Monday, May 05, 2008

Abortion vs. War . . .

I am just going to throw this out there and I would truly like some thoughts from my readers on why you think this is.

Why is it that a candidate that supports abortion a stumbling block for some "believers" yet a candidate that supports continuing the war for "100 more years" not?

I understand that most people who disagree with abortions believe that it is murder. I get that. I understand the "Abortion kills children" signs. I respect their views and even agree for the most part for me. Myself. Thank God I have the choice. I choose no. It is legal, it is a choice that I cannot take away from women who may or may not share my religious views. I cannot mandate religion.

The real part I don't get is why aren't more "believers" downtown at the monthly peace gathering on the courthouse green? War is murder. War kills children. Why aren't they picketing outside McCain campaign stops holding signs saying "War kills people". Why aren't they standing in the ditch in Crawford, Texas alongside Cindy Sheehan fighting for those troops to come home to stop the murder to stop the killing.

It seems that the same people who will rally for abortion rights are typically the ones putting peace activists down as hippies, freaks and anti-American. They cry patriotic and fly their flags saying it's not right to not support the president in a time of war. How is that killing any different?

Yesterday when I told a young boy that was holding an "Abortion Kills Children" sign that "Yes it does, so does war." He respectfully answered, "That's two different issues ma'am." Golly, you're right. War is a different issue, but I don't understand how you think abortion is killing, yet you most likely support the killing in Iraq.

I'm not being belligerent. I simply don't understand. It seems perfectly simple to me.

If you support Senator McCain and can overlook the war issue because all the other core values that he touts are yours I can understand because you take the little bit of "bad" for the candidate who most closely fits your beliefs. But don't call me a baby killer because I support a man who supports abortion rights. . . and I won't call you a war monger.

I had someone say to me recently. I would consider voting for Barack because I think he is genuine and honest and can truly make a change. But I can't get over the fact that he supports abortion. Wow. That makes me confused . . . and sad.

10 comments:

Torina said...

You are walking on the edge here girl :) I don't get it either. I'm curious how people will respond.

John Good said...

Abortion, much like religion, is a personal matter. Practice what fits your views and values, and allow others the same freedom whether you agree with them or not. I'm pretty sure that's close to what Jesus would do.

As I recall, he hung out with the prostitutes and had a drink or two. We should all be so non-judgmental.

As Gandhi said: "I like your Christ. I do not like many of your Christians; they are not like your Christ".

Eos said...

I'm going out on a limb here so don't no body chop it off. ;)

Let me preface this (might as well get it out of the way) by saying that:
I'm pro-choice. I'm an agnostic. I'm pretty liberal (although I don't claim the Dem. party...yet I'm pro-Obama so this is not coming out of some hidden agenda...just an understanding of how they might perceive things.

War: There are a bunch of ways that it can be described (condition where amoral deeds like killing, lying, etc., are tolerated, accepted and condoned. Contention of force. Conflict. Etc.) and many philosophies as to why it even happens (human nature, aristocratic rule, cultural controls, biology, etc.) but when it comes to moral responsibility it gets a little cloudy...it comes down to intent.

When it comes to this particular war things are even more cloudy. We are not defending ourselves from a direct confrontation/attack. We are protecting interests. We are infringing using lies to get in and lies to stay. So in the eyes of many the war is amoral and therefore the killing is not as justified. (as opposed to soldiers and civilians dying because we are protecting ourselves or an ally from an attack).

Ultimately in war we don't target children/babies. They die as part of the process but they are not specifically targeted (at least not that we'll admit to...this gets a little thin w/ the atomic bombs we dropped...obviously we knew children were there). We intend to kill and destory the opponent (for whatever reason...ok...they wouldn't say that that is the intent...I guess the intent would be to stop the opponent from inflicting damage upon us) and if children are in the way they die but we don't specifically target them.

With abortion chidren (this, of course is debatable but in "their" eyes they are children/babies to be) are specifically targeted. Since they believe that the unborn child has a right to live the specific "targeting" of this child is a much more heinous action than the targeting of a nation where others (including children) just happen to die. I know...sounds like splitting hairs but there you have it.

So it comes down to intent and specific targeting - one does and the other doesn't.

Hope that made sense...I'm very tired. :)

enigma4ever said...

really good post...and the thing is what you wrote makes sense- solid sense.....it is rational and well thoughtout....and why more people don't get it- I don't know.....

My son and I have had long discussions about this very issue- and he pointed out that we are a strange country- that unborn children should be worth more than grown children ( the young 18 and 19 year olds that are over in Iraq) are somehow worth" less" ? that was his question.....
I had no answer....

Good Luck today in Indiana...

Thank you for all of your hard work there....

I am so glad that Obama met your family......and that you met him and were able to touch History....

much Hope....

Laura said...

Abortion is a personal matter. It is not for the government to decide. It is a decision between a woman and her doctor, and a decision between a woman and her God. Who are we to decide for anyone else? (On that and a host of other issues, actually...)

