« Dead Sea Scrolls on the Web | Main | Stem Cell News »

August 27, 2008

Comments

I feel that we can trust a man who voted against life saving treatment for abortion survivors to find common ground on the issue. It just makes sense.

Common ground sounds nice and is obligatory for political speeches, but let's face it: the nation has two competing and incompatible world-views at war with each other, and there will not be peace until one dominates the other, or the nation divides into separate political bodies.

One world-view rests on moral revelation and individual responsibility before God, while the other rests on the inherent perfectibility of collective man by enlightened government. When these two attempt to work together in modern legislatures, the result is schizophrenic laws, with bits written to mollify one side or the other, but with no coherent underlying thought. If one side manages to dominate and produce a law that's consistent within their world-view, the other side invariably regards it as a clear violation of moral principle. Common ground in this situation can only occur by coincidence.

Though I have no illusion about the difficulty, and I'm not sure it's even possible, I would like to see the beginning of a discussion aiming at a peaceful partition of the United States into two separate nations. I don't see that the two sides of this war can be reconciled, as their claims are simply incompatible.

Common Ground
Hope
Change

What does that MEAN?

I find it amazing that in a country that prides itself on "assuming" innocence until proven guilty, why is it so hard for those who aren't sure when life begins to at least err on the side of caution, and assume life!

I believe abortion is murder. But so is the bombing of civilians which naturally occurs whenever you bomb cities like Baghdad. If the war this war is unjustifiable as evidence suggests, then even the bombing of troops becomes murder according to the historic church positions for justifiable war. My question is, will the Dems lessen the total number of murders that are being carried out by the Neoconservatives? If so it is best to vote for them.

>>”I believe abortion is murder. But so is the bombing of civilians which naturally occurs whenever you bomb cities like Baghdad.”

You believe our troops are murderers?

What a shame.

Hi "Pro Life". How does it make sense to vote for people who encourage unjustifiable (in every sense of the word) taking of innocent human life?
1-in the womb (suction, saline, etc.)
2-part way out of the womb (partial birth abortion with scissors to the back of the head and suction to collapse the skull) at any point in the gestation process - even 9 mo. which is fully "viable" by anyone's definition.
3-after a botched abortion. Obama refused to vote for a bill that would protect a newborn baby from being murdered if it is "accidentally" born alive after being subjected to an attempted abortion.

You may disagree with our political leader's views on a justifiable war, or think they have responded to an attack on our nation inappropriately, but an honest assesment of the situation would have to include the acknowledgement that Afgahanistan and Iraq harbored and/or supported terrorists who ACTUALLY attacked our country. No one that I know of has EVER been harmed by a baby in it's mother's womb.

You stated that the bombing of civilians is murder. Do you condemn Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman for bombing in areas where there were civilians in WW2?

Should we have allowed the south to leave the Union in the 1860's, knowing that they would continue to enslave human beings if they were permitted to establish their own country? The only way that war was won was by invading "innocent" civilian areas and fighting the battle wherever the enemy was found.

It seems that with your way of thinking the only way to fight for the defense of a country is to have armies agree to meet in uninhabited areas and kill each other until one group decided to quit. This kind of warfare hasn't been done for centuries.

No one likes to see civilians killed as armies try to root out the enemy. But if you are really concerned about defending innocent humans, i can't think of a more needy group than the unborn children who now occupy the wombs of American women.

Oh, one more thing "Pro Life". Even if you want to put the innocent unborn on the same level morally as civilian people who live in countries that support terrorists, your numbers don't add up. In the past five years (about the period of time we've been in Iraq), 5 million unborn babies have been murdered in their mother's wombs. No one has suggested that anywhere near that number of civilians have been killed in the last five years by "Neoconservatives" in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, if you are trying to lessen the total number of deaths, voting for "Neoconservatives" who are likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v Wade and return the issue to the state legislatures, where it belongs, may be your best choice.
If you combined all the civilians killed in the last 50 years in all the wars the United States has been involved in, the number of deaths would not even approach the millions who have been murdered in their mothers wombs by the greedy, racist abortion industry.

