I don't think you meant to include me in your response, because nothing of what you said addresses anything I said.
Reading your post, it sounds like you are making generalizations (you all make the point, you all think, damning to hell, etc) It also sounds like you are repeating what the talking heads are saying - this has been going on for years - so does that make it right? Or its compassionate - how?
You might think I would never want to live that way or most people would not want to, but do you really know? Did Christopher Reeve want to live that way- probably not, but he still wanted to live - its called being human - we want to live - its in our nature. People that want to die are people who are suffering physically or mentally. Terry is not.
And like I said, when the government (court) steps in and uses hearsay as a fact, and then decides on the side of death, we are in trouble.
You are right in that I read the comments to my post and thought I saw a common undercurrent. So, the response wasn't to you specifically.
The government has only stepped in here because the Schindlers forced it too. The procedures and rules for this situation predated TS. The only people trying to change them are the Schindlers, their followers, and activists. For activists to then suggest that the government is actively trying to kill people is disingenuous. The government wanted nothing more than the historical status quo.
For that reason, the slippery slope argument is a red herring. This red herring has been gobbled up by certain factions. While I think it started as red meat for the radical pro-life crowd, I think it's clear now that many political groups see this as a great opportunity to divide and conquer. The media plays it 24/7 - in lieu of reporting successes in Iraq. The "religious right," as diverse as I think it is, can now be portrayed with some effect as wackos because they don't care about rules, laws, or anything else other than getting THEIR way.
You presume any of us knows what Terri wants. We don't. The law says her husband gets to decide. What if the law said her parents got to decide . . . but they wanted her tube removed . . . while the husband wanted her alive. There is no one answer. The outcome here is within the realm of compassion.
Terri, the Schindlers, and those of you screaming bloody murder have been taken advantage of. To the extent some are worried about an intrusive government controlling our lives and deaths . . . their actions are doing more to make that likely than anything Michael Schiavo ever thought of doing. Public opinion and political prices will villify the radicalness of the circus that is TS. If the radicals amongst you insist on their current path, TS's legacy will be an increasingly socialistic government put in place by people who feared radicals proposing the overthrow of the rule of law.
How's that? Is that what "you" want? I think the term is irony.