There seems to me to be a logical disconnect between the "err on the side of life" position forcefully voiced in support of Terri Schaivo, and forceful support for the death penalty often voiced here - most recently in opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision banning execution of juveniles.
It seems to me that if one takes a position that human life is sacred in situations like Terri's or where abortion is concerned, one must logically also take the position that even a murderer's life is sacred, since even a murderer can find salvation (so long as still alive, anyway). On a more pragmatic level, given the fairly large number of erroneous convictions being found through advanced DNA techniques, shouldn't the "err on the side of life" position be applied in capital cases, in the form of opposition to the death penalty?
"It seems to me that if one takes a position that human life is sacred in situations like Terri's or where abortion is concerned, one must logically also take the position that even a murderer's life is sacred, since even a murderer can find salvation (so long as still alive, anyway)."
Bulls**t! The Catholic Church's traditional support of capital punishment and opposition to abortion is completely and eminently sensible, not contradictory, if you open your eyes to the validity of the concept of human free will and personal responsibility. Murderers are guilty of intentionally heinous acts; the unborn, or physically and mentally infirm are innocent of any intentional crimes. Every Catholic used to know this. The fact that they don't today is another example of the abject failure of the American Catholic Church to perform its primary teaching function of the Magisterium. They don't teach traditional doctrine any more because it runs counter to the Marxist fetishism of the liberal elites, which are the only circles that today's Bishops really aim to please.