They’re Pro-Life, Except When They’re Not
Before he became America’s greatest poet, Dr. Seuss was a political cartoonist. This cartoon applies just as much today (maybe more so?) than it did then.
Somehow “protecting America against terrists” (to quote the Shrub) justifies anything we want to do to other countries. Sure, we have to protect ourselves, and we have an obligation to look after our own needs first. Sometimes those needs conflict with the best interests of other countries. But that doesn’t give us license to do whatever we want while ignoring its effects on others.
It’s difficult to know how many non-hostile Iraqis we’ve killed. Estimates range from 91,000 to over a million. Even if it is the lower number, how can any self-professed “pro-life” conservative justify killing 91,000 innocent people? To avenge 9/11? Iraq had nothing to do with it. To prevent Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction against us? The best evidence that existed before the war (and now proven) was that there were no WMDs. To “rescue” Iraqis from that monster Sadaam? Then why don’t we intervene in the half-dozen other violent dictatorships around the world? To protect us against terrorists? Saudi Arabia put more terrorists into circulation than Iraq did before the war.
Maybe the goal was to avenge a murder plot against Daddy? Or maybe to show Daddy that we aren’t the loser son that he always thought we were, so we’ll finish the job he started? Maybe we had to liberate “our” oil? Maybe we needed to implement the PNAC Doctrine?
Tell me, “pro-lifers”: Which of those reasons is it?
You’re opposed to the “morning after pill”, because the destruction of an eight-cell blastocyte is murder. So how is the destruction of 91,000 post-birth Iraqis OK? If “abortion is the murder of a child”, and “even one abortion is too many”, then how is the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi children not murder and not too many?