President Pro-Death

A darling beauty queen (who not long ago was a spunky little tomboy — how things change!) reacted quite strongly recently to a post where I named myself as a George W. Bush fan:

“How in the world can you believe he is Pro-Life??? If you are Pro-Life you must be PRO-LIFE (as my wonderfully brilliant older sister said)!! that does not mean you can only be pro-AMERICAN-fetuses! what about all the innocent fetuses, born babies, children, women, men, animals, etc that are being killed daily in-IRAQ and the rest of the world?!? what about them? how can you REALLY believe anything bush says about wanting to save lives when he is destroying them left and right?? and then to say he has been “Christ-like”?? no no no no no!!! more like just the complete opposite!”

My friend had many other issues with Mr. President, but I’d like to take the time to think through each one separately.  I suppose this one comes down to, “Can the President be Pro-life if he is Pro-War?” although it sounds almost as if my friend thinks that the President is more than Pro-War, but actually Pro-Death of Innocents.

Let me clarify that my original little post was simply stating that I think President Bush is a decent, good, manly man whom I respect.  I never set out to claim George W. Bush and Jesus are twins or that Bush should be deemed a Saint.  

After writing the post, I was asked by a friend to “name ONE thing that this president has done that is truly in line with any of Jesus’ teachings in the Scriptures.”  My response was that the Number One thing this president has done that is in line with Jesus’ teachings was when he signed into law a ban of partial birth abortion. 

Partial Birth Abortion is a hideous procedure.  It isn’t even “abortion,” but rather infanticide.  Everything except for the baby’s head is born out of Mom, and then the skull is poked with scissors and the baby’s brains are sucked out.  Then the rest of a dead baby is delivered — to bypass the laws that call killing a “born” baby murder. I distinctly remember the day when President Clinton vetoed the ban on partial birth abortion — honestly I was shocked to tears.  I don’t understand how anyone, even Pro-Choice folks, can be Pro-Partial Birth Abortion.  You can’t get much more pro-death than being for this procedure.  So, yes, I see George W. Bush’s signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban as a pro-life move.  I see it as a Christ-like move.  Could Bush do more for pro-life causes, “life” meaning those born or unborn?  Well, sure he could, or at least I would like to believe that a U.S. President could do more than he has.  But I wasn’t asked what he hasn’t done, I was asked what he has done.  The signing of this ban is a BIGGIE for me.

So what about “all the innocent fetuses, born babies, children, women, men, animals, etc. that are being killed daily in Iraq and the rest of the world”?  First of all, I don’t think we can blame all death in the world on George W. Bush.  And as far as Iraq goes, it is clear to me from his words and actions that President Bush has come at this war from a “pro-life” stance.  Besides protecting our country, Bush was desiring to free Iraqis from a Reign of Terror — or a Kingdom of Death.

According to Iraq Body Count, since our invasion of Iraq between 34,000 and 38,000 civilians have died in Iraq.  These are no small figures, to be certain.  But do you know how many hundreds of thousands of deaths were caused under Saddam Hussein?  Not to mention the children put into prisons, women put into rape factories, and those who suffered under other human rights abuse.  “The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam’s needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam’s reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam’s 8,000-odd days in power.” (Read the whole article here.)

(Also, this article from the BBC, written in January of 2001, provides a short and informative history lesson on the state of Iraq under Saddam.)

If anything, President Bush is guilty of being overly optimistic about Iraq — that the war would be short and sweet and everything would come up roses — but even this would not make him guilty of wanting innocent people to die.  It seems clear to me that getting Saddam Hussein out of power was a pro-life move.  

So can President Bush be Pro-life and Pro-war?  I think one can be anti-death while still expecting it to happen, and knowing it must happen for Good to win over Evil.  The Story of Liberty by Charles Coffin, published in 1879, tells the bloody, messy, and yet valiant and victorious story of Liberty — how strains of her song caught the ears of folks in the Middle Ages, how the Bible helped open many people’s eyes to freedom, and how many people were burned at the stake and mistreated along the way.  This book opened my eyes to the atrocities committed by Protestants and Catholics and non-Christians alike, but more than that it demonstrated the high cost of freedom.  To get to the place of true freedom was expensive.  To get to where we are today, where we have the “right” to openly hate and character-bash our President has been very costly — the price for this liberty has been paid by millions who shed their blood for us.  Almost anything that matters in life was at one time purchased with blood, usually the blood of innocents.  Christ is the archetype of this phenomena, revealed by the fact that our salvation, our reconciliation to God, is made available only through His blood.  War is yucky.  Death is despicable.  But if war can bring freedom and life — it can be good.

Now, I’m not arguing the validity of the War in Iraq  — not today.  I’m not arguing whether it was the best decision, whether our constitution allows for our involvement with such foreign matters, or whether we can really force another country to discover liberty or democracy.  These are complex issuess our citizens should discuss and dialog about, and questions I haven’t worked out in my own mind yet. 

