@D:S:
I agree with the above, yet accuse that the civilian “collateral damages” are accepted as something that just “has to be”.
That’s wrong. They’re not accepted as “has to be.” In actuality, if we were as apathetic as you’d like to portray us, then we would not spend so much time and effort trying NOT TO hit civilians and civilian targets.
…
However, I assume you are directing your comments toward the American public in general. I don’t think it’s so much “accepting” civilian losses as it is “looking at the bigger picture.” You have to weigh the risks, and realize that the potential outcome of Saddam unleashing anthrax on a major city would cost a bigger price in lives than the civilian casualties that we caused in Iraq.
Ok, for the Anthrax threat… no comment.
For the rest: Ok, i agree that it is tried to minimize the number of civilian deaths. The perfect way to minimize it would be not to allow wars.
Now take this into the abortion debate: The way to minimze abortions is to make them illegal. That is your point of view. My point of view differs, but is not at all allowing every abortion.
So, if you compare these two different causes of deaths, can you please explain me why one live is worth more than others? Is it ok for you to kill one person to save 10 others? Where is the threshold that makes a killing acceptable?
Killing a child does not equate murder.
Ok, fine, you’re right. But abortion isn’t an accident! So isn’t it murder? (Ignore what the supreme court said for a moment.)
It could be manslaughter etc. i don’t know all the legal terms that are possible when someone/thing dies.
She’s compensated by seeing the rapist brought to justice. There’s nothing more you can do for her. You would have us believe that killing her baby is some sort of compensation? Like it’s a entitlement as a result of being raped? Umm….
Well, you surely would accept that you don’t get any compensation when someone breaks your arm, crashes into your car or maybe even when you are spilling hot coffee over yourself.
Well, being sarcastic, i would think that soon some males wear a T-shirt saying “Danger, i am male and not evading me can result in being raped” and that they would be proclaimed innocent in a trial.
Anyways, we’ve heard your argument about rape, and about how you don’t think that a rape victim should have to give birth to that child, but how do you explain the other million aborted babies out there?
That is a different story. We came here to discuss about an austistic woman who was raped while being “protected” by the state.
Other reasons for abortions need to be discussed seperatedly.