Killing a baby because a mother wants to
Signing a contract willingly to be in millitary and possibly die or get injured (wounded)
Commiting a crime like murder and being put to death.
Do you think that the death of this people is the same. The death of an innocent, to the death of the willing, or the death of an evil person.
2007-09-04 07:54:08 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Babies who have not come to term yet are capable of living on their own, look at all the premature births, but on the other side, try to leave a week old baby without help and see how well it prepares a meal to eat.
2007-09-04 08:09:42 · update #1
How can you say that unborn child is not human , what is it a tree, or what if not human.
2007-09-04 08:10:50 · update #2
Each of these cases is quite different.
Infanticide by the child's mother is just about as vicious as crime gets. Not only is it intentional homicide, it is a homicide committed by the person most closely entrusted with the child's life.
Enlistment in the military is a commit to serve one's country by going into harm's way to stop the enemies of freedom. Like all risky tasks, it sometimes results in a loss of life (compare the recent tragic story of coal miners killed in Utah).
Committing the crime of murder merits the death penalty. As the ancient Hebrews understood, justice requires that ""Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God as God made man."
These deaths are emphatically not the same. The death of a murderer is required by justice. The death of a willing defender of freedom is an accident of war. The death of an innocent is a terrible tragedy and injustice.
Cheers,
Bruce
2007-09-04 15:41:02 · answer #1 · answered by Bruce 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An unborn baby is not being killed, as it is not human and has no rights. Just look at the name "unborn" - means it isn't part of the human race yet. So that's not even a death.
And a war is a war, if you want to go and fight for your country, by all means do. Don't be upset for one person who dies from your country, because from the other country another person will be dead also. That's part of war.
And finally, I'm not really for the death sentence, not the reasons of it being inhumane - but death is an easy way out.
ADDITION: No, it's not a tree ¬_¬ It's a collection of cells that have potential to be a human if left to grow, but aren't.
2007-09-04 08:04:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
They're not the same, but nor is the situation as simple as your answer portrays.
The fetus is incapable of independent life.
Not everybody in the military is there "willingly" in the purest sense of the word. They can be drafted, or even if they volunteered, they may later be required to participate in actions that they morally disagree with.
Somebody who commits a murder is not necessarily "evil". They may have "snapped" in a fit of rage, having never committed another violent act in their life. They may have had severe psychiatric problems.
Abortion is undesirable but on rare and exceptional occasions is, in my view, the lesser of two evils.
Military people should be respected for their willingness to put themselves in harm's way for their country, even if we don't always agree with the politics of their operations.
The death penalty is barbaric. How does one teach that killing is wrong by killing? What satisfaction do Saddam Hussein's victims have now? Better that he had lived a long, hard, inglorious, and humiliating life, periodically paraded in front of the cameras as a figure for contempt.
2007-09-04 08:06:36 · answer #3 · answered by ozperp 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, all the same. Death is death to all of them. There is no difference - all three die. If youre asking morally which I think is the worse, then you should reword the question.
As for the person you labelled evil - if you come home and find your wife in bed with your best friend and you go off and kill someone - who is evil in that case? You or your slutty wife?
2007-09-04 08:01:00 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
During war it is self defense. Death after being tried by our peers for taking an innocen life is a must. Death of the innocent is murder.
2007-09-04 08:03:55 · answer #5 · answered by michael m 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first one is not the same because it is murder of a helpless person and in my opinion, the worst of the three. The second one took place during combat, which, even in the Bible, was not considered murder. The third is a direct legal consequence of one's actions and, whether moral or immoral, accepted because of the laws surrounding it.
2007-09-04 08:01:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe killing people is wrong, period, and that we as humans are not capable of judging who should live and who should die.
2007-09-04 08:00:16 · answer #7 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think killing someone or something for pleasure is the worst.
killing yourself or another to protect an innocent would be more of an angelic act.
2007-09-04 08:00:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are VERY different.
Peace & God bless from Texas <><
2007-09-04 07:59:39 · answer #9 · answered by jaantoo1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. But then I am not a Democrat.
2007-09-04 07:59:54 · answer #10 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