2007-10-05 07:20:05 · 13 answers · asked by Sparkle 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
abortion is completely different than the war in iraq
2007-10-05 07:22:31 · answer #1 · answered by kp_whatsthesitchwade 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
This comes down to the purpose of Life in general. Killing isn't the issue, actually. Killing is what we do by purchasing oil or a steak at a restaurant. We just do it by remote control. Living and killing are entwined, and what we have to consider is whether the killing we do is contributing to the future of ourselves and our universe, or detracting from it. A soldier who kills to defend his honest country so that that country will protect its citizens from wasteful behavior which would make that country's children die a slow death in a poisoned planet? Ah, now we start to get to the meat of the matter. Do you defend your country because of patriotism, or because of the need to create a better world? Is it ok to attack a country unprovoked to create a better world? Is the 'better' world you envision actually sustainable in the long term?
Does the death of an unborn child contribute to the future of other children, or does it merely allow the mother to have a more leisurely lifestyle? Does that mother go on to improve the lives of many children because she was unburdened at an early age by too many responsibilities?
Acceptability and morality can only be judged in the very long term, and only after the fact. Intelligence and wisdom come into play when we try to place ourselves in the future and make decisions that would make the future better for people we don't even know yet.
Using a majority or a religion to decide these things by decree always fails because majorities always bully individuals into the group and religion is always about competition with outsiders for a 'special' place in the world or the afterworld.
The species that survive in the long run are those that cooperate with each other and with the environment which supports them so that they create more future usefulness than they consume in resources. Net Creative Actions.
We kill 40,000 people each year simply by driving around in automobiles, yet there is no cry of "HOLOCAUST!" or "GENOCIDE!"
Why not a call for an end to the automobile? Make Peace, not Piecework.
2007-10-05 07:42:56 · answer #2 · answered by auntiegrav 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Were you in Iraq? Do you really think they suffer no pity? Do you think these Marines and Soldiers kill for the fun of it? You need to interview a Soldier or Marine. As for abortion, it's a kid the owner doesn't want. They don't think of the fetus as a human being.
2007-10-05 07:24:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, look. sometimes it's better for a child not to be born. having an abortion means that you are not able to raise the child you're carrying. imagine how many psychological problems that child will have, later in his/her life... beside that, abortion is a personal (usually) decision.
now for the war. some people vote for it, right? it is not world-widely acceptable. there have also been protests against war.
didn't those soldiers actually CHOOSE to fight? generally, it's how people think; and everyone thinks differently...
2007-10-05 22:54:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Acceptable to whom? Acts such as abortion and "war casuallties" are acceptable by virtue of the definition given those acts by the culture. Abortion, is acceptible to those who, according to their cultural context, see a fetus as something other than a human being. I've heard it referred to as a "growth". Killing in war is acceptable on the grounds that it is "justifiable homocide" so to speak. It is seen as a "kill or be killed" situation. By the Geneva Convention agreements there are many restrictions on how and when persons may be "legally" be killed in war.
As for the "have no pity" part of your question, having pity comes of having learned that others feel pain, that others are also human beings deserving of pity, compassion, etc. The lack of pity (I prefer the word "Compassion") demonstrated by our nation toward such killings as "collateral damage" comes of de-humanizing others. We de-humanize others generally by projecting onto them guilt, or responsibility for crimes, our feelings of fear, terrorism, or, as in WWII, a plot to "rule the world".
As a side note, don't worry. The dead are not alive and the living shall not die.
2007-10-05 07:39:15 · answer #5 · answered by wordweevil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who said no-one has pity? Its a sad thing but sometimes its the best thing to do. And yes like the poster above says......abortion and war are completely different.
2007-10-05 07:23:45 · answer #6 · answered by the_candy_raver 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, not everyone considers abortion as killing people. It is a personal decision that is ultimately a women's decision and not something others should judge on. As for the war, it's not acceptable, but you can thank everyone who voted for Bush because I didn't.
2007-10-05 07:23:28 · answer #7 · answered by Derek B 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who says that the woman having the abortion or the soldiers fighting in Iraq suffer no emotional damage from that act? Not all of them do, but I don't think it is valid to assume that none of them do.
2007-10-05 07:23:10 · answer #8 · answered by dlc3007 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, in Iraq it's ok because they live over there, over where we aren't. Therefore it's ok...at least that's what the Army, Military, Navy, Marines, and Presidents train you to believe. Good to see someone else can see through all that hypocrisy....
2007-10-05 07:23:57 · answer #9 · answered by Calli T 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People have different views on if it is acceptable or not due to how they see the situation. I personally don't think it's acceptable in any situation. Nobody has a right to take a life.
2007-10-05 07:24:01 · answer #10 · answered by T4_b 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