General Question

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

How is it possible for people to be pro-life AND pro-war?

Asked by SquirrelEStuff (9171points) September 16th, 2008

I keep seeing pro-life and McCain bumper stickers on the same car. Can someone please explain the hypocrisy of this kind of thinking? Do people really care about the unborn more than the living?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

45 Answers

Nimis's avatar

They are interested in the unborn growing up to be fellow Republicans and supporting the war.
See? Makes total sense.

PupnTaco's avatar

They’re really Pro-Fetal-Life and Pro-People-Death.

basp's avatar

Dave, that was a great answer!!

Amish_Ninja's avatar

So hypocritical, are they too stupid to realise babies will grow up to be the people in those wars that will be dying?

Bri_L's avatar

They are actually for abortion they just want to wait 18 to 26 years before acting on it.

MrItty's avatar

In case you’re actually looking for a real answer rather than just stereotypical rightwing-bashing, the obvious answer is:
* a soldier signs up to be a soldier, knowing full well he/she may go to war.
* a fetus is not given the choice to be born or not.

Bri_L's avatar

@ Mritty – Very good point. While I did not mean to rightwing-bash I was just making a joke, it was in poor tast.

I agree with your answer. “Great Answer” to you.

dalepetrie's avatar

I think the more interesting distinction is someone who is so “pro-life” they go out and kill an abortion doctor.

Amish_Ninja's avatar

What about in wars past like Vietnam? Some soliders didn’t sign up to serve…

MrItty's avatar

Amish_Ninja I said it was the obvious answer, not necessarily a correct or even logical one. It’s not a viewpoint I share or even support, so I can only guess as to the reasoning.

basp's avatar

A fetus is not given a choice to be born or not…!!!?!! LOL.
Tell me, what kinds of decisions does a fetus typically make? How does a fetus make their decision known to those who are actually living??

Also, I would add to the argument that all those troops who ended up having to fight an unprovoked war made their decision to join the military based on the lies told by this administration. Therefore, they never really made a valid decision. Your stance is riddled with flaws.

MrItty's avatar

basp once again, not my stance. Playing Devil’s advocate only.

From the Perspective of those who believe an unborn fetus is a living human being, obviously if that human being is not capable of making a decision on its own, they believe laws should exist to protect it and allow it a chance at a full life.

If you do not share that perspective, that reasoning is obviously bunk.

Amish_Ninja's avatar

@MrItty kudos to you, I read wrong and I’m sorry for kind of bashing you.

galileogirl's avatar

TMritty: tell that to the draftees in prior wars. Tell that to the civilians killed in Iraq. And there is the pro-life/pro-death penalty dichotomy. What about the statistic that most people in prison grew up in homes where they were unwanted and uncared for?

MrItty's avatar

sigh This is obviously not a website on which it’s allowable to theorize as to the other side’s view point. Remind me not to try to play Devil’s Advocate again.

basp's avatar

Tmritty, I guess I thought that was your stance since that is what you wrote. If I misunderstood, I’m sorry.

Hobbes's avatar

The hypocrisy of the position for me is not that pro-lifers can justify the deaths of soldiers, it’s that they can justify the deaths of children and infants. We all know that there are huge numbers of civilians dying in Iraq, many of which are children and babies, even fetuses in pregnant mothers. Yet those who supposedly advocate the right of all babies to live support the slaughter of these innocents.

allengreen's avatar

I have a booger that I cannot remove from my nose because it may end the life of some nasal cell…...

NO it is not possible to answer the Q

Amish_Ninja's avatar

@Hobbes That was one fantastic answer!

critter1982's avatar

I prefer the question of how can people be both pro-life and for capital punishment or pro-choice and against capital punishment. The republican party in my opinion falls short on this.

MrItty's avatar

Because when they say “pro-life”, they don’t actually mean “pro-life”. They mean “anti-abortion”. Pro-life sounds a hell of a lot better.

Theoretically, a criminal who committed a capital offense gave up his right to life. A fetus did not.

galileogirl's avatar

Explain why so many of these people are against birth control. It seems they are into punishment-punishment for having sex and punishment for opposing the US. The punishment is more important than the collateral damage.

marinelife's avatar

Pro-life is a very selective concept per the proponents. How, one wonders, does a pro-life advocate murder a doctor? How come pro-life proponents think the life of the unborn fetus is more important than the life of its mother (thus, like Sarah Palin, supporting an abortion ban even in the case of the life of the mother being at stake).

