Posted on 07/10/2006 1:39:16 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
No, it's not. We were talking about killing innocents to save lives, and I mentioned war...no times, no particular sides, just war. If every effort were really made to prevent collateral damage, then the damage would not be inflicted and it wouldn't happen at all...it's factored in.
If you truly do not believe that innocent civilians are knowingly killed during war, then I envy your naivete.
I'm not debating, and there is no winning or losing. If that's what it is to you, fine.
Finally someone stands up to the Colorado death peddlers!!
Dick Lamm started the abortion holocaust and now his sister
in law is running for congress in the 7th CD.
Peggy carried an assisted suicide measure in the mid 90s which
failed in the Colorado legislature.
Euthanasia super star - Michael Schiavo - will join
"Duty to Die" Dick Lamm and his pro-death shill wife,
Dotty, in Denver's Polo Club 6-13-06 to raise funds
to send Peggy to DC to deal more death!!
Trying to prove that the American military kills innocent civilians deliberately, so that the killing of innocent babies is somehow justified?
Stop being cryptic and cute, and make your point.
I never mentioned America, or any other country. I mentioned wars (with Dresden as an example of mass bombing) and the fact that killing innocents to save lives, is common and relative to the situation.
btw, you really need to be careful about tacitly accusing the military on a conservative forum during a time of war.
If you meant other countries and other wars, it would have been wise of you to specify from the start.
Especially since leftists are making your identical accusation of our troops in Iraq. One might think your loyalties lie outside the values of our current U.S. military and the Bush administration because of your vague accusations.
Of course, it's also a possibility that you are simply here to cause trouble with no intention of making any valid point. That remains to be seen in how you respond further.
One last specific question regarding the topic of the thread..........do you believe that the killing of innocent human beings for the purpose of (ineffectual) research is justifiable? Or not?
The libs are all over the map on this issue. On one hand, they are desperate to save the lives of 90-year-old alzheimers patients because it will advance the abortion cause. On the other hand, when it comes to euthanasia, they're desperate to kill off the "no-longer-viable" old folks because it's their "right." There is an easy explanation for this. It's called the Culture of Death.
Sometimes taking a human life is ok, and sometimes it's not, this makes it relative to the situation.
I did not tacitly accuse the military of anything, you are trying to make it sound that way. I said wars, in response to the comment about never taking innocent lives to save lives.
For the purpose of (ineffectual) research, no.
You agree with President Bush's decision to veto this bill?
If it is indeed ineffectual, yes.
Do you agree that the taking of human life, is relative to a situation?
In a few cases such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, life needed to be taken in order to save more. But even there the argument of 'innocence' is vague, because every person in Japan was instructed to kill Americans if we invaded.
When you say that 'war' as a general, non-specific to America, term is a relative comparison, I don't agree either.
In that generic 'war' as you used it, you are including Islamofascists, Nazis, Communists, and all manner of evil. There should be no relative comparison, unless, of course, one supports the killing of innocents for whatever purpose one desires.
Whereas, if you had been specific to America during WWII (which is apparently what you actually meant), then you might have made a valid point. As it stood, you made none.
And by using 'war' in its generic term, and calling me 'naive' if I didn't think that innocent civilians were deliberately targeted, your tacit accusation was against our current military situation.........whether you understand that or not.
We are not targeting innocents in any of our current war situation, so in the current, specific sense of war, your parallel is incorrect and invalid.
My sense from this conversation, since I am forced to rely on guesswork since you continue to be evasive and cryptic, is that you believe the taking of innocent life for research is valid (even though it has not been proven to even have the potential to save lives), because our bombing in WWII was justified on the basis of saving lives.
Am I wrong about that?
War was just an example used to explain how things are relative, thank you.
You continue to evade taking a stand on anything.
How, in your thinking, is destroying human life ever justified for the sake of scientific research?
If a life is eventually saved by the research done by killing thousands of human embryos, is that alright with you? Is it justified...........relatively speaking, that is?
(Let's leave 'war' out of it, since you're playing games with the term).
Well, I'm back now. I apologize for my harsh words, but I hope you take this as an opportunity to realize that pushing your religion in someone's face is rude and makes them uncomfortable. I reject religion, which is my right, and doing so does not make me a leftist, or communist, or socialist, or whatever else you want to call me.
I don't want your prayers, or your "love". I don't want to be called a "leftist" because I reject your religion. I don't want to be called "deluded" because I believe science has helped the world far more than religion. I notice that you were not suspended for your name-calling, but I am not surprised by this.
Respect my wishes and stop ramming your religion down my throat.
You are wrong about everything else in your post.......other than the fact that it is your right to reject religion.
No one is cramming anything down your throat. You only perceive it that way because you (apparently) hate God and those who trust in Him.
As for the liberalism, most of what you said was right out of the liberal academic playbook. You can deny it all you want, but facts are facts.
That doesn't make you a liberal in other ways, but in your rejection of moral absolutes and standards which guided the Founding Fathers, you are far left.
Welcome back.
btw, I know when someone starts cursing because I begin praying for him, that he needs it, so without mentioning it again because it makes you mad, I will continue to pray for you whether you accept my Christian love for you or not.
You were a complete human being worthy of respect, and worthy of having a chance to live and be loved.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
I respectfully ask one last time for you to cease replying to my posts with your religious browbeating. Quit cluttering my comments section with your incessant and unwelcome promises to pray for me. Discussing issue that relate to religion is one thing, but your comments are crossing a personal line that makes me uncomfortable. I would ignore you, but that feature is unavailable on Free Republic.
Please repect my request. Just leave it alone. Thank you.
Please go back to #10, then my comment #26. That is where all this started. I have not said that taking a life for the sake of research is justified.
As I have said, I used war as an example of how the taking of human life can be justified.
As far as I am concerned, the president can sign anything he wants regarding this issue.
I'll leave you alone (with a reminder.......not to miss the obvious...... that it was you who pinged ME here).
I'm sorry that you are afraid to take a stand on anything one way or the other.
It makes discussion with you impossible.
Do you mind if I call you "Cheek Blob" from now on??
(Sorry.........I just can't help myself. :)
Have a good life, Cheek Blob!
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.