I can accept that whether or not a fetus feels pain, the point is too debatable (and at any rate wouldn’t apply to early abortions for sure) to make that characterization accurate.
Cool… glad we can at least check one of our debate topics off the list… what follows is my attempt at making it two.
But I remain puzzled by what you think is at stake in the use of the word “child.” Many people do insist on fetus precisely in order to make it clear that in their view the fetus is not yet a human person. I am not accusing you of hidden motives–my best guess at this point is that you are understandably concerned about the over-the-top rhetoric of some prolife folks and are trying to be accurate in your terminology–but I would like to continue pushing you to consider why the word “child” is inappropriate, given that generally it is used to affirm the full humanity of the fetus and rejected by those who deny it.
You’ve got it. I have a problem with people using terminology incorrectly for the sole purpose of strengthening their argument. A 7 year-old is not an adult, he/she is a child. Period. It’s not debatable, nor does it take anything away from the 7 year-old. To me, a fetus is not a child for the same reason.
Types of human beings: fetuses, children, adults.
A fetus is not a baby and is not a child… it is a fetus. That doesn’t and shouldn’t take anything away from its rights as a human being. But it isn’t a child for the same reason that a child is not an adult.
As I stated many times earlier, my reason for correcting this stemmed from the “abortion is the torture-killing of children”. It isn’t. That doesn’t make it any more acceptable, but let’s call a spade a spade and create sound arguments based on accurate terminology and facts. There’s a strong enough argument against abortion that adding in inaccuracies is not necessary.
As you were doing with regard to abortion, I am not arguing that the invasion was justified but that your rhetoric is excessive and thus self-defeating. The Bush administration adopted a policy of preventive warfare which I consider both foolish and immoral. But I have no reason to think that they did not honestly believe that this policy was in the best interests of the United States, and even that in this case it was in the best interests of the Iraqis.
I’m glad that you think that preventative warfare is “both foolish and immoral”. I completely agree with you and would add “illegal” to the list.
I also agree with you that the invasion was was for the best interests of the U.S. I just think that it was for a monetary gain, as opposed to a protection for the people.
The main reasons for not invading North Korea were that
- This would be much more difficult and bloody;
If the true reason is protection of the American people, then a country publicly demonstrating their nuclear weapons should be targeted over a country who might or might not have WMD.
- It would run the risk of seriously antagonizing China;
Invading Iraq ran the risk of seriously antagonizing the entire Middle East, which did not serve as a deterrent.
- The invasion of Iraq was part of a broader Bush-administration policy toward the Middle East specifically, which was identified as a particular threat given 9/11. I do not deny that oil played a very significant role in determining the administration’s focus on the Middle East.
I don’t intend for this to come across as condescending, but please be careful with your wording. If the policy was against the entire Middle East, then that’s a completely different (and much wrong) story.
But I think it’s unwarranted to claim that oil was the sole factor.
What percentage of a factor would you say it was? I realize this is just an estimate, but I’m curious as to how much of a factor you think it was. 90% of the reason? 25%?
In the case of Iran, I think that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were part of a deliberate policy to isolate and intimidate Iran.
But given that Iran was developing nuclear weapons and that Afghanistan was harbouring terrorists that had recently attacked the U.S., those nations then become more understandable to invade. Selecting a neighbour who had no involvement with nuclear weapons (let alone WMD) or Al-qaeda is justified just because their weaker.
I’m not sure what this has to do with it. The U.S. already fought in Korea and Vietnam. If a country is a true threat to your people you don’t sigh that it’s too far and pick someone who is more convenient.
I am baffled by why you think Venezuela is such a threat. Are they anywhere close to having WMDs?
No, but the U.S. has an embargo of military equipment, which Venezuela has continued to acquire anyway. There is also a very large anti-America sentiment in Venezuela and they are run by a dictator. Their situation isn’t any different from Iraq’s.
You seem to think that if the Bush administration was concerned to protect Americans and spread democracy, then they would have run down a checklist of tyrannical and threatening countries and attacked them in order of “badness.” That’s not how geopolitical decisions work.
First of all, I don’t think that it is the Bush administration or any country in the world’s right to “spread democracy”. Secondly, to invade a completely non-threatening country should be very, very, very far down the list of “who should we attack next”… regardless of proximity or any other factor.
Which is a reason to be very, very glad that this didn’t happen and that the U.S. now has a president who doesn’t think that diplomacy is a euphemism for “do what we want or we will blow you to bits.”
Amen.
