[Dolphy]

The battle between the brain-damaged woman’s parents, who wanted to keep her on life support, and her husband, who wanted to remove it, had bubbled up into Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature before.

The real question, the one lost between the socialists who look forward to making life and death decisions and the religious zealots, was is how the government decided Schiavo's wishes. I didn't think libertarians would favor that decision being made by a judge, using such things as a pollster, a priest who had never met Schiavo but commented on the depths of her faith and hearsay.

The Republicans didn't err in intervening, they erred in not articulating the constitutional rights that were assaulted. The question was who has the right to decide, not what was decided.

[sageb1]

"they erred in not articulating"

They erred in not articulating anything. Period. Republicans, at least those who are conservative, wrongly assume that truth and what is right is apparent to most. They forget that most of the American public no longer knows right from wrong because we now have 2 generations of moral relativists.

I read an opinion piece this week on President Bush being the worst president in American history. What the Associated Press journalist who wrote the piece will refuse to recognize is that President Bush has overseen the worst, most ignorant, nastiest citizenry in American history.

I don't agree with the President on some issues, but in considering the mentality of the voters themselves, I really fear for this country.

[CitizenUSA]

Dolphy wrote: "The real question, the one lost between the socialists who look forward to making life and death decisions and the religious zealots, was is how the government decided Schiavo's wishes."

The religious "zealots" were also aware of the issue of how the government decided to follow Schiavo's wishes. Just because we feel it's morally wrong to murder someone (that's what it was if she didn't want to be killed), doesn't mean we don't also understand the political implications of "right to die" cases. We DO have the capability to think beyond simply quoting the Bible.

Getting back to the article...what difference does it make if I wanted to save Terri because I thought killing her was morally wrong, and you wanted to save her because of the political implications?