Last night the presidential candidates each flunked one of the most important questions of our generation. For many commentators, the question was a throw-away. But from my perspective it was defining. I will put in my own words—-in an age of abortion, contraceptive abortifacients, quality of life arguments, euthanasia and biomedical ethical nightmares WILL OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ENTRUSTED BY GOD WITH THE DUTY OF PROTECTING THE INNOCENT STAND FOR LIFE?
The context of the debate question was the murder of Terri Schiavo by deprivation of food and water.
Senator Santorum sounded reasonable and technical reducing the question to a judicial proceeding to be weighed by the court, but did not explain the problem or say clearly—it is wrong for a husband to kill his conscious, but injured wife. Period! Former Speaker Gingrich misrepresented the facts of the case, offered a generally helpful comment about the judicial process, and then appeared to implicitly legitimize euthanasia. Ron Paul completely flunked the question by indicating that the actions against Terri would have been solved by legitimizing them with a living will. Each of these answers were in their own way unimpressive.
I want to hear the candidates boldly fight for life DURING THE DEBATE, not in carefully crafted statements afterwards. The facts of the Terri Schiavo case are known to each of them. She was alive. She was a person. She responded to communication. She was starved to death and denied water by her husband who facilitated the murder of this woman. No living will is relevant when it comes to murder. There are many duties which do not belong to the state, but defending the innocent against an ongoing attempted murder is the duty of the magistrate.