Would you support military action in the US to end abortion?

[Verisimilitude]

I would support militray action to end this thread!

So I watched a recent debate (the names of the people and place are redacted due to the abandonment of the 1st Amendment) and one of them answered that it was a Christian duty to use military action to help where we could and do other things to cause an outcome we (America) desired regardless of what non-Americans thought of these actions.

Since Jesus is the epitome of ‘Christian duty’…and you seem to agree with (XxXxxx) philosophy that the ends justify the means and violence (use of the military) is an acceptable/required policy for a nation founded on Judeo-Christan values and principles in an effort to spread our goodness and idology for people to be free…

Can you show me any NT quote, parable, or other accepted means to justify if Jesus would approve of what America is doing overseas but is unwilling to do in our own nation? Are you more afraid of terrorists in Pakistan/Iraq than an abortion doctor in Kansas?

What is the greater evil to humanity: UBL- Tiller?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

So I watched a recent debate (the names of the people and place are redacted due to the abandonment of the 1st Amendment) and one of them answered that it was a Christian duty to use military action to help where we could and do other things to cause an outcome we (America) desired regardless of what non-Americans thought of these actions.

Since Jesus is the epitome of ‘Christian duty’…and you seem to agree with (XxXxxx) philosophy that the ends justify the means and violence (use of the military) is an acceptable/required policy for a nation founded on Judeo-Christan values and principles in an effort to spread our goodness and idology for people to be free…

Can you show me any NT quote, parable, or other accepted means to justify if Jesus would approve of what America is doing overseas but is unwilling to do in our own nation? Are you more afraid of terrorists in Pakistan/Iraq than an abortion doctor in Kansas?

What is the greater evil to humanity: UBL- Tiller?

I really, really recommend you examine more thoroughly the teachings of the Early Church Fathers about public authorities and rebellion, teachings that are part of Sacred Tradition. The teachings of the Medieval Fathers also, about rebellion, might really prove useful. You know, they had zero major rebellions in Christendom throughout the Early and Middle Medieval Ages . Not until the Late Medieval Ages. There’s are reasons for that, and they aren’t that the monarchs were all kind people . . .

I’d be willing to bet you a LOT that the modern acceptance among so many Catholics of rebellion originates in the Enlightenment, particularly following the American Revolution.

Looking further back at our Sacred Tradition is very, very important on this point. The Enlightenment had too many negative influences on modern ideology, including for many Catholics, for us to be often as reliable as people were in the Illuminative Phase of Church history, the time when the Western world and much of the East was Christian, and Christian laws and systems of thought could be created and implemented throughout society without hinderance from the evils of unbelief.

I don’t really want to get into another huge debate with you about this right now . But I do strongly encourage looking more at our Tradition. The mindset we grow up with in a largely liberal world is not wholly to be trusted, even when we grow up in pretty securely conservative homes. Not in comparison with the freely conservative Catholic thought that flourished in the Medieval Ages.

 

[Julianna]

Many support using our military to save others even if it causes the death of some innocent people. I have been told it is our (US) ‘Christian duty’ to ‘finish the job’, and ‘prevent mass killing’ of innocent Iraqi’s if we pull our troops out too early. Using the military to save others is a good thing isn’t it?

How many Iraqis have died since 2003? (Estimates vary: 90,000 to in the hundreds of thousands civilians) Are all 27 million equally free now as we think of freedom? If you hold the we broke it and must buy/fix it attitude, shouldn’t we at least get what we want? Are you?

How may Iraqis died during the UN embargo which began after the first Gulf War?
Estimates of direct casualties of the sanctions remain a highly contested subject. An short overview of claims:[28]
• “probably … 170,000 children” (Project on Defense Alternatives, “The Wages of War”, 20. October 2003)
• 350,000 excess deaths among children “even using conservative estimates” (Slate Explainer, “Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?”, 9. October 2001)
• United Nations: 1,000,000 Iraqis (CNN, “Iraq condemns embargo on 9th anniversary of sanctions”, 6. August 1999)
• Iraqi Baathist Al-Thawra newspaper: 1.5 million (CNN, 6. August 1999)
• Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) (The Wisdom Fund, “Former US Attorney General Charges US, British and UN Leaders,” 20. November 1996)
• Iraqi Cultural Minister Hammadi: 1.7 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) (“Iraq criticizes US, UK at Baghdad Conference…” 10. May 2001)
• Journalist Matt Welch, Reason Magazine, 2002: “It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has … contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990.”[14]

How many died from the weapons we sold Saddam in the 80’s?
How many Iraqis would die if we pull out now? (I can’t find a projected estimate and my crystal ball isn’t working. If someone that supports staying in Iraq to prevent a lot of death, please tell me what a lot is so I can compare it with those that have already occurred. Thanks)
What is the ratio of dead innocent Iraqis to dead ‘terrorists’ in Iraq that makes it worthwhile to continue:5 to 1?

