Why does it seem that so many pro-lifers support wars?

Question

It just confuses me that while they say a little fertilized seed is a life, somehow it's ok to go and kill for (very often) our own selfish reasons.

Answer 1

As a pro-choice fellow who grew up religious and Republican, maybe I can help you get into the other side's head.

First, the apparent contradiction disappears when you realize that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just marketing terms for "against abortion rights" and "favoring abortion rights." Pro-lifers might argue that even phrasing it in terms of 'rights' is an attempt to tilt the linguistic playing field in my favor. But the point is, you can be both against abortion rights and pro-war without hypocrisy, and it's only the term "pro-life" that gives the appearance of contradiction.

People who hold the pro-life view are often motivated by religious views, which boil down to the belief that a fetus has a soul from the very moment of conception. I don't know that many of them could come up with a logical rationale for this belief, and many of them would honestly tell you as much. Rather, they probably believe that, because murder is such a terrible sin, it's best not to start guessing about when an abortion becomes a murder.

These same religious beliefs provide ample evidence for the idea of "just wars," from the taking of the Holy Land by force in the Old Testament to the struggles and wars of the prophet Muhammed. The fact is, there are enough justifications in Christianity alone for both pacifism and militarism, that it ends up being a matter of personal taste.

In the end, some people are inclined to believe that most people are basically good and open to reason, and that the evil are often themselves victims of difficult circumstances. Others are more attracted to the idea of keeping society safe by punishing wrongdoers. Both ideas have their place in society, but I believe this is the heart of the split between the pro-war and anti-war camps.

Answer 2

War is an avenue of last resort. Pro-lifers don't always support war or some wars. Killing a fetus is not the same as a war. What did the fetus do to deserve to be killed - sure;y nothing like what those people did to us on 9/11. There just is not rationalization in what you are saying. If anything, people abort for selfish reasons - and without justification

Answer 3

You think we only go to war for selfish reasons after terrorists fly airplanes into 100 story buildings and kill innocent civilians. Then what do you call it when someone let's a doctor use a clothes hanger to rip a babie's arm off? I guess you would call that the "single mother can't afford to give her baby everything considered important in today's society" or the "if I have a baby I won't be able to seek that important promotion at my job and make lot's of money" dilemma. Ya see...that is one thing you liberals never have come to grips with...it is called justice. It is what is necessary in this crappy world we live in. If there were no wars then mad men would run roughshod over the helpless. Oh, what's the use? I feel like I am trying to speak common sense to a brick wall. As always, Rush Limbaugh is right...you liberals are so confused about your own guilt and where it comes from that you just decide on issues without giving them any logical thought first, and you never help anybody.

Answer 4

The two issues are entirely different. Why don't you do some research and find out what the St.Thomas Aquinas Just War Theory is. Then, you might find your answer as to why a pro-lifer wants abortion to end and why they support wars - they do not support all wars, however.

When has the U.S. fought a war for selfish reasons?

Answer 5

Cynical answer: So there are more soldiers for the future. Rational answer: Members of the military, in a volunteer army, have the choice whether to sign on to take up arms and die for the nation. An unborn child has no choice as to whether the mother aborts the pregnancy or not. Remember, you were once that little fertilized seed.

Answer 6

It is all viewpoint. The term pro-life is as misleading as the term pro-abortion. Neither is true in a pure sense. The better, more accurate terms are pro-choice and anti-abortion. The people called pro-life are not pacifist. They are simply against abortion and in some cases against artificial contraception. The term pro-abortion indicates a particular support for the procedure when it is really supporting a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

I am pro-choice for a couple of reasons and with some caveats. First of all, women should have control over their bodies including when to carry a baby. It seems to me that is just a fundamental human right for women. It is the woman's choice, and I have no right to impose my emotions on her. Here's the first caveat. The father should be given consideration to at least his feelings. If it is nothing more than acknowledging that he is to share your loss. If it is a matter of a woman not wanting to raise a child and there is a father who is willing and able to take care of child why not let him have it, but ultimately, it is still her decision. It is her circulatory system that will be stressed supporting two. It is her skeleton that will be mined for material to build the baby's skeleton. It is her bladder that will have a growing weight sitting on it for nine months. It is her risk when giving birth.

If God gave mankind free will, it was given individually not collectively. It is the individual who must make his or her own moral decisions. No adult who is fully capable of independent thought and living should have decisions imposed by others as long as those decisions don't involve harm to others around them. Does that include an unborn embryo or foetus? I think it must be measured by society's ability and willingness to maintain a premature baby outside the womb while it continues to develop. If a woman is carrying a baby whose chances of survival outside the womb are negligble, then the woman must have the ability to choose.

To further your confusion, I am not a pacifist although I am strenuous in my opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I supported going into Afghanistan. I am against capital punishment not because I believe no one deserves it or it is immoral but because our legal system is only as perfect as the people who are in it. I would rather kill no one than execute the wrong one.

Answer 7

You really have issues don't you with pro-lifers? Would you prefer that another country owned yours and you had to learn their ways and speak their language while they killed your family in front of your eyes? The people that was killed in the 9/11 attacks were very real with families and friends. The thing you are suggesting is pacifism, let any country do as it pleases until it hits you.

Answer 8

In my opinion, that is apples and oranges. That is a very odd question though in light of the fact that most leftists in the pro-choice crowd advocate the killing of innocent babies, but not the killing of armed combatants and of terrorists who would love to behead the lot of us. Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. Perhaps that's the answer right there. Pro-lifers see the baby as an innocent. A form of life, and a non-threat. While they see terrorists, of whatever nationality and ideology as having made a free will choice to pursue that particular path, and as an inherent threat to life and liberty.

Answer 9

Though I am not a war supporter, I don't know how one can necessarily reach the conclusion that you have. I haven't seen any studies on it or anything written in the public domain that addresses that issue. I wonder if it might be something you've experienced within your own circle of friends and family and believe that sampling is accurate for the rest of the country?

Answer 10

I think the difference is that a little baby in a womb is not killing us back. That little "fertilized seed" already looks like human, has a heartbeat, and sex organs by the time in the second month of pregnancy. To me, that sounds like a human, not a seed.