Being against abortion and, at the same time, sending their sons and daughters off to fight and die in wars and kill thousands of people in other nations?
Does the human life only have value while it is still in the womb?
2007-12-05 08:01:47 · 40 answers · asked by Matthew. 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Perhaps I should have put it another way:
"Allowing the sons and daughters of your nation to go off to fight and die in war and kill thousands of people in other nations."
2007-12-05 08:27:06 · update #1
And what about the depleted uranium munitions the U.S. use, which cause severe birth deformities in the civilian populations of the countries they are used in?
2007-12-05 08:30:09 · update #2
I don't justify this, or even try to.
As a pro-lifer I strongly, strongly oppose the war in Iraq. I actually cried and carry a great deal of grief in my heart over the things I've seen and read about that war.
I believe war should only be waged by a nation in self-defense, and even then, only as a last resort when every effort to avoid was has been exhausted. Violence is not pro-life - my belief in that assertion is the very reason why I AM pro-life!
2007-12-05 08:08:33 · answer #1 · answered by evolver 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
every human life has value ; I guess that I am prochoice ; prochoice that you have the right the do whatever you want to do; God gave the gift of freedom to make choices but then have to be judged on those choices; I couldn't have an abortion ; most people have one out of convenience for their life; I look at my 4 children and I can't ever imagine that if I made that choice , one of them or all of them wouldn't be standing; I look into their eyes and see the wonderful people that they are full of some many gifts, one has humor like no other and is a great peace keeper, the other is quiet and hardly ever angers but helps like no other and puts his life on the line every day since he is a police officer; another one ; so loving and family oriented , a friend to more people than I can count ; and my youngest, the kindest, light heart person who nevers has a harsh word to say about anyone; my life hasn't always been easy but if I took the easy way for me; I wouldn't have the four individuals that I described to you ; wow what we would have missed out and the same for all the aborted babies who were an inconvenience of life and had parents who didn't think through to prevent this from happening; I am not judging anyone , just saying that each life is precious and gives so much and is like no other ; we should all reflect on our actions for which some day we will be judged ; you can't go back years down the road after an abortion and change your mind , it is too late then ; I write to my politicians, vote , do what I can to hold them accountable for the sake of all people; the people who complain the most , do the least
2007-12-05 08:19:48 · answer #2 · answered by sml 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If this was a final-exam question on a Canonical Examination, I think that I could make a good case using St. Thomas Aquinas' "Just War Theory"...
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
As for me, who believes in the theory of a Just War and who is "pro-life" - I see no problem justifying my position on either front.
2007-12-05 08:08:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I totally agree with you!They say no to abortion and then turn around and condemn young girls on assistance who chose to have their baby! Oh, and they don't want sex ed.!!!! I think that their argument would be that the wars are protecting our freedom and saving others. It's a delusion they live in. Those types of persons usually need someone else to tell them what to do, so they go to church and believe everything on the news. It's sad, but the soldiers choose to go fight (accept if a draft occurs). They think 'we' are doing the right thing. I think they forget about how 'we' savagely took over the native Americans even into the 1920's- we stripped them of their land, culture,heritage and raped their women and children. A lot of those same people are southerners who believe in slavery and carry a confederate flag and oppose civil/human rights. All we can do is stand up for what we believe in.
2007-12-05 08:09:01 · answer #4 · answered by Karston's Mom - 7/7/08! 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Where is the justification in religion? Some people speak out of ignorance and try to appear they really know what they are talking about. I am a christian and do not agree with abortion, and hate we have soldiers among others dying in a war. I dont judge or condemn either. I have my feelings but do not expect everyone to be the same. Some christians speak out for the whole christian belief and it is wrong too. You cannot judge everyone on the actions of some.
2007-12-05 08:09:55 · answer #5 · answered by user76 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think both sides can justify their claims very articulately - or at least some of them can. I guess Douglas Adams was right: we need to invent a 'point of view gun'; which, when fired, enables us to clearly see the heartfelt feelings of people who may hold opposing opinions from our own.
However, I am not a fence sitter. I am with the abortionists lobby on this one, principally because I think it is a woman's right to choose. I truly hate to see old right-wing men telling young women what's good for them.
2007-12-05 08:20:28 · answer #6 · answered by Sid S 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Those who consider virtuous fighting to be their duty then they have a reason. But, is it their responsibility, is mistaken.
Herein comes the role of the devils who exploit such men for their motives to use the masses - the fools get into the trap & being used by a few who beget nothing but corruption.
2007-12-05 08:31:20 · answer #7 · answered by Habib 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Once a son or daughter is of an age to to join the military the decision is theirs not the parents and if they were of a type to stay home because their mum and dad said so I don't think the military would want them anyway.
2007-12-05 08:58:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
circumcision is finished out of scientific justification no longer faith. whilst became into the final time you heard a christian say I have been given to circumcise by means of fact it says it in the bible. circumcision is finished worldwide huge by means of fact medical doctors say its extra healthy for the boy to have that completed. I even have come for the time of a few web content that say the different, yet our lifestyle favors it by means of fact medical doctors say men have extra sensitivity and extra useful wellness whilst they are circumcised. As for baptizing, there is no injury in baptizing an infant. i could positioned up that infant baptizing is finished by means of fact it makes human beings experience extra useful. i think its comparable to blessing your new domicile. I neither agree or disagree with infant baptizing. in spite of the undeniable fact that, i've got faith Jesus needs us to be baptized whilst are sufficiently previous to understand him. As for my the reason i'm against abortion is easy: existence starts at theory. I only are not getting the relationship between professional existence and baptism. God Bless
2016-10-10 08:19:21 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Excellent point, and even tho I'm pro-choice I presume they see it this way:
A fetus doesn't have any choices, so when you abort you are "killing" the baby who had no say in the matter.
In war, our men and women make conscience decisions to go fight for our country full aware of the consequences. And even though i'm against the war, if they die, they knew there was always a chance that could happen. They had a chocie.
2007-12-05 08:07:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