetuity, out of some sort of misguided "duty-to-live"? I picture something out of The Matrix, with untold numbers of bodies being kept alive artificially. Only in this case, there is no 'virtual reality' for the mind. No mind left at all. Just the mechanical processes of the body kept alive until the sun grows cold.
Morbid, I know. But it is the logical conclusion of the "duty to live" philosophy.
I wondering now what the prevailing thinking is on the death penalty on this forum. I mean, life is life, right?