http://ideas.time.com/2012/02/14/shouldnt-pro-lifers-be-anti-death/http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/protecting-the-unborn-and-the-pro-life-movement/The criticism towards American conservatives and their purported opposition against abortion is that if they really argued for the life of the fetus, it shouldn't end with the birth. This seeming disconnect has riled pro-choicers for years, but in a letter from an unexpected source, the anti-choice brigade gives us the reason for their doublethink, and for a very unexpected reason.
Evangelicals have opened up a fascinating new controversy around the complicated issue of fetal rights: If a known neurotoxin — being spewed into the air by coal-fired plants — enters the fetal bloodstream and causes brain damage or premature death, does that threat to the fetus count as something pro-lifers should consider? No, according to lengthy statement released Feb. 8 by the Cornwall Alliance and signed by religious leaders such as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, officials with Focus on the Family and other groups that oppose abortion. “The life in pro-life denotes not quality of life but life itself.” The statement goes on to say that the signees do not feel that it is appropriate to fight anything but abortion “under the pro-life banner.”
Oh sure, they're try and reduce the other problems that cause chronic health problems to everyone including fetii... provided its financially sound.
This doesn’t mean we should ignore environmental risks. It does mean they should not be portrayed as pro-life. Genuinely pro-life people will usually desire to reduce other risks as well—guided by cost/benefit analysis. But to call those issues “pro-life” is to obscure the meaning of the term.
So what is pro-life? The letter, co-signed by a long list of anti-abortion leaders, states:
Two fundamental principles distinguish truly pro-life issues (like abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research) from environmental issues. First and foremost, truly pro-life issues are issues of actual life and death, while environmental issues tend to be matters of health. Second, truly pro-life issues address actual intent to kill innocent people, whether the unborn, the gravely ill, or the aged, while environmental issues do not.
So what have we learned? If it involves actual intent to end a life, then its unspeakably evil. But if something simply is known to make the quality of life worse and maybe even kill eventually over time, then its not our problem,
because the immediate intent is not there. Perhaps it simply underlines the larger theme of the Obama administration; this letter is in response to another evangelical group endorsing the Obama administration's new air pollution standards. And anything Obama is for, they are against, no matter how nonsensical or even deadly.