According to some medical testimony, Terri also could have something to live for if she received the therapy her husband has refused for ten years. But when you say it's different because a fetus has "everything to live for," you're on a very slippery slope. What if a baby is born with a handicap that is treatable (let's say cleft palate). Or even if the baby has Down's syndrome. Assume the father is unknown. The mother is a prostitute/crack addict/child abuser. Should the child be fed? Doesn't sound like that baby has much to live for. Yet who would support refusing a feeding tube for that newborn?
What troubles me most is the fact we do NOT know as much as we think we know about the human brain. Up until a few years ago scientists die not believe new neurons grew in the brain. NOW it is commonly accepted that neuron growth does occur. (not enough to replace an entire injured brain but some growth of note)
The sad part is that the well has been so poisoned with outside activists and now Judicial Egomania that a reasonable compromise may never be possible. No matter how this ends, it will be a tradgedy for those immediatly involved (not the activists not judge wackado)