Iamon lyme:

The reason why I drew a comparison between war and abortion is because there is an interesting thing that came to my mind.

I noticed that some of the people who detest abortion (pro-life) sometimes also defend the right to own guns, the right to fight pre-emptive wars, and the use of the death penalty. This is more prevalent among what we call the "right wing ".

By the same token, among the "left wing" you will find the "pro-choice" argument among people who want gun control, who protest against pre-emptive wars, and who want to put an end to the death penalty.

It is interesting that on both sides we see people wanting to defend life, whether it be an unborn child, victims of violent crime or both civilians and military involved in a war.

"I believe that we should protect the life of an unborn child, just as much as I believe that the constitution guarantees people's rights to own potentially lethal weapons, and that our nation has the right to fight pre-emptive wars in which thousands of people will die. Furthermore, the state has the right to put an end to the life of a dangerous criminal."

"I believe that we should limit the ownership of lethal weapons only to law enforcement agencies, I believe that we should never fight pre-emptive wars that kill thousands, I believe that it is wrong to kill a criminal regardless of his crimes; but I also believe that a woman's choice takes precendence over the life of her unborn child."

To me this is an interesting contradiction. As with many other aspects of human nature, we are riled by contradictions.

> If you want to draw comparisons between war and abortion you are not
> helping the pro abortionist argument.

Of course it does not help the argument. From my point of view, if you believe in pretecting human life, should you not protect ALL human life? Unborn children, victims of crime, victims of war, prisoners on death row, etc. The truth is tht the situation is never simple and each case is so different.

> Wars are usually fought for one of two reasons. Depending on which side you
> are looking at, wars are fought to get something or to defend something.
> Sometimes both sides are aggressors who are out to get something, but you'll
> never see two defenders going at it... why would they?

Since our mind finds a contradiction between our beliefs and our actions, we must justify ourselves in how we act. We tell ourselves that we are defending something. I am defending an unborn child, I am defending my family from a criminal who broke into my home, I am defending my nation from hostile forces external to my nation, I am defending society from a dangerous criminal, etc. It is the only way that we can justify our actions. To me the contradiction just lies in how we defend one human life, and yet have no problem taking another (or letting somebody else take another on our behalf).

> And since you are comparing abortion to war then let me ask you who you
> believe the aggressor is. Is it the baby, or the adult(s)? What are adults who kill
> babies defending, their right to not take care of a defenseless little person, or
> maybe the abortionist's right to earn a living?

One can make the same argument about a war. When a plane drops a 2,000-pound bomb, can the people on the ground defend themselves? The military might if they have guns aimed at the planes, but what about the thousands who die under the bombs? Can civilians really defend themselves? What about a baby who dies in war because of either bombs, or the destruction of infrastructure such as hospitals, water treatment plants, etc.? In the Gulf War 500,000 civilians died, plus 250,000 Iraqi military. In the aftermath of the war the United nations estimated that a further 1,000,000 prople died because of lack of clean water, hospitals, medicines, etc. War is a terrible thing, and most of the people who die are defenseless, even when the military claims to have "smart bombs" and "satellite guided missiles". The only reason why the military always claims to try to protect civilians is because public opinion forces them to say so.

> Adults can defend themselves if they need to. Babies can't. If you can convince
> me that babies are not completely defenseless and have done something
> (anything) to deserve being killed, then you might have a valid argument.

Of course babies are defenseless, as are many vicitims of violent gun crime. At the time of execution, the prisoner is defenseless. Yes, he has committed terrible crimes and he is being executed for them, but can he really fight the lethal injection and the gas chamber? Somehow we tell ourselves that he is not defenseless and that he deserves to die.

Then does anyone really DESERVE to be killed? If that is the case, who decides? A serial killer is easy to justify. A terrorist is easy to justify so long as we ignore some of the motivations behind his actions (such as western empires invading their countries for the last 400 years.) What about a political prisoner? Is it justifiable to kill a communist? Western empries certaily thought it was justifiable during the Cold War. We all find certain forms of killing justifiable. It is human nature, and our nature is conflicted.

Something that the pro-life people sometimes forget is that the pro-choice people do not go around killing babies willy nilly. Most pro-choice people I have met actually hate abortion, but they justify it in terms of somehow saving a woman's life, and sparing an unwanted child what otherwise would be a bad life. To the pro-life people that is weak argument, but then, if society is going to ban abortion, then society has to provide every tool possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That means solid sexual education since childhood and easy availability of contraceptives. Will all pro-life people accept easily available contraceptives to teenagers and adults alike? Probably not.