Finally found a good article about this case (Terri Schiavo, if I needed to say it). A pro-life article from Slate, which is not a pro-life and/or Christian news organization -- meaning, they are not automatically biased in favor of life (as evidenced by the nastier things about the case from yesterday). It is nice to see both sides fairly represented for once. Here's the link.
As much as I suck at debating, because I get too emotionally involved in it, I really try hard, and I really put a lot of thought and effort into finding where I stand. I'm not a quick thinker, it takes me a long time to sort out a cohesive argument (which is why I find message boards to be a better medium than real-time arguing). I'm not stupid, just careful, and a perfectionist. My argument has to be flawless before I'm going to throw it out for the wolves. And it has to be logical, based on reason, rather than emotion. And because of that, I try very hard to look at all sides of things. You can't properly defend yourself unless you know what the other side is saying.
I've been questioning myself on this case the past couple of days. I know that what is happening to that poor woman is wrong. It's murder. I know this. But every time I've tried to reason it, without appealing to religion, emotion, gut feeling, or wild speculation, I've come up short. How to argue, logically and reasonably, that justice is not being done for this woman?
Anyway, I think the article I linked does a very nice job.
I have more thoughts, but I need to be working.