I don't typically delve into politics on my blog. I'll rant and rave about certain issues, but a quick click on my "Politics" label reveals that I've done 17 posts labeled "politics" since I started this blog in '04. And none, until my little 5-line post,Right to Life, abbreviated, was directed at G.W. Bush.
While that post only generated 21 comments (paltry!), it managed to spawn a number of posts and comments on other blogs all rooted in the fact that, to some, mine was a strawman argument.
Well, I've commented at those sites, but since it was my post that started the whole stinking thing (even though it was really Grapes 2.0 who started it), I'm going to bring it on home.
I stand by the point of my post: Bush saying he won't use taxpayer dollars for the destruction of human life is an outright lie. He is with Iraq. Case closed. That point cannot be argued.
Unless, of course, you begin a new argument debating whether abortion and war can be compared. Then you can argue.
But you're not arguing about what I said. You're on a tangent. One that has nothing to do with me, because I didn't compare abortion to war. In order to tie my post to an argument about abortion vs. war, you have to first begin a discussion about what Bush meant. He didn't mean what he said. He didn't say it right. He meant innocent lives. Oh, wait, that doesn't work either. He meant unborn innocent lives. Yeah, that's it. That's what he meant. Strawman!
Sorry, you lose this one. Classic debate structure: Did Bush say he will veto any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life"? Yes, check. Has he, in fact, allowed taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life? Yes, check. Two truths equal true. Game over.
Now, let's say I did get into the tangental debate over whether abortion and war can be compared. Were I to do that, here's what I'd say (and did say, somewhat, over at Law Wench's):
I have about as much respect for pro-lifers who support war as I do for anti-war, tree-hugging pro-choicers. And of the former crowd, I'm particularly curious as to how those who base their pro-life stance in religion (as W does) can somehow justify the concept of collateral damange.
To me the two things absolutely are related. If enlisted U.S. military personnel and terrorists were truly the only ones getting killed, like they were stuck in a big paintball complex with real bullets, this would be a different argument (though still, I don't see an asterisk and disclaimer after Thou Shalt Not Kill). But innocent lives are being lost every single day because of the war. Innocent lives who, to paraphrase Wench, do not volunteer to be killed nor have they brought it on themselves to be killed. How are those innocent lives different from unborn lives? What differentiates them? Birth. That's it. That's the only difference. One group was (un)lucky enough to be born. Those lives are worth every single bit as much as yours, mine, Ws, or anyone else's on the planet, born or unborn. They're related.