All that makes me some sort of flaming conservative, right? Well, no. Because I must include a caveat: I don't believe that my own personal credo is best for everyone (or even anyone) else.

So while I can venture into conversations with die-hard conservatives and express allegiance with some (though certainly not all) of their beliefs, we part ways on the question of whether or not to force everyone else to live the way we do.

One of the problems liberals (I use the term, um, liberally) have when expressing their opinions is that the liberal mindset requires one to walk a few miles in the moccasins of others. We do see things in shades of gray. And, as all rigorous thinkers must, we remain eternally unconvinced that we are correct. Thus you now see reports that some forceful opponents of the Iraq War now saying that maybe the Prez was right in invading and that democracy might well flourish in Iraq.

This isn't new news, of course. Most forceful opponents of the war are smart enough to realize that you can't predict the future. And they're smart enough not to begin prognosticating now. Remember "mission accomplished"? Right around that time, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appeared to be resolving itself and other regional problems seemed to be abating. All this was attributed to the strong showing of the American war machine. And about a month later, all hell broke loose once again.

I'm always willing to admit I might be wrong--no even marginally-wise person would do otherwise--but that doesn't mean I don't stand strongly behind my opinions. I have changed my mind on "big" issues a number of times, always because overwhelming evidence proved my initial beliefs wrong. If you aren't willing to challenge your ideas as much as possible, they simply don't mean that much to you.

When it comes to social codes, there are a few absolutes that most everyone agrees upon: don't murder, don't steal--in general, don't do things that hurt other people. Those laws are almost completely uncontroversial. It's the laws that regulate actions which don't necessarily affect others that are hotly contested. Abortion is probably the trickiest one of these, because no one can even agree on whether or not a fetus is a person. I say life begins with birth--a view reinforced by the difficult birth of my first son. A good friend of mine was adopted, and his birth father says that he would have been aborted had it been legal back in 1969. My friend, obviously, has a somewhat different (and utterly convincing) take on the issue.

Then there's the Terry Shiavo case. She's been unconscious and in what doctors call a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Her husband wants her to be allowed to die. Her parents don't. She didn't have a living will before she lapsed into a coma. For the third time, doctors have removed her feeding tube. Last week, some congressmen who want the tube replaced suggested holding hearings in her hospice room in an attempt to pass legislation to force doctors to keep her alive. So when Shiavo's mother says "Please don't use my daughter's suffering for your own personal agenda," it's hard not to apply that to everyone, not just those who support Shiavo's husband's desire to let her die. This is a family matter, one that need not have involved the Florida legislature, the governor, Congress and even the President of the United States.

I believe that one of the clear intents of the Constitution was to ensure that the people of this nation could live without fear of the government stripping them of their dignity. Seems to me that once a Congressional committee has held a hearing at your bedside--a hearing in which you participate by lying comatose--then you have lost whatever dignity you might have had. I know, this argument wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) fly at the Supreme Court. But that's what I believe, anyway.

The Shiavo case seems pretty clear. Her parents want to keep her alive for selfish reasons. As a parent myself, I am completely sympathetic. It would just about kill me to have to make (or even accept) the decision to pull the plug on one of my children--or my wife. And that's why Michael Shiavo's decision seems to be more valid. It would be easier for him (in almost every way imaginable) to let her live. But he has said that he believes he is acting as she would have wanted him to, not as he himself might want to act. His action, therefore, is less selfish, and thus likely is the better choice.

My wife's grandmother died two years ago. Three of my wife's aunts and uncles met and agreed to remove the ventilator which was keeping her grandmother alive. The fourth sibling refused to meet with the others and to this day accuses the others of "killing my mama." Having some sort of law in place to cover a situation such as that would have simply complicated and worsened an already terrible situation--having family members sue each other over the right to make such awful decisions is just one of the reasons why the government ought to stay out of these affairs as much as possible.

Different situations call for different actions. Our skins don't come in "one size fits all." Our lives are not mirror images--and nor should they be. We need a government that treats us all equally--but not identically. We the people need room to be ourselves and live our own lives. Anything less would strip our country of the spirit of free thinking and innovation which is the true hallmark of its history.

Jon Worley wears a size 8 1/2 moccasin.