The fatal flaw in the reasoning of those who decry "playing God" is that they assert the ability to do just that. Any claims about God's law come from the mouths and pens of men. We are thus left with trusting the authority of those who claim to speak for God - and they are many and varied - and trusting the individual to make his own moral choice. Any appeal to God is necessarily an appeal to either a human authority, or the sovereign self.

That is one of (but not the only) giant flaws in her thesis. It takes a willful and almost pathological historical (and hysterical) blindness to argue that ending the mechanized extension of Terri Schiavo's life was "us[ing] the power of the state to snuff out the life of one of God's creatures simply because her living existence was causing them discomfort," and argue that such things do not happen in theocracies. Theocrats have, whenever they possess the temporal power to do so, constantly and predictably killed those who existence caused them discomfort -- Jews, Albigensians, "witches," Shi'a, Sunni, animists, homosexuals, native Americans, blacks, women, on and on and on. The quickest way to be killed, anywhere in the world, is to (a) give authoritity to people who claim to act on God's behalf, and then (b) disagree with them. That's true whether you are calling yourself the Lord's Resistance Army, the Catholic Church, or the Republican Party.

Or rather they assert the ability to NOT play "God." As if the ultimate authority would sometimes be in charge, and then not at others. As if it is only "God's Will" when the outcome is favorable to one viewpoint. The rest of the time it is "Free Will."