If abortion is murder, wouldn't that mean war is MASS murder?
400193
Most people have the belief that killing is wrong (or immoral).\n\nWhen this belief is mixed with other beliefs (eg the right of a person to liberty), then the two beliefs have to be valued (or graded) so that one will prevail in a given situation. This is our ethical framework\n\nSo whilst we all believe that it is morally wrong to kill, we may agree that ethically it is neccessary when other beliefs (like our self preservation) are more important\n\nBecause we grade our beliefs in different ways, there will be no single view on what is right or wrong. So a Quaker (or pacifist) will never agree with a combat marine - both agree that killing is immoral but have different frameworks of importance (the latter will place integrity of country above the death of a hostile soldier wheras the former will not)\n\nMurder is defined as unlawful killing of another human being; the marine would argue that their actions are lawful and therefore not murder. Equating abortion with murder is incorrect; it is not unlawful and the science on when a foetus becomes a sentient human being unclear.
83456
People can..and do ..go outside and kill whoever they want(they call it murder),they also get abortions(i think to worry about someone elses baby while it's still in that person,is just plain nosey.)It's still attacted to the mother,her body,her choice.This choice is essential for multiple reasons,the more they are restricted the harder it is to get them,meaning the more dangerious it is for those seaking one,you someday in your life may need the very abortion your so apposed to,would'nt it be nice to have a clinic that offered this procedure in a sanitary and non bias envoriment?If you think i have no right,i was almost an abortion,choice is the word here,people should have it.but if somone is'nt ready for one reason or another to be a parent they should be able to make that choice without the judgment of others.
878808
Does war bring those people back to life?  In any case, the primary questions are what the cost is of the war, whether or not there is an ongoing genocide, and whether or not less drastic options can be used instead.  If more people will likely be killed by the war than would have died had the leader stayed in power, war is unjusitified.  Overthrowing a leader must be based on saving future lives.  Why bring a person to justice if the act of doing so causes even more deaths?  In the real world of international politics, killing more people out of "justice" is not justified.  Only the expectation of future killings can be the grounds for starting a war, and even this is not sufficient if the war is going to cost more lives than would have otherwise been lost.  If Saddam was responsible for the deaths for 2 million (which includes battle deaths from starting wars, and by this logic Bush is responsible for the deaths of this current war), that is very bad, but does not justify starting a war which will likely kill more people than would have died anyway.  A war of liberation is only justified if it makes the liberated country better off than it would have been; thus far that has not been the situation.  Also, a war to save lives would only be justified if other options were impossible or improbable.  This was not the case in Iraq.  Saddam allowed weapons inpectors in to the country, and its a reasonable assumption that human rights inspections would have been allowed as well.  If he refused human rights inspections and weapons inspections, then you would have a case for war on humanitarian grounds and on the grounds of WMD fears.  But he did not refuse weapons inspectors entry, and was never asked about human rights inspections, so there is no valid case based on WMD's or human rights, despite past murders.  \n\nFinally, saddam allowed weapons inspectors in to all areas of the country, not just certain ones.  according to the inspectors: "The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.  Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights.  If it did, we would report it."  http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm\n\nIraq was cooperating, albeit grudgingly, with inspections.  As for proof, how do you prove that you do not have WMD's aside from allowing inspections and saying that you don't have them?  Its very difficult to prove a negative.  "Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the UN, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy - unilaterally, without UN supervision - a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place without documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly." - Scott Ritter, former US weapon inspector in Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html\n\n"Got rid of nuclear weapons"?  He never had nuclear weapons.  The WMD's that he had in the past were chemical and biological, never nuclear.  That's widely acknowledged now.  And the WMD's that he had in the past, even if he still had them, would have been useless - "Iraq manufactured three nerve agents: sarin, tabun, and VX. Some people who want war with Iraq describe 20,000 munitions filled with sarin and tabun nerve agents that could be used against Americans. The facts, however, don't support this. Sarin and tabun have a shelf-life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they are now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo." - Scott Ritter http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html\n\nThe war had no justification on humanitarian grounds, nor on WMD grounds.  The guardian story quoted twice above is a
193820
I imagine most books about pacifism have been written during a time of war, as this will be when people are driven to think about pacifism. There's no point telling people not to kill when there are no people killing. Possibly a lot were written in the periods after a war too. But then there are so many wars all the time that this would be a bit of a continuous process.
821638
Snoooooore. Snoooore.\n\n(yawn), er...ah yes, abortions will continue happening worldwide, no matter what you and your kind try.\n\nIt's a human factor, like war, prostitution, murder, etc. You can't eradicate it. Period. Good night! zzzz
74066
That answer above is awful.  The Bible says thou shalt not murder.  A baby is innocent. It's only mistake was that it was born to a mother that didn't want it.  Wars which also include innocent people are not completely innocent.  There will always be killing when it comes to good versus evil.  Sometimes its for good reason and sometimes its not.  But a baby is not a war.  A baby is a human breathing life, not a fetus, a life.  Anyone who is a Christian and has an abortion isn't really a Christian at all.  Jesus called children precious.  He didn't call them fetuses.  He didn't call them blobs of tissue.  He said it was a blessing to carry a child and be parents.  I don't understand how any church that says its Christian can condone abortion.
877050
Isn't all war a control of human population?
