"unnatural excitement?" i am interested in helping preserve her life but to do so takes prayer and action... lots of it.

This is a front line in the battle for the sanctity of life at this moment in time. Should Terri be killed it will establish a huge legal precident for the killing of other disabled. It's a battle worth fighting for Terri and the disabled, all of them our brothers and sisters! It's a battle for life and justice.

You seem to be claiming (if I may take your argument to its logical conclusion) that it's wrong to take part in a controversy when there are other equally valid controversies out there. At least I don't see how to apply your argument in any other way...

And of course, that implies that we can never take part in any argument of any kind.

-Billy

Again, I think states would best require written instructions for cases where there is disagreement among relatives and among medical experts.

I'm not convinced Terri Schiavo has higher brain function, but I think it best to err on the side of caution. That doesn't mean that I think Congress should get involved, however.

I have a living will that provides for removal of feeding tubes if I am in a persistent vegetative state, which in such case I would not consider starvation cruel at all, but in fact would consider it as playing God to try to keep my body alive. I'm quite confident that I have made a moral, Christian decision but I also respect those who believe the other way.

I am very uncomfortable with the demonization of Michael Schiavo.

And on any of these life-crucial issues, it is all too easy for any of us to equate our certainty of the rightness of our position with personal moral superiority over others.

Anyway, I would rather focus my energies on convincing people that abortion isn't an acceptable means of birth control.

Re. so-called "unnatural excitement" --

Supposedly Stalin himself was once quoted as saying, "One man's death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic."

Yes, there are other tragedies going on, but does than mean we ignore this one as well? You do realize that things like this have other implications -- that this will have far-reaching effects of how the disabled and weak are treated in our society?

Susan,

Josh can speak for himself but all I understood him to say is that sometimes we have to prioritize saving one life and saving millions.

In a similar fashion, I spent some efforts over the years lobbying my legislature to eliminate capital punishment. However, to have spent all my time on the issue at the expense of other ministries, including ones that would save other lives just isn't realistic or just.

I asked a friend once who insisted that we spend millions more on special education if she would insist that 90% of a school's budget be spent on one special needs child in order to bring the child's opportunitieses up to that of the other kids. She actually answered, yes that if took 90% of a budget then so be it.

I don't agree entirely with Josh on psv and tube feeding, but it is evident that he has spent a lot of his time arguing for and demonstrating the value of human life.

You seem to be claiming (if I may take your argument to its logical conclusion) that it's wrong to take part in a controversy when there are other equally valid controversies out there.

Nope. I never said it was wrong to take part in this at all.

Yes, there are other tragedies going on, but does than mean we ignore this one as well?

Nope. We should not ignore it. I don't believe I ever said we should, either.

You do realize that things like this have other implications -- that this will have far-reaching effects of how the disabled and weak are treated in our society?

Yes, they will have far-reaching effects. So will the other events I alluded to.

Josh, your point is good and I agree.
I have made only a couple of oblique references to this very polarizing, very combustible topic
myself.

Those who want to participate in a swelling public debate, up to and including the president, have nothing but the best of intentions, but if this case opens the way for legal meddling in matters that should be kept private, that spinoff should be avoided. If there is any lesson to be learned, it is that everyone should make their wishes known in clear, written and openly discussed detail BEFORE they get in such a mess. Just as dying intestate creates avoidable problems, so too does dying without deetailed instructions about one's desires regarding critical conditions.

Thanks to science and medicine a body can be sustained long after the "person" who inhabited it is gone. Otherwise, donated organs could not be kept viable until the last moment to be harvested for someone else to use. In making my own decision I concluded that if I could not participate in my own nutritional needs, at least cognitively, then I can say in advance that the time has come to let me go. This decision does not preclude my having a feeding tube that I authorize myself because a medical condition makes normal eating temporarily impossible. In fact, it does not prelude changing my mind in the future. But in the unlikely event of my being in that circumstance next week, then there should be no question about how it is to be handled. The operative word here, by the way, is "cognitively."

Medical people have problems enough trying to make sense of crazy circumstances like this one with everyone pulling in a different direction, and the person with legal responsibility being excoriated by a multitude of well-meaning people.

Wow Josh. Never expected to hear that from you. Enjoy your palm Sunday. I'm sure the Lord is "enjoying" it too.

Why is my concern over millions killed before birth so surprising?

A congress who can grandstand for baseball has more than enough time to do its job. I don't see that preserving a life is a problem. Public pressure has been effectively brought to bear for Terri-and, not brought to bear on the issues you speak of which probably are of more importance. More pressure then would seem to be called for.

Leaving aside for the moment questions about the republican devotion to federalism - a devotion they drop in the slightest breeze, what does the republican congress's passing and pres. Bush's signing this law say about republican devotion to the institution of marriage? You guys want to amend the constitution to protect marriage from queers, but if marriage interferes with scoring political points (we've all seen the republican political memos on this case urging same), then just override the marriage by legislative fiat.
Republians constantly harp about the courts substituting their judgment for the judment of another (e.g. legislature, jury), but here, you are asking a federal court to substitute its judgment for the husband's and for the state court's judgment. Are you not employing situational ethics which you deplore? And even worse, you do so to undermine an institution that you have championed over the democrats.
I mean really, this is just the latest in a litany of recent self-serving, political pay off legistlation that republicans have passed. Good God man, have a little dignity in your new power.

I can be "unnaturally excited" about Mrs. Schiavo's case and the many other tragedies available to us. It doesn't have to be either/or.

Likewise, the high position marriage should have in our society does not give those inside the institution the right to make immoral choices. A husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church -- even to give up his life for her.

As leader of his household, Mr. Schiavo is obligated to primarily consider God's Word in determining the course of action for their marriage. This would lead him to NOT starve her to death. Mr. Schiavo is next obligated to consider his wife's wishes, her parents wishes, and his wishes. A careful consideration of these factors and the courts would have never been involved with this situation. In fact, we would probably have never even heard of Mrs. Schiavo.

If Mr. Schiavo could not (or would not) execute his obligations as a husband in the holy institution of marriage, he could have chosen NOT to starve her to death and simply divorced her. If one is going to choose sin, the path with the least consequences and the greatest opportunity to make amends later would be at least a little nicer way to go.

Of course, God is good and He has provided a Way for us with the greatest of dignity.