You asked how a "pro-life" position can oppose abortion and support war. The question has been answered... in detail with supporting Scripture.
Maybe to your satisfaction but not yet to mine. Scripture alone can be used to justify many beliefs which are in conflict. I believe that reason is very necessary to get to the truth. Reason does not yet persuade me that it is best to deal with the abortion issue by taking away the freedom and responsibility for that decision from those directly involved. Also, reason (along with experience) does not convince me that the our invasion of Iraq was wise or justified or properly decided.
Many here seem greatly focused upon properly deciding the abortion issue for someone else but seem much less discerning about the decision to go to war. Our constitution states that Congress shall declare war. That does not mean that Congress can properly resolve to let the president have that responsibility and choice. Congress did not declare war and we invaded a country which did not attack us. We used other people's money to do this (our future generations and foreign debt - much from China). We caused upheaval and alienated many of our allies. And, as in all war, many innocent people had their lives torn apart and ended. That choice was obviously an extremely important one - it can impact almost the whole world. I believe it was the wrong choice and I have trouble allowing those who made and support it, to decide a question that involves the health and freedom of individual women and their families.
Post 66 In Luke 22:35 Jesus tell us that our weapon is more important than the shirt on our backs. Post 71 I asked you if you believed if Jesus was God and if you didn't, then we should agree to disagree.
Post 73 You answered "Yes and No", therefore, see post 71 above. We should agree to disagree.
Now you seem to have veered from asking how pro-lifers can support war towards spouting anti-war lies and propaganda regarding the war in Iraq. Saddam initiated the violence, and I point out the fallacy of your argument in Post 56. Then in post 60 you agree and state, "Yes, Saddam initiated violence. His reason was that Kuwait was really a province of Iraq. We did not agree and initiated violence in response." The fallacy in this argument is that both Saddam and the U.S. initiated violence. Any reasoning mind can clearly see the contradiction in this logic. Only one can initiate and then others respond.
FACTS about Iraq: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Saddam used gas on the Iranians numerous times during the decade of war with them. Saddam gave secret nuclear technology to Libya and Qaddafi gave them to us after we caught Saddam. Now here is a big fact that many don't know when discussing possible WMDs in Iraq and the threat to our very existence.
Saddam had 500 Tons of Uranium in Iraq! 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium.
Again, I'm not trying to persuade you, however, I will point out the errors in your logic and errors in your facts. "Errors in facts" I like to call "lies and propaganda" when stated repeatedly after being pointed out and supported with evidence.