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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Verisimilitude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Verisimilitude said:
The President could invite them and make it legal. He can take us to war without Congress so why not invite the Mexican military? He has allowed Mexican trucking companies special access American truckers aren’t happy about, but good thing Mexico is as reliable inspecting vehicles coming into America as we are, huh?
Click to expand...
The president is not empowered to declare war.
Congress must do that.

Also, waging war against the American people is covered under treason. The President bringing a foreign army to fight Americans on American soil would be treason. And thus, illegal.
Verisimilitude said:
Yea, we accomplished the mission years ago, why stay? (save it, we already went over that-let me know when you change your mind.) Congress.
Click to expand...
Do you want the answer or not?
In either case, I am curious who you believe should be overthrown that would make abortion illegal.
Verisimilitude said:
Deaths of human beings in large numbers that could be prevented. It’s a special club. The monotheistic God has a monohumanistic view…if that is a word, but I bet you get mmy meaning regarding human life.
Click to expand...
I am uncertain how you draw a connection between a moral battle in this country to make abortion illegal and a hot battle in Iraq defending people against terrorism.
Verisimilitude said:
Draw a line in the sand as Catholics if not Americcans regarding abortion and have a zero tolerance.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Abortion should be illegal in all cases.
Verisimilitude said:
Why? Aren’t both about protecting innocent human life?
Click to expand...
It is apples and oranges because one instance is the deliberate murder of an innocent life; the other is the loss of life attempting to bring a terrorist to justice.
There is a big difference between the unborn and a man with a gun pointed at you.
 
Verisimilitude said:
We are doing both in Iraq. The political legality of our actions is justifiably in doubt.

The new law in Iraq doesn’t mean much either. See, this is how they relate to each other.
Click to expand...
There are two big reasons this is demonstratably false.
We are training an Iraqi police force to enforce Iraqi laws.
And the Iraqi people are building their own government with their own elected representatives.
 
vz71 said:
The president is not empowered to declare war.
Congress must do that.
Click to expand...
Why is their not been a declared war since WWII?
Also, waging war against the American people is covered under treason. The President bringing a foreign army to fight Americans on American soil would be treason. And thus, illegal.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised what contingency plans entail, but the larger point you keep missing it seems is the Executive brach has usurped Congressional authority because Congress would rather shirk responsibility for the decisions- much like they have with the Judical branch who made illigetimate law with Roe.
Do you want the answer or not?
In either case, I am curious who you believe should be overthrown that would make abortion illegal.
Click to expand...
I said, Congress.
I am uncertain how you draw a connection between a moral battle in this country to make abortion illegal and a hot battle in Iraq defending people against terrorism.
Click to expand...
Is the hot battle moral?
Agreed. Abortion should be illegal in all cases.
Click to expand...
Uneccessary death should be illegal and any death caused before natural death should be legal. War needs to be legal. I think I said to you once before there is a contradiction with being pro-death and pro-war. It still applies.
It is apples and oranges because one instance is the deliberate murder of an innocent life; the other is the loss of life attempting to bring a terrorist to justice.
Click to expand...
If both the unintended deaths of civilians and deliberate killings of children are illegal, or even simply avoidable shouldn’t they be avoided?
There is a big difference between the unborn and a man with a gun pointed at you.
Click to expand...
True. Not much difference between the child who dies from our bomb that blew up the building the man with the gun ran into. If we were not there, the man with the gun might not be there.

The fact the man with a gun you are wanting to kill is 8000 miles away from America and the baby is in America makes it even more sad.
 
vz71 said:
Originally Posted by Verisimilitude
Deaths of human beings in large numbers that could be prevented. It’s a special club. The monotheistic God has a monohumanistic view…if that is a word, but I bet you get mmy meaning regarding human life.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the problem with the OP’s question. I think that the OP is just reaching too far in his attempt to criticize the tool chosen to deal with one type of problem, whether right or wrong, by emphasizing how that tool is ill equipped to deal with another unrelated problem.
Click to expand...
 
