Pro"lifers" claim it is a black and white issue and that killing is killing yet they support war.When people go to war we KNOW that MANY innocent children/adults will die also ,so you cant call them accidents. So, if killing is killing, what is the difference? And for those who say war is necessary...why isnt abortion to save a woman's life necessary?
2007-02-05 01:05:28 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
fozzie...u say there are very few people who believe in abortion to save a womens life..can u give me VALID statistics and where you are getting your info from..thanks!
2007-02-05 01:15:59 · update #1
and to me abortion is not a religous decision it is a MEDICAL issue..btwn a women and her doctor.
2007-02-05 01:17:47 · update #2
Jesi if u say no prolifer would say that abortion to save a womans life is bad..then why do prolifers want to take away a woman's CHOICE
2007-02-05 01:22:24 · update #3
Abortion is a deliberate process, wartime killing of children is an unfortunate unintended consequence.
No one accidentally has an abortion. No pro-lifer would say an abortion to save a woman's life is bad. But the fact remains that abortions are overwhelmingly for convenience; abortions due to rape or to save the mother's life are statistical anomalies..
2007-02-05 01:10:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Let me start by saying that I am pro-choice. I believe that abortion is a religious decision, not a legal one. However, I strongly disagree with your post.
First - there are very, very few people who don't believe in abortion in order to save a woman's life, so let's just skip that completely. If anyone actually thinks that way, please reply to that.
Second - I hate the illogical arguments made by the pro-choice side. You make us look like idiots. When children are killed during a war, it is an accident. When a woman aborts a baby it's a choice.
Third - Killing is not killing no matter what the circumstance. Most conservative pro-lifers also believe in killing murderers. Most conservatives believe in being able to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your home with lethal force. Please don't put your illogical thoughts in our heads.
.
2007-02-05 01:09:03 · answer #2 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nthere is technically no difference as stated ,killing is killing is killing , whether it be life in the womb or innocent children in a war zone.The problem is inherently the governments failing to realise where all human life is concerned they must be held responsible and act accordingly but being bigots, corrupt and thoroughly brain washed by big business they dont think neither do they have a conscience about these two factors
2007-02-05 01:16:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Abortion to save a womens life may be necessary,
but killing innocent children in a war or terrorist attack is
not the solution, only talking and voting can change a
system, terrorism cannot, the days of this are gone
and a new era of peaceful transfromations, need to
become part of government and world policy................
2007-02-05 01:12:34 · answer #4 · answered by gorglin 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know any pro-lifers that would be against abortion in a life threatening situation, of course there are always a handful of nut cases on both sides of the aisle.Terrorists kill innocent children, that is what our miltary is trying to stop.
2007-02-05 01:09:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
relatively, i do no longer think of maximum "professional lifers" might accept as true with you that all and sundry "killing is killing." i think of maximum might agree that regularly taking a life is justified and each so often it relatively is not. relatively maximum persons in the international have a considerable pork with "pointless" killing. however the strains start to blur whilst it comprises abortion, the dying penalty, conflict, and so on.. i assume it relatively is all the place you, in my opinion, draw the line. i'm professional-life simply by fact i think of relatively everyone merits a huge gamble to stay and be sure their very own destiny. regrettably, in the form of conflict, that may not conceivable. yet each so often in conflict (i'm no longer saying this is the case with this conflict, simply by fact i don't be attentive to that it relatively is) the shortcoming of a few harmless lives potential saving many extra harmless lives. it relatively is my information that our protection rigidity takes each precaution to keep away from killing civilians. yet with abortion, the relatively reason is to take the youngster's life. there's a large distinction between dying as a casualty of conflict and the planned, calculated dying of an harmless toddler.
2016-10-01 11:10:51 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not just the killing of children in Iraq, there are many of them maimed for life and some molested but that is ok with repuglicans as long as an American woman doesn't have a right to make a private medical decision. It really sucks to be a repuglican
2007-02-05 01:10:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you don't know the difference your either around 4 years old or very stupid.
2007-02-05 01:16:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