Is the issue of abortion connected to conservation?

This post is political and not directly related to energy. Well, today is election day and I figured discussing something political here would be appropriate.

I heard a woman say the other day that she’d be voting Republican because she’s anti-abortion. I suspect that many people will choose a presidential candidate solely on that issue. And this candidate will be the decision-maker in regards to the energy policies in the United States. He will determine whether we will meet our energy needs by reducing our consumption or by fighting wars to gain control of oil reserves.

Now, just for the record, I’m not in favor of war. I don’t have the question “why are those Arabs sitting on our oil?” in my head.

So, for some people (and perhaps a large number of voters) the abortion issue is what matters to them the most. But the killing and slaughtering of children and adults are not? I don’t understand this. I think I am missing something, and perhaps someone who reads this post can shed some light. Why would people be against the voluntary killing of fetuses and yet pro-war? That position is totally contradictory the way I see it. You are either pro-life or not. But you are not pro-life if you support a candidate that is in favor of war and not discussing things to find solutions.

I would say I’m pro-life. I have never taken away human life physically (maybe through words, but that’s another discussion). I do want life to prevail over death. However, if I were forced to take away a human life and could only choose between killing a fetus or pulling the trigger of a gun pointed at another fully developed human being, I’d choose the former. If my choice had to be between giving my money to a doctor that would kill fetuses, or to a soldier that will pull the trigger of a machine gun, I’d chose the former.

Coincidentally, I am also a conservationist. I would prefer to stop the making of cars if we can increase the fuel efficiency with the ones that are already on our roads. I would prefer to turn off the lights in the empty rooms instead of building new power plants. I would prefer to eat all the food that is on my plate than to always throw some away and then have to use more land and resources to produce extra food.

In summary, I would prefer to reduce human mortality rate than to disregard it and compensate it with uncontrolled birth rate. I’d prefer to "preserve" and work with the adults we have in this world than to allow them to die and replace them with babies that will grow and become adults. These babies and new generations will inherit the same problems we have anyways. If we have war as a way of solving problems, then that’s what they’ll inherit and this cycle of war and carnage that has been a theme in human history will never end.

That is my take anyway. But maybe there’s something I’m missing in this picture and that’s why I don’t understand why some people will choose a candidate solely on their position on abortion while having complete disregard for their position on war and other issues.

And just for the record, whether or not I favor abortion is not the point here. I actually don't have a position: who am I to have an opinion on whether pregnant women should or not have the right to kill the fetus inside their womb? I don't feel qualified to have an opinion - after all, I am a man and men are not the decision-makers when it comes to the issue of abortion. The point here is that if I had to choose between one way of killing human life versus another, I'd choose abortion over having war.