Thanks for your replies. Here are a few of my thoughts. The Republicans say they are against abortion but this evil is still with us and will continue since it is such a huge industry. If the Iraq war is unjust by church standards, then yes it involves all, even pro war voters with murder. The Neoconservative doctrine of preemptive strike is not aligned with just war theory unless we adapt a liberal view. Interventionist (against the wisdom of our American forefathers)foreign policy creates 911 situations.

Point 1)
I thought your argument was that you believe that both abortion and the current war are murder. How can you vote for a party that openly promotes the "right" to murder the unborn. Clearly there are many more innocent unborn killed every year than there are civilians killed in wars involving the United States.

Point 2)

The 911 attack was only the first successful attack on the heart of Americas financial district. The first time terrorists tried to take down the world trade center, during the Clinton administration, they failed. Which interventionist, Neoconservative policies was Bill Clinton promoting to create this 911 type of situation?

In other words-If you blame republican interventionist actions for the atacks of terrorists against us, why would the terrorists have attacked us during the Clinton/Albright years?

Thanks for your replies. If the Iraq war is unjust and therefore considered murder, voting for the party that will end the war would make us guilty of fewer murders. (BTW I am a Republican). I said above, Interventionist (against the wisdom of our American forefathers)foreign policy creates 911 situations.
The NeoCon preemptive strike doctrine creates unjust war situations.

1) ProLife wrote: "I believe abortion is murder. But so is the bombing of civilians which naturally occurs whenever you bomb cities like Baghdad."

What on earth does war have to do with abortion? Just for the sake of argument, let's grant you that collateral damage in a war is a moral outrage equal to abortion (it's not even close, but let's say it is.) Then what? In what way have you altered the argument against abortion in the slightest? Talk about a Red Herring...

2) ProLife wrote: "The Republicans say they are against abortion but this evil is still with us and will continue since it is such a huge industry."

Actually, it's still with us and will continue since Republicans respect the rule of law, and there's a Supreme Court ruling requiring legal abortion in the US (one universally regarded as bad law, but a ruling nonetheless). Republicans made a serious attempt to overturn this decision legally (Planned Parenthood v Casy, 1992) and were foiled by what I believe to have been sheer cowardice on the part of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who could not face being "the woman who outlawed abortion for all women." When the Court has a reliable conservative majority, Republicans will try again. Count on it.

3) ProLife wrote: "If the Iraq war is unjust and therefore considered murder, voting for the party that will end the war would make us guilty of fewer murders."

I have to try hard here to avoid insulting; this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. The war is essentially WON, so neither party is "the party that will end the war." And before the war was won, do you have the slightest idea what the estimated collateral damage would have been if al Qaeda had taken hold of the country???

Please keep your partisan nonsense on sites where it's appropriate. This is not one of those.

Thanks. I'm trying to find some kind of understanding here.
Are we saying it's OK to murder innocent civilians, but not OK to murder innocent babies?

Pro Life said "My question is, will the Dems lessen the total number of murders that are being carried out by the Neoconservatives? If so it is best to vote for them."

I replied, "If you combined all the civilians killed in the last 50 years in all the wars the United States has been involved in, the number of deaths would not even approach the millions who have been murdered in their mothers wombs by the greedy, racist abortion industry."

1) If you are trying to reduce the total number of "murders" committed by Americans, wouldn't it make sense to focus on the one area that is killing innocents by the millions?

Your answer to this seems to be that abortion is a "huge industry" that will "always be with us".

Slavery was a huge industry, and abolitionists fought it valiantly until it was removed from the Western world. Throwing up your hands and giving up is not an answer that I find compelling

I also pointed out that we were attacked by terrorists PRIOR to 911 during the Clinton administration.

2) What Interventionist policy of the democrats "caused" this attack? If there is none, then it appears to me that "Interventionism" is NOT the cause of "911 type situations".

You still haven't responded to either of these points.


And your comments about interventionism (which you are using to justify a vote for the party of abortion rights), are not rational, unless you can explain just how the Clinton administration was a Neocon interventionist administration.

Can you provide a rational answer to points 1 and 2 above?

Curt wrote

"So, if you are trying to lessen the total number of deaths, voting for 'Neoconservatives' who are likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v Wade and return the issue to the state legislatures, where it belongs, may be your best choice."