How many abortions in America? Some statistics are about 800,000 to 900,000 per year and a total of over 50 million since 1973.

I can’t think of a greater national interest than our future/children, or a more noble Christian cause to end infanticide. Maybe we should ask another country to help us since our military is helping others right now. Half of Mexico is already here, so why not their military? We would pay for it of course. We can borrow more from China if we need to. They already give us money so we can give it to Pakistan and Egypt so the loan is just for a longer term. Your great grand-kids will finish paying off the loan maybe…if they don’t suffer the fate of an abortion.

So let’s end abortion and use the military to do it unless we are worth less than Iraqis and oil. If that is the case maybe we should just vote for the lesser of two evils.

If this is a new form of ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ we should love ourselves more and hate our enemies less.

I have read this entire useless diatribe. Talk about lunatic fringe No way would I support the military in such a ridiculas proposition.

Before the OP comes back with “conservative religious right”…let me say I am not. As an independent…I can’t even see where this thread comes close as a debate. It’s either one or the other as estesbob pointed out. I am not in favor of the war…since the beginning. We have enough to take care of in “this country” without policing everyone else. This is not Vietnam and the 60’s are over. The millenuem generation handles things differently than their babyboomer parents.

Change, my friend comes from “within”, not “outward-in”. Violence begets violence and solves nothing. Saving 1 human life from abortion without inciting violence is one life saved…and on to the next life. Apply that family by family, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city,and so on…abortion clinics will a thing of the past. Goofy Jim had some good points on this issue. And I like both estesbob and Goofy Jim who are “opposites” to the core…but when met with a thread like this…they come closer together. Get a clue.

You lost here, dude/ma’am. Those who agree with you are very silent. I wonder why?

 

[bobzills]

So I watched a recent debate (the names of the people and place are redacted due to the abandonment of the 1st Amendment) and one of them answered that it was a Christian duty to use military action to help where we could and do other things to cause an outcome we (America) desired regardless of what non-Americans thought of these actions.

Since Jesus is the epitome of ‘Christian duty’…and you seem to agree with (XxXxxx) philosophy that the ends justify the means and violence (use of the military) is an acceptable/required policy for a nation founded on Judeo-Christan values and principles in an effort to spread our goodness and idology for people to be free…

Can you show me any NT quote, parable, or other accepted means to justify if Jesus would approve of what America is doing overseas but is unwilling to do in our own nation? Are you more afraid of terrorists in Pakistan/Iraq than an abortion doctor in Kansas?

What is the greater evil to humanity: UBL- Tiller?

It does look like America is very wrong but not just with abortions and pornography in the USA. It is also wrong to export and force this type of culture on other countries, such as the Islamic countries which don;t want it.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I have read this entire useless diatribe. Talk about lunatic fringe No way would I support the military in such a ridiculas proposition.

I don’t support military action either to end abortion in America. I said it somewhere on the first page. Besides, not many seem to really understand the role and use of the military.

Before the OP comes back with “conservative religious right”…let me say I am not.

I am not either but others here may be though I would call them neo-cons even if they think the term a pejorative, it simply describes their ideology.

As an independent…I can’t even see where this thread comes close as a debate.

Yea, I have been one too since my first vote in 1984. I joined the GOP this year because it was a closed primary and I felt compelled to cast a vote for one of the very few choices that matched my political view more than the others. I became a delegate to play a more active role in efforts to end the war and end abortion. Abortion was not a topic to be discussed and only the pro-war voices were heard. It was a joke. I could not embrace the lesser evil. Ive since dropped my party affiliation with all parties again.

It’s either one or the other as estesbob pointed out.

estebob is a hypocrite imo. He was wrong then and if you agree with him, you too are wrong

I am not in favor of the war…since the beginning.

estebob (and others) supports it. I don’t. Many say they disagree with it but still support it for various reasons. Are you of that thought?

We have enough to take care of in “this country” without policing everyone else.

Like nearly a million abortions per year could be ended. I agree, we should worry about ourselves more instead of everyone else. estebob (and others) are more concerned about everyone else than oursleves seemingly and has said it is our Christian duty to continue it as the OP suggested. They try and make me out to be callous for not caring about the poor Iraqi who yearns to be free if we leave Iraq now because they would be killed for working with the US the past 5 years, they say I am a isolationist because I do not agree with their view of empire since I think our military should be used to protect America and not Iraq, and they say I equate our soldiers as baby-killers because I call our civilian authored foreign policy unjust because they do not follow the law.

I simply suggested if they have such great concern for others they could spare a little for our own. They refused to consider it.

This is not Vietnam and the 60’s are over.

What is your point? Any lesson to learn from it?

The millenuem generation handles things differently than their babyboomer parents.

How so? Is Scripture relevant? Is the constitution relevant?

Change, **my friend **

I am going to be very tired of this phrase, in fact I already am. Obviously you are not feeling friendly and I doubt it was offered with much beyond contempt. Save it for yourself.

comes from “within”, not “outward-in”. Violence begets violence and solves nothing.

