Why do liberals think its ok to kill thousands of babys each year but we can't go to war to defend our freedom

Question

the liberals think its ok for thousands of babys to die each year for no reason at all and that its wrong for 2500 troops to give their lives over 3 1/2 years to defend your freedom and keep you safe. i just don't understand the logic in this. my email is [e-mail] if anyone wants to discuss this more

Answer 1

You'll get the looneys replying to you now. Get ready to laugh.

But back to your comments, I couldn't agree with you more. Makes you scratch your head

Answer 2

I would rather not have anyone in the military die. It's a travesty that they've been sent to a dangerous country with inadequate numbers, armor, equipment etc. We should support our troops, not send them ill prepared into a battle that has no end and no clear goal in sight.

If we, as a country, MUST go to war, there had better be a really good, logical, necissary reason. We're asking people to lay down their lives, it's nothing to be taken lightly. This is why Americans don't support the war in Iraq, there was no good, logical reason why we should've invaded them.

We're in Iraq to "defend freedom"? Sure, say it if it makes you feel better, it's so delightfully vauge. It doesn't actually mean anything and has no reflection of reality. Remember when everyone in the government and the media was saying we HAD to go to war because Saddam had WMD's? That was our justification for invading, and it turns out, we were wrong and now we're paying the price with the lives of our brave service men and women.

And way to go with the "liberals kill babies" thing. Why don't you say what you mean instead of baiting the public. If you truly want a discussion, you should try to be more mature when you address other adults.

Answer 3

How is invading Iraq "defending your freedom" and "keeping you safe"?

See, when you are the leader of a country, and you lie in order to start a war, then you are no better than the ones you are attacking. Iraq is not big enough to "attack" the US and take it on in a war. And if GW was serious about taking care of business over there, then Iraq would be nothing but a plate of glass right now. But the truth is that we were NEVER in any immediate danger from Iraq. They were no threat to us, and the Bush administration was looking for a reason to take out Saddam. 9/11 was the "best thing" that happened to Bush and his agenda.

Understand my logic? What is the problem with understanding it? The facts are out there in the press, books, and from political "advisors", as well as looking at the actions of the administration. I mean, you think that Colin Powell just decided to resign for the reason of spending more time with his family? He was pushed out because he didn't agree with the route that the administration was taking. Even he knew that they were going to just "p*ssy foot" around instead of fight a war right. He's a General, for crying out loud. You can't tell me a man that has spent a good portion of his life in the military has suddenly developed a distaste for military action. . . You don't want to understand my logic. So that is your cross to bare.

I support all of the men and women over there fighting. They are doing their job - like it or not. I have many friends over there, and they know what they are doing, and some don't agree with it, but are still doing it.

At least I am up front about my reasons for killing babies. Lying for the reasons that over 3,000 soldiers have given their lives is more dispicable. . .

Answer 4

It's not surprising you don't understand the logic. You don't seem to even understand the two arguments that are being made.

Freedom of choice is not saying that it's OK for babies to die. It's saying that the government has no right to tell people who can and who cannot be pregnant. You don't seem to understand the difference in those two positions, which is really sad.

As far as people dying, the question is simply -- did they die for a valid reason, and did they actually defend out freedom. Not everyone agrees with the inane ramblings of BushCo, and when both the Republican Senate and the Pentagon say that the current mission in Iraq is counter-productive, only a fool doesn't even bother to think about the question.

The two issues are unrelated. One is about choices. The other is about results. If you can't understand choices or results, then it's not surprising you don't see the logic in the arguments.

Answer 5

Show me a war that defends our freedom and we liberals will support it. Specify the name of the war, the country we are at war with and the number of the amendment we are fighting for, eg: First Amendment, etc....

I'd support a constitutional amendment that we could only enter a war if the congress proved that the war was actually about the freedom of americans.

Unfortunately when republicans choose a war, they also use that opportunity to take our freedoms away, such as the 4th amendment in the case of the war on terror.

Answer 6

The troops are being squandered for lies. This is bad to send them into harm's way for this as if ever there comes a time when we really need them to defend our freedom, they may not join due to this squandering and lack of care for their lives and heroism and patriotism.

