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

[demol]

Thanks for the title change.
I was initially concerned with utilizing it to call people names, but as often as I missed it, I figured most did as well.

I just felt a bit hypocritical agreeing with you yet typing under that title. And, I needed to remind myself what the OP was.

 

[estesbob]

We are going throuh Iraq searching private houses and business in neighborhoods for ‘terrorists’ who kill innocents in Iraq, right? Why not send troops through American neighborhoods to round up abortion doctors to stop the killing of children in America? More innocents are killed in Americas abortion clinics than in Iraqi neighborhoods.

Is it your intent to equate the death of the innocent unborn with accidental death.?

 

[Verisimilitude]

So, are you saying that what the terrorists in Iraq are doing is legal? Because, unfortunately, what the abortion doctors are doing here is (for now).

No. I am saying what we (the US) are doing in Iraq is illegal, and the deaths we cause of innocents unintentionally in our pursuit of misguided justice are not excused by calling them an accident as if we had no intention to kill.

I equate our ‘legal’ military actions in Iraq much like the ‘legal’ actions of abortionists. Though the abortionist purposely kills an innocent unlike the soldier in most cases, they both do so with the ‘authority’ of law.

All of which is besides the point of the thread. If military action is justified to end violence in Iraq, why not use it to end violence of abortion? Personally I do not advocate the use of the military in either circumstance.

 

[estesbob]

No. I am saying what we (the US) are doing in Iraq is illegal, and the deaths we cause of innocents unintentionally in our pursuit of misguided justice are not excused by calling them an accident as if we had no intention to kill.

I equate our ‘legal’ military actions in Iraq much like the ‘legal’ actions of abortionists**. Though the abortionist purposely kills an innocent unlike the soldier in most cases, they both do so with the ‘authority’ of law. **

All of which is besides the point of the thread. If military action is justified to end violence in Iraq, why not use it to end violence of abortion? Personally I do not advocate the use of the military in either circumstance.

So we are back to our troops being the moral equivalnet of abortionists.?

Is it your intent to equate the death of the innocent unborn with accidental death.?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Is it your intent to equate the death of the innocent unborn with accidental death.?

Is it your intent to beat a dead horse more?

 

[Verisimilitude]

So we are back to our troops being the moral equivalnet of abortionists.?

No, the policy makers who give them the unjust/immoral orders and those who support them.

Is it your intent to equate the death of the innocent unborn with accidental death.?

You do understand the difference to an authority who gives an order and one tasked to carry it out, don’t you?

 

[vz71]

I equate our ‘legal’ military actions in Iraq much like the ‘legal’ actions of abortionists.

Given that the word legal her is quoted, I strongly suspect the usage may be an unconventional usage. Perhaps even incorrectly used altogether.

Perhaps a definition for the word as you are using it in this post would be in order.

While we wait for this answer though…

It looks like you are now calling the military coalition as immoral as those that murder innocent unborn children.

I thought we got past the cries of ‘Baby killer’ in the 70’s when Vietnam ended.

 

[estesbob]

No, the policy makers who give them the unjust/immoral orders and those who support them.

If the orders are immoral or unjust it is the duty of the soldiers to refuse obey them Since they willingly obey those orders it appears, once again, you are equating them with abortionsists.

It is impossible to declare the war unjust while at the same time supporting the troops. if it is an anjust war it is your moral duty to tell these soldiers they will suffer eternal damnation if they dont stop.

 

[vz71]

I’ll ask again…
Is it your intent to equate the death of the innocent unborn with accidental death.

Is it your intent to equate the death of the innocent unborn with accidental death.?

Is it your intent to beat a dead horse more?

Perhaps you need to answer the question.

The validity of this question has been explained a number of times. Your silence worsens with each passing post.

 

[estesbob]

It looks like you are now calling the military coalition as immoral as those that murder innocent unborn children.

There is no other way to read it.

I

thought we got past the cries of ‘Baby killer’ in the 70’s when Vietnam ended.

The message is “They are murdering civilians in an unjust war following unjust, immoral orders but by gosh i support them!”

