Pro life hypocrisy?

[LostSoul]

No you don't only bomb innocent people you also bomb the bad ones. As another poster said in a post above, the dead babies and pregnant women are collateral damage. But abortion and euthanasia is wrong, right?

Couldn't you just as easily flip this topic around and ask questions like these?

How can you be a liberal pacifist who is against all wars, which claim the lives of innocent children, while at the same time supporting abortion?
How can you support a black lives matter movement which typically ignores the issue of abortion?
Wouldn't being 100% anti-war mean that you would have opposed confronting Nazi Germany?

 

[TheStruggle]

No you don't only bomb innocent people you also bomb the bad ones. As another poster said in a post above, the dead babies and pregnant women are collateral damage. But abortion and euthanasia is wrong, right?

You should ask this moral question to the people who bombed a doctor without borders hospital and swept it under the rug, not people who think Abortion is bad.


http://www.businessinsider.com/kunduz-bombing-error-2016-4

 

[cincymma79]

Isn't it paradoxical or even contradictory to be pro life and yet support wars and interventions which result in loss of life? Stopping a child from being born is wrong but going to war/military intervention that results in many deaths is not wrong? Or can they both be justified thus not always wrong?

I think that to be pro life one has to be against war, death penalty and military interventions wich will result in deaths etc.

Or am I a potato?

Potato

 

[RockstarChris]

Isn't it paradoxical or even contradictory to be pro life and yet support wars and interventions which result in loss of life? Stopping a child from being born is wrong but going to war/military intervention that results in many deaths is not wrong? Or can they both be justified thus not always wrong?

I think that to be pro life one has to be against war, death penalty and military interventions wich will result in deaths etc.

Or am I a potato?

we cant save everyone, but we can try to save as many lives as we possibly can.

 

[helltoupee]

You need to retake history class from a professor who isn't a Che Guevara fanboy.

Sorry, the Vietnam war is a little bit more complex than what you learned in 10th grade history at La Jolla High.

Vietnam was a French colony. Millions of Vietnamese were starving to death while the imperialists expropriated rice for profit. This disenfranchised one determined young man named Ho Chi Minh. He pleaded with the United States to support Vietnam's right to self-determination, as he greatly admired the US' history of gaining independence from Britain. His pleas fell on deaf ears because France was a US ally.

So he turned to the Communists for help in stopping the economic pillage of his countrymen, because nobody else would do so.

And yet all of this still doesn't negate the fact that you claimed that the US only bombs "shit hole countries that are trying to kill us". When did Vietnam attack us? When did they threaten the US?

 

[TheStruggle]

When I say innocent I mean citizens of a country not the country itself. The pregnant women and babies I see as innocent.

Funny I don't see the people who blow up Ariana Grande concert getting this emotional questions, they usually get protection.

 

[AviatorShades]

Comparing the ethics of warzones/death row to abortion is such a terrible argument that it makes me want to become pro-life. I almost wonder if that's your intent.

 

[Pwent]

Isn't it paradoxical or even contradictory to be pro life and yet support wars and interventions which result in loss of life? Stopping a child from being born is wrong but going to war/military intervention that results in many deaths is not wrong? Or can they both be justified thus not always wrong?

I think that to be pro life one has to be against war, death penalty and military interventions wich will result in deaths etc.

Or am I a potato?

wars are for reasons, usually a hard choice between two evils

the vast majority of abortions are killing people out of laziness because the mom cant be fucked to raise someone, so she just kills them

its like "why is it ok to put down a rabid dog, but not ok to stab my neighbors dog to death??"

conclusion: you are a potato

 

[Pwent]

Pro-life is just a label that sounds more appealing and universal.

BTW, wars and interventions don't result in deaths of innocent little kids and such anymore. We use "smart bombs" that only result in "collateral damage".

pro-choice is a label that makes it sound appealing and universal

a more realistic label for pro-life is "anti-baby murder" a more realistic label for pro-choice is "pro baby murder"

 

[oldshadow]

TS only makes any sense if you deal in absolutes.

All war is bad and should not be fought if any non combatant is killed.

