Since When Does Pro-Life Mean Killing Disabled People?
I sat in confusion last Thursday evening while watching the GOP Presidential debate.I watched part of this debate and remember a bit of confusion on this question. I for one didn't think it was right for the legislative branch to intervene, but it could be understood and even commendable given the serious nature and urgency. In a perfect world, or following the constitution our founding fathers setup for us, Judge Greer would have been impeached early on for his obvious mishandling of the case.
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?
But as it was, the appeals to the higher courts were limited in some way (trying to reach into the wayback machine and remember what it was) and they chose to ignore the appeal. So something probably needed to be done even if it meant stepping out of the constitutional boundaries.
I believe that the question was a set-up by moderator Chris Matthews to highlight this confusion and division in the GOP ranks on the issue of euthanasia.It was with mixed feelings that I listened to the responses on this question. But I agree that the question was probably worded to cast confusion amongst the candidates.
Another note on the debates, I was upset to see some good responses cut short by the moderator while at other times McCain and Giuliani were allowed to ramble on and on well after their time was up. More discouraging was how stiff Brownback seemed. His answers were quite good, but he certainly lacked polish. Ron Paul also seemed a bit unpolished.