Protect the unborn, forget the pain of the born children

Idaho has a "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" which supposedly is based on some neuroscience findings about what a fetus might feel.  It tried to convict a woman of self-abortion because she used RU-486, a legal drug bought out of state.  The case was dropped because of lack of evidence.

My question is if these pseudo-conservatives are so concerned about the pain of the unborn, why are they not also concerned about the pain of the born caused by their own wars?  Does not a drone missile cause pain and death to children?  Does not a nuclear bomb cause pain and death to children?  Think Sadako Sasaki of a thousand cranes.

For a lengthier discussion of the implications of basing decisions on limited scientific research, see "Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe v. Wade", William Egginton, New York Times, 2012-10-28.

Selective "religious liberty"

Many are raising a hue and cry about the Department of Health and Human Services requiring all employers to include various birth control treatments in their health plans.

For example, Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8) wrote in a newsletter: "Forcing Catholic hospitals to comply with this mandate violates their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn."

Where is the hue and cry about forcing Quakers and other pacifist religions to pay taxes for wars? They have a core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the born. And the Catholics should equally raise a hue and cry about paying taxes for war - a lot of unborn are killed by drone attacks, by indiscriminate use of other conventional weapons, and by nuclear weapons.