What's more morally reprehensible? Abortions or cluster bombing innocent children in known civilian areas?

Question

Don't forget flesh-melting white phosphorus! And using bombs with depleted uranium to torture and shorten the lives of those who actually survive!

I agree that terrorism--no matter who does it--is a lot worse than a woman choosing to end her pregnancy of a fetus that cannot reason, think, fear, and suffer.

Answer 1

I am 100% against abortion and 100% against the war in Iraq. I didn't vote for Bush and I encouraged others not to vote for him. I offer help and information to women outside abortion facilities, and out of the pro-lifers who join me there, at least 90% of them also oppose the war in Iraq. Killing innocent human beings, whether in the womb or out of it, is always wrong.

The average age of an aborted baby in America is ten weeks. By that point, the baby can suck her thumb and grasp an object placed in her palm. If her hand is pricked, she will pull it away and open her mouth. If you think babies in the womb can't experience fear, then you need to watch The Silent Scream, narrated by former abortionist and former head of NARAL Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Dr. Nathanson was instrumental is helping to pass Roe v. Wade and says he is personally responsible for over 75,000 abortions in his practice. The ultrasound video shows an 11-week unborn child frantically trying to escape an abortionist's suction device. Her heartbeat nearly doubles and her mouth opens wide. Evidence shows that unborn babies may be capable of feeling pain beginning at around eight weeks:

http://www.advocatesfortheinnocent.com/fetalpain.html

Have a little compassion for the most vulnerable, most defenseless, most voiceless among us:

http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html

and don't be so quick to stereotype.

Answer 2

The UN is the most HYPOCRITICAL employer ever. The UN will do a lot even as there's no issue to, or perhaps as it received't damage the u . s . and the different allies. (like the Libyan concern) yet even as it contains sth adverse to u . s ., France, Britain or Israel, they'll use words , and by no potential movements. For.Ex: even as the UN made the alternative no.242 in 1967 that ordered : a million.Israel ought to enable flow of all lands it invaded in 1967. 2.observe of for political independence and territorial sovereignty of each and every State contained in the area. 3.ensure freedom of navigation by global waterways 4.come across a answer to the Refugees issue. 5.The institution of a demilitarized zone on the border until eventually this present day, Israel did not do maximum individuals of those orders, the lands Israel invaded in 1967 are : Sinai, (which replaced into purely again after a warfare and a peace treaty), Jerusalem, West monetary employer, Golan in Syria (until eventually this present day lower than Israeli administration) Refugees issue by no potential solved, 1000's of thousands of them are nonetheless on the borders. even as Egypt time-honored the order of no. 3 The UN really did not something

Answer 3

They are both "equally" reprehensible. A funny thing happens to some people when they think one is any different than the other. When a person aborts a would be human it is considered to be a form of murder in some peoples mind. But when that human achieves the age of 17, it is alright to put that human in a position to be murdered as long as there are profits to be made. And bombing humans that are just trying to get on with their lives in order to kill a few of the enemy is considered to be "collateral" damage. some people like to give names to murder like that because they don't like to face the reality that murder, is murder regardless of how you package it or label it.

Answer 4

Abortions, based on the wording I think YOU are going for, as they are nothing short of intentionally killing a fetus. Wild guess is your children are being killed in a war and are referred to as "collateral damage" where the intent WASN'T simply to kill them. The intent was to kill others in that area and if a warning was provided then those who stay have to deal with that problem. The fetus of course doesn't get that offer/choice. Sure the children proably can't leave that area but their parents made a consious decision to stay there knowing it would be bombed. Now if this is a case like a suicide bomber they are truly the worst. They simply go and try to get the death count as high as they can. They intentionally kill civilians because they don't think they could kill as many if they went for a military target.

Answer 5

Abortions are morally reprehensible unless the mothers health is at severe risk.
Cluster bombs & other munitions you list deoends on circumstances. Define "civilian area". If an area is being used to launch rockets, it is not civilian by my understanding of the word. You don't say who you thinkis guilty of these "crimes" but I think I already know. You seem to think that certain countries don't have the right to self defense. That is reprehensible.

Answer 6

No one is cluster bombing innocent children in known civilian areas except jihadists. Don't clump the American military with those jihadist beasts.

Answer 7

cluster bombing innocent children in known civilian areas

Answer 8

Why specify INNOCENT children in known civilian areas? Aren't unborn babies MORE innocent than any other thing? Taking a life is evil, no matter what the circumstances.

Answer 9

Bombs. These children are already alive, and feel pain. Not that I agree with abortion as we know it today, but bombs are still worse.

Answer 10

Any one killed was the result of opting to stay or were forced to stay... is how the victimization game is played. They all had been warned to leave. And if they couldn't do it in 4 days, they remained in the line of fire. Or, human shields. Again, by choice or forced to stay.