Skip to comments.Pro-Life
Posted on 11/15/2007 12:42:48 PM PST by Semper
I am pro-life (contrary to what many might perceive). I believe pro-life also means pro-God. I also think it is very important to be consistent in this position. And there is also the matter of understanding the total nature of Life and God which is beyond our capacity in this human condition. So, those of you who believe you have the absolute truth regarding this matter, please dont waste your time responding to this, just continue on healing the masses and ascending to heaven.
I know pro-life is mostly associated with anti-abortion or also, restricting the choice of a pregnant woman to continue with that condition or not. Now there is an important distinction here. I do not support abortion especially to avoid the consequences of ones actions. But, I do support a womans right and responsibility to determine what is best for herself, her family and her potential offspring. That position will be branded as not pro-life by some (many of whom are influenced by someone elses religious interpretation). That is fine. As I have expressed, we do not have sufficient knowledge to know for sure what is Gods will. But to use our God-given reasoning powers, how can we initiate and support war, with it attendant death - of those already living in this world and call ourselves pro-life unless we understand one of the most important elements of life to be FREEDOM (Give me liberty or give me death). Freedom means the ability to make wrong decisions. It also means that we have the right to try to influence (not require) that correct decisions be made where there is not direct negative impact on others operating in this world.
I wrote an essay for another thread (entitled Abortion) which resulted in several very impressive responses. There is much to be said regarding the elimination of abortion which will probably happen but not soon. There is also much to be said for the freedom and responsibility of choice. One of the questions I posed to a woman who chose to give birth at the risk of depriving her family of a wife and mother (a most impressive adherence to principle) was: If you would be consistent, how can you not work with all you have to stop war. If there are not exceptions to stopping a life not yet manifested in this world, how can you have an exception for an activity which kills those who are already living in this world?
It seems consistent that all absolute pro-life adherents should band together and demand an end to our waging of war no matter what the consequences. But we seem always to allow almost anything for preservation of our freedom unless it applies to a pregnant woman. Someone please tell me how a potential human in early development, not yet manifested in this world is more important than a human being, with a history, a family, a promising future who is killed in war.
Or some women decide to end a pregnancy for reasons which may or may not be valid. One important difference between those two decisions is that the woman's decision has way less impact on you and me than does the group decision to wage war.
In terms of flawed human society the impact is the same. Both devalue and cheapen life. The abortion industry can be thought of as "war". Each aborted child can be thought of as an innocent civilian. You compartmentalize the entire abortion issue down to an individual. If you use that same compartmentalization in a fighting war, you would say that we can't condemn war because we can't judge the actions of each individual soldier. After all, we can't judge what that solider is thinking or doing, his situation, or his reasons for shooting at that time. Sometimes it may be valid, sometimes not. Therefore we shouldn't condemn war.
Invading Iraq, when Iraq did not attack us, would seem to be initiating violence. Does that mean that there are exceptions to your premise? We can initiate violence if it contributes to our security or economic stability or whatever - and that violence is experienced by innocents who are acutely aware of what is happening and must deal with the tragic results. The vast majority of abortion decisions are carried out when the fetus is virtually unaware of this world and will not experience the horror and consequences of a war.
Just to be clear, that does not justify abortion. The invasion of Iraq was not justified either. I wish that religious people obsessed with abortion would have focused at least as much thought and energy on our initiation of violence half way around the world.
You missed the point. It is not a matter of "being discarded because they are unable to fend for themselves". The innocent civilians killed in war cannot fend for themselves against modern weapons but they are not "discarded". Someone (group or individual) decided that it was in their best interest to allow those casualties as a consequence of their lives being better. My point is why are the so called "pro-life" people so focused upon life not yet manifested in this world and ignoring the innocent lives being disrupted and ended by war.
Abortion and war have similarities. They are both ultimately wrong because innocent life is lost. They both are justified by believing it will make life better for the one initiating them. We do not want someone else making decisions about war for us. Let the United Nations make decisions on war for us? Not likely. But we don't want to allow the same thing for women who have the responsibility of giving birth.
