As far as the law is concerned, it has spoken. Many courts have heard Terry Schiavo's case and concluded that Terry would not have wanted to be kept alive through artificial means.

That is what this case boils down to. People have the right to decide whether they want to be kept alive via artificial means.  And the courts determined that there was sufficient evidence through testimony that Terry would not have wanted to be kept alive this way.

However, it's the "evidence" that is problematic here in my opinion.  She had no living will. Hopefully this incident will encourage people to start making living wills so that the judicial system can't be screwed around like this.  Terry's parents say she would not want to be starved to death.  Terry's husband says she would.

In my view, the word of Terry's husband is meaningless. He's moved on.  He has two children with another women.  As soon as he had a child with another woman, his "guardianship" rights should be reverted to the parents.  And the parents want her to be kept alive.  She's not on life support, she simply is incapable of feeding herself.

That is where I think the focus of the debate exists.  Frankly, we really don't know what Terry wanted.  I know I would not want to be kept alive via artificial means but on the other hand, I don't know if I'd like the idea of being starved to death over a two week period. I think when most people think of being taken off "life support" they picture themselves in a coma without the ability to breath on their own. 

That's why this case is so compelling.  We really don't know what Terry would have wanted and so many people feel that the default option should be life and not starvation.

Anyone who has ever worked in a group home for the mentally disabled can tell you that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who would die without what would seem to most people extraordinary intervention.  She we starve them to death too?

In fact, why stop there?  How about the people are incapable of feeding themselves without government subsidies? Billions are spent providing food to people who somehow have managed to screw up their lives to the point that they can't afford to pay for their own food.  Should we stop providing them food?

What's ironic is if Terry were a convicted murderer, one could almost imagine the far left out in force protesting on the other side.  It gives the impression that the only lives that the left really wants to fight for are those who either have killed people (murderers) or want to kill people (terrorists). I know, that's a cheap shot but it does strike me as odd that the kind of same people who will camp outside a prison to protest the execution of a convicted murderer have contempt for the people who want to keep Terry alive.

I am a strong believer in individual choice.  If Terry truly would have wanted to die this way, then I am all for that.  I am just not convinced that that is the case based on the publicly available evidence.  And if we're going to choose death as the default when someone can't keep themselves alive on their own, then that takes us down a slippery slope that I'm not sure people want to go.