This war is not just, although in some situations war can be justified. I am not a war monger by any stretch of the imagination, but there are times that it is a necessary evil.

Hmmm... just like abortion.

Anyhow, I always like to use the example of abortion rights vs. capital punishment. GWB, for example, executed more prisoners as Governor of Texas than anyone else ever, and the pro-lifers still supported him.

I just don't get people who are single-issue voters. Period. We have to just ask ourselves if we're better off now than 8 years ago. The answer is clearly no, and we must mandate change.

I just hope that's enough when we get to the general election. I tend to agree with the Founding Fathers' assertation that the general populus were not informed enough to vote...

Jeff Chidester said...

A few points:

There are several points about your post that compelled me to write:

I understand that most people who disagree with abortions believe that it is murder. I respect their views and even agree for the most part for me. Myself. Thank God I have the choice. I choose no. It is legal, it is a choice that I cannot take away from women who may or may not share my religious views. I cannot mandate religion.

To be “pro-choice is to be “pro-murder. To believe that you cannot impose your beliefs on others relies on a faulty premise. Abortion is not a religious issue; it is a civil rights issue. An entire class of citizens is being deprived of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that has been afforded to all American citizens under the Declaration of Independence. Civilized societies restrict “individual freedoms” every day when they harm innocent people.


Abortion may be legal, but it does not mean it is morally right. There was a time when slavery was legal, but that did not make it moral. There was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote, which does not mean it was ethical. Roe v. Wade is not constitutional law, and has been deem by many in the legal profession (such as John Hart Ely, a pro-choice legal expert) to be a poor decision.

What about the separate, distinct human growing inside the mother? What rights do they have? If every woman should have control over their body, what about the 1 million girls that are aborted every year? Shouldn’t that have the same right? What if it is a male baby? Would that be evidence that it is not a part of the mother’s body because she cannot not be both a male and a female? It is a biological fact, not a religious or philosophical argument, that human life begins at conception. By supporting abortion, you are supporting the harm of innocent people.

That young man was absolutely correct; war and abortion are two separate issues. To support abortion, in which the end result is the death of an innocent person every time, can never be justified. Nobody wants war, but sometimes we are called to take action. You however were a little disingenuous when you used the often misquoted “100 more years.” WWII was concluded in 1945, yet we are still in Japan and Germany (at their request). Korea ended 50 years ago, but there we are, as allies, which is the type of relationship we are trying foster with the Iraqis.

As much as I detest the use of force that is war, I understand the realities of the world we live in. America is not the enemy here, and we entered this conflict as one nation, with the overwhelming support of the people. We have the luxury now, as does Candidate Obama, to disagree with this war, but we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq.

Sheri said...

Jeff, I respect your opinion and I asked for true discourse on the thoughts of those who believe as that young man did holding that sign Sunday. But I believe you too are completely wrong when you say,

"America is not the enemy here, and we entered this conflict as one nation, with the overwhelming support of the people. We have the luxury now, as does Candidate Obama, to disagree with this war, but we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq."

Overwhelming support of the people? I think not. The vast majority of people disagreed with the war and believe they were mislead by the current administration on the so-called WMD that did not exist. War is not a moral issue and we have no moral obligation to the Iraqi's of whom most would like us to leave their country.

Thank you for explaining your opinion to me. I understand your point, and wish that you too could understand that I see no difference in killing people in this war.

One more question for you, as Laura brought up . . .

Is being pro-death penalty, also being pro-murder? McCain supports the death penalty. Thoughts?

Sheri said...

Torina: I'M usually on the edge, just as k my Republican family! LOL

John: great points. Points that too many "religious" people don't remember.

Eos: Well said! My husband says it all comes down to timing.

Enigma: I knew I could count on you for some wisdom! It is good that people are having discussions with their children about these topics. Information will make them strong.

Laura: Well said! Totally agree that there is a time for war and this is not that time.

Thanks to all for taking the time to respond, it really is mind-boggling to me, this helps see other's points of view.

Jeff Chidester said...

Over 80% of Americans supported the War on Iraq (in the beginning) for the sole reason that Hussein needed to be removed. This administration was in the same position as England, France, Germany, the UN, in believing Hussein and his regime was a danger to the world, which he was.

We can go back and forth as to the reasons for this war, and the reasons it received overwhelming, bi-partisan support (Action in Iraq was overdue), and the political reason to put all the blame on George Bush. I would remind that Hussein misled the world when he himself claimed to have WMD (with a weapons program to support such a threat), and the threat to use them (as he did against Iran and the Kurds). Facts about Hussein:
· Planned the attempted assassination of one of our former Presidents (Bush Sr.)
· Paid $25,000 to the families of homicidal bombers
· Harbored al-Qaeda terrorist (Duelfer Report and admissions from members of al-Qaeda)
· Harbored one of the terrorist from the first attack on the World Trades Center in 1993
· Attempted to enrich uranium in his desire to make advanced WMD
· British Intelligent confirmed that Hussein was pursuing sarin gas and sulfur mustard with plans to put them in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles to ship to Europe and the US
· Hussein was training non-Iraqis (Palestinians, Saudis, Egyptians, as well as others) to export terrorism. Those very same terrorist have now “come home to roost.”

