A dog's life vs. a woman's life

Today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel had this article (AP byline Kevin O'Hanlon):

The [Nebraska] state Supreme Court granted clemency Friday to a dog sentenced to death for fighting with a neighbor's pet.

The high court ruled unanimously that Murphy, an Alaskan malamute-shepherd mix belonging to Doug and Lorele Dittoe, should not be killed for causing "relatively minor injury" to the other dog after slipping out of the couple's fenced-in yard in 2001.

Murphy had been deemed dangerous by the county sheriff, and a judge ordered her destroyed.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska took what was basically a dog pound case? And they ruled in favor of life for the dog.

That's fine... but where is a similar ruling for Terri Schiavo? Is her life not more valuable? After all, she is a conscious, sentient human being, who can speak. Is she of less worth than a dog simply because she's severely disabled, or because her "husband" wants her dead?

"We conclude that the order for the destruction of the dog was not reasonable," wrote high court Judge John Wright. "The county court ... abused its discretion." The Dittoes adopted Murphy in 1994 from a friend who found her malnourished and lying in a ditch. After she fought with neighborhood dogs several times, the couple took her to a trainer and put up a six-foot fence. But she got out again when a gate was accidentally left open.

At a hearing before the high court last fall, the Dittoes' lawyer, Mark Fahleson, said authorities trying to kill the dog were demonstrating "a bloodthirsty vengeance once thought reserved for only the most cold-blooded of human killers."

You mean like the cold-blooded vengeance that Michael Schiavo is demonstrating toward Terri?

Read this article about Terri (h/t Hyscience).

Then pray that on Monday, Judge George W. Greer's court will do justice for Terri with at least as much mercy as was shown a Nebraska dog.