Pro life hypocrisy?

[PainIsLIfe]

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?

I'm pro life, anti death penalty, and against wars of aggression - there are legitimate reasons to go to war.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

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?

What did the unborn baby in its mother's belly do?
Fuck off with your pathetic bullshit.

 

[savemgs]

This is an argument I never really want to get into because I see both sides and I don't intend on doing so so to distract everybody for me being that guy aka Switzerland I'm going to post this picture.
.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Never look for consistency in the covenants people think they have with a God.

 

[hillelslovak87]

What did the unborn baby in its mother's belly do?
Fuck off with your pathetic bullshit.

Yes, because most pregnancies aren't spontaneously aborted, seemingly by God, without the mother even knowing. Why does God hate babies?

 

[meauneau]

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

That analogy is invalid. A more relevant analogy would be: "why is it ok to put down a rabid dog by bombing the whole animal shelter and killing the puppies and other healthy dogs there, but not ok to stab my neighbors dog to death when he is suffering a terminal disease??"

Even this analogy fails because you don't get the point. This isn't about whether or not wars and abortion are justified ever. This is about some people being categorically opposed to euthanasia and abortion yet support wars and foreign interventions such as Iraq which result in forced euthanasia and abortion. Lol.

 

[meauneau]

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.

I am not saying that they shouldn't be fought. All I say is that there is a contradiction. Sometimes wars are necessary, and innocent babies and pregnant women die. Other times they are not necessary but they are fought.

So why can't abortion and euthanasia be the same? Sometimes they are necessary, so we end a life and stop a life coming to the world. Other times it is not necessary, but the relevant people choose to end lives.

 

[meauneau]

I have no problem with abortions in the first trimester (or at any point if the choice is between the life of the baby or the life of the mother) and I'd be be more lenient if the person was the victim of rape.

And if a war is necessary then it's necessary. I'm sure the allies were responsible for more than a few civilian casualties during WWII, but that doesn't mean we weren't just in fighting it.

So the death of babies and pregnant women with their fetuses is justified if it is during a war?

 

[meauneau]

Even in Jesus' times it was understood that goverments are there to protect and make hard decisions at the appropriate time.

So governments can choose when to kill innocent babies and pregnant women with their fetuses but individuals cannot choose to end their lives or stop a life from coming to the world?

 

[uptheirons!]

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?

The pro-life hypocrisy is that they bitch and cry about the unborn, but once they're alive they could give two shits about looking after them in terms of healthcare or welfare, and also that they want government "out of our lives" for everything EXCEPT abortion.

 

[meauneau]

so are you comparing unborn children to war criminals?

thats rather harsh

Don't be silly. You know I was referring to the innocent civilians who are killed in wars.

 

[uptheirons!]

So governments can choose when to kill innocent babies and pregnant women with their fetuses but individuals cannot choose to end their lives or stop a life from coming to the world?

The government doesn't choose shit, the woman does. Government gives them the ability to make their own decision.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Pro-life doesn't mean no one should ever die ever....


This is one of the dumbest arguments the left uses unironically. Thinking an unborn child shouldn't be killed because their parents aren't responsible enough to keep their legs closed with protection doesn't mean we are hypocrites for thinking someone proven guilty of triple homicide deserves to die.

This shouldn't even have to be explained.


The real question is, why does the left have a problem with sentencing people who have committed violent murder to death and oppose us killing murderous terrorists...but they believe killing an unborn child is a absolute human right.

The left has a problem with killing murderous terrorists? <18>

 

[meauneau]

why is an unborn child being equated to a person who dies in war? Fetuses have not declared war on anyone as of yet.

what is being equated is the fact that a life is ended. How or why is not relevant.

The inconsistency is in the fact that some people oppose ending lives that are not yet autonomous or lives that are in horrible pain and suffering which are going to end very soon, but are very eager to bomb other countries thus ending innocent lives who never had a choice.

 

[Shoemaker]

So the death of babies and pregnant women with their fetuses is justified if it is during a war?

 

[Codpiece]

Hi @meauneau , just to clarify are you only trying to make a point about consistent application of logic and morality?

If so, my answer would be that I'd suggest war is acceptable (and there may be civillian/innocent death in such cases) only as a last resort, for example WW2. Abortion would also be a last resort in the case of something like an ectopic pregnacy. The death penalty is a just penalty for a repeat offender of capital crime.

 

[meauneau]

nobody. just because unborn children die in war doesnt mean we need to execute them all.

but it's death is justified, right? But not if there is no war and the mother decides to end it for whatever reason.

 

[Burning Hammer]

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?

You're implying all pro life people support wars. So you're a mega fucking potato.

 

[meauneau]

Is that a yes, a no or a I am too embarrassed to respond with a clear answer?

 

[meauneau]

You're implying all pro life people support wars. So you're a mega fucking potato.

I didn't. I clarified this in later posts. Even in the OP this is not implied simply because I never stated this and only asked a question.