Abortion War

[dairygirl4u2c]

you might have a point that i'm missing, maybe i need it explained more.

war with germans or a hypothetical genocide situation, is the only way to stop it. according to my understanding of your position, you'd say that we shouldn't kill to prevent killing in those situations cause it'd come accross as hypocritical, and we should try to change the hearts of the killers in those hypothetical situations.

i realize that you didn't bring the nazi's into it. but, you're trying to rationalize that war is okay given that it was beyond repair, but not with abortion. so, the reason i said the point isn't that germans killing people at X point in time, is cause it seems like if you have any argument as per that beyond repair stuff, it's a techincality, and it misses the main point. ie, a genocidal situation with a million dead per year isn't going to be fixed without war.

Edited October 5, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[peach_cube]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1670559' date='Oct 4 2008, 11:36 PM']you might have a point that i'm missing, maybe i need it explained more.

war with germans or a hypothetical genocide situation, is the only way to stop it. according to my understanding of your position, you'd say that we shouldn't kill to prevent killing in those situations cause it'd come accross as hypocritical, and we should try to change the hearts of the killers in those hypothetical situations.[/quote]

I am not saying anything about the nazi's. I am discussing the topic of an "abortion war." There are obvious differences between the two.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i realize that you didn't bring the nazi's into it. but, you're trying to rationalize that war is okay given that it was beyond repair, but not with abortion. so, the reason i said the point isn't that germans killing people at X point in time, is cause it seems like if you have any argument as per that beyond repair stuff, it's a techincality, and even if youre right, you just showed that the that specifci analogy was bad, but it misses the main point. ie, a genocidal situation with a million dead per year isn't going to be fixed without war.

basically imagine a halocaust that wasn't beyond repair culturally.

(plus i don't think there's obvious difference between the two, at all point of the german killing. namely, at the beginning of the killing, there was chance to change culturally. i suppose you might be taling about 1943 and me earlier though, but the point is that war was needed the whole time)

Edited October 5, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

basically, are you willing to say that we should change the culture if:

republicans started killing democrats. they've been killing them at the rate of a million per year. they think it's justified as they think democrats are crooked. there could plausibly but no time in the near future be change.

you'd be for trying ot change that culture anyway?
you would't use physical force to stop them?

[goldenchild17]

I think the abortion holocaust is a good comparison to the Nazi one. I think a war is most definitely needed, but it's just not practical. Who would fight it? A group of renegade civilians who would only end up being thrown in jail, or worse? There is no government and/or military organization that would engage in such actions. But yes it is needed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think you're right golden, at the present state of things. but, if there were an organized effort, i'd think it possible. this all basically ties into the need for authrity. ie, a leader and an organized source go hand in hand.

but even if that's the case, all that means is that we need an organization effort. and i dont' see any attempts at doing that. so, it shows that people are cowards, or there's some understanding of the other sides' position.

why isn't there an organization effort etc?
(it's not like there's meaningful attempts which have been thwarted)

[peach_cube]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1670562' date='Oct 4 2008, 11:40 PM']i realize that you didn't bring the nazi's into it. but, you're trying to rationalize that war is okay given that it was beyond repair, but not with abortion. so, the reason i said the point isn't that germans killing people at X point in time, is cause it seems like if you have any argument as per that beyond repair stuff, it's a techincality, and even if youre right, you just showed that the that specifci analogy was bad, but it misses the main point. ie, a genocidal situation with a million dead per year isn't going to be fixed without war.

basically imagine a halocaust that wasn't beyond repair culturally.

(plus i don't think there's obvious difference between the two, at all point of the german killing. namely, at the beginning of the killing, there was chance to change culturally. i suppose you might be taling about 1943 and me earlier though, but the point is that war was needed the whole time)[/quote]

There are obvious differences in governments involved, the visibility of the genocide, the worldwide view of those being killed as human, etc. This has made it much easier to change people's hearts and minds against this form of genocide, though still not enough to prevent it.

Because of these differences I do not see war as a solution to the problem of abortion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

we engage in the war, not because they're clearly human or not, but because we have a decent plausibility of winning, andor it's the right thing to do.

you're saying because they're learly human, we'd have a good chance to win.

i suppose i didn't make it clear.... but in my hypothetical repub killing dems... the liklihood of success hypothetically speaking is jsut as high as it is with abortion. this would make sense, cuse the population is split as per political parities, as they are in abortion.

i don't see how knowing htey're human or not is relevant, if the probablility of success is just as high in abortion or in my hypothetical.
i don't see how you addressed the point. granted, i didn't make the factors clear, but i think it obvious what my point is, and it seems you're trying to avoid it.

in my hypothetical, there would be war. we wouldn't be trying to change hearts.

Edited October 5, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

I think whether or not they are a separate human being from the mother makes a big difference. If they aren't human, then what is the big deal? But I think that can be proven scientifically and so an organized military gathering could have probable cause to move forward and do something about it. I don't think I agree on the idea of people being cowards for not doing anything. I think its just nearly impossibly hard to organize such a thing at this time.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1670642' date='Oct 5 2008, 01:34 AM']I think whether or not they are a separate human being from the mother makes a big difference. If they aren't human, then what is the big deal? But I think that can be proven scientifically and so an organized military gathering could have probable cause to move forward and do something about it. I don't think I agree on the idea of people being cowards for not doing anything. I think its just nearly impossibly hard to organize such a thing at this time.[/quote]

my point wasn't that the science dones't matter. my point is that with her reasoning, if the success is the same with or without knowing the humanity in question, then the humanity is irrelevant. she had no reason to bring it up.
the only reason she'd bring it up, the humanity, is to show that there'd be a greater liklihood of success with born human being killed. my hypothetical assumes the success is the same as with abrotion. so in that sense, the humanity doesn'tmatter, it's an irrlevant point.
she's missing my point, trying to avoid the situation.

you agree it's the same thing, you simply think it not possible. your position is tenable, her's is not.
not until she finds a difference between my hypohetical and theabortion issue.

aside from those points, though, i disagree that it's not possible. i mean, it might not be. but it's surely plausible to organize that effort, no? esp if the pope called for it, or a good leader etc. movements in that regard, could include petitioningthe pope etc. i don't see anyone doing it. it's cause they're cowards, that's all. maybe you hadn't thought about the pope etc, cause i don't see how you're so sure it's not possible.

