Why Do Many Value The Life Of The US Unborn Over A Foreign Born Child?

[Henrin]

Most conservatives are both pro-life AND pro-war. Most people who are pro-war shrug off civilian casualty numbers. To even try to debate this shows a high level of ignorance/denial.

That is not proof of anything, sorry. The pro-life movement includes more than conservatives that are pro-war.

 

[Geoist]

That is not proof of anything, sorry. The pro-life movement includes more than conservatives that are pro-war.

I know that. I am one of them. :roll:

 

[Geoist]

That is not proof of anything, sorry.

The first article demonstrates how there is a persistent culture of indifference towards casualties in other countries, especially when they are casualties due to our government's actions.

The second link (audio interview) explains how a certain number of expected innocent deaths from a strike requires WH approval. Would the US citizens (especially conservatives) show the same indifference to such facts if they were unborn children killed in those strikes?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Most conservatives are both pro-life AND pro-war. Most people who are pro-war shrug off civilian casualty numbers. To even try to debate this shows a high level of ignorance/denial.

Nobody has shrugged off. That would imply that it doesn't matter, nobody is celebrating the loss of a child in war. However, it is not the same as abortion, abortion is the willful killing not accidental.

 

[Geoist]

Being Pro-Life Means Being Anti-War | Connor's Conundrums

 

[Geoist]

Nobody has shrugged off.

Then explain why conservatives are obsessed with abortion issue but don't even give a fraction of that attention to civilian casualties of war.

That would imply that it doesn't matter, nobody is celebrating the loss of a child in war.

I never said anyone was celebrating the loss of a child in war.

However, it is not the same as abortion, abortion is the willful killing not accidental.

When the WH or military approve of a strike KNOWING there will be civilian casualties then it is not accidental.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Then explain why conservatives are obsessed with abortion issue but don't even give a fraction of that attention to civilian casualties of war.



I never said anyone was celebrating the loss of a child in war.




When the WH or military approve of a strike KNOWING there will be civilian casualties then it is not accidental.

And I don't know a time when they knew there would be children casualties. If you do please share. I do have issues with that, and I would guarantee all pro-life Christians would too.

 

[mpg]

Then please explain because it seems you are equating the two.

It isn't my job to explain why you made that false assumption.

So the death of an innocent born child (as long as he/she is a foreigner) is often necessary

There are billions of children in the world, so I'd say that it's extremely rarely necessary.

but a unborn US child is never necessary?

It's OK if it saves the life of the mother.

Can you see how some may see this as hypocrisy?

People see what they wanna see.

 

[Henrin]

I know that. I am one of them. :roll:

My bad then. :3oops:

 

[Geoist]

And I don't know a time when they knew there would be children casualties.

I don't know anyone who really believes the military ever bombs a community thinking there WON'T be civilian casualties.

If you do please share.

Already did. The linked interview with Marc Garlasco.

I do have issues with that, and I would guarantee all pro-life Christians would too.

No, definitely not all. I know many so-called 'pro-lifers' (many in my family) who really don't care about civilian casualties of war and have even joked about it.

 

[mpg]

This whole thread is based on the premise that necessary evil = perfectly OK.

 

[Geoist]

It isn't my job to explain why you made that false assumption.

You said that you sympathize with civilian casualties just as you sympathize with enemy combatant casualties. You are clearly equating the two in those sentences. Maybe you should be equating innocent BORN life with innocent UNBORN life instead.

There are billions of children in the world, so I'd say that it's extremely rarely necessary.

For those living in a war zone it is not so rare. And it is never necessary.

People see what they wanna see.

Yes, they do. Which explains the double standards.

 

[Dapper Andy]

Yes, they do. Which explains the double standards.

It's not a double standard. You're just biased to the point of stupidity.

We're nearly five pages into this discussion and I believe all pro lifers, without exception, have stated that you're wrong.

Instead of acknowledging it, you basically just continue to call us all liars

 

[mpg]

You said that you sympathize with civilian casualties just as you sympathize with enemy combatant casualties. You are clearly equating the two in those sentences.