Does this only apply when trying to end abortion in America for you, or do you hold that same ideology when you consider when America uses violence to beget peace around the world?

Saving 1 human life from abortion without inciting violence is one life saved…and on to the next life. Apply that family by family, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city,and so on…abortion clinics will a thing of the past.

That is a fantasy world view because not one thing gets done and not one life is saved by doing nothing and voting for evils even if they are less than others.

Goofy Jim had some good points on this issue. And I like both estesbob and Goofy Jim who are “opposites” to the core…but when met with a thread like this…they come closer together. Get a clue.

It was a lark and simply to show the hypocrisy of the Christian Crusaders claim in bringing peace, justice and freedom to the world by use of the sword while ignoring the greatest threat to humanity as identified by the Church in the devalue of human life by ‘legal’ abortion. Unless you too fear terrorists more than those who advocate abortion. Muslim scripture is closer to American foreign policy now than true Scripture.

You lost here, dude/ma’am. Those who agree with you are very silent. I wonder why?

I have lost nothing but maintained my intgrity unlike a few others. The most amazing thing I got out of this is how fervent and unhinged the pro-war crowd really is. Abortion is not important to them as they claim excpet by lip service.

I could quote Scripture to support that claim but it will be ignored like it has all thread long.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I really, really recommend you examine more thoroughly the teachings of the Early Church Fathers about public authorities and rebellion, teachings that are part of Sacred Tradition.

You stated your position clearly and I offerd a few rebuttals that you didn’t feel like answering. I do not agree with your view that there is no such valid justification for rebellion such as when we rebelled against Britian in our Revolutionary war. What i think you fail to see in that particular case is the formal Declaration presented before the war began. King George could have listened to its reason but choose war instead which the Revolutionaries gave and won. It met all Just War criteria.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You stated your position clearly and I offerd a few rebuttals that you didn’t feel like answering.

Huh. I thought I did respond to everything and I was waiting on you . . .

I do not agree with your view that there is no such valid justification for rebellion such as when we rebelled against Britian in our Revolutionary war. What i think you fail to see in that particular case is the formal Declaration presented before the war began. King George could have listened to its reason but choose war instead which the Revolutionaries gave and won. It met all Just War criteria.

The Proclamation of Rebellion by King George III came as a response to news of the Battle of Bunker Hill. The war was already going on. It was the choice of colonists in Lexington and Concord to stockpile weapons and ammunition, and it was within the rights of the British government to stop those activities. Those weapons were stockpiled because the colonists felt they might end up fighting a war with Britain, so the British were right in thinking they were neutralizing a potential threat. Plus it was within their legal rights.

The colonists who fought the British soldiers were by action declaring war without a duly constituted authority. The duly constituted authority was British. Therefore they were in violation of the Just War Doctrine.

Also, it was entirely out of accord with the tradition of the Church and the example set by the Early Church, when fiendishly persecuted by the Romans.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

While the American Revolutionaries clearly violated the “duly appointed public authorities” section of the Just War Doctrine, there are actually a couple more parts of the Doctrine that they may also have violated.

Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

I know that the Americans tried many times to get a peaceful resolution to their differences with Britain. They could have waited for a new king, however, or the next round of elections in Parliament. The taxes being asked of them were smaller than those that the people of England were paying, and were being asked of them to pay for a war fought on the colonies’ behalf. The Americans’ main complaint here was the fear of bigger taxes being asked of them, in the future.

Another option would be that the Americans could have refused to pay the taxes and suffered the consequences patiently.

It is far from clear that all peaceful alternatives were exhausted.

Also, their reasons for rebelling were almost entirely economic. They wanted the ability to trade with other countries beside Britain, so there was a trade motivation. They wanted to move into Indian territories on their Western frontier and the British said no, so that was another economic gain motivation. Even their demand for equal representation in taxes was economic, though it might be considered a suffered wrong. Not a gigantic suffered wrong like their people being picked up and publicly tortured (as was the case for the Early Christians, who did not rebel), but a small suffered wrong.

You know, the problem with your conclusions is that you’re mixing Catholic doctrine (that abortion is murder and should be banned) with American solutions (rebellion). The Early and Middle Medieval Ages had no major rebellions, and the Early Church did not rebel in spite of vastly greater tyranny.

The Pope, in the past, was the one who said that rebelling was valid considering these circumstances, and he did not say that in the case of the American Revolution. He did say that in the case of the Catholics under Queen Elizabeth, who killed far more Catholics because of their religion than “Bloody Mary” did Protestants. But that kind of declaration is very rarely given.

The idea that the people can judge their public authorities rather than the public authorities judge the people is a distinctly Enlightenment idea that did not have a history in the Catholic Church prior to the enormous turning away from Catholicism that occurred in the Reformation.

So you and I would do very, very well to carefully examine where our ideas are coming from. Are they coming from the Enlightenment or from the Church? Because we have both been influenced by both, as a result of the time period in which we’ve grown up.