slippery slope and analogy arguments for why Terri Shiavo should be allowed to die

It seems to be agreed on all hands (at least all hands which are attached to rational heads unclouded by virulently unquestioned religious dogma and not engaged in shameless pandering-politicking-mugging- in-front-of-the-camera trying to appear as if they have no choice but to "err on the side of life") that Terri Shiavo has no higher conscious function whatsoever, her cerebral cortex having been liquified. If what's agreed to by all those minimally rational is right, we can infer that T.S. has no more higher conscious function than, say, a detached human hand might have could it be kept alive by some artificial means. Now if, after some horrible accident it were possible to "save" only such a hand, everything else attached having been killed, would anyone be at all tempted to think that we should keep the "alive" yet unconscious detached hand on life support as long as we possibly could, in order to make sure we erred on the side of life?

Don't think I'm callous regarding the pain of everyone involved in the Terri Shiavo affair. It's a tragedy for all those involved. But thank goodness that the body (with no more awareness than a detached hand) can finally be allowed to die. Truth to tell, I think keeping the unconscious body alive this long is to damage the memories anyone has of the person who was (but is no longer) T.S. She's gone -- the person who was is not with us anymore. It's at least a bit unsavory to toy with the body after the person is no longer part of the scene. In the same way that the Somalis who dragged the mutilated bodies of dead Marines through the streets of Mogadishu after the invasion of 1993 acted to dishonor the memory of the persons no longer "inside," those who prolong the life of a body which is no longer a person dishonor that person's memory.

R.I.P Terri Shiavo