Any death is tragic, even a mosquito's, but that doesn't make them all equal.

Maybe you should be equating innocent BORN life with innocent UNBORN life instead.

That's what I've been doing all along.

For those living in a war zone it is not so rare. And it is never necessary.

It's impossible to fight a war without it, and we've been using technology to make it more and more rare. Are you saying that war is unnecessary, even in self defense? Should we have no military at all?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I don't know anyone who really believes the military ever bombs a community thinking there WON'T be civilian casualties.




Already did. The linked interview with Marc Garlasco.




No, definitely not all. I know many so-called 'pro-lifers' (many in my family) who really don't care about civilian casualties of war and have even joked about it.

I wouldn't consider them pro-life then.

 

[Scrabaholic]

And I know many in the pro-choice movement say abortion is very sad, but it is sometimes necessary. Sound familiar?

But pro-choicers don't yap about the so-called sanctity of life or the pwecious widdle baybees.

 

[choiceone]

Show me a pro-lifer that advocates, or shrugs off bombing children in foreign countries. I would love to see that.

Bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran McCain.

 

[choiceone]

The first article demonstrates how there is a persistent culture of indifference towards casualties in other countries, especially when they are casualties due to our government's actions.

The second link (audio interview) explains how a certain number of expected innocent deaths from a strike requires WH approval. Would the US citizens (especially conservatives) show the same indifference to such facts if they were unborn children killed in those strikes?

I'm pro-choice on abortion, but very anti-war except for genuine defensive purposes, and the first thing I thought of when the US invaded Iraq was civilian casualties, including pregnant women and women who could not leave town because they were in labor in hospitals.

 

[choiceone]

Nobody has shrugged off. That would imply that it doesn't matter, nobody is celebrating the loss of a child in war. However, it is not the same as abortion, abortion is the willful killing not accidental.

Invading a country militarily with the knowledge that born persons, including pregnant women, will die incidentally is only different from having an abortion with the knowledge that the aborted embryo will die incidentally in one respect: the aborted embryo does not have a life separate from the pregnant woman or any mind whatsoever, is not considered a person by billions of human beings, including many scientists and Christians, does not have the legal status of a person in most developed nations, and is living off of and inside of a born person's life and body, suppressing her immune system, taking her oxygen/nutrients, etc., without her consent.

 

[choiceone]

And I don't know a time when they knew there would be children casualties. If you do please share. I do have issues with that, and I would guarantee all pro-life Christians would too.

The invasion of Iraq was just such a case. The WH publicly said to the people of Baghdad that they should evacuate, giving them little time to do so and not considering the fact that bombing there would hit hospitals and other places where people were staying and could not evacuate. And no bombing of any city, no matter how well targeted, can fail to result in the killing of fairly large numbers of people, which will necessarily include children.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

The invasion of Iraq was just such a case. The WH publicly said to the people of Baghdad that they should evacuate, giving them little time to do so and not considering the fact that bombing there would hit hospitals and other places where people were staying and could not evacuate. And no bombing of any city, no matter how well targeted, can fail to result in the killing of fairly large numbers of people, which will necessarily include children.

There is a difference between intentional and unintentional, you do realize that right?

 

[Geoist]

It's not a double standard. You're just biased to the point of stupidity.

Leave the personal insults out of this thread please.

We're nearly five pages into this discussion and I believe all pro lifers, without exception, have stated that you're wrong.

Of course they state I'm wrong. Doesn't make it true.

Instead of acknowledging it, you basically just continue to call us all liars

Please show me where I called pro-lifers liars (I am pro-life myself).

 

[cabse5]

In the Republican Party mostly.

Do you have natural rhetorical gifts, or did you have to practice them?

 

[cabse5]

By the same token, how can dems believe in gun control because guns are only designed to kill when some dems also believe in abortion on demand? (Hey, I can be rhetorical, too).

 

[Fruityfact]

Do you have natural rhetorical gifts, or did you have to practice them?

Do you have a point?