I have said that if we condemn abortion then we should condemn war - they are both wrong. The entity which decides about war is a country. The entity which decides about abortion is a pregnant woman. Our country does not want to give up its right to choose about war (ie. to the UN). It seems consistent to allow pregnant women the right to choose about abortion. In a perfect world, no one would choose to do either but we are not living there yet.
Just to be clear... I am not obsessed with abortion and will gladly continue try to answer your questions.
The truth is absolute. Moral judgments are made by imperfect human reasoning which tries to apply that absolute truth but often fails. Totally accurate moral judgments require more information than we humans possess, so we have to do the best we can with what we have. One of the best things we have for this endeavor is reason. Even a book of absolute truth (such as the Bible) won't help if reason is not applied to understand it.
I am a consistent pro-life advocate. I am against abortion, against euthanasia, against the death penalty and against war. I was against the Iraq war when it was in the threat stage, not a very popular position on FR.
However, I would argue that pulling out of Iraq would lead to the killing of millions of Iraqis in the ensuing chaos. When we pulled out of Viet Nam due to its declining support in the US, the result was the slaughter of many times more innocents than would have been killed had we stayed. Advocating pulling out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences is a defacto judgement that several thousand American lives are more important than millions of innocent Iraqi lives. I think we should stay in Iraq until the country is stable enough to prevent chaos on our departure.
The founders of this great Republic gave us the phrase
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
The sequence implies that "life" is more important than one's liberty
and that life is more important than one's pursuit of happiness.
Yes, Saddam initiated violence. His reason was that Kuwait was really a province of Iraq. We did not agree and initiated violence in response. When we invaded Iraq, it was against the will of the UN and with almost no support from allies. We can parse details but the fact remains that we invaded Iraq - officially justified because of what Saddam might have done with what he might have had. North Korea shot down one of our civilian airliners with a U.S. Congressman aboard but we did not respond with violence for that. Cuba shot down a U.S. civilian plane doing no harm over the ocean and we did not respond with violence for that. Our justification for the use of violence seems to be quite arbitrary.
Jesus told us to love our enemies and do good to those who would harm us; that sounds like the application of violence under any circumstance is not Christian.
Abortion and war do have similarities.
Abortion has a child smack dab in the middle of the crosshairs.
Just war has uninvolved, and presumed innocent, civilians off to the side of the scope with unjust aggressors smack dab in the middle of the crosshairs.
That is about as similar as dissimilar can be.
Cain killed Abel and warfare between human beings began.
If a mother cam kill her own child, the seeds of warfare will be sown by the millions into the next generation.
The late Dr. Conrad Baars, psychiatrist, wrote in his book “Healing the Unaffirmed”: “Abortion is a form of psychic self-destruction, and if practiced on a large scale it will have the gravest consequences for any society which condones it. Abortion is an act of aggression. Abortion is the ultimate denial of the child and the mother....abortion provokes a depression which, in our experience, is malignant and incurable.”
This makes clear that abortion plants the seeds that lead to warfare—just as Mother Teresa said it does.
My Lord and my God-—millions of babies looking forward to life, on the ash-heap, sacrificed to the gods of Molloch.
War is punishment for the sins of man, not the cause of them.
Just because words are in sequence does not necessarily require that they are unequal. Happiness can not be pursued without liberty and some believe that life is not valid without liberty ("Give me liberty or give me death"). Patrick Henry seemed to believe in the equality of at least life and liberty and we hold him to be an American hero.
If you think words don't mean anything, I pity you.
Luke 22:35 says, "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing." This is Jesus talking to his disciples. "Then he said unto them, But now,..." This is a big But now, so pay attention because Jesus is getting his disciples ready to minister on this earth without him. These are final instructions before he heads to the cross for our sins. "But now, He that hath a purse, let him take it,..." Keep your money with you. "...And likewise his scrip:..." That is your Bible. "...And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36) That's right, your weapon is more important than the clothes on your back. "For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me,..." Jesus is speaking of his own death. He said, "Now look, I have to die, but you don't". "... And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end." (Luke 22:37) That's his earthly ministry.
Now liberals will always say that the word sword refers to the Bible, but it obviously doesn't as he mentions this in scrip.
So why would Jesus want us to sell the shirt off our back to buy a weapon?
I see your responses are all over the board and you contradict yourself in your replies and you are usually incorrect, but I'll be happy to try and help you grasp the true Christian foundation that supports "pro-life" movements as well as killing people in war.