The human mind is capable of holding up to 11 conflicting trains of thought.

generalspecific's avatar

I used to have a bumper sticker that said “how can you be pro-life and pro-war?”
gonna have to get a new one.. that car was totaled

allengreen's avatar

“So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for every thing one has a mind to do.” B. Franklin

Michael's avatar

At the risk of befalling the same fate as MrItty:

A person who believes that human life begins at the moment of conception can understandably regard abortion as the murder of a human being. Furthermore, many if not most, people understand the need for and support the prosecution of “just” wars. These same people, of course, are nevertheless against “murder.” There is a clear difference, for most people, between a death that occurs in the course of a “just” war and the taking of an innocent life. Thus, if one believes that abortion is murder, there is no contradiction in being “pro-life” while simultaneously supporting a war that one believes to be justified.

Michael's avatar

And just to be fair, here is a defense of being “pro-choice” while also opposing the death penalty:

Supporting a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion is generally predicated by a belief that a fetus is not the same as a human being (i.e. human life does not begin at conception). This being the case, one could easily believe that the taking of any human life is wrong, regardless of criminal behavior, and still be “pro-choice” because one does not consider a fetus to be a human life until the moment of birth. There is no inherent contradiction.

XrayGirl's avatar

a fetus must rely on it’s mother to protect it and that is her duty….afterall, we all started out that way…and aren’t you glad you weren’t vacuumed out of your mothers womb?

People fighting a war are making a choice by themselves and for themselves, which is a freedom that no aborted fetus will ever have the chance to make. Besides, what is wrong with defending and protecting your home? If people werent’ trying to steal from others, people would not have to defend themselves.

allengreen's avatar

True, XRAY….If we were not stealing Iraqi oil, there would be no Iraqi’s killing our young men….4200 American young men and women killed so that Exxon could steal Iraqi oil. I am sure all 4200 of them made a conscious decison to die inorder to create an Iranian Backed Shite Fundamentalist state, and I am sure that the parents of the dead soldiers born and raised them with the goal of dying to enhance Exxon’s balance sheet. Jesus must be a crony Capitalist these days.

I am sure Jesus is overjoyed.

critter1982's avatar

That’s a pretty bold statement to say Exxon steals oil from Iraq. Do you have any creditable sources that actually entertain that concept?

I have a few friends from Iraq that were ecstatic when Suddam Hussein was caught. The war whether you believe it was for oil or not, brought one of the worlds deadliest dictators to a halt. Human rights estimates “believe” that under Saddams rule, he killed 290,000 people. I thought the last estimate we heard from Iraq was that about 3,000 soldiers were killed. To say that 3000 or 4200 soldiers died so that Exxon could steal Iraqi oil is not necessarily looking at the facts. I believe these soldiers died to make this world a better place, and America a safer place to live. I doubt Jesus is overjoyed by the 4200 deaths in Iraq by American soldiers but I think he is proud that America took a stand when nobody else would against a pathetic communist dictator that would kill for no other reason than the fact that he wanted you dead.

allengreen's avatar

critter—why then are you not in Iraq supporting the cause in which you so passionately beleive?

Are you part of the 101st KeyBoard, Chicken-Hawk Division?

critter1982's avatar

@allen: Before I went to college I attempted to enlist in our armed services. The 2nd question they asked me on the phone was whether or not I had asthma. I did and they said goodbye.

Not sure how me being in the armed forces does or does not give me the right to an opinion?

allengreen's avatar

Like the rest of the Chicken Hawks, Rush could not go since he had a boil on his ass, Cheney got 5 derfements, Bush was doing Coke and on a bender during the chance he had to serve… least you folks are consistant.

Your boy Mike Savage says Asthma is an excuse to get public assistance, and a pitiful excuse——his words not mind…...pooooor crittter Chicken Hawk——send someone else’s kids to die…..Hero!

Bri_L's avatar

@ Allengreen – I have to suggest asthma is not fully understood if it is likened to a boil or not considered a dangerous issue. Especially in the Iraq climate. I almost died from an attack 7 times in my life from 5 different causes. It would be pointless to endanger other solders by putting me or critter there. I don’t know who Mike Savage is but I know a way to show him what an attack is like. I would be willing to bet his sass would change.

