Is it possible to be both pro life and pro war wouldn't being one negate the other?

Question

and don't tell me about innocent babies innocent babies are killed in wars all the time. I just don't get how someone can advocate war which involves killing people and then say they are pro life.

Joe if you had a brain you would have read my question where I said innocent babies are killed in war can you learn how to read before you respond to a question or do you think only American babies are innocent

I am with GZ he makes sense as for all the violent criminals they should be shot dead you are either of the opinion that all life is sacred or you are of the opinion that sometimes you have to make a choice

what I am for is when a woman is raped or a victim of incest then that child should not be born that child wasn't meant to be as for wars I do believe there is a reason for them I just don't like Hypocrites saying all life is precious and then saying lets kill those people. So if you say no to ALL abortions and yes to war you are a Hypocrite there is no other way to defend yourself except with lies.

EZMZ if you were raped would you keep the child?

if it were up to me there would be NO abortions EXCEPT in cases of incest and rape. This is the underlying reason for my question. I see so many people say all life is precious then turn around and say lets nuke Iran. What I am saying is for those who would make a woman have baby that was the result of RAPE should experience that for themselves and see if they keep the baby. As for wars yes there are many that are justified and fighting back is always an option to defend our country but what I hate is HYPOCRICSY. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with common sense.

Answer 1

it's illogical to be both, if you can somehow rationalize war as being necessary under some circumstances, the logical conclusion is that abortion is necessary under some circumstances

Answer 2

Try to sort this out. Pro-life is when you advocate for life, whether it is the unborn, innocent civilians, or death penalty cases. I am pro-war, but I despise the way Bush is waging this war. I am a veteran, and I am disgusted by this war. Not for the reason you think. I am disgusted because we are playing politics with young people's lives. Kinda like we did in Vietnam. Our rules of engagement are ridiculous, and our young soldiers are getting picked off. However, if you want to stand by, and let Islamic extremists kill thousands of innocents and impose Sharia law, then you deserve to live under that law. They just stoned an innocent 17 year old girl for liking a boy from a different religious sect. Same religion, just a different sect. We banished the Taliban from Afghanistan, and we should have left it at that. We should have then concentrated our efforts on securing America (our borders, our visa programs, and so on). Instead, the Bush administration chose to invade a country that had no WMDs. Did it never occur to our intelligence community that Saddam was bluffing to keep Iran from continuing a war? But make no mistake, the day will come when we are attacked again, like they are doing in Europe. Then you will be forced to make the choice between being "pro-life" and living under Sharia law, or kicking the Islamic extremist's asses in an all-out, no holds barred war. Think about it.

Answer 3

I am with gz except in detail. Pro choice because I have no right to interfere in the decisions of another human being but pro defending myself rather than pro war if attacked directly. It is sometimes hard to define what constitutes a direct attack but I think both of the last 2 world wars are good examples although you could argue that Britain was not attacked directly. America certainly was and that is a perfect example.
Pro war is not a good choice because it implies some sort of acceptance of it as an answer to a problem and that it is not.It is an admission of failure and everybody loses but sometimes it is inevitable when dealing with lunatics.

Answer 4

Interesting question. I don't know. I think that war is sometimes unavoidable, though. If we were invaded, for example, we'd be forced into war. Some people also feel like if another nation is invaded, that war is justified. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but we surely have too much war today. I think anyone with any sense has to be anti-war on some level. War is hell, as Harry Truman said. I learned the same thing from my father who served in WWII. It's interesting that those who have actually served in a war seem less willing to jump into warfare at the drop of a hat.

You might like Dr. Ron Paul, a pro-life, anti-death penalty, anti-war veteran presidential candidate.

Answer 5

It's possible to hold both positions without being contradictory.

I think most pro-life people object to abortion because it involves the intentional, deliberate destruction of what they see as a human life. In war, the deaths of innocents are NOT intentional and NOT deliberate. Morally speaking, the deaths from abortion and war are on different planes.

It would be contradictory if someone was pro-life but favored genocidal wars like those waged by the Nazis or African warlords. But it's not fair to expect them to be anti-war simply because there is the potential for accidental death. By that reasoning, one could argue that anti-war individuals would have to be against industrialism, electricity, or rights for the accused, because all of those lead to deaths as well.

Answer 6

I'm not sure I would have phrased the question the way you did, but there does seem to be a lot of hypocrisy going on lately. There are religious groups that talk about the Evil of destroying gods creations when they talk about abortion, but they are no where to be found in the debate when it comes to life lost in places like Iraq or Darfor. It seems to me that although they preach that all creation is gods creation they are only interested in the creation that most resembles them. I'm not sure if the same people think that a life lost in these countries are as important to them.

Answer 7

Well, its fairly simple. The party that says it supports the culture of life stops caring about that life once it actually begins. They're only concerned with what happens between conception and birth. Once you're actually a human being, you're on your own.

Evidence: Support of war, capital punishment, cuts in health care, cuts in care for the needy, opposition to gun control

Answer 8

The short answer is..... YES. With this administration, the "Pro War" has nothing to do with killing, it has to do with money, oil, power and greed.

Can you say Haliburton? No-bid contracts? Chaney (the stockholder)?

They lied us into this war for their profit, and the money has snowballed so much even the Bushies can't stop it now. Did they ever find those BILLONS of dollars in cash missing over there? I guess I missed it in the press if they did.

Answer 9

I am pro-war and pro-life and have no problems with supporting either.

I believe there is a difference between a mother murdering it's own child, regardless of it's age, and right of any nation to protect it interests, regardless of cost this incurs.

But I'm glad to see in your post you imply that a 'blob of tissue' has the same value as a life lost in military conflict. Maybe there is hope for liberals yet.

Answer 10

sometimes war is necessary to save lives and improve lives. you can be both. the war that the terrorist have launched destroys everyones lives, innocent, guilty, they don't care. yes in war some innocent lives are destroyed, but in the end many more are saved and improved. if you don't believe this, ask the Jews. ask the people who lost so many loved ones to torture and death by hussein. we could be out now if not for the determination of the terrorist to control the innocent.