Those killed in war have been experiencing this human environment. Those who have been aborted were virtually unaware of this human environment and since I believe that God is infinitely more powerful than mankind, I believe that if that unborn child is meant to be here, that will happen in one way or another.
I don't believe that our existence starts when an egg is fertilized - that is a human function; God is spiritual and He is our Source, not a material human function. Likewise, I do not believe our existence ceases when we experience human death. If we are eternal (as God's children were created) then we have no beginning and no ending - only changes of environment and experience, ultimately realizing our spiritual nature.
So why would Jesus want us to sell the shirt off our back to buy a weapon?
One possibility is that in those times, a sword was not just for war, it was a tool for personal protection against the elements, etc. and almost all men carried them.
Also, having a sword and using it for war is not the same thing. In some cases, conflicts and even wars are prevented because the opponent is well armed and it is decided that the possible consequences are not worth the fight.
Because we value the right to bear arms does not necessarily mean that we believe in waging war.
There are probably other possibilities but we have no explanation from Jesus regarding what exactly that meant so you can believe what you want. The totality of Jesus' teachings lead me to believe he did not condone war.
The founders of this great Republic gave us the phrase
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Let me put a finer point on this.
One can pursue happiness, if they do not possess liberty.
One can not have liberty, if some one takes their life.
It is not a matter of "being discarded because they are unable to fend for themselves".
Yes, it is. That's exactly the argument you made about when someone becomes a person. If you were consistent, you would argue that abortion deliberately robs innocents of life an is therefore more evil than a war that is not intended to harm innocents.
War, you would add, is also evil because it harms innocents unavoidably.
Do you believe that Jesus is God? If so, then re-read my Post number 4. If you don't believe Jesus was God, then we should just agree to disagree.
This juxaposition of abortion and war is ultimately unhelpful to forming a judgment about either one.
If “we” had no beginning, how is it you call God “our Source” or Creator?
Yes and no. I believe that Jesus was a manifestation of God in this world. I don't understand how an infinite spiritual Source could be confined to a human body. I believe God to be the infinite, spiritual Principle of Life from which all true existence is derived. I believe Jesus was the son of God, a "child" of God who existed here in human form to teach us the Truth of existence. He said that if we believe what he taught, we could do the things that he did and more. I think to truly believe, you must first have faith but you must also eventually develop understanding. The work of understanding what Jesus taught is a most difficult task. It is equally difficult and important to apply that understanding to your life. I believe that both abortion and war must be overcome. But it is critically important that we follow Jesus' example and not force those decisions upon humanity but lead humanity to freely choose correctly.
I will try to answer that with an analogy - maybe not perfect but possibly helpful.
Numbers exist because of the principle of mathematics. Numbers conform to mathematical laws (2+2=4). Numbers have no restriction of where or when they exist - they did not begin at some point and will not end at some point. There is no limit as to where those numbers can manifest (become apparent) or in what form - there can be two (or whatever) galaxies, or comets, or planets or molecules, now, or a thousand years from now or before. The number 2 or 7 or whatever can manifest anywhere, any time. There is no limit to numbers (tell me what is the highest or lowest number). Numbers can not be destroyed (if you eliminate 2 of anything, did you eliminate the number 2?) Those numbers exist because of their source, mathematics. I believe there can be an analogy between that concept of mathematics and "its children", numbers, and God and His children, us. We are infinite in quantity; we are eternal; we have the potential to exist anywhere (spiritually) - we happen to be only aware of our existence here in this human, earthly environment but that does not mean there is not infinitely more.
In this analogy, the principle of mathematics "created" numbers. And God's Principle of Life "created" us. In both cases, that creation did not require limitations of time or space or material. When we speak of the spirit of something we are referring to its essence. Our essence is Spiritual, without limit and eternal.
To state it another way, we exist because God exists. God is eternal without beginning or ending, therefore so are we. God is the Cause and we are the effect. That is my proof of the existence of God. You can't have an effect without a Cause and there is no way human beings caused existence, we are a result of existence.
The way you present your view of Jesus could be interpreted that you consider Him a son of God in the same manner that we ordinary humans are sons of God. In that case, He would NOT be Savior, Redeemer, Messiah or Emmanuel (meaning God with us).
