If that’s the most eloquent email you’ve received on this subject, it might be better to leave the inbox unattended for a few days.

It is certainly true that some of those on the feed-Schiavo side of this debate have embraced accusations against Mr. Schiavo without evidence–which, you may note, NRO’s editorial criticized them for. But it is also true that there are good reasons for questioning whether he ought to be making these decisions for Mrs. Schiavo–questions your correspondent skips over. It’s not as though the pro-feeding side hasn’t heard this “sanctity of marriage” argument over the last few days and responded to it. And he makes insinuations against the Schindler family with much less evidence than has been brought to bear against Mr. Schiavo. Finally, the use of the word “kill” and its cognates in this discussion is “beyond the pale” only for people who recoil from plain language. The disconnection of the tube will cause her death and was done with the intent to cause her death. The word “kill” nicely covers the situation.

As for your own post: I fail to see how Professor George has “blotted his copy book” when he has said something that you yourself concede is true. Professor George’s mistake, on your account, was not to take account of an argument against the conclusion that his true statement leads him to. But the “argument” isn’t much of an argument: the fact that many or most people believe X is hardly a proof that X is the correct position. Nor is the “absolutist” tag an argument. And the slippery slope you vaguely invoke would need to be spelled out further to have any force at all as an objection.