It seems to me like there's an anomaly between the preciousness of life when it comes to fetuses, compared with our precious soldiers fighting in Iraq. Aren't their lives at LEAST as dear, if not more so?
I'd buy the argument if it were that our wonderful soldiers were saving lives by defending the US from attack, but I don't recall hearing that the US was attacked by Iraq. And this "freedom" and "liberty" argument is just a bunch of hogwash. (Don't get me wrong; I think that freedom and liberty are fundamental ideals of this country. I just don't think that the loss of these ideals were what put us in Iraq in the first place.)
From what I understand of the Republican/right-wing value system, saving unwanted fetuses is penultimate, but saving the lives of our heroic soldiers is, well, apparently not so important.
So what am I missing?
2007-05-12 11:58:05 · 13 answers · asked by Bubbles 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
"No one wants a soldier to die, but they enlist in the service. The baby didn't get a choice."
This is true. However, simply because soldiers voluntarily enlist does not mean that the government may send them anywhere in the world to do any bidding. The United States Constitution is fundamentally a non-interventionist document and was designed to prevent large peace time standing armies and empire. If the United States were invaded and the federal government called upon voluntarily enlisted soldiers to defend the rights of citizens, then I think that the aforementioned quote would be defensible, however, rarely has the U.S. Military been used to defend the United States and it certainly is not being used to defend the U.S. in our current situation. Therefore, HRH's comments stand.
Brandon
2007-05-13 10:35:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I completely understand where you are coming from. I don't like death in any form. The difference to me is simple. It is the choice of the person in the military to join, unless a draft is called. They are willing to fight and die for the freedoms that we have in this country. Granted that it may not be perfect, but it is still the best of this world. Unfortunately unless there is world peace, there will be no end to this.
You are correct it is actually from an attempt on the life of a former president that Iraq is even an issue. The terrorists we seek are in another country entirely. The republican regime has put our soldiers at risk by sending only 150,000 instead of the recommended 500, 000. With inadequate armour, weapons, and living conditions. Who is right? In my heart I know what is right, and what is wrong. I do not judge, God will be their judge...but it is right to support our loved ones overseas, it is a tough and thankless job. My uncles were pelted with eggs when they were welcomed home from Vietnam, and our soldiers deserve better than that. It may be hogwash to some, but truly would you go and risk your life? I would.
2007-05-12 15:45:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know what really irritates me, people who forget that enlisting into the armed forces means that you are taking a chance AT GOING TO WAR. Isn't the job of soldiers to serve and protect? You can't even begin to compare abortion and soldiers being sent off to war. A man or woman has a choice as to what career path they will go down. A baby does not have a choice when it comes to being brought into this world or killed in a clinic somewhere. Abortion is inhumane, especially the stabbing in the neck of an almost fully developed fetus in order to kill it. There is no comparison to me. A person who enlists is not having their arm broken in order to sign the paper. I know, my husband is a soldier. As for the comment about being pro choice because of not wanting to support unwanted babies, if the girls don't want the pregnancy then maybe they should pay the quarter for the condom, or better yet the guys that are with them. However why should they right when they know that if they get pregnant they can just kill it? Boy are they learning their lesson about not having unprotected sex.
2007-05-12 18:38:36 · answer #3 · answered by ggirlgail89 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Identical twins do not have identical DNA. Organs are transplanted from a dead person into a living person. Someone who receives an organ transplant has been given the gift of life from a person who no longer has life. A "fetus" is a living organism. By week three the heart of a baby in utero begins to beat. At week seven, the brain develops. At week twelve the organs have formed...the kidneys and other organs are functioning. You are trying to equate the transplantation of organs from a dead person to a living one with abortion somehow. But I fail to see the connection. What is your point??? Donars give life and those who you label as "pro-lifers" also give life. Aren't both of these life-giving choices good things...I think they are...Blessings!
2016-05-21 05:17:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok , pro-life usually refers to a decision of death that the person himself/herself does not have the choice to make. That's why it refers to abortion, the child cannot make a decision to live or die, or the death penality where the prisoner cannot make this choice of life or death.
A soldier chooses to go into the military, I have not heard of a draft as of yet. When you go into the military you know you will be put in danger and as a person who can make their own decisions you choose to be in the armed forces despite the fact of what might happen. So is that against choice? No that is a persons decision. Thus it is not prolife but prochoice.
2007-05-13 05:22:16 · answer #5 · answered by Gelle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is not a debate that you will recieve a satisfactory resolution to on Yahoo tonight...
Having said that - I support "Give Peace A Chance" before I support 7 million kids sucking up welfare and social security...
I support the Pro-Choice angle because it would be ridiculously impossible to feed and clothe all the unwanted pregnancies in this country.
When people claim to be pro-life, I always ask "So then, you've adopted a lot of babies... right?"
That usually gets the point across.
The soldier angle... not so hot... everybody knows that they enlist knowing the gravity of the situation these days...
However - lots of innocent babies die in war as well... we've seen the pictures...
2007-05-12 15:04:24 · answer #6 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
haha. i'm sorry, but you are AWESOME.
Repubs just wanf the church people on their side. That means they believe in, like, what the Vatican believes in, like no protection and no abortion. However, apparently...they're really hypocritical when it comes to the war in Iraq (which is a total failure, btw). I mean, really, what is up with our government?
Thanks for the question. its grrrreat. :]
2007-05-13 09:15:07 · answer #7 · answered by Bananas 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, especially if you take into consideration the fact that those fetuses some day make a perfectly good soldier.
2007-05-12 14:33:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Wow! Fantastic Question. You exposed the core of the Republican/right wing evangelical system.
The core is hypocrisy.
They take the scriptures,parables really,that are 1500 ,2000,3000 years old and interpret ,mold them, so it leads them to the "let George do it"
Jesus is their shepherd,they say but ,they'll take any one who will quote the bible.
As long as they don't have to lead.
2007-05-12 13:26:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
All human life is precious, regardless of issue or politics, period.
2007-05-12 14:23:45 · answer #10 · answered by gone 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