Here's a thought to consider: Don't issues of human rights need the federal government to weigh in with a clarification in the Constitution itself? If slavery isn't an issue for states to decide, how can abortion be?

Pro Life, you said "Thanks. I'm trying to find some kind of understanding here.
Are we saying it's OK to murder innocent civilians, but not OK to murder innocent babies?"

No. It is not ok to murder innocent civilians or babies.

But think about it. Dems and Reps. have both been leaders in wars that have killed innocent civilians, a tragic consequence of warfare that seeks to root out and destroy evildoers. Every war through our history has had this tragic reality.

But there is a rational, logical reason to fight war, however tragic and painful it may be. Both parties in our past have acknowledged this and done their duty to defend our own nation. And both parties have made mistakes. Clinton bombed an aspirin factory. Bush has directed strikes that surely have killed civilians. Truman firebombed Dresden, and of course bomebed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to shorten the war and ultimatly SAVE LIVES. Agree or disagree, I believe that President Bush is attempting to save American lives by letting terrorists know that they cannot attack us with impunity.

However, what moral justification can there possibly be for the killing of children in their mother's wombs? There is only one party that defends this practice, and that is the Dems.

Steve wrote, "Don't issues of human rights need the federal government to weigh in with a clarification in the Constitution itself? If slavery isn't an issue for states to decide, how can abortion be?"

Good point Steve. So therefore, we need to elect a President who will not appoint the kind of court that will continue to devalue babies in the womb the way that the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision devalued blacks.

If you want a strong Supreme Court willing to take a stand for human life the way they did when they overturned Roe v. Wade, then don't vote for Dems.

Whoops. I meant to say, "If you want a strong Supreme Court willing to take a stand for human life the way they did when they overturned Dred Scott, then don't vote for Dems."

Thanks for your reply. The Dems appear willing to use diplomacy first and bombs last.

The Neoconservatives reflect by their actions in Iraq, that they use bombs before diplomacy.

Diplomacy plus the inability to produce the WMD's through exhaustive searching would have quelled the lie and prevented this misery.

It appears they wanted the war for other reasons, or diplomacy would have been first and foremost and would have yielded peaceful results.

If we say it doesn't matter where we start the war, Muslims are terrorists and anywhere in the Middle East will do, we begin to sound too much like Hitler when he stereotyped the Jews. Although it looks like this is what the Neocons are doing.

Since I see abortion as murder, and unjust war as murder, I vote for whatever will minimize and hopefully put an end to murder.

Pro-Life wrote:

>>”The Republicans say they are against abortion but this evil is still with us and will continue since it is such a huge industry.”

I’m starting to feel that “Pro-Life” is less concerned about abortion and more about an anti- “Neoconservative” axe that needs grinding.

Just my opinion from reading - could be dead wrong.

Hi again Pro Life. You said,
"It appears they wanted the war for other reasons, or diplomacy would have been first and foremost and would have yielded peaceful results."

Again, I'd like to ask you,

1) What Neocon, interventionist policy caused the attacks on the World Trade Center during the Clinton administration? Why didn't his "diplomacy" produce the peaceful results you describe? Remember, Osama Bin Laden and Al Quida came to power during Clinton's administration. Why?

2) Since Dems and Reps bomb civilians in other countries,(don't forget, Clinton bombed not only an aspirin factory in Sudan, he also dropped bombs on Kosovo in an attempt to defeat Slobadon Milosovic's forces, killing untold numbers of civilians. LBJ got us solidly into a war in Vietnam, where multitudes of civilians suffered and died under his leadership. Roosevelt directed the bombing of civilians in France in order to fight the Nazis. Truman led two wars which killed civilians (WW2 and Korea). Carter didn't directly engage any other countries in battle but helped depose the Shaw of Iran, a murderous dictator, and replaced him with the Ayatolla Komenhi-who murdered far more Iranians than the Shaw ever did.) why would you vote for a party that historically participates in bombing and killing civilians AND encourages killing unborn babies in their mother's wombs? (the Dems)


Thanks for taking time for this.

