I no longer consider myself pro-life

[lilpixieofterror]

Note that LPOT is again using examples of babies being used as weapons as an excuse for butchering babies that aren't.

The context was the execution of defenceless babies, in case they became enemies when they grew up:

Source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7885-Why-I-am-an-atheist&p=232523&viewfull=1#post232523

The reason why women and children were also targeted by all nations when fighting another nation is that the women would teach the children to hate their enemies and thus war would erupt again in the near future once those children grew up and also killing the children is more humane than leaving them to starve without any parents.

© Copyright Original Source

LPOT characterised killing an enemy's captive and disarmed women and children, including babies, as 'self defense'. She refused to admit that killing an enemy's kids so that they don't grow up is unacceptable. She won't admit it now, either.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post233865

[lilpixieofterror]

What the terrorist could do is irrelevant to whether or not a child or infant has intrinsic value and can or cannot be killed with moral justification. No matter how you slice it, to a certain extent we all believe there are circumstances in which is morally justifiable to kill a child.

[Sparko]

Yes. I agree, it can't be proven either way. "Luke" is, AFAIK, not a Jewish name, although some Jews also took Gentile names to facilitate interaction with the Gentile world (i.e., "Paul" for "Saul"). Hebrews is anonymous, but given its heavy dependence on the Tanakh, is most likely a Jewish writing IMO.

Don't forget Nebuchadnezzar wrote Daniel chapter 4.

[Roy]

Are you just unable to read or stupid? I have always maintained that in times of war, killing kids might be justified where they are being used as weapons of war.

But you have repeatedly refused to agree that in times of war, killing kids is not justified if they are not being used as weapons of war.

[lilpixieofterror]

But you have repeatedly refused to agree that in times of war, killing kids is not justified if they are not being used as weapons of war.

[Roy]

She refused to admit that killing an enemy's kids so that they don't grow up is unacceptable. She won't admit it now, either.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post233865

But you have repeatedly refused to agree that in times of war,.

As expected, LPOT once again refuses to concede that killing babies is not justified if they are not being used as weapons of war. She once again refuses to concede that killing enemy babies so that they don't grow up is unacceptable.

LPOT is perfectly happy with babies being killed, provided they're babies of enemies.

[guacamole]

The difference, as far as I can see it, is in who holds which opinion. We all thinking killing some children is morally justifiable.

[Sparko]

As expected, LPOT once again refuses to concede that killing enemy babies so that they don't grow up is unacceptable.

wouldn't that still be "self-defense?"

For instance, dropping the bomb on Japan in WW2 killed lots of civilians, innocent women and children, pregnant women, old men, etc. But doing that ended the war, protected the USA and Europe and the Pacific from more horrendous losses and the death of our women, children, and civilians.

Killing civilians in war is something to be avoided but sometimes it can't be.

[guacamole]

wouldn't that still be "self-defense?"

For instance, dropping the bomb on Japan in WW2 killed lots of civilians, innocent women and children, pregnant women, old men, etc. But doing that ended the war, protected the USA and Europe and the Pacific from more horrendous losses and the death of our women, children, and civilians.

Killing civilians in war is something to be avoided but sometimes it can't be.

I agree with your last statement, but I find the first problematic. The pro-choice also characterize abortion as "self-defense;" Why shouldn't a woman whose family is going to be devastated by an additional pregnancy, for whatever reason, be allowed to kill a child if the U.S. military is allowed to kill children as self-defense? In both cases, the morality of the killing is justified not by the intrinsic value of human life, but by circumstances.

[lilpixieofterror]

As expected, LPOT once again refuses to concede that killing babies is not justified if they are not being used as weapons of war. She once again refuses to concede that killing enemy babies so that they don't grow up is unacceptable.

LPOT is perfectly happy with babies being killed, provided they're foreign ones.

[Roy]

wouldn't that still be "self-defense?"

Killing some-one now in case they try and kill you in 15 years time is not self-defence.

Killing civilians in war is something to be avoided but sometimes it can't be.

Had it been my decision, I think I'd have dropped the bombs near the cities, not on them.

[Sparko]

I agree with your last statement, but I find the first problematic. The pro-choice also characterize abortion as "self-defense;" Why shouldn't a woman whose family is going to be devastated by an additional pregnancy, for whatever reason, be allowed to kill a child if the U.S. military is allowed to kill children as self-defense? In both cases, the morality of the killing is justified not by the intrinsic value of human life, but by circumstances.

typically even in war we don't target women, children or civilians. I think to do it deliberately would be a war crime. They are usually "collateral damage" not the actual target. And in the case of abortion, if it is in self-defense of the woman's life, I think it is justified. But just because it will inconvenience the family? That is not justified. You can't kill someone because they will inconvenience you. The circumstances have to warrant self-defense. Which means protecting another life.

[carpedm9587]

[Cow Poke]

Why eat alone?

[guacamole]

typically even in war we don't target women, children or civilians. I think to do it deliberately would be a war crime. They are usually "collateral damage" not the actual target. And in the case of abortion, if it is in self-defense of the woman's life, I think it is justified. But just because it will inconvenience the family? That is not justified. You can't kill someone because they will inconvenience you. The circumstances have to warrant self-defense. Which means protecting another life.

There are find points here worth examining:

I'm not sure that the "deliberately targeting" gives us moral cover. If we take an action that directly leads to an innocent person's death, are we in the clear because we didn't mean to do it?

And what do you mean by "inconvenience" to the family or the woman? I suppose that rules out prophylactic abortion, but what about a single mother who works part time and cannot lose the hourly pay, should it come to that. Is that merely an inconvenience?

Is there a general guiding principle that human life is precious, given that God loves us all and that we carry his image? If that is not the best standard for determining moral justification for actions, then what is?

fwiw,
guacamole

edited to put in a comma