Edited October 5, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[peach_cube]

Just stop trying to compare WWII to the current abortion situation. It doesn't work. WWII was not fought because of the genocide taking place.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1670618' date='Oct 5 2008, 01:05 AM']we engage in the war, not because they're clearly human or not, but because we have a decent plausibility of winning, andor it's the right thing to do.

you're saying because they're learly human, we'd have a good chance to win.

i suppose i didn't make it clear.... but in my hypothetical repub killing dems... the liklihood of success hypothetically speaking is jsut as high as it is with abortion. this would make sense, cuse the population is split as per political parities, as they are in abortion.

i don't see how knowing htey're human or not is relevant, if the probablility of success is just as high in abortion or in my hypothetical.
i don't see how you addressed the point. granted, i didn't make the factors clear, but i think it obvious what my point is, and it seems you're trying to avoid it.

in my hypothetical, there would be war. we wouldn't be trying to change hearts.[/quote]

We can't even stop genocide today despite WWII, what makes you think we can stop something that is far more private with war. The goal should be to end these things, that is how I measure success. Unless we educate people, and change their hearts and minds, a war fought specifically to end abortion will not be successful. It would not succeed in ending abortion.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1670649' date='Oct 5 2008, 02:54 AM']my point wasn't that the science dones't matter. my point is that with her reasoning, if the success is the same with or without knowing the humanity in question, then the humanity is irrelevant. she had no reason to bring it up.
the only reason she'd bring it up, the humanity, is to show that there'd be a greater liklihood of success with born human being killed. my hypothetical assumes the success is the same as with abrotion. so in that sense, the humanity doesn'tmatter, it's an irrlevant point.
she's missing my point, trying to avoid the situation.

you agree it's the same thing, you simply think it not possible. your position is tenable, her's is not.
not until she finds a difference between my hypohetical and theabortion issue.

aside from those points, though, i disagree that it's not possible. i mean, it might not be. but it's surely plausible to organize that effort, no? esp if the pope called for it, or a good leader etc. movements in that regard, could include petitioningthe pope etc. i don't see anyone doing it. it's cause they're cowards, that's all. maybe you hadn't thought about the pope etc, cause i don't see how you're so sure it's not possible.[/quote]
You really believe that it would be more likely to organize a civilian military, train, shelter, fund, arm and organize them to attack and kill their fellow citizens in order to end abortion, then it would be to get more people out on the street educating people about abortion in order to take advantage of the democratic process available to us in this country? Really?

Edited October 5, 2008 by peach_cube

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1670649' date='Oct 5 2008, 12:54 AM']aside from those points, though, i disagree that it's not possible. i mean, it might not be. but it's surely plausible to organize that effort, no? esp if the pope called for it, or a good leader etc. movements in that regard, could include petitioningthe pope etc. i don't see anyone doing it. it's cause they're cowards, that's all. maybe you hadn't thought about the pope etc, cause i don't see how you're so sure it's not possible.[/quote]


I'm not so sure. I have thought about the pope. But what government would listen to the Pope? The Holy Wars were made possible because many Catholic nations came together united under the Pope when he called for action. There is no nation today (at least not one with a strong enough military) that is Catholic enough to take up the cause under the Pope. The position of the Papacy simply does not have the political power that it didn't 5-6+ centuries ago. The only world power that could generate a big enough movement I think, would be the United Nations or EU, and I think anyone who would actually expect them to call for such a cause that is completely opposed to their principles is not being reasonable. I don't think cowardice is the problem, I think its simply that there is no political power (pope included) that would be able to bring about such a following, and any political power that actually held the needed power to bring about the war would not do so (UN).

[dairygirl4u2c]

there could be people rallying, using their first amendment rights to say how we need war. that kind of talk is possible, it's exactly what the first amendment covers.
there may need to be more rallying before it's truly possible, but i don't even see the rallying. exercise your first amendment. i don't see it. there's no excuse.

yes, it's surely possible to end abortion with war, or ot severly limit it. people won't be willing to die for abortion as much, the prolife cause would have an upper hand. it doesn't ahve to be prolife citizens killing prochoice citizens.... rather, targeting abnortion clinics, people who try to stop you, places where abortions are underground, prochoice politicians and judges etc.

people could have and probably were saying the same thing before the civil war and slaves. "they're disputable persons" "this is infighting we're talking about"

the only reason it might not work, is cause people are too cynical, cowardly, about it. if you got the pope, or at least began rallying, it can begin the process where it can become a formidable force.

there's no rallies, there's no cry for war etc. people have no excuse.

i'm surprised peole think it'd go nowhere, i don't unersand the reasoning,,,, and even i their reasoning is true now, why not have ralliies? why not start trying to form parties and coalitions etc?

Edited October 5, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c