War is a moral issue, just asked those freed from the concentration camps of Europe, the chains of slavery, and the rape centers of Iraq. America does have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq who now being slaughter by the terrorist Hussein helped to train. What do you think will happen to the people of Iraq if we leave? Thugs and zealots will butcher them. You are wrong; to walk away from the women and children of Iraq is paramount to a death sentence on a scale that will make Darfur and Rwanda look like a water-balloon fight.

As for the death penalty, are you truly trying to compare the killing of an innocent child to that of a person convicted of a crime who is a threat to the innocent and to the harmony of society? When the rights of the innocent person are violated by those who contravene the law, the state has the duty to use whatever means are necessary and appropriate to protect the rights of its citizens and its society as a whole. Without the protection of the state, exercised according to the natural law, the innocent suffer and unjust aggressors prosper, and freedom for law-abiding citizens is lost. I would remind you that the person about to be executed has declared by their actions not to value human life, and if permitted, will impose his will on another victim. To be honest with you, if the death penalty were eliminated, I would be fine with that, but only if a system of punishment was enacted that truly castigated the offender. But to allow a convicted killer to sit around watching cable TV and earning an advance degree, while the victims family sits at home mourning their lost is punishment that does not fit the crime.

Additionally, as for Laura comments. George Bush did not execute anyone. The People of the State of Texas commanded that those convicted be punished, many of whom were convicted before George Bush took office, and the previous Governor (who was a Democrat) took no action to stop from being executed. If life begins at conception (once again this is not a religious statement, but a matter of scientific fact) we are obligated to protect the life of the child. If abortion is a personal matter, should someone ask the baby his or her opinion? I would remind you at least half of the babies that are murder are female. The baby residing in the woman’s womb is a separate body, not an appendix, wart, or extra body fat. I will ask you Sheri, without involving God, at what point did you consider the child growing inside of you to human? 4 months, 6 months, the day of the birth? No..like me, the day you were told you were pregnant you acknowledge it to be a living being deserving of your protection, and worthy of every chance to live. That is what we call the “reasonable person” test. We use this test to measure how we should conduct ourselves in civilized society. A civilized society does not kill the innocent.

Your post started by trying to compare abortion to war (in which there is no comparison), then the conversation expanded to the death penalty. You did not counter one of my arguments as to why abortion is wrong, and a matter of civil rights. You tried to compare the murder of an innocent child to the punishment leveled against a person that does not value human life. There is a difference in each of the cases you pointed out. The murder of an innocent child, whether sucked from the womb or blown up by a terrorist, is wrong. The killing of a terrorist or criminal intent on harming the innocent of society, and bent on imposing their will by force or deceit, although distasteful, is the burden all of us must bear to preserve the life of the innocent.

Sheri said...

England, France, Germany and the UN were in the process of doing something other than shock and awe when we circumvented that process and make American's more hated in the world.

I did start with abortion and war and I don't disagree that abortion is wrong . . .for me. As Laura said, it is a matter between a woman and her doctor as well as her God not a matter of government.

I applauded you for your stance. I thanked you for thoughtful discourse. You seem intent on "bludgeoning" me with your self-righteous indignation. Maybe I am reading you wrong, but you seem angry and unwilling to acknowledge that someone else has a differing point of view, and ultimately sound like a member of my family.

I take major issue with most of what you say about the war in Iraq. I will not argue that point with you. I will agree to disagree on these matters.

The death penalty comments does not shock me. "Religious" people make their religion fit their opinions all the time. One killing is okay, another is not. It's all in the timing. Yet, I think you need to educate yourself about killers sitting around watching cable and getting advanced degrees. I will agree that There are those who have turned their life around in prison and have been given privileges, it is not however a piece of cake life. My God is sovereign and can meet a man in prison and change his life. That life can become productive in many ways and can do good. Thankfully the prison system can recognize that sometimes.

Would it shock you to find out that I am bible-thumping, weekly church going, pentecostal that who speaks in tongues and have worked at my church 5 days a week for the past 18 years? The vast majority of those who attend my church believe as you do. I don't fault them for it. I keep my views private between my and my God as to not stir up trouble amongst believers. I have spoken to my pastor about my views and he has counseled me in his biblical thinking. I respect his views and thankfully he respects my ability to make my own choices. I am not and will not be a sheep.

I commend you on knowing what you believe and being able to articulate your point of view. I am thankful that you can say why you believe these things instead of "just becuase my church says so".

Thank God we live in America and are afforded the right to hold our own opinions.