ive noticed that a lot of pro-life people are also pro war

Post Reply New Topic

I've noticed that a lot of people that i talk to that are pro-life are also pro-war. Also a lot seem to be pro-death penalty. how can these peoples deal with the obvious heavy irony?

Terrorists who won't settle for anything less than their agenda can't be negotiated with and therefore must be dealt with through war. The death penalty punishes people for what they've done and are also a risk to others so it saves other inmates and CO's from being murdered. Being pro-life doesn't mean people shouldn't have to die under any other circumstances whatsoever. Under that logic, people who are pro-life and believe in laws that allow you to kill in self defense are hypocrites.

So please explain to me why being pro-life means I have to be a pacifist. btw I don't believe in the death penalty either.

The two most recent US wars were not against terrorists. There were against unlikeable regimes and I guess that US would really need the oil anyway.

The US government hasn't made any money from oil and they get most of their imports from Canada. Also the way they conducted both wars made oil unprofitable anyways. Would've made more sense to either invade us or bail out like the Soviets did in Afghanistan without establishing a new government, rebuilding infrastructure, deterring other nations or extremists from taking over during this vulnerable state, etc. Would've been a hell of a lot cheaper to nuke or bomb the s**t out of em rather than have boots on the ground.

Imperialism is one possibility, but oil is BS since it is unprofitable.

I don't agree with Iraq and I think they should've just went to Pakistan, but I guess cuz of politics they're afraid of pissing em off. Afghanistan is pretty justified if you ask me.

its just to me I hear a lot of moaning and wailing about the unborn appocolypse genocide...while most of them dont seem to be batting an eye over all the children that are dying in our occupied lands of starvation and other nasty things due directly to our military involvment. And if Iraq was'nt taken over for the oil (its the third largest producer of oil in the world) then why was it? all the reasons that the Bush administration gave were total BS.

Here's the secret.... They aren't Pro-Life! They're just Anti-Women.

It is irrelevant.

The wars were for oil. And it is probably one of the best things your government does for you people. The oil consumption in US is not stopping any time. The government does not need to earn money from oil. There is the private corporations for that, which did get very happy in Iraq after the fact. The US government does not need to sell oil, but they need to ensure availability of oil as a resource to keep the US economy sort of alive or else the political bill would kill them both dems and reps. It is pure geopolitics and in a pragmatic world they are doing their job. I cannot blame them for doing a war for oil, and in part I would say they do everyone but the OPEC a favor by keeping the oil barrel at a reasonable cost, but to claim it was about terrorism is just lame. Even the Afghanistan one was more about natural gas than anything else - Assasinating Osama or at least making him flee would have been very easy. Same as freezing accounts of the Taliban if they really fund Osama.

If they were so worried about terrorism, you would think they would be doing something about Pakistan. It is clear they were protecting Osama. But the US officials are capable enough to know that a true war on terrorism would be stupid. There's nothing to gain geopolitically or economically and it is not really possible to win such a war. What they could do is assassinate terrorist leaders and keep organizations unstable and with organizational problems, but that is a little too easy and you cannot use such thing as an excuse for an invasion.

So what if a lot of anti-abortion people are pro-war? Playing on the meaning of the term "pro-life" without recognition of its meaning is either intentionally deceptive of self-deceptive. The term, pro-life, specifically means "opposed to abortion", not "opposed to killing in general" or whatever else is contrived.

Perhaps surprisingly a principle components analysis of a survey from a month or two ago indicated that in fact, preference for war seems to be orthogonal to position on abortion. Perhaps the "pro life" people support wars like Iraq, while the "pro abortion choice" people support wars like Libya.

If you are a literal word user as I often am then pro-life is as poorly chosen a term as the very stupid pro-choice [just a linguistic not a political assessment, folks].

Of course the differences between abortion, criminal elimination, euthanasia and war can lead some to evaluate the situations differently, though some will oppose all of them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
phil beat me too it the problem is semantic.
the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights strike me as being fair.

Quite. You can quote my quite.

I wasn't aware that newborns are able to murder people...

In the situation of the death penalty, the person condemned is guilty of a heinous crime usually 1st Degree Murder. A child in the womb/newborn baby is guilty of no crime.

Being inconvenient can [law being as it is in the world] be declared a crime at any point.

"pro abortion rights" implies the existence of abortion "rights", which the antiabortion folks do not concede exist. "pro abortion choice" is a better term.

I see where you are coming from but I am afraid it would just collapse to pro-choice in usage.
pro-abortion rights as in they are "for a right to have an abortion".
just like pro emigrant rights or pro Gay rights.
Language always fails but it is better than the pro-life pro-choice nonsense.
where each side begs the question.