Women and government

[katiegrrl0]

You're being silly.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to fight back against aggressors for your own survival and/or the protection of your freedom. As in your private life and in the world stage this sometimes calls for killing them. Its wonderful if you can work out your differences without doing it, but life isn't always what you want. Sometimes you are forced into doing things you don't want, and war is one of those times.

So you want to choose who lives and who dies. If a nation spends more time making friends and does not force it's will on others perhaps these conflicts can be avoided. Especially the peremptory ones.

 

[cpwill]

A vote of for would have weakened the already strict abortion laws in the state of Illinois where at the time the president was a Senator. Others did the same thing for the same reason.

not really. the BAIPA was written in Illinois to match the National law, which even Nancy Pelosi supported. However, are you arguing that Obama instead voted to continue to allow the killing of infants after they had already been born alive based on a slippery slope fallacy?

 

[katiegrrl0]

So you define "Human" as "the ability to feel pain"?

You define life by who you believe should die. You want to make everyone's choice and play god.

 

[Henrin]

So you want to choose who lives and who dies. If a nation spends more time making friends and does not force it's will on others perhaps these conflicts can be avoided. Especially the peremptory ones.

No, they can't. Not everyone is interested in being your friend and no one is usually interested in your freedom.

And you don't know much of my views on war if you think I'm interested in death.

 

[cpwill]

You define life by who you believe should die.

not true at all. I am simply willing to accept that when people choose deny the rights of others, they give up their own. That, for example, is why it is justified to incarcerate violent criminals. We take their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness because they have denied the rights of others.

So you want to choose who lives and who dies. If a nation spends more time making friends and does not force it's will on others perhaps these conflicts can be avoided. Especially the peremptory ones.

if every nation was pacifistic, pacifism would work. unfortunately, pacifists can only survive when protected by non-pacifists.

You are still the contradiction you call yourself pro life but support killing in many forms.

sometimes killing is necessary to defend life. :shrug:

Since abortion is legal it is not murder at all.

then I pose to you the same question I posed to Thunder. If I were to kill someone who was enslaved, is that the murder of that human being? or merely the destruction of private property?

that doesn't answer the question. were those wars right? was the civil war Justified if it freed the slaves - or would it have been better to leave America's black populace in bondage than lose white American lives on the battlefield?

not even to protect many other lives? if the only way to stop a madman about to shoot up a schoolbus full of kids is to shoot and kill him, is it morally preferable to accept the death of the kids over the death of the madman?

And I couldn't help but notice - you never did tell us; what are your answers to these questions? How does your pacifism deal with the abandonment of the innocent to sometimes horrific torture and death?