Back in my pro-war neocon days I considered myself pro-life. I’d debate the abortion issue with pro-choice friends and I’d often hear, “How can you say you’re pro-life when you’re in favor the death penalty and the war?” That questions always made me think about those issues, but I’d come up with some rationalization. I usually had a response like, “Well you’re pro-choice when it comes to killing a baby, but not pro-choice when it comes to funding schools, planned parenthood, and the welfare state. Besides, ‘pro-life’ strictly applies to abortion. They’re innocent children. The people getting the death penalty deserved it.”
I know it’s weak, but the term “pro-life” does refer to the issue of abortion. However, just this week I saw two separate Facebook posts saying that pro-lifers are hypocritical because they’re pro life while the baby is in the womb, but once it comes out they don’t care if the baby dies. It’s supposed to be a slam dunk argument in favor of government welfare.
I’m not a collectivist, I can’t speak for all pro lifers, but I can certainly clarify my stance. I’m generally against all force, coercion, or aggression against innocent people. going in the womb and killing a baby is clearly aggression against the baby. Now this may shock you, but I am also in favor of helping children who need it once they’re born!
That doesn’t mean I’m okay with government welfare. Government welfare is funded by taxes. taxes are taken by force with the threat of imprisonment or wage garnishment. Therefore, it is not inconsistent at all to be pro life and against government welfare. If government would just get out of the way we’d have a lot less poor people and would be able to help those who need it through the market.
For the record, if you don’t regularly read this blog or listen to our podcast, I’m no longer pro-war or anything close to neocon!