If someone cannot chew or swallow their food, AND they cannot respond to queries (inactive brain), should society or individuals consider it a responsibility to unnaturally feed the person via a gastric feeding tube?
If one believes in God, and believes that God prepares a body for its last days by constricting the throat and making it impossible for a person to eat, chew or swallow food, the is society (or the family member) unnaturally extended life, circumventing God's purpose of imminent death?
Is leaving this earth and going to death and life after death in actuality a "culture of death" attitude?
Or could it instead be a "culture of life after death"?
Why would so many Christians fight so hard to avoid this?
The question in the extant case was not whether anyone had the obligation to feed Terri, but whether anyone had the right to forbid Terri from being fed.
During medieal times, families with unwanted children would abandon them by the side of the road. They might starve, get eaten by wild animals, or be rescued. Even though the odds of the children getting rescued may not have been very good, the parents who left them by the side of the road at least gave them something of a chance.
Terri Schiavo had parents who were willing to care for her at their own expense (with the aid of many who offered their help of their own free will). Even if nobody had an obligation to care for her, why would that imply that those who wanted to care for her should be unable to do so?
The issue isn't whether Christians are fighting against death.
The issue is whether Christians are brave enough to speak out against killing.
You conflate Terri's situation with others which are not similar.
Chew/swallow is something learned, and in her case, it could well have been re-learned through therapy.
Further, you postulate that Terri's body was "shutting down," which is manifestly untrue.
However, the Pope's body was, e.g.--so regardless of the feeding tube, he died.
The differences are extremely important.