The ethic of life is consistent

Terri Schiavo’s brother Bobby said something in the final days of her ordeal that I’ve heard him repeat at speaking engagements, on radio shows, and in personal conversations we’ve had. It’s that he doesn’t understand why so many people who are pro-life on the issues of abortion and the beginning of life are not active or involved….or consistent, on end of life issues.

Bobby Schindler is asking the question now, in this season of presidential debates: why the inconsistency?

I sat in confusion last Thursday evening while watching the GOP Presidential debate. All but one of the candidates proudly expressed their pro-life positions, and then just a short time later, in response to a question on the Terri Schiavo case, some of them stated that the courts should decide whether or not it was acceptable for an innocent disabled woman to be starved and dehydrated to death. 

Wait a second, wasn’t it the courts that made it legal to kill unborn children? How can one be against the courts permitting the deliberate killing of the unborn, but find it perfectly okay for the courts to purposely starve and dehydrate an innocent disabled woman to death?

As far as I’m concerned, you can’t call yourself pro-life and be against one and for the other. This is why I was more than a little surprised by the responses the frontrunners and even a few of the second tier candidates gave.

This asks for intellectual honesty in the debate, and it raises important questions.

That’s why this work is so important. We need to support it. The sooner the better.