Pro-life or Pro-Choice.. let's argue! - Page 16

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek help

That is one of the major misconceptions of religion. God gave man free will it is what separates us from the animals. He also gave Satan power over the Earth. So when little children die of hunger and disease in 3rd world countries it is not of Gods will but because man has chosen to not feed these children. IMHO we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. But not those who can but will not help themselves. God clearly said all who work will eat. This crosses over to protecting the weak who cannot protect themselves. We as a society cannot allow people like Hitler to kill the way he did. However to jail him or kill him is more how law is handled during that time frame. I would like to support the death penalty but it is a very screwed up and costly system at this time.

nor should we as a society put folks in power and support them as long as it serves our ends and then label them 'terrorists' and kill/murder them along with many other innocents when they no longer serve our purpose imo...

adding - not saying this was the case with hitler b/c he was long b/f my time frame and i have not researched the theories about the us supporting him but do know this is what we did with mid-east...

You're welcome.

Which version of the Bible is that. Seems nicely edited to me.

Stock you forgot an and in there!!!

I read Freakonomics and there is a corelation between abortion and lower crime rates

You cannot mean this seriously. How are you going to incarcerate a guy with an army?

We might have incarcerated him after the nuremburg trials if he hadn't already killed himself, but I doubt it. Not after what he did.

But that's beside the point, right? He already killed all those Jews and it took lot's of killing of his soldiers to do it. So how do you incarcerate Hitler without an army to support your desire to do so?

Interesting, you are taking a side of pacifism in this discussion. Didn't think you were serious with your previous post.

Yes, the difference between the word kill and murder is a semantic difference. Just as the meaning of love is different when used to indicate sex between spouses "Make love" and affection between siblings, "I love my brother."

One could be a simpleton and say the word love means the same thing no matter how it is used. Or one could understand that semantics are important and that words actually have meaning, specially in context.

Knowing that does help me sleep better at night.

So, to be certain, what camp are you in, Amohedas? Is all pre-medidated killing murder?

Yes all premeditated killing is murder.

Is all murder wrong is the real question.

We agree here but we disagree on what is meant by support. Oh those darn semantics that help me sleep at night! Maybe we should just toss language out the window, the baby and the bath water!

Back on topic.

The most important thing is the life of the baby. Once saved, should it have the same exact chance of every other baby that lives? The simple most direct answer I can give is, of course not. Some babies will have more wealth, some less wealth.

What I do know is this. Government should keep their noses out of it and individuals should do their part to make sure every baby has a chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That doesn't necessarily include a television, a ninetendo and a bicycle.

You tell me. How would one go about distinguishing between murders?

Perhaps we could find some way of using language to distinguish between one type of murder over another type of murder?

Let's start with World War II veterans. How would you distinguish them from the Nazi's soldiers they "murdered"?

imo maybe whoever funded/supported his rise shoulda been held accountable too then b/c he didn't get where he was all by himself....

stock_diesel said:

Since his question implied that killing Hitler would have saved millions of lives then I inferred he meant if I had the opportunity to kill Hitler before he had become a dictator and thus before he had the backing if an entire army.

For example, if I had the opportunity to kill Hitler while he was still in the womb would I do it?

I answered NO. Instead of killing I would incarcerate. This assumes he hadn't yet become dictator.

I think the German and Austrian citizens suffered enough through world war II and paid the price in lives. They certainly learned their lesson for supporting him.

don't believe they were the only ones but have not researched BUT if this becomes an issue then i most certainly will lol

I am not going to assume all Nazi soldiers were monsters. Yes some of them where (like the ones that used babies as target practice) but many where just like our own soldiers, following orders and fighting the "enemy" in this case the U.S. and our allies.

So can we differentiate between Nazi soldiers and our own? I think it would be a case by case basis not a generalization.

For instance, the Nazi soldiers that knowingly and willfuly killed innocents I would concider murderers. Then again I'm sure more than one innocent casualty resulted from an American bullet/bomb during WWII so those would be murders also.

Basically in War everyone is just fighting to survive. If I was placed in that situation I would do the same. I would kill the other guy so he woudln't kill me. On the battlefield it comes down to survival.

The sad thing is War is started by the man at the top (Hitler, Bush etc.) but the ones who suffer are the poor men/women sent to fight the war and the innocents caught in the crossfire.

While this is all very nice and makes me feel warm fuzzies for you Amohedas, it doesn't advance the discussion one iota.

The question put to you is, how do you distinguish between one type of "murder" over another type of "murder". Although I do think you give us a hint;

Hmmm, this sounds surprisingly familiar to something ive already written in this thread. I forgive you if you havn't seen it, some people tend to spam this thread and the conversation moves along rather quickly.

So, can we conclude then that those who "murder" innocents are different than thos who "murder" the non-innocent?

Uh oh, you probably see where i'm going here and are going to have to quickly backtrack off of that sort of talk!

ha check it out and this be just one real quick search that seems to indicate that the money trail leads to us as well...

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html

"...even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies,he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power.It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty..."

I know what you are getting at, but determining who is a "non-innocent" is not always that easy.

Sure we can take extremem examples such as Hitler and obviously he was a "non-innocent", but what about just a regular German soldier during that time serving in his country's army. Is this person a non-innocent? What about German civilians we could technically call them "non-innocents" because they were supporting a country (Germany) which was commiting genocide, or we could call them "innocents" because they were not the ones who sanctioned nor committed the genocide.

How about this, I will send you over to negotiate with them. I want to see you negotiate with a human being that is willing to strap a bomb to himself and blow himself up in order to kill other people.

I wish you the best of luck.

P.S.--How many UN resolutions did Saddam break before we took him out?