In the same conversation I posted about earlier, it was also implied that someone who is pro-life can’t also be pro-war. Now, let’s assume that you’ve already read the post where I explain that being pro-defense isn’t being pro-war.
So, just for the sake of NOT being so willingly dishonest, we have to change the subject immediately to Pro-Life, Pro-Getting the Bad Guys, Pro-Death Penalty.
And I threw the death penalty thing in there on my own.
How can someone who is pro life be also pro killing bad guys?
This one is EASY.
Unborn children are completely innocent. They have committed no crime. How can a just society allow the killing of innocent babies simply because they are inconvenient? I found my mom to be pretty inconvenient when she was ill, but society would not have condoned my killing her, because she was innocent of any crime and her only issue was being alive and being inconvenient. But we don’t see unborn babies, so they’re easier to kill when they’re not convenient.
Bad guys, on the other hand, I shouldn’t really have to say this, but they’re bad. They’ve done something, typically something terrible. Restricting the conversation right now to just the death penalty… people don’t get the death penalty for jaywalking, you know? I’m not going to pretend the justice system is perfect (and that’s such a distraction technique when talking death penalty anyway). But generally speaking, only really bad guys get the death penalty. I’m OK with killing them. Why? Because killing them is the ONLY way to ensure they can’t hurt anyone else. (Or I suppose we could lock them up in a small room with no human contact and only someone throwing food in every once in a while, but that would be called cruel and unusual.) (let’s note, I’m pro death penalty – and without any appeal – only when there is no doubt of their guilt. A person who shot someone else for reasons other than self-defense in the sight of others. A crime where evidence clearly points to only one person – DNA, fingerprints, etc. – and there is, again, no doubt.)
In a nation vs nation sense, sometimes bad guys need to be taken out, but they’ve got all these people who are not necessarily bad guys around them. Hitler’s armies, for example. The average German soldier probably was a pretty regular guy. Following orders. (though I don’t include anyone who worked at the concentration camps in that category. Regular people can’t do that to other people.) The German people, by and large, were probably pretty regular people.
The goal is to defeat or at least stop the bad guys (though i would always root for outright killing of the bad guys, again, because then you know they wont’ be back) with as few extraneous deaths as possible. Modern technology has helped us a LOT here, think of how far we’ve come from trench warfare.
But unfortunately, there usually ARE innocent people dying. I wouldn’t say that’s OK, but it is an unavoidable part of dealing with conflict on a national level. If it were realistic to solve all national-level conflict with conferences, talks, and sanctions, that would of course be better. But it’s not realistic. History has shown that. We can sanction Iran all we want, but they’re still building nuclear weapons, you know?
This got a little rambling, but my point is, someone can be pro-life but yet also recognize that Bad Guys can’ t be allowed to run amock, or soon they’ll be in charge of everything.