Originally posted by Viss1:
In the case of the supposed "sympathy for terrorists," I'm not aware of a situation where a terrorist was being kept alive artificially and "the left" was calling for his death. If you're referring to the general concept that the left is prone to giving enemies excessive medical attention, I'd point out that throughout the 20th century POW's have been given medical treatment, both on the battlefield and off. Not to mention the Geneva Convention outlines standards for this type of conduct (whether you want to argue the GC's role regarding terrorists is a separate issue).


Originally posted by Davo:
My point was more to illustrate the left's sympathy for terrorists but lack thereof for those who cannot speak for themselves. This probably doesn't have much relevance to the Terri Schiavo case except the Schiavo case has brought out sides of the left only the giften can often see.



Originally posted by Viss1:
As for Rosa Parks, frankly it'd be such a stretch to support any kind of comparison that I'm not even sure we should bother.


The Rosa Parks comment was in reference to Kremit's assertion that all private matters should remain private and without government intervention. Rosa Parks' arrest was a personal matter whose social and political meaning captivated the nation and therefore sparked one of the more significant social movements in human history. My point was to prove that personal matters can be made political with lasting effects. Not sure that will happen with the Schiavo case, I was just trying to make a point.