"You can't be pro-war and pro-life"

Yesterday, I noticed one of my co-workers had a sticker on her car proclaiming this statement. It was most likely against political conservatives who are generally against abortion (pro-life) and also for some wars (pro-war). Whether either of these positions is tenable is not something that will be addressed. What will be addressed is whether someone can hold both positions and be consistent.

Definitions

There is a definition of each term that, when it is used, creates a contradiction. However, these definitions are ones that no one would use in normal discourse. If by "pro-life", one meant, "It is always wrong to kill any human being," then that would clearly contradict with the statement that it is sometimes permissible (or obligatory) to kill a human being (as it is in some wars).

However, when someone is pro-life, they do not need to agree that all killing is morally prohibited. They only need to agree that killing a fetus (in general) is morally prohibited. They may base this on the judgment that in general, it is wrong to kill an innocent person (and of course stating that fetuses are persons).

If someone is "pro-war", they do not need to agree with any and all wars that may occur. One can (if I understand the term correctly) be pro-war and agree that some wars shouldn't have taken place and some are inevitable. This would be better characterized by the term "pro-some-wars."

Reconciliation

So, if one believes that in general it is wrong to kill an innocent person and one also thinks that some wars are necessary, how does one reconcile the two statements? One way they can do so is to claim that in the wars that are justified, the people who are to be killed are not innocent. They may give an example of the people who committed the Holocaust (or were fighting to defend the Holocaust). Were they innocent people? Clearly not.

However, that is not the only way the two statements can be reconciled. Many wars cause innocent bystanders to die (wives, children, good soldiers, etc.) who had nothing to do with the crimes committed. In this case, one can still respond that, sure some innocent people had to die but that there was an overriding reason to go ahead with the war. To bring back the example of the Holocaust, one may say that some US soldiers and perhaps some German (and other nationality) children died that shouldn't have. However, in sacrificing their lives, we have stopped and punished those who have killed many more lives. We also stopped them from killing even more people.

Most people are best characterized as "anti-war." They agree that war is something that is bad and in general, should be avoided. However, they would agree that some wars are necessary. They are best characterized as "pro-some-wars." Some of the people who are "pro-some-wars" are also "pro-life."

Killing the Innocent

The majority of people are against killing the innocent in most cases. If this were coupled with the belief that a fetus is an innocent person, then one would have to be against most instances of killing fetuses. Where the battle comes down to in the abortion debate is whether the fetus is a person or not. If one agrees that the fetus is an innocent person, and is against killing innocent people, then one would have to be pro-life.

If one is against killing innocent people, they will not be against all wars. Some wars occur (or can occur) at too great a cost. If too many innocent people die and not enough good comes of it, then the war is not worth it. They will then be "pro-war" in the sense that they believe some wars are (overall) good and some wars are (overall) bad.

Conclusion

So, there is no necessary contradiction between the two positions of being "pro-life" and "pro-war" given that both terms are used in the way that most people use them. If someone believes that, in general, killing innocent people is wrong, they can be pro-life and pro-war given that "pro-war" doesn't mean "for any and all wars that are (and can be) committed."

The statement, "You can't be pro-war and pro-life" is only true if one defines "pro-war" in a way that characterizes nobody. No person is for any and all wars that can happen. Given this, it is possible to be both pro-war and pro-life.