Abortion vs. innocents killed in war

[Shaun @ Tru6]

This original post offers neither opinion nor fact, but simply poses a question for discussion:

For the American people, is there a difference between abortion (killing innocent, anonymous prenatal human life) and the death of civilians in war, say Iraq (innocent, anonymous sentient human life)?

Considering the energy that the Christina Right puts into their anti-abortion message, should they be putting the same amount into stopping the same innocent killing in Iraq, Sudan, etc.?

Is it immoral to make a conscious decision that some life is more sacred or worth more to fight for, than others?

[lendaddy]

One could argue that the "innocents" killed in war are a necassary evil on the way to a greater good. I.E. the innocents killed in WWII were a price we(the world) paid for the better world we have today as a result of stopping Hitler, etc...

What would you say the greater good is that results from killing unborn babies?

Also, generally innocents killed in war are by accident and not intentional. I've never heard of anyone accidentaly getting an abortion.

[island911]

Understand that "people" are both a resource and a liability to society.

Just as cancer is "growth" (alive) some people need to be excised (killed, removed) for the health of the bigger body.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
Understand that "people" are both a resource and a liability to society.

Just as cancer is "growth" (alive) some people need to be excised (killed, removed) for the health of the bigger body.

By your logic then, if the life of the mother is in jeopardy by giving birth, an abortion is healthy, sort of like cutting out a tumor.

I didn't think you'd be so in favor of partial-birth abortion. I guess this proves you never know.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by lendaddy
What would you say the greater good is that results from killing unborn babies?

The factors are what every woman faces when given this choice.

1. Economic welfare of wanted or unwanted children.

2. The health of the child as posed by birth defects, incest and rape (radical factors).

3. The health of the mother as posed by disease (heritary and sexualy transmitted - AIDS), incest, rape and forced to term birth for political or religious reasons.

4. Freedom to choose, freedom of domain- of the individual over that of the state. As in "Keep your laws off my body".

5. Yea, yea, I know....................we need more white babies for the crusade.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by lendaddy
One could argue that the "innocents" killed in war are a necassary evil on the way to a greater good. I.E. the innocents killed in WWII were a price we(the world) paid for the better world we have today as a result of stopping Hitler, etc...

What would you say the greater good is that results from killing unborn babies?

Also, generally innocents killed in war are by accident and not intentional. I've never heard of anyone accidentaly getting an abortion.

Some things to consider:
Warfare and technology of WWII has almost no connection to that of today, so it falls flat as an argument. Just ask the people caught in the Dresden firebombings. There was no need then, and by a factor of 100, no need now for that kind of action.

Greater good for killing unborn babies:
physical health of the mother
emotional welfare of the mother in cases of rape
break a number of cycles (education to follow is critical)
less drain from the welfare state

There are certainly moral implications to each of those points.

I do take issue that innocents killed in war are by accident. When the miltary plans their strategy and tactics, they factor in civilian casualties. Accidents are those things that are by chance, are unknowns. When you can quantify civilian dead, it's no longer an accident.

Quick point: does the life of a person iwth memories, wtih family with connections to the outside world have more value than one that does not? Why? Why not?

[jyl]

I'm going to stay out of the abortion part of the debate, since I think it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion of the topic.

As for whether the wartime deaths of innocents is accidental, I would say the death of an individual innocent is pretty random, but the deaths of many innocents is foreseeable and expected.

In other words, we know perfectly well that modern warfare in populated areas results in a substantial number of deaths among innocent civilians. 100 years of war in the 20th century pretty much proves that.

So when you make the decision to start a war, you know that innocent civilians will be killed. Even though your primary goal is not to kill innocents, and you (hopefully) try to protect them, and each individual death will be random - still you know, expect, and foresee that your decision will lead to a substantial number of innocent deaths.

I'm not sure if that fits the definition of "accidental".

But I'm not sure a semantic argument over the meaning of "accidental" really matters.

Almost every action produces some "good" and some "bad". If the good outweighs the bad, if you have maximized the good and minimized the bad, and if no alternative (including inaction) has a better good/bad ratio, then you have made the best decision you can.

[island911]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
By your logic then, if the life of the mother is in jeopardy by giving birth, an abortion is healthy, sort of like cutting out a tumor.

I didn't think you'd be so in favor of partial-birth abortion. I guess this proves you never know.

"by my logic" !? You seem to have put me in a "conservative-Christian' box.. .. and it would seem that you are lacking logic of your own.

. . but then you are ONLY "offers neither opinion nor fact, but simply poses a question for discussion"

If you want a discussion, post your position on the topic. Clearly you do have an opinion (and maybe some facts).

