by Jack Hunter
I have always found it bizarre that my liberal friends, whose vegetarianism, animal rights activism, or environmentalism is founded on their concern for the lives of animals and the health of the earth, can rarely concede that pro-lifers at least have a point about the sanctity of human life. If whales and trees have an intrinsic value worth protecting, why not at least consider the same arguments for unborn human beings? The heated politics of being "pro-choice" has always overshadowed this blatant hypocrisy and has made rational debate next to impossible.
I have also always found it bizarre that some of the most pro-war Americans are pro-lifers. To be passionate enough to protest on a street corner in the hopes that you might save lives is something I can understand. Yet for pro-lifers to consistently and enthusiastically vote for leaders whose foreign policies will admittedly lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians — women, children, babies — in order to achieve political objectives is something I cannot understand. "It's a Child Not a Choice"? How about "It's a Kid Not Collateral Damage"?
The pro-lifers I met that day all agreed that when it comes to supporting the Iraq war, the ends justify the deadly means, and yet they dedicate their lives to convincing pregnant women that no matter how desperate their situation, deadly solutions are never acceptable. According to some pro-lifers, political objectives can be worth thousands of deaths, while individual objectives are never worth one.