A dispute has broken out between Bill at INDC Journal and Paul at Wizbang. The original bone of contention was whether the killing of Mae Magouirk represents a “slippery slope.” But the argument has expanded (or devolved) into a much broader fight. I find the debate compelling.

Compelling, and yet somehow unedifying. My friend Bill thinks the debate is about “keeping everyone alive indefinitely with the best treatment,” which he argues against. But Mrs. Magouirk, like Mrs. Schiavo before her, is being denied water. I won’t descend into the slugfest, but for the record, I say anyone who has a need for water should be given water. Plus food, and a blanket. They should pay for these things if they are able, but the rest of us should pay for them if they’re unable. Would this obligation inevitably lead to an overweening cradle-to-grave welfare state, impoverishing the living to animate the dead? I very much doubt it; but then, I guess I don’t put much stock in slippery slopism.

UPDATE: Did I say the argument has expanded? Now it’s unleashed pent-up fury at Paul from many quarters, for a thousand offenses and slights.