- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That is not proof of anything, sorry. The pro-life movement includes more than conservatives that are pro-war.
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.
That is not proof of anything, sorry.
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.
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.
It isn't my job to explain why you made that false assumption.Then please explain because it seems you are equating the two.
There are billions of children in the world, so I'd say that it's extremely rarely necessary.So the death of an innocent born child (as long as he/she is a foreigner) is often necessary
It's OK if it saves the life of the mother.but a unborn US child is never necessary?
People see what they wanna see.Can you see how some may see this as hypocrisy?
I know that. I am one of them. :roll:
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.
It isn't my job to explain why you made that false assumption.
There are billions of children in the world, so I'd say that it's extremely rarely necessary.
People see what they wanna see.
Yes, they do. Which explains the double standards.
Any death is tragic, even a mosquito's, but that doesn't make them all equal.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.
That's what I've been doing all along.Maybe you should be equating innocent BORN life with innocent UNBORN life instead.
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?For those living in a war zone it is not so rare. And it is never necessary.
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.
And I know many in the pro-choice movement say abortion is very sad, but it is sometimes necessary. Sound familiar?
Show me a pro-lifer that advocates, or shrugs off bombing children in foreign countries. I would love to see that.
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?
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.
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.
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
In the Republican Party mostly.
Do you have natural rhetorical gifts, or did you have to practice them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?