Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
BTW, while I agree this is a case of "individual rights" (which many of those on the right have undeniably failed to grasp). I would note to my friends on the left who want to draw some convoluted similarity between this sad case and abortion that there simply is none. In one case, we're talking about someone who is past the ability to pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Letting Mrs. Shiavo's body pass away is not going to hinder her freedom- that ended when her brain ceased to function. The mind of an unborn baby, on the other hand, still functions just fine and- left unmolested- will develop in due course. Ergo, the baby still has the potential (therefore the right) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To sum, while Mrs. Schiavo certainly has the personal right to indicate that- should her brain cease to function- she would prefer to pass away (which her body will naturally do without intervention). Conversely, however, no one has the right to decide that a baby doesn't have the right to live- which s/he will do in the absence of intervention. Right over your own life, yes- right over someone else's- no.

Well, perhaps I'm just sorta religious right- a casual attender, if you will.
I think it's the right who is seeking draw a comparison with abortion here, at least the commentators I have read--i.e. err on the side of life in all cases. As time goes by, I am starting to become more open to the right to life position in fact, though I still think the argument against stem cell research is inane.

My point re the radical religious right (no offense to people of faith) was that they have a scary sense of self righteousness that allows them, in their own minds, to be above the law.