It seems hypocritical to me. Protect the fetus and kill the man. Of course they are two completely different political issues but they both involve either the protection or destruction of life. The only way I see a rationalization is if you are basing your reasoning on fear, which isn't rational in the first place.
Fear that you or someone else will upset "god," or fear that you will be killed if we don't kill others first. The latter of which only presents a spiral of violence that forces each side in a war to only build up more propaganda and more recruits and new ways to kill more efficiently. World War 2 cost this world 60 million lives.
2007-10-06 17:55:13 · 27 answers · asked by JMEvo 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am Pro-life and, like most, anti-war but often wonder how one can condone the violent taking of innocent life and yet feel so strongly about killing that they won't tolerate killing to defend the nation or her freedom........
2007-10-06 17:59:55 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
It isn't a matter of the physical body being eliminated.
It is spiritual act, and not only that but one your conscience, (assuming you have one, of course) can help you with. On the one hand, you have a tiny, helpless life, that is totally dependant for it's survival on another human being. (kind of like animals and the very old). If you have a conscience, you want to protect that life.
On the other hand, you have a grown person, who has grown to understand the way the world works, politics, the fact that sometimes there are things worth fighting for, worth sacrificing for, and it's sometimes necessary for the good of the whole group! As another grown up, you don't want to see that person harmed,but understand the nobility, and honor in what they do for you,and accept that gift with profound gratitude! And that my friend, is how.
* AMEN Brian!
2007-10-06 18:27:58 · answer #2 · answered by KJ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thank you for the question. The fact you are asking it tells me you haven't really investigated the issue satisfactorily.
Pro-Life, in the political context, means one is opposed to the taking of *innocent* life. In other words, we are opposed to murder (homicide with malice aforethought). The unborn child is a human being and we are opposed to taking its life. Nothing the unborn baby has done merits taking its life. Hence, we support laws prohibiting it.
"Pro-War" is a loaded epithet because few people describe themselves that way. That is *your* characterization of their beliefs, not theirs.
However, because we believe innocent life must not be taken, that logically obligates us to *protect* innocent life when necessary; and protection sometimes involves the use of force. If Jews are being slaughtered by a Nazi maniac, then somebody needs to step in and protect them if they cannot protect themselves.
You are correct in saying these are two different political issues; but they are also different philosophical issues. You can rightly call us inconsistent **IF** we say we oppose the taking of innocent life and at the same time support the taking of innocent life. That is not the case here.
For example: I'm against kidnapping, but I'm not against prisons. To imprison somebody against his/her will is illegal UNLESS that person has committed a crime and has been duly convicted.
Are you pro-life?? What will you do if you see somebody strangling a little girl?? Will you try to stop him/her?? What if that person is bigger and stronger than you? You can be pro-life and stop, even kill, if necessary, a murderer. You don't hurt the girl, you hurt her assailant.
2007-10-06 18:20:08 · answer #3 · answered by grand.slam777 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pro life is a false label for anti abortion just as Pro choice is a false label for "killing my baby is okay if I don't want it." A more relevant question is "How can you be pro choice and anti war?" Assuming of course that the reason for going to war is valid.
2007-10-06 18:09:14 · answer #4 · answered by Michael 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not even close. A fetus has no say in livinf or dying, somebody else is determing that. In a war, nobody forced you to sign up and join the military, they warned you about the risks. War is a risky business, every soldier knows that.
2007-10-06 18:15:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
you're able to be the two because of the fact the version is in definition of the strikes. professional-conflict - you're for the killing of people who oppose your reason. professional-abortion - you're against homicide. homicide is unjustly taking a existence. Killing could be executed in self protection or with regards to killing an enemy soldier. formerly all of us says something, i'm professional-selection and against the conflict. If I felt the conflict grew to become into for a solid reason, i'd be at the back of it a hundred%. To kill an enemy soldier isn't the comparable as murdering somebody in chilly blood.
2016-10-21 07:20:47 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't that difficult to understand if you really want to be real about it. We are anti abortion because we believe abortion kills innocent people. We fight wars because we believe the enemy kills innocent people. Our anti abortion goal is not to damage as many women as possible but to save as many unborn children as possible. Our war goal is not to kill people we don't like but to save innocent people who are being killed by bad guys.
Perhaps you can explain how anyone can be for killing innocent unborn babies and against killing those who kill, cripple and torture innocent men, women and children.
.
2007-10-06 18:27:42 · answer #7 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the salient issues are those of innocence and choice. An unborn fetus is completely innocent and has no choice in whether it is aborted or not.
On the other hand, those participating in armed conflict have the ability to choose whether to participate or not - sometimes to varying degrees - but it is a much greater amount of choice afforded to an unborn fetus.
2007-10-06 18:01:26 · answer #8 · answered by wld_jkr 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I see your point. I am both pro-life and an almost pacifist. I would only support going to war when attacked. Thus I supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We were attacked on 9/11, but Saddam did not have anything to do with it.
2007-10-06 18:10:14 · answer #9 · answered by A Human Bean 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Easy. You want to protect innocent children and stop evil men from killing innocent civilians.
2007-10-06 22:47:56 · answer #10 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably the same way you can be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion.
We can play at this game alllllllllllllllllllllllll day.
@jpenergy: Yeah right, what? The people who blew up ... six abortion clinics ... in the 90's? Give me a break and don't compare an overwhelming majority of sensible pro-lifers to those kooks.
2007-10-06 17:59:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