Verisimilitude said:
If both the unintended deaths of civilians and deliberate killings of children are illegal, or even simply avoidable shouldn’t they be avoided?
Click to expand...
Is it your inetent to equate the murder of an unborn child with the bringing to justice a terrorist?
 
vz71 said:
Is it your inetent to equate the murder of an unborn child with the bringing to justice a terrorist?
Click to expand...
No. I am trying to equate the murder of a unborn child and the death of the born child by our military while bringing a terrorist to justice. If it is just to use the military to to kill the terrorist while absorbing some unintended death of civilians- then why not use the military to save the unborn? Instead of bringing a terorist to justice, bring an abortionist to justice.

Actually I am trying to show the error in both uses of the military- to hunt the abortionist or terrorist. Difference is the abortionists are already in this country killing more children than the terrorists have killed in America, and the terrorists are in another country all together killing non-Americans which you think it is just to use the military to try and save even if we kill a few civilians.
 
Verisimilitude said:
No. I am trying to equate the murder of a unborn child and the death of the born child by our military while bringing a terrorist to justice.
Click to expand...
Then is it your intent to equate the murder of an innocent unborn child with the accidental death involved in bringing a terrorist to justice.
 
vz71 said:
Then is it your intent to equate the murder of an innocent unborn child with the accidental death involved in bringing a terrorist to justice.
Click to expand...
Accidental is used loosely here. Since 2003, there have been more Iraqi civilian deaths than U.S troop deaths. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths is between 50,000 - 650,000, but the number of U.S. troop deaths is less than 3,000. (as of 2006, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm)
 
ribozyme said:
Great!! A military junta to stop abortions!! Recently in this forum someone defended the regime of Augusto Pinochet so I guess it would be a popular idea among Catholics.
Click to expand...
Three out of 24 people said yes. And you think this is a popular thought of Catholics?
 
vz71 said:
Then is it your intent to equate the murder of an innocent unborn child with the accidental death involved in bringing a terrorist to justice.
Click to expand...
I know you are not fond of bringing up our civil law, but this is where it comes in again. The US has ‘law’ that legalizes infanticide. The ‘law’ (authority) to wage war is with Congress, not the President. The ‘accidental’ death of the tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq are as ‘justified’ as the ‘legal’ killing of the unborn in America.

You have made a determination that the unintended deaths of civilians in Iraq are justified in our efforts to save Iraqis and bring terrorists to justice. I find it ironic because I think even you said you believe the impetus of the war in Iraq is not just, you feel however it would be a greater harm to leave Iraq because it would cause more death, but by our staying in Iraq we cause more unintended deaths.

If legal war had been declared in Iraq then we might have some excuse to accept the unintended deaths in our just efofrts under the rules of war. Legal war has not been declared in Iraq so we have no legal justification to kill the terrorist much less the civilan. If abortion was passed in accordance with our law to make law you might be right in calling it a law, but it wasn’t and it isn’t.

Both abortion and the war in Iraq are not legal, moral, or justified. Your position to use deadly military force in Iraq to stop terrorists and not abortions in America which far exceed the number of deaths in Iraq is a contradiction. I ask that you set your fear of terrorists aside and abide by our law and it’s requirements. Supporting either major candidate is a false choice and false charity.
 
Verisimilitude said:
I know you are not fond of bringing up our civil law, but this is where it comes in again. The US has ‘law’ that legalizes infanticide. The ‘law’ (authority) to wage war is with Congress, not the President. The ‘accidental’ death of the tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq are as ‘justified’ as the ‘legal’ killing of the unborn in America.
Click to expand...
Just so I have this straight…

You believe an accidental death is morally the same as the deliberate murder of the unborn.

Correct?
 
Use the military against US citizens? No. A thousand times no.

If you want to criminalize something, use the police force.
 
vz71 said:
Just so I have this straight…

You believe an accidental death is morally the same as the deliberate murder of the unborn.

Correct?
Click to expand...
No. First I don’t call the tens of thousands of unintended deaths in Iraq as accidental. I call them unjust similarly as the deliberate murder of children in America under the guise of ‘settled law’ such as Roe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top