2006-08-18 13:49:01 · 12 answers · asked by chingus 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
to the contrarty, an abortion is only a potential life to be.
2006-08-18 13:58:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we had an unjust war, this question might apply. We were attacked by Al Qaida and Islamic terrorists many times before 9-11 and have the right to defend ourselves.
Your question implies that the Iraq situation is not justified. Try this:
1. We defeated Saddam in the Gulf War.
2. By doing so, we had the right to make any terms of his surrender.
3. He refused to honor that agreement by not letting inspectors into his facilities.
4. I have shown that we had 1 reason to take him out.
2006-08-18 14:59:21 · answer #2 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is wrong to kill innocent children by abortion, and it is wrong to kill innocent people in an unjust war. I am pro-life without exception, and I am also 100% against the war in Iraq. I didn't vote for Bush and I encouraged others not to vote for him.
If you have an open mind about abortion, see http://Abort73.com
Many other conservative Christians are against the war as well. See, for example, http://www.advocatesfortheinnocent.com/war.html
2006-08-19 12:27:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any lack of existence isn't very 'doable' or 'purely' except it became of organic motives. That stated, i imagine 1 desires to analyze their definition of existence and 'justifiable' lack of existence to respond to your question... Assuming that a existence is lost in an abortion, the region would look to me how a lot selection the existence/individual who has lost their existence had. provided that contained in the united states the protection stress is all voluntary, and in concept anybody is combating for the united states that favor to placed their existence on the line to protect their united states of america, i am going to ensure the argument that a soldier's existence lost in conflict is extra 'purely' than a 'existence' lost to abortion. even with the undeniable fact that, there are extra lives lost in conflict than the warriors'... If the conflict is Iraq, then the conflict is unjust (IMNSHO), and this is unhappy that any existence (a soldier's, a private citizen's) is lost to unbridled united states of america construction, agression, and thirst for oil. also, if one believes that early abortions do not end a doable existence, then existence lost in conflict is extra unjust than no existence in any respect lost to abortion.
2016-11-30 19:12:09 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. But don't forget that there is such a thing as just war. And don't downplay the seriousness of abortion. Abortion is not worse that unjust war, but it is certainly just as bad.
2006-08-18 13:59:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're both equally bad. We're talking about innocent people who were killed when they didn't have to be, in either case.
And yes, the Iraq war is unjust, I agree.
2006-08-18 15:37:39 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesent really matter... Innocent lives are lost on the streets of major cities everyday to drugs,gang voilence, crime. Its all the same.
2006-08-18 13:55:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hope your mother gives you a dictionary as a Christmas present this year.
2006-08-18 15:47:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"viable" means able to live, so a life which is lost is not "viable".
Rephrase your question.
2006-08-18 13:55:22 · answer #9 · answered by mollyneville 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Or drunk drivers, or abused children, the list goes on and on.
2006-08-18 13:55:11 · answer #10 · answered by Lindy357 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