This is New Age philosophy.
I completely disagree. It is all about who chooses. Both war and abortion are almost always wrong - who chooses is all that is left.
To be consistent, since war is evil, also resulting in the death of innocents, then does it not matter who chooses that?
Our constitution prescribes that the country's decision to go to war must be made by the congress. Our founding fathers must have felt that who chooses makes a difference. It is interesting that the process has been perverted. It was mostly our president who took us to war in Iraq - congress did not declare war, it just resolved to snivel off that responsibility to the president.
It might be good to get the process for war decisions corrected before we meddle with family and personal decisions in circumstances we know little or nothing about.
There are a great many people in this country that see the responsibility for an abortion decision to be with the woman who is pregnant. They will vote to preserve that choice and that may result in leadership that will do substantial harm to this country. It may be counterproductive to make abortion a political issue.
No, I do not see Jesus as the same as we ordinary humans. I do see him as the Savior. What he is saving us from is the ordinary human consciousness which separates us from Him.
From my post 66 above...
"I see your responses are all over the board and you contradict yourself in your replies and you are usually incorrect, but I'll be happy to try and help you grasp the true Christian foundation that supports "pro-life" movements as well as killing people in war."
I believe Jesus was the son of God, a "child" of God who existed here in human form to teach us the Truth of existence.
I believe the Bible. Every word. You have been tested according to I John 4.
Reading this post causes me to wonder: is the real problem for you in all of this exchange actually President Bush?
Not all wars are evil.
The most pious man cannot remain at peace if his neighbor has evil intentions.
Nonsense. You're compartmentalizing. The woman only made the final decision. Well, actually the doctor did. But up until that point the country decided it was okay to kill. People debated. Legislators legislated. Judges ruled. Technologies were developed. Industries were created. People today propagandize over the right or wrong of abortion. The womans decision is but one of the final steps in a long and complicated process.
Likewise, the killing of an innocent civilian is one of the last steps in an equally long and complicated process.
Our country does not want to give up its right to choose about war (ie. to the UN). It seems consistent to allow pregnant women the right to choose about abortion.
Apples to oranges. A soldier goes to war and could be asked to kill. BUT he also knowingly puts his life on the line when asked. He may be asked to sacrifice his own life. In abortion it's not about self sacrifice, it's always about killing something else. That's why war should be a choice and abortion shouldn't.
It is not pro-life to ALLOW someone to murder you. That is anti-life.
Therefore, it is pro-life to protect your OWN life from murderers.
Therefore, it is pro-life to wage a war on terror against those who killed 3000 on 9/11.
He saves us from our sins, not from our “ordinary human consciousness”. We are separated from Him by our sins, not our consciousness.
And abortion is sinful. It is direct and willful killing.
“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel; He has come to his people and set them free” Luke 1:68
So do I. But I do not presume to understand it completely. And I do not believe that anyone has sufficient understanding to force others to conform to ALL their moral conclusions - some are easy and some are not. The question of who makes abortion decisions is not easy - there is too much disagreement to conclude that.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
I believe that sin is a result of current human consciousness. Therefore, when we learn and practice the lessons Jesus taught, our consciousness changes and our sins diminish. It certainly seems as though those who are trying to follow the teachings of Jesus sin less than those who don't.
That is what many of the early Christians did - check history.
Therefore, it is pro-life to wage a war on terror against those who killed 3000 on 9/11.
That could be true regarding our military assistance activity in Afghanistan against the Taliban. It is not true regarding our invasion of Iraq. The leaders and citizens of Iraq were virtually uninvolved in the attacks of 9/11. There are several other countries that were much more involved but we did not invade them. There are many other countries in the world with evil dictators but we did not invade them. It is not pro-life to arbitrarily initiate violence and wage war on a country we don't like. This also involved a violation of our constitution - which I explained in an earlier post.
Good advice. Complete understanding of the Bible and wisdom may not be the same thing. I hope it was wisdom that led me to acknowledge my limited understanding. Now I see in part, as through a glass, darkly.
I can see that you are not “persuaded”, as you originally proposed that you could be. So I’m not going to be engaging in this thread or any more like it after this post.
