Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
Even before actor Christopher Reeve�s untimely death, Americans were being asked to vote against the president because of his decision to limit the use of embryonic stem cells. Another actor, Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson�s disease, made an ad for Senator Kerry (D-Mass.). He criticized the president�s policy and told voters "lives are at stake, and it�s time for leadership."
Reeve�s widow, Dana, endorsed Kerry for much the same reason. She told a rally that Senator Kerry, "like Christopher Reeve, believes in keeping our hope alive."
Who doesn�t believe in keeping hope alive? Certainly not Christians and other pro-life Americans. That�s why we regard where a candidate stands on the sanctity of human life to be the most important thing a voter can know about that candidate.
As someone who has worked in government and law, as a state senator and as an Attorney General of the commonwealth of Virginia, I know that there are many important issues that our leaders confront: from education to public safety, taxes, trade, and the environment, just to name a few. I also know that, as important as these issues are, they pale in significance to the sanctity of human life.
That�s because, ultimately, what we believe about the sanctity of human life determines who we believe is worthy of our concern and, indeed, determines how we go about addressing all of those other issues. It defines whom a state�s Attorney General, such as I was, will defend and represent in the courts. If certain people due to age, health, or some other factor are deemed to be outside of the "lighted circle of civilization," then our educational or health-care policies don�t really matter.
So, how do we determine who will receive our protection and who will not? If you�re the least bit concerned with protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, those who have no advocate, then there�s only one choice, and that is to regard all human life, from conception to natural death, as sacred. Only this belief can ensure that we will always treat all people as ends and never as means. Only this belief can ensure that the last, the least, and the lost, such as the poor, the ill, the prisoner, the unborn child, aren�t one day deemed second-class citizens, or worse.
The alternative to this worldview is not a compassionate society that excludes "only" tiny embryos; it�s a society that lacks compassion in which protection and inclusion are based on power and one�s ability to make a contribution. It�s a utilitarianism that seeks to promote the greatest good for the greatest number and in the process will be willing to sacrifice the weak and the vulnerable. And that is an age-old dilemma.
The irony is that this ethic leaves little, if any, room for people like the late Christopher Reeve. On a strictly utilitarian basis, the resources devoted to caring for the severely injured could be "better expended" on those with prospects for a full recovery. But, of course, we don�t believe that.
The fact that we don�t operate that way is a testimony to what Christianity taught our culture about the sanctity of human life. And if we continue to value and protect the vulnerable, it will be because millions of Christians keep hope alive by remembering what matters most: human life.
|
