Peggy Noonan has a provocative piece today, in which she wonders why those who want Terri’s tube pulled are so adamant and emotional about it. I think that she goes a little too Godwin at the end:

Once you “know” that–that human life is not so special after all–then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.

As I’ve noted before, I have a different definition of a “human life” than many. I think that a human life is always worth living, but there can be a point at which life has been so altered as to no longer be recognizably human. I don’t know if Mrs. Schiavo has reached that point, but apparently many people implicitly believe that to be the case.

While I do think that there’s something to what Peggy says, I also think that she’s somewhat misdiagnosing the problem. Look at the usual suspects that she cites:

…why do those who argue for Mrs. Schiavo’s death employ language and imagery that is so violent and aggressive? The chairman of the Democratic National Committee calls Republicans “brain dead.” Michael Schiavo, the husband, calls House Majority Leader Tom DeLay “a slithering snake.”

Everyone who has written in defense of Mrs. Schiavo’s right to live has received e-mail blasts full of attacks that appear to have been dictated by the unstable and typed by the unhinged. On Democratic Underground they crowed about having “kicked the sh– out of the fascists.” On Tuesday James Carville’s face was swept with a sneer so convulsive you could see his gums as he damned the Republicans trying to help Mrs. Schiavo. It would have seemed demonic if he weren’t a buffoon.

Why are they so committed to this woman’s death?

They seem to have fallen half in love with death.

I don’t think that it’s so much love of death, as blind, raging hatred of the Republicans and conservatives who they perceive to be in the vanguard of keeping her alive. Like many other issues, they have become polarized and emotionally against something simply because those they perceive to be the enemy are for it. If the president’s Vision for Space Exploration ultimately fails, this will be one of the biggest reasons–because he, rather than the sainted John F. Kennedy (or even Bill Clinton) proposed it.

I don’t see this as a partisan issue, though it’s sadly become one. I’ve already said that I’m quite conflicted about this myself. The tragedy of this is that we simply don’t have enough information to know what is the right thing to do. And that’s the case for everyone involved, though they don’t want to admit it.

Wretchard has some interesting thoughts on what one might look like.

As he notes, the current organization is a corrupt relic of events of six decades past, and badly in need of a total restructuring. In its current form, it’s not just useless, it’s counterproductive to its stated ends.