Just as a closing thought: I don’t believe that sin is the result of “current human consciousness”. I do believe that sin visits itself on our conscience, in one form or another, whether it be by repentance, by denial of guilt, or some manifestation of mental unrest. But it is our conscience, and not our consciousness, that produces the inevitable response to the effects of our sins.
It is sin which is in need of redemption, not consciousness.
“...our consciousness changes and our sins diminish”
As our conscience convicts us of our transgressions, our sins cry out for redemption, and through the saving grace of the Cross, we are set free and our tendency to sin—one hopes—grows less and less powerful.
You appear to have remained unpersuaded about a number of things that you brought up for discussion. So I am disengaging from it all.
You asked how a "pro-life" position can oppose abortion and support war. The question has been answered... in detail with supporting Scripture. If you have any other questions regarding this matter, feel free to ask me, however, don't expect me to change my mind just as you don't appear to be able to be "persuaded".
And many Christians were also in the Roman Army. They fought against enemies of the state and against criminals. Paul affirms such behavior in Romans 13.
Christians gave their lives in defense of their faith because it is contrary to the Lord's will to advance Christianity through military force & coercion.
You don't draw the correct distinction between faith, on the one hand, and community security, on the other.
So far as 9/11 is concerned, Iraq was up to its eyeballs in international terrorism and terrorists. It was up to its eyeballs in WMD R&D and maintenance of small amounts deliverable by terrorist agents.
The Sep 18, 2001 authorization by Congress allowed the President to go after anyone in his estimation who aided, comforted, supported, in any way was connected to the 9/11 terrorist network.
That would include Iraq.
My ideas on the life of the unborn vs the life of those already born speaks to your first statement of how we really don’t understand the will of God, no matter how hard we try. We are not God, and therefore we are incapable of understanding his perspective on the matter.
The difference doesn’t need to apply to only the victims of war, but all those who die. Their deaths are sad, because they are our friends, family or aquaintances. Their death leaves an absence or a void in the lives of many, and in our worldly perspective, that life seems to have more value than that of an unborn child.
However, scripture tells us that God creates all of us in his likeness. He knows each of us intimately, down to the number of hairs on our heads. Thus, from conception on....this unborn child is known to God, and therefore is as important to him as those of us that have been born. As a follower of God, we are called to love and care for all of God’s children, including those that we may not know yet, but that God has created.
I try to see how limited my perspective must be, in comparison to God’s. I feel that all lives, including those at risk in war zones, or those who are poor, or that may practice other faiths, or those who have made poor choices in their lives are equally valuable to God, and should always be protected and cared for. He has created us all, and loves us all. He offers us all salvation through his son, whether we are criminals or priests, child molesters and terrorists included.
Abortion and war are two separate issues and it is possible to oppose abortion while supporting a war and vice versa. Abortion is always wrong because it is always wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life. An unborn child is an innocent, defenseless human being, and nothing can justify killing such an innocent.
However, wars can either be just or unjust; and it is perfectly moral to support a just war. Many of those who are killed in wars are not innocent. You may be of the opinion that the war in Iraq is unjust and that, therefore, you must oppose it, but someone who believes that it is just may in good conscience support it and still be considered pro-life.
My beliefs have come from over 50 years of experience and study. To become unpersuaded during the course of one or two discussions would be unreasonable - I would not expect that from you. Because you disagree with someones beliefs and because you can't change those beliefs easily is not a good reason to run away from the challenge.
The value of these discussions is mainly in the help they might give to better understand difficult and important issues. Concepts communicated by organized religion are a good foundation and examining these concepts with independent thinking is also valuable in our progress towards a better life.
I’m not running away from the challenge.
I’m walking away from the “discussion”.
I am not surprised that you see it as a “challenge”. I felt it was that way from the beginning—that it was presented more as a challenge than a discussion. If I’m wrong about that, you can correct me.
You received many well-reasoned posts to provide another view of this subject of the value of life from conception to death. When I saw that you remained unpersuaded, I knew that what I could say had been said and that I should move on. I can spend only a limited amount of time on the computer with people I don’t really know and can’t engage face to face.