 

[vz71]

If the orders are immoral or unjust it is the duty of the soldiers to refuse obey them Since they willingly obey those orders it appears, once again, you are equating them with abortionsists.

It is impossible to declare the war unjust while at the same time supporting the troops. if it is an anjust war it is your moral duty to tell these soldiers they will suffer eternal damnation if they dont stop.

You know, I was thinking for a moment…if we remove all reasoning capability from the soldiers, and remove all free will, and reduce the soldier to nothing more then an unthinking tool…the view the opposition here is attempting to thrust upon everyone would make some sense.

Of course, once suspension of disbelief is suspended enough to believe that the soldiers are nothing more then unthinking tools, you can believe anything.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Of course, once suspension of disbelief is suspended enough to believe that the soldiers are nothing more then unthinking tools, you can believe anything.

This is in part why it is relavent when I asked if you had served in the military. If you have, I would assume you could relate to the environment the average soldier/Marine finds themself. I know you don’t like to look at our law, or the past, but do you view our actions in Viet Nam as a just war after nearly 40 years have passed?

You don’t like or don’t understand how I place the responsibility on the policy makers and those who support them, and not the soldiers for the actions of the military.

 

[estesbob]

You don’t like or don’t understand how I place the responsibility on the policy makers and those who support them, and not the soldiers for the actions of the military.

It was established at Nuremberg that saying you were following orders is not valid defense. If the war is ,as you say, unjust then all of our troops are war criminals.

 

[vz71]

You don’t like or don’t understand how I place the responsibility on the policy makers and those who support them, and not the soldiers for the actions of the military.

You have already equivocated our soldiers with those that murder the unborn.

I do not believe any length of time in the armed services would help anyone understand that line of thought.

As I said before, I thought the cry ‘Baby Killer’ went out in the 70’s. Perhaps it has not…the vocabulary has simply been refined.

 

[Verisimilitude]

It was established at Nuremberg that saying you were following orders is not valid defense. If the war is ,as you say, unjust then all of our troops are war criminals.

WWII was a just war for many reasons which are not shared by every major conflict since then. Was Viet Nam a just war? Is Iraq?

 

[Verisimilitude]

You have already equivocated our soldiers with those that murder the unborn.

No, you accuse me of that but I have never said that. You equate the unintentional deaths in an unjust war as accidents without responsibility to anyone much less the people responsible for putting the troops in such a situation.

I do not believe any length of time in the armed services would help anyone understand that line of thought.

Having spent none you are qualified to conclude that how?

As I said before, I thought the cry ‘Baby Killer’ went out in the 70’s. Perhaps it has not…the vocabulary has simply been refined.

What has not been refined are the arguments that wanted to keep the war going in Viet Nam as you use them to perpetuate Iraq. My issue is not with the soldiers/Marines but the President, Congress and people like you.

 

[estesbob]

WWII was a just war for many reasons which are not shared by every major conflict since then. Was Viet Nam a just war? Is Iraq?

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Nuremberg Principal.

You claim that our Troops in Iraq are involved in an immoral and unjist war. Given the Nuremberg principle doesnt that make them , in you eyes, war criminals?

 

[vz71]

WWII was a just war for many reasons which are not shared by every major conflict since then. Was Viet Nam a just war? Is Iraq?

How quickly we move to get away from the debate and into something…anything…that is not so damning.

I am still looking at this Iraq war comparison being drawn out for us.

Troops = abortionists…

 

[vz71]

You have already equivocated our soldiers with those that murder the unborn.

No, you accuse me of that but I have never said that.

Yes you did.
Right here:

I equate our ‘legal’ military actions in Iraq much like the ‘legal’ actions of abortionists.

 

[vz71]

I do not believe any length of time in the armed services would help anyone understand that line of thought.

Having spent none you are qualified to conclude that how?

How do you arrive at this conclusion?
The one and only time the question has been directly aked in this thread, I did not answer.

Not that my service (or lack thereof) matters to the discussion at hand; but the assumption that you know based upon nothing explains much of what I am reading in this thread.