Replies

I think he is quite unfair. Belief in the value of life is not predicated on the existence of a soul. In fact, those of us who do not believe in the existence of a soul are far more protective of actual living humans. On issues from the death penalty to the killing of innocents in war, to the relief of suffering, the religious are often "anti-life."

Terri did not want to live this way. Her parents want to continue the 15 years of torture. Her husband wants to relieve her suffering.

You contradict yourself because you miss a key distinguisher. Of course rationalists will fight for life because once life is over it is over. Religionists can be more sanguine about the fate of the individual because the individual will live on - possibly in a much better place than this one.

But your second statement brings in the notion of a "properly qualified" life. Religionists value life because it is, not because its owner values it, or others value it. Yet religionists also recognize that some must die for the preservation of the common good. That those die is not considered ultimate destruction because they will have an afterlife. However, they must not be killed indiscriminately. There must be rules. Those rules are supplied by the Author of Life, and are therefore reasonable rules to follow for determining when someone must die.

In the end this isn't about Terri. She will go to her Lord and be much happier. This is about us and what we have become. And what we have become is a nation that murders people when they are no longer wanted.

When being unwanted is a capital crime G-d help us all.

Shalom.