The term "culture of life" in current US politics irks me.

Why? It's used by people who are pro war, pro gun*, pro death penalty, pro carnivorism, and sometimes pro fetal birth even at risk of maternal death.

I would say that the Buddhists, not Christians, have a much better claim at having a "culture of life", generically speaking. (Given that they're generally anti-war, anti-carnivorism, anti-death penalty, anti-gun [and other violence], etc. I don't know of any dogmatic stance on the point at which life begins, though.)


What Christians in this country really mean by saying this is, that they want to support life *that they care about*. Not all life, just the cute human ones.

Animals? Not ensouled, therefore fair game for anything. Kill 'em for food, for sport, for being annoying. Who cares?

Babies vs mothers? Babies are cuter, and by virtue of being unrealized, are thought of based on their potential (and the high end thereof). So they're valued more than the mother. Thus, risking the mother is unfortunate but acceptable.

Criminals? Fuck 'em, the Bible says lots of things are punishable by death anyway. So maybe Jesus wasn't such a big fan of Leviticus... so smote it be nevertheless.

Stem cells? Human! Well, potentially human... potentially babies, at least. Never mind that the Biblically prescribed punishment for violently induced abortion is a fine [Exodus 21:22-23], not death [as is mandated for murder]. Nor that fertilized and unfertilized gametes alike are routinely destroyed as part of the normal reproductive cycle of humans & other animals. Save 'em anyway - it's murder!

War? Well... the other people are evil! We have a right to destroy them! Etc. etc. etc. Biblically speaking, war is condoned.


So, I'm being (hopefully obviously) a bit over-the-top with that little bit of parody.

My real point is this: the 'culture of life' embraced by most US conservatives, isn't. It's just a statement of valuing the life *that they care about*, not *all* life (not even all *human* life). And it makes a very fuzzy definition as to what life even is.

I should point out that my own views on abortion (about which I've written previously) are not really on either side of the 'pro-life'/'pro-choice' psuedodichotomy. I think that determining what is alive and what isn't, or more relevantly, what is sentient and what isn't, is an essentially impossible task.

I just am willing to be honest about the fact that my values are based in large part on my empathy for the people we're talking about.

I'd like a little consistency from others, too.



* FYI: I'm a liberal *libertarian*. I actually support private and concealed gun ownership, in the US at least. The reason is a simple, pragmatic point. Unlike Japan, the US will never successfully get rid of criminal ownership of guns. As a result, gun bans only restrict whether people who are not career criminals carry guns. Then it becomes a very simple calculation: is the accident rate of noncriminal gun owners higher than the actual or potential save rate thereof (including any benefit gained from killing repeat aggressors and of making erstwhile victims harder targets)?

AFAIK the answer is no - the accident rate is acceptable compared to the save rate. And therefore I support concealed carry laws.

But this is a purely pragmatic question to me.