QOD

Filed in National by on May 19, 2008

How is “collateral damage” that involves innocent civilians different from abortion? And why aren’t the same people that are so vociferous about abortion being sooooo wrong, not up in arms about war?

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anon says:
    May 19, 2008 at 7:52 am

    You don’t get the sociopathic reasoning that makes it OK. See, when we drop a bomb on the house that has a baby in it, it is still not our fault; it is the fault of the enemy who made us drop the bomb. Even if there were no enemies in that building, even if it was our own stupidity that led us to assume there were enemies in the building, it is still THEIR fault (not ours) that we were flying around their country with live bombs in the first place.

  2. jason330 says:
    May 19, 2008 at 7:54 am

    If you the so-called “innocent civilians” are so innocent why are they in a war zone?

    That sounds like a snarky answer, but the heart of the wingnut logic on a question like this. It has been also be expressed like this:

    America is good, so everything that Americans do in war is good by definition.

    If ever it appears that we have done something that outside observers feel is not good, it is because those outside observers don’t understand the purity and goodness of America.

    America moves in mysterious ways.

  3. RSmitty says:
    May 19, 2008 at 7:59 am

    Good question, D.
    A friend of mine who is both pro-life and anti-death-penalty often questions the logic of the stereotypical D and R in reference to abortion and the death penalty:
    D’s: Kill ’em coming in, save ’em going out.
    Rs: Save ’em coming in, kill ’em going out.

    It’s a great question and one that is hard to answer beyond a token, “hypocrisy!” The method is nearly a non-understandable logic, so how can you explain something devoid of logic?

  4. Pandora says:
    May 19, 2008 at 8:15 am

    I hate it when you make me think! And I have been thinking – a lot – since you’ve started these posts.

    In today’s question the key word is “innocent”. Most people will equate your question to the situation in Iraq. Some will then equate Iraq as the enemy. You then end up with an end justifies the means argument. Kill ’em to save them.

    But I do get your point. Anti-abortion groups state that unborn life is sacred. Once they’re born not so much. These groups make no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. However, many of these same people have different standards/definitions when it comes to taking a life: murder, self-defense, war. Suddenly “life” enters a gray area and is open to debate among those who tolerate no debate on abortion.

    So after you made me think, I asked myself this question: What if I were pregnant and had to decide – for whatever reason – to end the life of my unborn child or end the life of my 11 year old daughter?

    My internal debate lasted approximately 2 seconds. I would chose my 11 year old.

  5. Pandora says:
    May 19, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Wow, just re-read. That didn’t come across clearly! I would chose my 11 yr old to LIVE.

  6. RickJ19958 says:
    May 19, 2008 at 8:23 am

    The crux of these questions lately has been realized life vs. unrealized life. For most opponents of abortion, that’s a straw man.

    Unrealized life can be defended without attacking the living.

  7. anon says:
    May 19, 2008 at 8:28 am

    And where does your question leave the many people like me? I identify myself as pro-life -and by that I mean I am against both abortion and the death penalty, as well as for social programs that support women who choose not to abort and programs that support families in general. I am also admantly opposed to this war and have been from the start. By assuming that everyone who is anti-abortion automatically supports the death penalty and war (and is presumably conservative and Republican, of which I am neither), you effectively shut down dialog with people like me who actually support most of the same causes you do.

  8. Delaware's Hottest Blogger says:
    May 19, 2008 at 8:49 am

    RickJ,

    but this isn’t a hypothetical. this is a real question. I don’t understand the rational behind it.

    somehow, unborn, little itty bitty fertilized eggs have become more valuable then actual people and I don’t get that….

  9. Pandora says:
    May 19, 2008 at 9:12 am

    Anon, I admire and respect your consistency. Unfortunately, it’s the squeaky wheel syndrome. It’s the ‘pro-life’ spokespeople who seem to talk out of both sides of their mouths.

    I can relate, however, on another level. My support of Obama has been questioned by feminists. I just don’t seem to fit with the national dialogue.

  10. Von Cracker says:
    May 19, 2008 at 10:07 am

    Here’s a difference:

    When someone has an abortion, it will not and does not affect you.

    When our government kills and maims innocents in the name of freedom, GWOT, or whatever. Those who survive, or their friends or family, may seek revenge on our ‘innocents’.

    Just ask Mohammed Atta….Oh wait, you can’t.

  11. Brian says:
    May 19, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Some Americans feel that post-natal abortion is ok. That is they send one group of unaborted babies to blow ths shit out another group of unaborted babies. In their mind it makes violence ok and also increases the number of abortions at home….we must remind ourselves that it was G H W Bush who wrote the family planning Act that so many of the anti-abortion crowd take offense at and both Bush’s who like post-natal abortion.

  12. Brian says:
    May 19, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Go see my pictures of the day at Delaware Libertarian it explains it all.

  13. Duffy says:
    May 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    DV: your comment about “itty bitty cells” isn’t the sum total of abortions. A great many occur when the child is clearly formed. Heartbeat, arms, legs, etc.

    Second, the prime difference is intentional death vs. accidental. There is no accidental death in an abortion. Once again, turning the question on it’s head; why are people (read: you) so exercised about accidental deaths but so flippant about intentional ones?

  14. anon says:
    May 19, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    What is so accidental about collateral deaths of civilians?

  15. G Rex says:
    May 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Collateral damage vs. abortion? Weak. I guess you haven’t heard yet that “honor” killings have shot way up in Iraq, especially in the Kurdish zone. That is news I find extremely troubling.

  16. Delaware's Hottest Blogger says:
    May 19, 2008 at 7:37 pm

    I thought we invaded Iraq to free them…sounds like things are going well.

«
»