Short and sweet

From Laer at Cheat Seeking Missiles, three simple paragraphs that define the issue:

The logic of this case is so simple, and so defies the howls of the Left, that it's a wonder they're letting themselves be cast as ghouls of death. It all comes down to this: If Terri is in as bad a shape as her husband says she is, she doesn't know and wouldn't care whether she is alive or not, so why not let her parents care for her if they want to? And if she is not in as bad a shape as her husband says she is, why in the world would you kill her instead of transferring responsibility for her care to people who love her and will support her?

Having said that, though, my very pro-life friend raised this one issue: if we say that Terri should be kept alive because there are people ready, willing and able to take care of her, what do we do in a situation in which there are people ready, willing and financially unable to take care of the person. My friend asks if we're creating a new entitlement system. Just when you climb up one slippery slope, you seem to slip down another.