Wrong answer. I didn't think it'd be that tough for you to answer. Are you disabled?
The matter at hand is not about consciousness, but about life.
Just mentioning lunch on a Schiavo thread brings to mind what we are denying to another living thing, in this case a human being. [As well as her natural family. ]
The question was relevent. The poster who doesn't know what he/she/it ate today couldn't exist were it not for people who value life, people like those who defend this woman, and those in her family who yet care about her.
They wouldn't exist if the whole world measured life on by their own short-sighted and self-centered standards of convenience. They'd starve to death just as this woman is being starved to death, while pondering and debating if it's worth it to go milk the cows if the cows aren't fully aware of where the milk is going or why.
Everyone -but Terri- is a consumer who ate something today which was once alive or produced by something which was alive, whether animal or vegetable, something which was recognized as life worthy of the care, labor and investment of producers. Lettuce and oysters don't have show evidence of 'consciousness' as we know it to be important to us, so why isn't a helpless person treated with at least as much concern?
Most people have a preference for green lawns, and manicured landscapes, parks, and other similar things in which we don't expect to produce something to consume, use or market- but just want to enjoy while it's here because we have come to value these things. We don't write them off as good as 'dead' and therefore worthless because they aren't 'conscious' as we define it. Just be thankful someone didn't forget to fertilize the tomato plants and feed the animals you need to eat, or some wacko death-trekkie lawyers didn't bar people from doing it.