Like a goldfish on a table

critter1982's avatar

@allen: Good job. You were yet again successful in turning a somewhat educated conversation into another pathetic attempt of a liberal trying to bash a conservative for having an opinion slightly different than your own. Perhaps at this point I should stop spewing my chicken hawk opinion of our great nation so that you can’t continue to supply others with your degraded opinion of me? No, I don’t really care what you think about me.

allengreen's avatar

I was quoting Michael Savage on asthma, and I said so, read my post—a conservative hero, hate monger, war monger….

ok critter, I was over the line, but was pointing out the hypocracy of the Iraq war.

Bri_L's avatar

OH, the whole thing was from him. Sorry AG. didn’t get that. at all.

my bad my man.

critter1982's avatar

I don’t quite get the hypocracy. Not everyone who finds the war to be “good”, are people who never served in the armed forces. Likewise, not everyone fighting in the war finds it to be “good”. Is that also considered hypocritical, for people to fight in a war they don’t necessarily believe in? I think it goes both ways?

Michael's avatar

I have to agree with critter here. It is unfair to suggest that all those who support a particular policy must therefore live that option fully. I’m in favor of funding for more police officers, but that doesn’t mean that I have to become a police officer for my opinion to be judged valid.

However, I also think that critter’s arguments in support of the Iraq war are a little thin. The people of the United States, from whom, after all, all government authority ultimately flows (including the authority to fight wars) were told that “regime change” in Iraq was crucial for our safety. We were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (they did not), that Iraq worked with Al Queda (it did not), and that we it would be relatively cheap, easy and quick to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy (it was not), and that democracy would then spread throughout the Middle East and the wider Islamic world (it has not), making us all safer (we are not).

Is the world a better place with Saddam Hussein? Yes. Absolutely. Would the world be a better place without, say, Robert Mugabe, or Hugo Chavez, or Kim Jon Il? Yes, yes and yes. Should we invade those countries too?

I’m not convinced that it should or could be the role of the US military to “make the world a better place.” Even if I was convinced of this, I would have, at the least, liked to have been told the truth before an invasion of another country was carried out, partially in my name.

One small post-script: @Critter, you wrote, “I think he [Jesus] is proud that America took a stand when nobody else would against a pathetic communist dictator that would kill for no other reason than the fact that he wanted you dead.” Saddam Hussein was not a communist. His Ba’ath Party did have elements of socialism, but it combined also elements of nationalism and fascism.

I’m not going to comment on your apparent ability to know how Jesus feels about American foreign policy decisions (beyond, of course, the preceding sentence).

critter1982's avatar

My argument was not necessarily for or against the war. It was that the soldiers who have died in Iraq did so, not for Exxon’s balance sheet, but rather for an improved Iraq nation and a better world. My argument was simply stating the facts without political or personal aspirations. Michael I agree with most of what you have said.

@Michael you mentioned “I’m not going to comment on your APPARENT ABILITY to know how Jesus feels about American foreign policy decisions”

I predicated my statement with “I think”. I don’t claim to speak with or know how Jesus feels about America’s war on terror.

gooch's avatar

Most people who fight in a war choose to fight which can mean death for them so it is kind of like choosing to put your life on the line. Troops fight for what they belive in even if it means death at least that’s how it was for me.
Whereas babies are not choosing to fight in any way with anyone and more than likly don’t want to risk their life or die.

aidje's avatar

“Troops fight for what they belive in even if it means death at least that’s how it was for me.”

Troops fight for whatever they’re told to fight for. Some of them may happen to believe in it. But I digress.

galileogirl's avatar

gooch: A major difference might be we are not talking about “babies”. In the first trimester we are talking about a fingernail size group of cells that doesn’t even have all it’s parts. In the case of the morning after pill we are talking about a few dozen undifferentiated cells. Most of the anti-choicers I have met lump viable life together with the possibility of life and any way you look at it they feel they have the right to control women. We are the best judges of what we can deal with in our lives, especially since over 50% of us lose the support (physical, financial and emotional) of the father.

How hypocritical is it to tell a woman that society demands she bear a child at the same time saying “By the way, you are on your own.” A woman is discriminated against in the workplace when she needs to take care of her child. She is treated as a 2nd class citizen if she receives government help. The resources spent on overturning Roe v Wade and limiting the accessibility of all forms of birth control to ALL women should be used to make a decent lives possible for mothers of children.

mattbrowne's avatar

Some wars stops the murder of innocent people. An example is Bosnia and Kosovo. Had the UN created a resolution for going to war in Rwanda the genocide might have been stopped.

FAHAD's avatar

law and order shoud be protacted by goverments and i hope peace and no wars at all but i know that not possible but wise people should avoide wars it’s very bad….............

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther