Meaning of "Pro-Life"

Rick calls the criticism of the lack of consistency of pro-lifers contained in an E.J. Dionne op-ed column a cheap shot.  I agree with Rick's response to the question "[w]hat is the point of standing up for life in an individual case but not confronting the cost of choosing life for all who are threatened within the health care system or by their lack of access to it?"  Rick is clearly correct that it is neither pointless nor hypocritical “to oppose, and to try to stop, intentional homicides of disabled people, just because one is not also lobbying for medical-insurance reform.”

However, it is also the case that it is difficult to persuade others to buy into the ethic of sanctity of life if one is not consistent.  And Dionne’s criticism is particularly aimed at lawmakers.  Can one argue that there is a distinction between the imposing the death penalty on a guilty person and causing an innocent disabled person’s death?  Of course.  Can one distinguish between a ban on assault weapons and cessation of artificial nutrition and hydration?  Assuredly.   But, leaving aside the question whether Congress had any business at all getting involved in the Shiavo matter, it is difficult for people to take seriously the claims of support for the dignity of life made by Republican lawmakers who have at every turn undermined human dignity by their decisions about health care, tax policy and the like.  Moreover, even where distinctions can be defended, the more distinctions one makes, the more difficult it is to persuade those who do not already buy into a consistent ethic of life to do so.  Thus, while I disagree with the framing of Dionne's criticism, I think there is more there than a cheap shot.

Susan