I am struck by the arguments being used by many of the people who oppose Congress's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case: That the decision should be left to the doctors and those who love Terri. The fact that those who love Terri disagree is what brings the issue to the courts, but the question there, too, is "who decides?" However, the courts are choosing between two
people (or sets of people) - the parents or the spouse. In the arena of public opinion, the choice is between "the government" and "the individuals involved." Public sentiment has come down overwhelmingly on the side of "the individuals involved."
Yet many of the same people who believe the government should leave the decisions about Terri's fate to the people involved (along with whatever professionals and counselors those people deem appropriate), are "anti-abortion" and vote for anti-choice politicians specifically
because they are anti-choice. The Schiavo case seems to have shown that many of these anti-abortion voters aren't truly anti-choice.
This meta-theme probably has no place in the current national dialogue over Terri Schiavo. Emotions are too raw, and common decency prevents bringing up any such "gotcha" points while a woman lies dying in a Florida hospice. But when the furor subsides, I believe we need to make that connection to people who are anti-abortion but not anti-choice (although, chances are, they don't know it). Many anti-abortion people haven't really thought about the individuals involved in the abortion question, because they can't relate to anyone who would have an abortion. But Terri case is different. Everyone can relate to the prospect of the state deciding that they, or a loved one, should be kept alive, against their wishes.
The question is not "what is life?" The question is "who decides?" Or more to the point, "who decides for you?"