Republicans are selective Pro-Lifers

Posted: Monday, May 16, 2005 | Posted by Jaba |

I read the following from The Bee Keeper's Apprentice a few days ago:

"Anti-Choice - formerly known as pro-life, because you can't be for the death penalty and still be pro-life"

For whatever reason, the phrase has stuck in my head for the past few days. I'm sure much about the pro-life movement has been yapped about during the past few months, but the Bee Keeper's point struck me as so poignantly true. Many Republicans are "Pro-Life" yet are staunch supporters of the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Like many Republican positions, this just seems so damn hypocritical.

How can you "protect" life at all costs by harassing women at abortion clinics, supporting a ban on abortion even in the event of rape or incest, forcing a husband to keep his brain-dead wife alive against both their wishes, threatening Supreme Court justices, and in the same breath support the death penalty and the war in Iraq?

My point is not to debase the pro-life movement or argue against the death penalty or war in Iraq. I just want to understand how Republicans reconcile their pro-life stance yet support actions that end many innocent lives.

I personally don't think they can make this reconciliation. As soon as they start saying "the death penalty is ok because..." or "the war in Iraq is ok because...", they immediately go against the pro-life mantra of "life at all costs".

Of course, justifying the death penalty UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES or a war UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, are the correct and rational answers, just as abortion UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES or pulling the plug UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES are also the correct answers. Think about the situation. Let it swirl up in your head. Then, and only then, do you make a rational decision based on circumstances and the information available. Don't make a decision simply on ideology. That's what fascists do.


  1. The Real Eve said...
  2. "Many Republicans are "Pro-Life" yet are staunch supporters of the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Like many Republican positions, this just seems so damn hypocritical."

    so true!

  3. Dash said...
  4. I think you're trying to simplify something that's inherently not simple. There is a HUGE difference between killing an innocent baby and killing a convicted murderer. I don't see the Republicans being any more hypocritical than Democrats who think it's okay to kill babies, but not murderers. If I had to pick a side, I'd pick the side that protects the innocent babies.

  5. Elephant Hunter said...
  6. There may be a difference between killing innocent babies and a convicted murderer, but there isn't a difference between killing innocent babies and killing innocent civilians (including babies), or sending soldiers to their death.

    Again, my point is not to argue whether one should be pro-life, or pro-death penalty, or pro-war, my point is that Republicans get all worked up over abortion and saving a vegetable but don't bling an eye at state sponsored executiions or the death of 100,000 civilians. That's what I mean about being selective pro-lifers.

    I think your comment about Democrats is just a throw away comment. Most Democrats (and I'm basing my comment on Dems I know) are torn about the abortion issue, many Dems support the death penalty (as I do), most support war when necessary (Operation Enduring Freedom). Republicans are the ones who tend think and vote strictly along party lines. Hence the fascism tag you've all earned.

  7. Bee said...
  8. I'm glad you liked my terminology, Jaba :)

    Consider how many "convicted murderers" have been freed in recent years because DNA evidence exonerated them. I'm a Dem, and I'm for the death penalty IF it is a correct penalty. If it can be shown, truly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the conviction is deserved, then gas the fucker. However, at the present time, the judicial system is obviously skewed against minorities, and innocent people get to take a "ride on the lightening." I can't help but remember how republican blogs howled "unfair" when the Supremes decided we couldn't put juveniles in Ol' Sparky anymore. So much for "baby killers" versus "baby protectors."

    Anyway, I have to agree with Jaba - it ain't pretty, either way you look at it - but it's something that should be decided on based upon circumstances, and not ideology or narrow religious belief.