What bums me out is that the liberal left’s answer to the problem of war has not been one of intelligent dissent, but rather a smear campaign against George W. Bush.  Calling Bush a liar or a murderer (or someone who desires to “destroy life left and right”) is not a healthy way to argue the validity of our middle east policies.  There are plenty of grounds for argument over the war without having to simply write George W. off as a hideous monster.  The treatment of Bush by the liberal media reminds me of a church situation we once went through where any Bad Guys (those who disagreed with leadership) were simply painted with the Ugly Brush — it was a quick and dirty way to get people not to listen to the whole truth, the other side of the story.  Could it be that the ugly words used against our President are part of a smokescreen to divert people’s attention from the issues at hand?  Thinking back to our church situation, the leadership HAD some truth on their side but often chose not to go there.  It was easier to get rid of the problem voices than it was to work through the tough thoughts.  I think the Democrats have some good points, too!  I just wish the Democrat leadership would focus on facts and policies and lay off the name calling and character bashing. 

Going back to comparing the difference between “pro-life as in anti-abortion” and “pro-life as in anti-death of innocent people in Iraq,” I can’t help but notice the huge dichotomy in statistics.  In the United States, over one million babies are aborted each year — that’s over 1 million deaths taking place not in a third world country racked with violence, but legally, on shiny sterile doctors’ tables, with mother’s full consent and rallies held to celebrate this “right.”  Even the most anti-Bush statistics won’t guesstimate Iraqi civilian deaths at 10% of this number for the entire time we have been at war. Again, one innocent Iraqi death is one too many, but isn’t it not fair to state that someone can’t be considered pro-life if his focus to ending death is on the 1,000,000 happening every year in his own country?  I realize that President Bush has not put an end to abortion in general, and I think he is less Pro-Life than I am, but the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was an obvious, and overdue, pro-life place to start.

For more of my attempts to address a friend’s issues with President Bush:

I.    Whether or not George W. Bush should be considered Pro-Life (try here as well)

II.   The division of Church and State and what this entails — is Bush violating this amendment?

III. Bush’s Calm Demeanor — does it mean he just doesn’t know what’s going on?

IV.  Whether or not President Bush should be considered a moral man

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “President Pro-Death

  1. Name calling and character bashing like saying that someone was bitter and angry, or…making mention of a certain president’s proclivity for interns?

    If there’s one thing I’m tired of right-wing talking heads doing, it’s spouting off “but Clinton had sex with THAT WOMAN,” while simultaneously ignoring the heinous, atrocious, God-awful lies coming out of Bush and his administration.

    Just this week, for example, it’s come out that Bush himself okayed the leakage of Valerie Plame’s CIA status. This is the same president who claimed he would fire *anyone* in his administration who was found guilty of such a crime. Why did he leak the name (I assume it is safe to state that he did as the administration and its spokespeople have not denied it, only claimed that it was okay)? To drum up support for a war he was planning on going into before 9/11 even happened. Why have we repeatedly called what is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan “genocide” while not doing about it, when Saddam Hussein’s relative crimes are much, much fewer and have been conducted over a much, much longer period of time?

    I don’t think any Democrat has argued that Saddam should NOT have been taken out of power, only that we should have gone in for TRUTHFUL reasons, that the public should have been told the truth, that rhetoric and lies had not been scattered to the four winds in order to make a case for a war that is being completely and totally mismanaged.

    I have plenty of friends “fighting for the Iraqis freedom” right now. They are working all over the country, in Baghdad, in Abu Ghraib, and all of them can see that this war is being mismanaged, that innocent people are being slaughtered – every one of them wonders WHY we are there. This is one question President Bush has never given us a truthful answer on. As the costs of this war spiral into the high billions, people are being slaughtered in Africa while we continue to supply them with weapons. Children and innocents are being murdered throughout the world. No, President Bush is not responsible for every death in the world- only some of them.

    But that is between him and his god. I am glad I am not in his shoes if that god is really Jesus Christ. As it is, from the official information that has come out of this administration, from the amount of people killed, from the political backstabbing and evildoing that has occurred under this administration, I will have to, sadly, say that I do not believe George W. Bush’s testimony to be true. I have examined the facts. I have heard and seen him speak. I have seen the “compassion” that he has, even on the citizens of his own country, and not a bit of it smells anything like the Jesus Christ I know.

    If the God Bush believes in is the One True God, I don’t want to know Him.

    Luckily, I don’t believe that I do.

  2. Eirann is precisely the reason why it is such a tough fight. I challenge you to go back and check the record. Bush is never ever said to have leaked the status of Valerie Plume. He did okay releasing the intelligence that showed that Joe Wilson was lying. Check your facts.
    Please argue responsibly.
    Pat

  3. I wonder why Erieann has not replied? Could it be that she has checked her facts? I hope so. It is okay to be against the war. It is even okay to be against Bush. I did not support the war. I suspected that Iraq did not have wmd- which I correctly thought would not involve nuclear-I also thought that the US would be immensely disappointed when they found out that it did not. They met all my expectations. But still, G. Bush is trying to do something here that he should be praised for- trying to start democracy in a world which can never contain it. I see his aim, just as I see his enevitable failure. I applaud his aim- I hate his failure. Iraq and Iran are desegnated as the oppossition factors of Israel, and that is just the way it is. I deplored the entrance of Bush into Iraq, but because I was aware of a warning from a Pastor in the 1970s.
    I would welcome an email from Erieann to talk about this. pdavis90@comcast.net Oh once I was so opposed to the gospel.Please do email me Erieann.
    Dad

  4. First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone — because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

    By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, “The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.”

    October 7, 2002
    (notice the quote by UN Inspector)

  5. actually no, eireann not responding is not because she has checked her facts but actually because she has other more important things to do than go around in circles with people who we believe ourselves “have been lied to”. im sure when she gets time, she’ll have lots to say to you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s