Pro Life, Pro War, Pro-Choice, Anti War

Why is it that those who are pro-choice when it comes to pregnancy are anti-war advocates? Why is it that those who are pro-life, are also pro-war advocates? Is this an exhibition of the underlying hypocrisy that not even the power of contradiction has the hope of eradicating? So, perhaps, the most virtuous position is pro-life and anti-war? Is there anybody out there living this life? How about pro-choice, pro-war? Anybody? How about the option unstudied folks would not be able to realize, that this is all just linguistic sophistry, and that nobody is really anything at anytime? Let me swim around in this substance and just explore some of the ideas I've been disturbed by while thinking about this.

I think that by articulating my own stand we can see that these divisions truly are simple-minded sophistry, and sort of idiotic constructs. With pregnancy, I identify myself as pro-choice, pro-responsibility. That means I do not condone a teenager getting an abortion who was just careless at a party, and just does not want to be obligated to have a child. Too bad! But on the other side, you do not want to bring to life a disabled child, with all the social burdens, and monetary burdens of everyday life. If the teenager does not want the child, and is not financially capable of taking care of it, the child could have a terrible life. If the child were given up for adoption, who is to say that a state foster home would be any better? Consequentialism has its say. When it comes to war, it depends on what time period you live in. Surely it is immoral to prosecute a war when there is clear diplomatic avenues to take, regardless of what time period you live in, but diplomatic growth relies on communication, and communication breaks down when differences cannot be overcome, such as language, culture, geographical boundaries. These natural boundaries and cultural developments can happen beyond human controls, and can result in clashes and conflicts. So, even though you may be anti-war, you can understand how a war can be caused beyond the control of any single person, or governing body. How can you be anti-war when there is no single person or group to blame? It is like being anti-fire, or anti-avalanche. But, as communication gets better, and we gain more control over our planet, then it does come down to choice, as there is control. So, then these stands make more sense.

What about pro-choice, anti-war? I myself am pro-choice, not because I think the woman has a right to whatever is in her body, but because I do not think the government has the right to what is in her body. On one side the universal process of procreation has begun, and on the other side, the reality of actually living the life begins to be highlighted. I think these days, with overpopulation and limited resources, as distasteful as it sounds, abortion may be preferable to a life lived in poverty. While absolutism is something that should be thought about, we should not discount consequentialism. I am anti-war because in studying history, I have understood that anything can be diplomatically resolved, but, what matters is power struggles, severity of justified retaliation, national pride, honor, appearances and the like. When you get punched in the nose, the last thing you want to do is talk. Even anti-war activists understand this. What anti-war activists stand against is the person doing the punching; the bully; the jingoist. So how can you be pro-choice, anti-war? These people are focused on the individual. They concern themselves with the consequences of the actions for individuals. For pregnancy choices, they are concerned with the consequences for the mother, and the life of the child and they stand on the ideal that the people closest to the scenario will understand best what the outcome will be. They are anti-war, because they understand the massive suffering war causes for the individuals and their families.

What about pro-life, pro-war? Some people are pro-life because they are absolutists. We should not worry about the consequences of what will happen, all that matters is the absolute decision based only on current factors. The snowball of life has been set in motion, and you have no right to choose to stop it. Though pro-lifers seem to like less government, they see government as the only way to force the natural process of life. I actually agree with this in some sense, because younger kids have no sense of consequence and will have two or three abortions as if they were getting a cavity drilled out of a tooth. But on the other hand, if you outlaw choice, then you simply have black market abortions. Pro-lifers are pro-war because, in my view, diplomacy must take into account consequentialism. It must be a conversation of weights and measures, and if you are a person who is an absolutist, then you have a one-track mind, so to speak. They snap to war because force seems to pay the best dividends, and it is much easier to say, "Do!" than to say "...but what if..." I am totally biased, I cannot stand pro-war supporters, and I am doing my best. So, it is through absolutist thinking that one becomes pro-life, pro-war.

So, my conclusion is that those that are pro-choice, anti-war concern themselves with the individual, and consequences of actions. Those that are pro-life, pro-war are absolutist and will do that which takes the least amount of factors to, at least start, though their path may get forcibly consequential as life itself is not absolute in hardly any sense. So why is there no pro-choice, pro-war? Because for the individual, pro-choice can be good but pro-war is clearly not good for the individual; the civilian. It ends up not being a measurement of the loss of life at the beginning of life, and the loss if life at the end of life forming a simplified contradiction, but a measurement of absolutism and consequentialism. What about pro-life, anti-war? Pro-life is absolutist, and anti-war is consequentialist. So, in the end, in matters of war, loss of life is not paramount for the pro-war absolutist. It is a rigid morality. For the consequentialist, it is only about loss of life. But, if loss of life is paramount to the consequentialist, then they should be conditionally pro-life. This seems more virtuous to me. But, the absolutist pro-life would not be good either, because they would restrict too much the freedom of doctors to chose to end the life because of consequential circumstances.