824279
yes. why should murder be legal? it is murder I don't care what anyone says that baby is alive when you kill it. If you don't want a baby then don't fvcking get pregnant
1018496
Yes, 60% in fact.\nAnd your facts are right.\n\nThere is obviously a huge emphasis on 'freedom' and democracy in 'America'.\nAnd yes, this also includes murdering little babies.\nIt is sad that such a number of Americans are inclined to believe in this.\nThere has been 70,000 acts of disruption at abortion clinics since it started in America. I would burn all of them down if I had the choice.
428074
An embryo or fetus is dependent upon its mother's body for survival. A woman has the right to have absolute dominion over her own person, and since the fetus or embryo is part of her person, no one has the right to force her to carry it to term.\n\nKilling an unborn child in a war is wrong, because you are murdering a separate life form whose existence is not dependent upon yours. And not only that, but the right of the mother of the unborn child to autonomy over her own body has been violated. It's forced abortion, pure and simple.\n\nI have mixed feelings about the death penalty. On the one hand, since murderers have deprived others of their right to live, they should also be robbed of theirs. On the other hand, since so many people have been wrongly convicted of murder, the death penalty should be abolished, because executions are irreversible.
500509
I've always wonder about that myself.  Technically speaking, 'murder' means to kill someone with intent and with premeditation.  Soldiers are certainly killing with intent, and they are also going into battle with the foreknowledge that they will have to kill.  So, regardless of whether your version of the Bible says 'thou shall not kill' or 'thou shall not murder', the act of killing in war breaks this commandment. I mean, could you picture Jesus picking up an M-16, shooting an enemy to death, and then saying that it is 'OK because I killed in the context of war'?  It just doesn't seem like his style.  In fact, it contradicts everything that he taught.
372396
That's wrong. According to the Bible, in Genesis chapter 2, Adam "became" a soul when he was created. He wasn't GIVEN one. Abortion is clearly murder, whether people try all sorts of ways to justify it (which they can't).
352507
War is a political action to acquire land. Don't ever let the Religion part fool you.\nWhat does a true christian have  to do with killing?\nNone.
256162
Very interesting question indeed!  I believe that the knee-jerk reaction to this question would be "no", however, when thinking about it more broadly--I guess ultimately the answer is "yes".  Perhaps this is the basis of "justified war" that religious organizations speak about.  A good example from recent history would be the horrific events of Nazi Germany, Rwanda & currently in Darfur & Congo.  Since  genocide was (is) happening, violence may be necessary--and then acceptable to put an end to the problem.
792633
Abortion is murder no matter how you look at it
1063112
Every sperm has a soul (or at least half a soul).\nMasturbation is Mass Murder (only for guys).\nSpermicide is Genocide.
218648
I'll say it bluntly.  Yes, abortion is wrong.  Some people say that it is the own choice of the female to terminate the fetus if they choose, or if they are unhappy with it's existence.  However, ask yourself, if a woman was unhappy with her two-year old son, and he was getting in her way, could she kill him? Absolutely not!  It is murder.  Therefore, the issue is not whether or not the mother has control over her body, but whether what she is killing is a human being or not\n\nLet's start with a basic question.  Is a newborn child human?  Yes, it is.  Now to compare it to the "fetus" or young human in the womb.  As far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there are only four differences between the unborn child and the newborn child.\n\nFirst is size.  If you don't know, the unborn child is at one point smaller than the head of a pin.  So does that make it not human?  If you answered yes, consider this.  Are bigger people more human than smaller people?  By that note, is Margaret Sanger less of a person than Shaquille O' Neal since she is smaller?  I don't think so, nor do many other people.  So if you can't apply this on the extreme of it, you can't apply it to the unborn and say they are less human because of their size.\n\nNext is level of development.  The unborn is much less developed then the newborn, so does that make the unborn not human?  While I may not know the exact levels of development for this, I do know that a fourteen year-old girl is more developed than a four year-old girl.  I also know that men don't reach their mental peak until their mid-40's and their physical peak until their mid-30's.  So does this mean that the four year-old girl, or any male under the age of 30 is less human because they are less developed?  Again, this does not make much sense.\n\nThird is Environment.  What change occurs from inside the womb to coming outside the womb that merits murder?  Consider this.  If you were to leave your computer and go get a snack in the kitchen, would you be more human when you walked into the kitchen then you were in the computer room?  Or if you went on a trip to see your grandmother, would you be more human at her house than at yours?  Or would you be more human when you got on the plane to get to her house than before you got on?  As you can see, change of location does not make a person more or less of who they are, and it applies the same to the unborn child.\n\nFinally, you have degree of dependency.  Since the unborn is more dependent on the mother for life than the newborn, we can kill the unborn child, right?  Wrong.  By that merit, anyone who takes insulin or needs an oxygen tube would become less human than anyone not dependent on those sorts of things.  So how does the fact that someone is more dependent on something than somebody else make that person less human?  As far as I can see, it doesn't.  Therefore, according to these four differences, there is no difference between an unborn child and a newborn child that merits killing the unborn that doesn't work for the newborn.\n\nIf this doesn't convince, let me bring up science.  Before you were born, what were you?  If you said "a potential life" you are wrong.  That doesn't work.  According to the Law of Biogenesis, humans cannot produce offspring that are not human but later become human.  It is impossible, and that is a scientifically proven fact.  Therefore, once again, there is no possible way you can prove that the unborn isn't human.\n\nSome may try to bring in issues of rape or incest.  Consider this.  Why would you execute a child for the crime of it's father?  Wouldn't you just execute the father for committing the terrible crime?  And I admit, rape is a terrible thing.  But let's think straight here.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  "But how can you make this woman have the child if it is only going to remind her o