There are a lot of "red herrings" in this case which are going to play out later.
One is the so-called "Persistent Vegetative State".
This is a term which was invented AFTER the discussion about terminating life support began in the 1970s. The purpose of a new diagnostic category, "PVS", was to clarify that there were patients who had not experienced death of the whole brain but who nonetheless would not recover.
Of course, there are many other patients with damaged or absent diencephalic function who do not have "PVS" but who nevertheless are not going to recover.
The use of the term "vegetative" is dehumanizing (vegetables do not have beating hearts, do not breathe, etc, etc, etc), and the invention of this diagnosis intended it to be dehumanizing, in that it would allow the purposeful death of humans. (In a similar way, saying "brain dead" does the same thing, except that brain dead people are really dead in a way that PVS and other brain-damaged people are not).
If it's wrong to kill Terri Schiavo because she has "almost enough brain damage to have PVS, but not quite enough", then it's also wrong to kill her if she actually has "PVS". People who are so invested in a "wrong diagnosis" are barking up the wrong tree.
In moral terms, the use of the term "PVS" obscures more than it reveals-which is exactly what it's inventors wanted to accomplish.
it's also wrong to kill her if she actually has "PVS" - at least your honest about your agenda - Even if she had a living will asking for her life to end - that also falls into 2 camps more - would you follow her wishes or keep her tubed up regardless?
Destro, in order to prove whatever silly point you are trying to make you have committed the logical error of creating a false dichotomy.
There are a lot of other possible beliefs in this matter besides the two you have tried to force everyone into. First, some of us are horrified at the Kafkaesque triumph of process over justice. Second some of us are also horrified over the fact that the courts have not followed the process laid out in law and have thumbed their nose at the congress.
Many good conservatives might argue that a system of laws that goes against the basic tenants of not just Christianity but every major religion on God's earth, isn't much of a system. Some of us even feel that socalled conservative justices who upheld this travesty are not in fact conservatives, have overreached the powers granted to the judiciary and ought to have their wings clipped by the other branches of government.
Some of us also believe that life should trump death, and if her parents, in particular, want to keep her alive under their care, well that ought to end the matter right there. My constitution and my religion do not recognize a right of the state to decide when a life has ended.
Whether or not she is PVS, I don't really know, nor do I need to know. I would leave that to her parents and medical doctors.