Why Terry Schiavo Has the Right to Live

Now, I don't know who has the authority, but to whoever does, let me argue why you should decide in favor of her life. Two reasons.

First, there is so much controversy regarding the genuineness about her so-called "vegetable state." Perhaps she really is unconscious and brain dead, but until an official investigation can be made---and I don't know why there hasn't been one yet---it would be better to err on the side of caution and keep her alive if she's brain dead, than let her die if she's not.

Second, and for a greater reason, it's a matter of principle. It is true that keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive for fifteen years appears to have accomplished nothing and been a waste of time. But this is an extreme case. If you set a precedent for death here---even if it could be justified, and I truly think it could---where you do draw a line? How far gone must someone be before they lose the privilege to live? Carry the philosophy to its logical extremes, and you're supporting euthanasia. No, the only way to be just is to award all living people the right to live. Now it simply becomes a matter of how you define life.

Does life mean only the beating of the heart? Brain activity? Breathing? Does life mean all of those combined, or more, or something else? To decide if a person has a right to live, all we have to do is decide if they are alive. Terri Schiavo is breathing on her own. Her body can process food, even if it has to be given to her through a tube. No matter what your minimal criteria for life are, I think she easily qualifies.

And so, to preserve the value of life and prevent it from becoming diluted, I believe Terri Schiavo should be kept alive, even if keeping her alive for fifteen years accomplshed nothing and even if it will accomplish nothing more in the end.

Edmond the Hun