Sounds like a bull shit argument.

 

[helltoupee]

pro-choice is a label that makes it sound appealing and universal

a more realistic label for pro-life is "anti-baby murder" a more realistic label for pro-choice is "pro baby murder"

If you define a fetus as a baby, sure.

I'm personally not in the habit of confusing something's potential with the finished product, but hey, if you want to try and claim that a pile of scrap metal and some rubber equates to an automobile, by all means, knock yourself out.

 

[TheStruggle]

If you define a fetus as a baby, sure.

I'm personally not in the habit of confusing something's potential with the finished product, but hey, if you want to try and claim that a pile of scrap metal and some rubber equates to an automobile, by all means, knock yourself out.

Yeah, because when you see a 6 month pregnant woman on the streets you say "So when is the fetus due", or "is the fetus kicking?"


Dehumanizing a baby down to the status of 'fetus' makes it okay for the pro-choice crowd to justify their stance for the murder of unborn kids...but yeah, lecture us about morality...

 

[Witchhunt]

I didn't imply that. I am directing this to those who do, those who are anti abortion and anti euthanasia and yet pro war and foreign intervention. It is these who I think are being inconsistent with their beliefs.

Who would that be?
I don't think I've seen any interventionist around here. It seems to be a pretty unpopular stance nation wide.
Can you be more specific?

 

[LostSoul]

 

[Pickle Rick]

Or am I a potato?

I agree with your op but you left the door open for the funny

 

[AviatorShades]

Sorry, the Vietnam war is a little bit more complex than what you learned in 10th grade history at La Jolla High.

Vietnam was a French colony. Millions of Vietnamese were starving to death while the imperialists expropriated rice for profit. This disenfranchised one determined young man named Ho Chi Minh. He pleaded with the United States to support Vietnam's right to self-determination, as he greatly admired the US' history of gaining independence from Britain. His pleas fell on deaf ears because France was a US ally.

So he turned to the Communists for help in stopping the economic pillage of his countrymen, because nobody else would do so.

And yet all of this still doesn't negate the fact that you claimed that the US only bombs "shit hole countries that are trying to kill us". When did Vietnam attack us? When did they threaten the US?

You have this same one-size-fits-all account of literally every event in history: Everything was great then Europeans messed it up cuz they're rich guys, and everyone else was on the same oppressed team. I understand that this type of convenience makes for great punk-rock lyrics but you would struggle to pass any 10th grade history class I was assigned to.

That "one determined young man" was a Soviet puppet and continued to wage war on their behalf against his own people long after the French withdrew. The US obviously became involved for Soviet containment in the midst of a decades-long nuclear standoff.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Babies are innocent. Governments, soldiers, and armies are not.

/thread

 

[BEER]

No he doesn't.

He makes the same mistake all conservatives make when arguing against abortion, and that is the failure to realize the difference between the left and the right, on the issue, is a philosophical one.

People vary on when they believe an embryo/fetus becomes a "person". That isn't a scientific answer. The best we can give, scientifically, are milestones during pregnancy. At what point is there brain function? At what point is there a heartbeat? At what point can a fetus feel pain? Etc...

And then some people draw the line at conception with no reason other than "it's life bro".

 

[LostSoul]

You think liberals are ready to stop at killing the unborn? Think again. Medical ethicists have recently argued that killing a new born baby is no different from an abortion. They describe it as a "morally irrelevant potential human being."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...opose-after-birth-abortion-law_n_1309985.html
Killing Newborn Babies No Different To Abortion, Say Medical Ethicists

 

[Squarechoke]

Yeah, because when you see a 6 month pregnant woman on the streets you say "So when is the fetus due", or "is the fetus kicking?"


Dehumanizing a baby down to the status of 'fetus' makes it okay for the pro-choice crowd to justify their stance for the murder of unborn kids...but yeah, lecture us about morality...

It's also sticking with the actual definition of words.

Both sides have opinions that stand regardless of what words you use to describe it. Any attempt to bring new light to the issue by using another word is a pretty simplistic one with little merit.