If we are to be consistent, we must condemn all murder. It should start with our Condemnation of the Democrats direct involvement with Abortion. But it should also include our condemnation of The Neocons Preemptive Strike Doctrine and plans for perpetual war. (Google Neoconservative Defense Planning Guidance).The question is, who will most reduce the overall number of civilian and baby deaths? The Dems, or the Republicans?

I think you guys are listening to WAY too much CNN. "Plans for perpetual war?" Left wing web sites and Keith Olberman are not credible sources for objective reporting!

WE WERE ATTACKED ON 911! REMEMBER?

Your disagreement on how to best respond to 911 DOES NOT justify voting for the murder of babies!

Aaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhh!!!!

WE WERE ATTACKED ON 911! REMEMBER?

Yes, but not by Iraq = unjust war = mass murder.

We cannot condemn abortion while at the same time condoning unjust wars.

So you're going to vote for a man who won't vote to save a baby even if it is born alive after a botched abortion?

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions.
Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.” -Human Events online.

If you're going to throw around terms like "mass murder", i think you might want to include abortion industry supporters in the mix.

How can you possibly justify a vote for the party of the abortion industry. 40 million dead babies is what I call mass murder. What about you?

I am planning to vote for Bob Barr instead of Obama or McCain as a matter of conscience. (McCain still might choose a baby butcher for a running mate unless current pro life pressure forces him not to.)

If this means Obama wins, I guess my point is, the evil Dems are a more moral choice at this time than the Neoconservatives.

I appreciate your replies. This is a great forum and I'm very blessed in finding it.

Pro Life-

I'm glad I found this site, too. It is a great forum, and I also feel blessed to have found it.

I'm not sure that I understand why you throw around terms like "Neoconservative" and "mass murder" in relation to those who are fighting for the defense of our country. And I really don't understand how you can put a military response to an attack on our country on the same moral level as killing innocent babies. I don't see any moral equivalence.

The United Nations agreed with and participated in the attack on Iraq. There were numerous reasons for the attack, and Dems agreed that it was a responsible action.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

On October 14, 2001, a former Iraqi army captain named Sabah Khodada granted an interview to the PBS television program "Frontline" in which he talked about a terrorist training camp in Iraq called Salman Pak. During this interview Khodada stated, "This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/ interviews/khodada.html

It was only after Dems decided that they could use the war for political gain that they decided to pretend that they knew better all along, and were "deceived" by Bush.

So, not only did the Dems

1) support our entry into the war
and
2) stab our commander in chief and our troops in the back by giving propaganda encouragement to the enemy once we were there.

but they

3) encourage killing of the unborn by the millions.

I'm not sure how they are a "more moral" choice.

All wars are 'unjust' (not fair).

Even if committing violence to save oneself is wrong, is refusing to use violence to save ANOTHER person right?

Can the rules of individual morality be applied as well to Nations?

We need to be careful in how we apply Old Testament principles to modern situations, for some may have a more direct application to the nation Israel (because of promises God made specifically to them). Even so, we may still develop a number of principles about war, from the Old Testament. For instance, God may use war as divine retribution or judgment upon sin, and to bring people to repentance. He may use it to perfect those who belong to him, and to teach them to seek refuge in him. He may also use war to vindicate his sovereignty.

The sixth commandment stresses the sanctity of life, and prohibits murder. Some try to use this command as a prohibition against killing under any circumstances. However, the Hebrew word focuses specifically on murder--and most English translations will state it that way. Also, we must remember that this same God also instituted capital punishment (death) for those who violate this commandment (Genesis 9:6; and various passages throughout the law). There is no reason to invent a contradiction between two of God's commands


When Jesus says, "Don't resist an evil person" (Matthew 5:39), he is not advocating a pacifistic stance on war. In this passage, he is correcting an abuse of the moral law as given in the Old Testament. The command, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" (Matthew 5:38; a quote from Deuteronomy 19:21 and elsewhere), was given for the public administration of justice, but had been distorted into a rationale for personal revenge. Jesus stresses, in this whole passage, that we should exercise forbearance when wronged, and not vengeful passion or resentment. When Jesus says, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44), he does not set aside justice. Rather, he is telling us to reflect the character of "our Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:45). [Though the topic is not directly addressed in the Sermon on the Mount, even civil government is to reflect God's character, when it is administering justice. To refuse to administer justice would be a denial of one aspect of God's character.]

