It is not I, who have engaged in moral contortions. When you take umbrage at my description of Terry Schiavo's state, you are refusing to look at the quantity and quality of life. Life and death are not absolutes. (This is discussed at length in my essay, Terry Schiavo.)
By any rational standard, at least from the standpoint of defining the characteristics of a human life, Terry was more than half dead. While that would not take away her family's right to keep her alive, if they could afford to, by artificial means, there was also the question of what her wishes would have been. Her poor body was not yours to order, you know. The whole concept of having a Court weigh these factors is intended as a protection for the unfortunate--intended, among other things, to make sure that the unfortunate are not ideological footballs, either for you or me; either for this side or that side of any controversy; or for one faction or another of any family.
How many times are you going to promote your essay and your website on one thread?
If people wanted to read it, they had the opportunity to hit the link the first ten times you posted it.
Damned right I'm refusing to do so. It's irrelevent.
What gives you the right to be the judge of the value of anyone's life, or whether they are worthy of the protections of our Constitution?
There is nothing that is more absolute than life and death, sir.
That is one of the more hubristic comments I've ever read on FR.
God-like in your powers of discernment, you are...