Blogs › Nick Fotheringham

By NICK FOTHERINGHAM

Pro-Life and Presidential Politics

Posted 11:58 a.m., February 1, 2008

"Pro-Life" is clearly an issue in current presidential campaigns. No other issue, with the possible exception of immigration reform, seems as complex and confusing. On the surface, it seems to represent a simple respect for the sanctity of human life. Supporters would oppose the taking of a life and would support activities that prevent loss of life. This view is routinely applied to abortion. Logically, it should also lead to opposition to other forms of euthanasia, including the death penalty and genocide (as in Darfur). This position is consistent with opposition to all wars, the sole mechanism of which requires the taking of life. It is also consistent with support for preventable effects of global warming, which exacerbates weather-related deaths in low-lying areas, such as Bangladesh. Pro-life requires maintenance of an infrastructure that avoids bridges that collapse and levees that don't resist hurricanes, and universal health care to prevent unnecessary deaths from disease and injury.

What makes this issue confusing is that candidates who claim to be pro-life often also support war, the need for Americans to own personal automatic weapons, health care based on ability to pay, and allowing others to take responsibility for stopping genocide. Apparently, there is such a thing as being just a little bit pro-life and still use this label. Under this liberal definition, everyone is pro-life.