I'm glad you added the 'most' in your statement, otherwise I would be very offended.
I don't see how one can support the right to life without also supporting the right to die. The two go hand in hand.
Since I don't speak for 'all' of Terri's supporters, I will just give my opinion. I support the right to life and I support the right to die...I do not support the right to murder. Since all 'evidence' of her wishes comes from one side, it doesn't sound 'clear and convincing' to me.
Perhaps if he had not already suspended all therapy and stimulation before he requested court approval to starve her, 'some' of us might have believed he had her best interests at heart. His actions are what keep the issue alive..not her's.
JMO
That's very true --- he could seek a divorce --- that's not exactly the end of the world --- getting a divorce and he can consider her dead as far as he's concerned, he never has to bother with her again. He could have divorced her years ago, her family would be dealing with everything --- and none of us would have ever heard of Terri or Michael or anyone.