|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.|
That doesn't always need to be the case, however. For example, babies in the womb are still innocent, wouldn't you agree?
And this gets to the crux of the issue, but again Amohedas, you might have missed it in all the spam. Fireopal was trying to say that those of us who support war, or "murder" of any kind are inconsistent in our beliefs if we are also pro-life.
And try as I might, I cannot seem to explain to her that there is a difference between the taking of innocent life and the taking of non-innocent life.