[elmer fudd]

My point was simply that libertarians who wanted to save Terri because they thought her opinion in the matter (right to die) wasn't clearly established, effectively wanted the same result as social conservatives who wanted to save her for moral reasons. In other words, we are natural allies against the liberals, but you wouldn't know it from reading many of the posts in these threads.

I was of a mixed oppinion on the whole Schiavo thing. On the one hand I support a persons right to end their life or refuse medical treatment and I think a spouse's say is more important than other family members in this matter. On the other hand though, her husband really seemed to be a jerk and letting someone slowly die of dehydration seems to be excessively cruel. If someone killed their dog by depriving it of water for two weeks we'd all agree that that person was a monster who belongs in jail. Personally I think it would have been far kinder to have given her an overdose of barbituates.

[CitizenUSA]

elmer fudd wrote: "I was of a mixed oppinion (sic) on the whole Schiavo thing."

And yet, despite all of the reasons you quoted, some FReepers are offended that social conservatives said, "Whoa! Maybe we should slow down before we rush to kill her." It was a worthy cause, IMHO, and even if some Republican moderates disagreed, I don't think we conservatives were asking for much. I mean, was it really that unreasonable to try and save her life? Is THAT what moderates think? You know, it was possible to fight for Terri Schiavo AND cut government at the same time. It's not our (libertarian, moderate, and conservative) fault our leaders sold us a bill of goods.