Paul also stresses this same concept when he says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil," "Do not seek revenge," and "Overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17-21). He is focusing on personal conduct. In the next chapter, he changes his focus to civil government--and there he says that the government does have the right to use the sword, as God's servant, sent to punish those who do wrong (Romans 13:4).

Many point to Jesus' life as an example of pacifism, but a close look at the Scriptures shows this to be without grounds. It is correct to say that Christ came to save men, but it must not be forgotten that unsaved men face future judgment by him. Some claim that Jesus' refusal to bow down to Satan in order to be given all the kingdoms of the world (Matthew 4:8-10) implies his rejection of the methods necessary for conquering the world (including any type of force, up to and including war), but this is ungrounded speculation. It cannot be ignored that Christ did use force, such as when he drove the money-changers from the temple area.

Pro Life,

I don't feel as though this site is a good location to dispute politics. I do believe your position regarding the Iraq war is entirely contrary to the facts; we invaded Iraq after a 15-year dispute spanning 3 Presidential administrations and 7 sessions of Congress. The resolution declaring a US policy of regime change in Iraq was passed in 1998, before any "Neocons" entered the White House. Deposing Saddam Hussein was long-standing US policy, embarked upon after a long and careful buildup. There is no "neocon" policy of "perpetual war;" that's conspiracy theory nonsense.

If you'd like to read more detail or discuss nuances, allow me to invite you to my POLITICAL blog, where a post back in May addressed the issues you seem to have on your mind. The URL for the post is http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=376. Please feel free to come and comment, and I'll carry on the conversation there.

Regarding collateral damage as murder:

1) God hates war generally; however, I think it's plain that He endorses self-defense, and sometimes taking the initiative is the best defense against an encroaching evil.

2) Until fairly recently, targeting civilians was more or less accepted; it's only recently become US military protocol to take extraordinary measures to avoid collateral damage.

3) The actual rules of war may surprise you a little. They are:

A) You WILL target civilians.

B) You WILL NOT hide behind civilians or pretend to be civilian while fighting.

Take an example of a soldier hiding on a bus full of kids, and firing from there. The guys at whom he's firing aren't going to just let him fire; they're going to take him out, and probably get some of the kids at the same time. That's why rule B exists -- civilized armies protect civilians by agreeing not to hide among them. That minimizes collateral damage.

4) It's not correct to equate acts of soldiers in war to acts of an abortionist ending a life. Soldiers exercising their trade are generally targeting individuals who know they are at risk, choose to take that risk, and usually attempt to defend themselves. This is true whether the target is another soldier firing a weapon or a plant manufacturing ball bearings for tanks.

An abortion, on the other hand, attacks a defenseless human being in an environment designed and expected to keep that human being safe. There is no defense possible. This constitutes a raw act of power on the part of the abortionist.

There are plenty of acts committed in wars that approach the line toward murder, and probably cross it. War is a horrible thing (although, as Hemingway pointed out, there are worse things than war, and most of them occur after defeat.) However, the act of abortion is an unambiguous evil, and never justifiable except when the life of the mother and child are both at risk.

Thanks for your contributions. Bush created the Iraq war as a first resort. This violates one of many points of mainline Christianity's just war theory. It also rules out the Neoconservative doctrine of preemptive strike as well. When put into action, This becomes murder for all involved. The point is. We cannot condemn one type of murder (Abortion) and not another (unjust war).

Dear Pro Life.

Your posts make one thing clear to me.

Democrat leaders have successfully turned Americans eyes off of the abortion issue, making it seem almost insignificant. People who do the bidding of Democrat party leaders by ignoring the abortion issue saying, "Oh well, what can we do about abortion? Let's turn our attention to Bush's 'unjust war'", are very useful tools in their hands.

Thanks again for your concern. If we vote Democratic, we have the blood of innocent babies on our hands. If we vote Republican (Neoconservative)we have the blood of innocent victims of unjust war on our hands.

The comments to this entry are closed.