On the topic of: War Isn't Very Pro-Life

Recently someone I know made such a statement. It is a good one to think about. I don't mean that anecdotally. I mean, I hope you really think through this one. And whether you fall into pro-life position or not, or an anti-war position or not, I thought this would be an interesting statement to examine.

First, let’s talk about what sucks about these “labels” here:

Pro-life: The idea here is that “pro-life” means all life is sanctimonious and we should honor it in a vacuum. In reality, anyone who says they believe this is a bit more ideological than they are being realistic. The majority of people I know, eat harvested vegetables, and hamburgers, have been hurt enough in a personal way to wish someone else wasn’t on the planet (that last bit is pretty heavy, but in some cases sadly true.) I think the real definition of pro-life had everything to do with defending defenseless babies. On the flip side I think that statement offended folks on the other side of the fence because I do not know a single pro-choicer who felt they were the implied “pro-death.” So, I will grant anyone the possibility that if they say “pro-life” they mean those terms under some new definition, but I really think the issue was about defending the life of humans who couldn’t defend themselves.

War: Nobody is about to put a great definition to war. Outside of Hollywood and a few historical figures with clinical issues, I don’t think that anyone would say that war happens, for the sake of war and in a vacuum. So let’s put a couple definitions to it for the sake of argument:

“War is about death.”

Based on a definition like that, I don’t know anyone who is pro-war. Based on a definition like that, I can see how “war is not very pro-life.” But I don’t think that the goal of war is to cause death, as if an end in itself. In fact if we follow the rules of war at all in the world, we honor our enemies when we defeat them in a battle by not killing them. So this definition, while it may be true that people do die in war, is too simplistic a definition and more importantly doesn’t make sense as a definition (unless again, we are talking about Hollywood or a few crazy people from history.) What about this definition:

“War is standing terror in the face and saying, not only will we not give one more inch to you, but we will take back what was stolen in defense of the defenseless.”

I think that people can see a definition like this, but because of death, they struggle with it. Is war, is standing our ground and taken lost ground back worth the cost of the loss of so much life? I surely cannot answer that but I could imagine giving my life for a cause! (mind you I said imagine… I have never really come too close but a few times stood across from Russian solders with guns wondering if maybe I was about to?) If I give my life for a cause, then is war in that case OK? If in giving my life in defense of something I also at the same time defend my life, does that suddenly make me a war-monger? I think maybe you can see how answering this question becomes complicated. Apparently, for those living in a vacuum defending against tyranny or even fighting for the right against tyranny, if it ends in death, like the vacuum-sealed definition of pro-life above, death and killing is always a moral wrong and so they join Bruce Springsteen in asking the question, “War, what is it good for?” But I have found that many people, like I said above, will kill for food or defend their families to the death, but after seven degrees of separation from war they start to imagine that these simpler definitions actually make sense. I don't see how they can.

I have heard people say that defending war at a peacetime is like being a vegetarian between meals, meaning that once war is upon you, you won’t care about the value of it any more. You will just want out of it. I believe that to be true (that doesn't mean we should get out, but we surely might want to.) I have heard Hollywood say that once you are in war you forget about politics and are just trying to save yourself and your friends to your left and to your right. I also remember talking to World War II vets who talked about their duty to defend against tyrannical figures like Adolf Hitler. There are always so many reactions: from fear, to friendship, to duty and honor. All of them are valid and make the whole thing complex and multifaceted. I suppose if I were in the service or married to someone who was, I might feel these ideas hit closer to home. But I would honor the career decision of my spouse. rather than say that if her career bring her into participating in war, regardless of defending life and values, she is now not very pro-life (or pro-death as it implies, however you can stomache it.)

So in the end I don’t know that I have convinced you or me that “war is (or isn’t) very pro-life” other than to say that I think that statement is light and un-inspected at best. It is anecdotally quotable at worst as an over-simplification of the complexity and origin of why we might defend helpless babies, pigeonhole pro-choice folks as if they are pro-death, or feel reasonably that anyone is pro-war under the definition that war is killing for the sake of killing. I imagine that the quote is simply being passed along without thinking about these ideas, and so that is why I share them.

Maybe you have thoughts of your own? Feel free to comment. Remember, it’s only a monologue if you refuse to turn it into a dialog!