![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
judecorp[I'm leaving comments on this one because I want to read the feedback, but I want to begin with the disclaimer that I may not respond to all of the comments, or any of them, for that matter. I just really want other people's opinions.]
It has been made very clear to my that our president is pro-life, or anti-choice, or anti-abortion, or whatever you want to call it. Some people who also eschew this standpoint have argued that it is wrong for one person (i.e. the mother) to decide the fate of another person, an innocent bystander in the whole process (i.e. the fetus). Great pains are often taken to promote the fact that the fetus is a living individual that has rights, and that those rights must be upheld, supported, and advocated for, even when (or especially when) it cannot speak for itself. It has been said that a person (mother) who chooses to kill another person (abort a fetus) is selfish, and cruel, and a murderer, and not taking responsibility for her actions. It has also been argued that this should be illegal.
It has also been made very clear to me that our president is pro-war, or anti-peace, or whatever you want to call it. Some people who also eschew this standpoint have argued that it is sometimes acceptable for one person (i.e. the attacker) to decide the fate of another person, an innocent bystander in the whole process (i.e. a civilian who is killed by unfriendly fire). Great pains are often taken to promote the fact that the person who is killed is part of the problem, is a necessary casualty, is a shame but one that is forgivable, perhaps even by God. It has been said that a person (aggressor) who chooses to kill another person (bomb a building) is heroic, and brave, and blessed, and engaging in the most honorable of duties. It is not illegal.
How do these two standpoints, often shared by the same person, line up? How can they co-exist rationally? How can one be pro-life in the case of a fetus but pro-death in the case of military aggression? I'd really like to know your insights. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this.
It has been made very clear to my that our president is pro-life, or anti-choice, or anti-abortion, or whatever you want to call it. Some people who also eschew this standpoint have argued that it is wrong for one person (i.e. the mother) to decide the fate of another person, an innocent bystander in the whole process (i.e. the fetus). Great pains are often taken to promote the fact that the fetus is a living individual that has rights, and that those rights must be upheld, supported, and advocated for, even when (or especially when) it cannot speak for itself. It has been said that a person (mother) who chooses to kill another person (abort a fetus) is selfish, and cruel, and a murderer, and not taking responsibility for her actions. It has also been argued that this should be illegal.
It has also been made very clear to me that our president is pro-war, or anti-peace, or whatever you want to call it. Some people who also eschew this standpoint have argued that it is sometimes acceptable for one person (i.e. the attacker) to decide the fate of another person, an innocent bystander in the whole process (i.e. a civilian who is killed by unfriendly fire). Great pains are often taken to promote the fact that the person who is killed is part of the problem, is a necessary casualty, is a shame but one that is forgivable, perhaps even by God. It has been said that a person (aggressor) who chooses to kill another person (bomb a building) is heroic, and brave, and blessed, and engaging in the most honorable of duties. It is not illegal.
How do these two standpoints, often shared by the same person, line up? How can they co-exist rationally? How can one be pro-life in the case of a fetus but pro-death in the case of military aggression? I'd really like to know your insights. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this.