It will be harder to recruit if they are worried they are being lied to again if you remember the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Also when we poison them with depleted and non depleted uranium and then don't treat them when they get sick, people will think twice before enlisting.

It is stereotyping to say liberals are prochoice. I am one of the 43% of liberals who are prolife. I am a born again Christian. When you have hundreds of millions of

Americans and only 2 political parties, most will not agree on every point in a party's platform.

Therefore, one must choice which of the issues they care about can actually be helped by the party they vote for.

Since we have had 18 years of Republican presidents since Roe v wade, they have controlled both houses of congress 10 years, and appointed 9 of the 11 supreme court judges since then, what have they done about abortions except talk about it and claim they care. Absolutely nothing.

Better to work for the cause individually and also realize that 20% of abortions are prevented by democratic policies. People with no jobs or working 2 or 3 jobs, with no health care, struggling to survive in Bush's economy are more likely to choose
abortion. In fact, they were way done under Clinton when the economy was good and are way up under Bush..in fact, the highest since Roe v Wade.

If you really cared about unborn children, you would care about those 20% whose lives could have been saved via democratic policies, and social programs that help people choose life.

This party, democrats and greens represent my Christian values better of following the words of Jesus to love our fellow man as ourselves,
take care of the least among us (feed the hungry, heal the sick, etc),
and blessed are the peacemakers,
if someone asks you for a coat, give them your hat, too,
don't judge, l
ove your enemies,
thou shall not kill (many deaths are also attributed to Republican policies),
trust God, not man (troops) to protect you.

The bible says if you favor the rich over the poor, you are committing a sin. And noone does that sin better than Republicans.

Answer 7

Babies, people in general die. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats can do anything about that. No matter what they might have you believe.

If you are talking about abortion then obviously they are not the same thing. Going to war in an overt act of aggression. It is a choice made. Allowing women to decide for themselves if abortion is something they want to do is passive. It allows someone else to make the choice

If the govt were to say, 'we are not going to stop you from going to war," and then, of their own accord soldiers went over to fight and the govt only supported them there, that would be closer to the same.

Open your eyes, read and don't be a sheep.

Answer 8

The State of Israel became into being geared up long earlier Hitler became into common. Tel Aviv is 102 years previous. The "Palestinian" Muslims are committing crimes against Jews and Christians in Israel. The Arabs who devote those crimes are being punished for them. It has not something to do with WW2. you would be unable to anticipate Israelis to take a seat idly by potential of collectively as Arabs are taking pictures and stabbing and working over Jews. surely, the Palestinians have been right this moment in contact interior the Holocaust mass homicide of Jews in Italy, Germany, Bosnia, Croatia and Iraq. Hitler s genuine officer, Otto Skorzeny, became into the Nazi that knowledgeable Yasser Arafat for the time of information from a Nazi war criminal and "Palestinian" Arab named Haj-Amin al-Husseini. Al-Husseini became into the founding father of the Palestinian nationalism stream and he became into right this moment in contact interior the Holocaust. In 1941 Al-Husseini prepared massacres of Jewish civilians in Iraq and on November 28, he met with Hitler to debate the wonderful answer.

Answer 9

I am a Democrat and I am against abortion.

The #1 cause of abortion, is, was, and always will be the stigma on unwed mothers from the conservative right. All good, decent conservatives with an IQ over 75 admit this.

Answer 10

coragryph rules!
in case you haven't noticed,, America has been at war,, Bush invaded Iraq and his mission accomplished there,, has backfired,,, in Afghanistan,, the Taliban have taken control again,,, what is the reason of the week to stay in the Middle East,, I must have missed that,,, can the US get Osama bin Laden,, the terrorist mastermind who is responsible for 9-11,,, the terrorist who has classified Iraq as the "CALIPHATE",, of WW111,,, is Bush going to bomb Iran or N. Korea to continue his Revelation,, his Apocalypse,,, because the people of the USA are sick and tired and not going to take it anymore

Answer 11

Is guess Republicans don't use condoms which also kill babies. Not one Iraqui was on any of the sucide planes in 9/11; maybe we ought to be fighting the Saudi?