. . .this throwing-up 'neither opinion nor fact' so you can turn & label people, when they respond, is a bit disingenuious.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
"by my logic" !? You seem to have put me in a "conservative-Christian' box.. .. and it would seem that you are lacking logic of your own.

. . but then you are ONLY "offers neither opinion nor fact, but simply poses a question for discussion"

If you want a discussion, post your position on the topic. Clearly you do have an opinion (and maybe some facts).

. . .this throwing-up 'neither opinion nor fact' so you can turn & label people, when they respond, is a bit disingenuious.

Dude, calm down, look at the language: "This original post..." is what I started off with. This is now a thread. It's on the Internet, and so on. I wanted to see what people would say by putting up a question without opinion. With some answers posted, of course I have an opinion that I would like to express. Just because you were so easilyt caught with your own words, don't get mad at me.

You cannot argue with transitive logic. Just admit it and change your position to a better argument. You have no choice.

[island911]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
. . .Quick point: does the life of a person iwth memories, wtih family with connections to the outside world have more value than one that does not? Why? Why not?

Are you making a "Quick point:" or asking a question?

By your logic ... Ted Bundys life should have taken priority over a perfectly health unborn child.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
Are you making a "Quick point:" or asking a question?

By your logic ... Ted Bundys life should have taken priority over a perfectly health unborn child.

OOOOhh, you got me! Really, I was hoping for a higher level discussion.

My apologies: it was meant as a question.

BTW, be careful with thse rolleyes. They lose meaning after a while.

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by island911
.....some people need to be excised (killed, removed) for the health of the bigger body.

Island, What?? I hope you're mocking or making a joke, because... that's the most insane comment I've heard from you.

"For the health of the bigger body"? By that logic, shouldn't we kill off people when they get to the age of 75? I mean, if we're looking out for the common good of society, wouldn't society benefit more from getting rid of these weaklings? All they do is cost our health care system billions of dollars and cause car accidents. Better yet, if we're aiming for the common good, let's get rid of anyone with certain defects. They can't contribute to society, so let's just kill them off.

I seriously hope you were just fishing for a reaction, or you missed the : rolleyes :.

[island911]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
By your logic then, if the life of the mother is in jeopardy by giving birth, an abortion is healthy, sort of like cutting out a tumor.

I didn't think you'd be so in favor of partial-birth abortion. I guess this proves you never know.

Why would a partial-birth be needed to abort a birth? Why not kill it in the mother?

Do we not have the technology?

(btw, you have no idea what my stance is on the issue . . but heres some argument)

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Unfortunately true colors show up at the most inopportune times.

Gotta say I didn't think it would be this easy to draw them out.

it really is true what they say...

[island911]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Unfortunately true colors show up at the most inopportune times.

Gotta say I didn't think it would be this easy to draw them out.

it really is true what they say...

So you're just trolling then. Like I wrote earlier; disingenuious.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
So you're just trolling then. Like I wrote earlier; disingenuious.

Trolling for idiots? no, as I said I was hoping to get into a real discussion.

Instead we have all the makings of pre-WWII Germany. I think Hitler said that the Jews, Gypsies, etc. need to be, wait, how did you put it, "some people need to be excised (killed, removed) for the health of the bigger body."

Yeah, I think we heard that back then too.

Jesus Christ man, I can't believe you said that, and meant it.

[island911]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Island, What?? I hope you're mocking or making a joke, because... that's the most insane comment I've heard from you.

"For the health of the bigger body"? By that logic, shouldn't we kill off people when they get to the age of 75? . . .

Like it our not, this is what societies do. However, we do make limits. . . .limits which would preclude killing the retarded ect.

But make no mistake; we do kill murderers. And those who cause society other types of ill-will we hold inert in prisons.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by island911
Like it our not, this is what societies do. However, we do make limits. . . .limits which would preclude killing the retarded ect.

But make no mistake; we do kill murderers. And those who cause society other types of ill-will we hold inert in prisons.

is there no end? Bush executed the mentally ill in TX.

Please turn your computer off for your own good. Man I feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
is there no end? Bush executed the mentally ill in TX.

Then you best not come to TX.....

[turbo6bar]

For the American people, is there a difference between abortion (killing innocent, anonymous prenatal human life) and the death of civilians in war, say Iraq (innocent, anonymous sentient human life)?

Yes

Considering the energy that the Christina Right puts into their anti-abortion message, should they be putting the same amount into stopping the same innocent killing in Iraq, Sudan, etc.?

No


Is it immoral to make a conscious decision that some life is more sacred or worth more to fight for, than others?

No