A few [more] perspectives:
Cal Lanier at the Football Fans for Truth (I can't remember the link that led me here) wrote an FAQ for the Uncommitted with some interesting facts on the case that haven't been publicized. Worth a read. I dunno a thing about FFT but looking at his blogroll he seems to be on the side of reason (and the angels)
John Fund comments on how the Democrats (by and large) felt very differently about the 'usurpation of power' when Janet Reno contravened the courts and sent Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba.
Jay Nordlinger at NRO can't understand why some folks just seem to want Terri to die.
But before I quit altogether, I ask a question (not an original one): What would it hurt? Who would be hurt by Mrs. Schiavo's continuing to be fed — by her not being starved to death? I mean, it's no skin off the New York Times's nose, right? No skin off Loretta Sanchez's. Her parents and siblings want her. Michael Schiavo can "move on" — can obtain a divorce, marry his girlfriend, wash his hands of the old wife. But no, he has to have "closure," in the form of Terri Schiavo's death (by starvation — did I mention that?). And his supporters, for sick reasons of their own, also have to have her dead. She has to be gotten out of the way. Her life is a rebuke to them, somehow.
In a discussion with a friend, I mentioned something about Dr. Mengele's laboratory. He said, "No, this is worse. Mengele had the pretense — indeed, the argument — that he was benefiting humanity [with his inhuman experiments]. Where's the argument here? They're just starving her to death."
By the way read the rest of Nordlinger's Impromptus today - superb.
Last and most touching, Susan Konig compares what Mrs. Schindler is doing to what Mary did for Christ in Mel Gibson's Passion.
I'm an agnostic and I'm praying that God receives Terri's soul.