I just figured out something today about the Terri Shiavo case. The fight to starve and dehydrate her was driven by zombie-phobes.
Think about it - what is a zombie?
It's an apparently living creature, with no thinking processes intact. Zombies can move, and apparently direct their movements, but there's not a thought directing the purpose of those movements. To the uninitiated, recognizing a zombie is not easy; they move, look at you, may vocalize slightly, and respond to noise.
But you can kill a zombie, because, without the capacity for rational thought, they cannot be considered human.
In fact, it's your duty to kill a zombie, since their only purpose is to cannabalize the living. They survive by eating them.
That's what the pro-death, Michael Shiavo supporters believe about Terri. That, essentially, she was a non-living being, i.e., a zombie. As such, it would be not only legal to kill one, it could be considered a public service.
That belief in zombies is unscientific and irrational doesn't affect the zombie-phobes. When you point out that Terri's living hurt no one, they countered by saying that Terri (i.e., The Zombie, TZ for short) needed to have her body join her non-living brain.
This insistence supports the hypothesis that the MS supporters believe in the literal existence of zombies - the belief that you cannot let a zombie live. To do so endangers human beings' lives. Like Michael Schiavo's. OK, so he wasn't really in danger of being eaten alive by Terri - but, in his mind, he METAPHORICALLY was. His money and time were being nibbled on by the (his belief) non-living, although bizarrely moving and somehow existing, wife.
I know this all sounds bizarre, but I honestly think there's a core of truth to this idea.