As for your 50 years experience—I have more than that. I have a large group of direct descendents—children, grandchildren and great grandchildren—numbering 43 at this time with many more due on the horizon. It’s my duty as the oldest of the “clan” to provide answers to a deeply troubling issue—abortion. And I will do that. In this matter, length of experience is fine, but even the young can formulate reasonable and logical and above all, truthful, answers to the pressing moral issues of our times. If they come to know the truth, their youth will be an advantage, because they will have time and truth to work with.
Time and truth could trump experience.
“If you will do the truth, you will come to the light”.
There are circumstances when giving birth will take the life of the mother and may also produce a dead baby. Granted those cases are rare but they happen. If that possibility exists, who has the responsibility and right to make the decision? Is it you, or the state, or anyone not directly involved with that decision and not subject to the direct consequences of that decision? I don't believe so.
Do we have the right and responsibility to try to influence those who would choose an abortion which is not absolutely necessary? Of course. ...wars can either be just or unjust; and it is perfectly moral to support a just war.
Who and what determines a "just war"? That is usually the winner. North Vietnam won their war against South Vietnam and the U.S. so from their perspective it was a just war. That war produced a larger and stronger communist country. Was that a moral outcome? Many of the soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam were drafted; it was not their choice to go thousands of miles from their home and engage in war - could they not be called innocent also? However you look at that, there were thousands of innocent civilians killed. Of course war and abortion are different but there are similarities and it is very important who chooses either of those activities and why.
I see the discussion as a challenge. Any discussion of critically important issues is a challenge. No one has complete understanding of the truth in this life. I believe the Bible contains the truth and I believe we make the best progress toward understanding that truth by constantly and critically examining our own beliefs as well as those of others.
In this day and age, life threatening pregnancies are so rare that they are hardly an issue. However, it is not morally permissible for a woman to deliberately take the life of her unborn child even if pregnancy or childbirth poses a threat to her life or health. However, it is permissible to treat the underlying condition or illness even if such treatment poses a risk to the life of the fetus. But as you yourself have admitted, these cases are pretty rare and even if one admits that abortion is permissible in those cases—which I do not—this kind of situation certainly does not justify the 96% of abortions that are performed for reasons of convenience, birth control, etc.
There are similarities between war and abortion in that both involve the destruction of innocent human life but in abortion only innocent lives are lost.
Here are the criteria which the Catechism of the Catholic Church sets out for a just war:
“—the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or the community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
—all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
—there must be serious prospect of success;
—the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”
I believe it is a matter of grace—this business of truth-seeking— and not just an intellectual exercise.
I believe it will profit me very little or nothing to depend on my own critical analysis of every proposed view.
Such a position tends to be Gnostic. (back to New Age philosphy).
The two faculties of the soul are the will and the intellect. They are intended to work together in unison. But it is the will that acts in response to the intellect and that is why St. John tells us in his Gospel that “if we DO the truth, we will come to the light”. In other words if we act in the Scriptural truths revealed to us by God, we will come to the light of understanding those truths.
Neither of us is going to change our position, so-—
You asked how a "pro-life" position can oppose abortion and support war. The question has been answered... in detail with supporting Scripture.
Maybe to your satisfaction but not yet to mine. Scripture alone can be used to justify many beliefs which are in conflict. I believe that reason is very necessary to get to the truth. Reason does not yet persuade me that it is best to deal with the abortion issue by taking away the freedom and responsibility for that decision from those directly involved. Also, reason (along with experience) does not convince me that the our invasion of Iraq was wise or justified or properly decided.
Many here seem greatly focused upon properly deciding the abortion issue for someone else but seem much less discerning about the decision to go to war. Our constitution states that Congress shall declare war. That does not mean that Congress can properly resolve to let the president have that responsibility and choice. Congress did not declare war and we invaded a country which did not attack us. We used other people's money to do this (our future generations and foreign debt - much from China). We caused upheaval and alienated many of our allies. And, as in all war, many innocent people had their lives torn apart and ended. That choice was obviously an extremely important one - it can impact almost the whole world. I believe it was the wrong choice and I have trouble allowing those who made and support it, to decide a question that involves the health and freedom of individual women and their families.
You are speaking for yourself on that one. In the post following yours, I acknowledged that I may be wrong on the abortion vs freedom question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.