Life-and-death issues

[dazzleman]

"Yes" or "No" to each of the following practices staying legal / being legalized, etc.:

Euthanasia:   No
Human cloning:  No
Death penalty for juveniles:  Maybe
Death penalty for retarded:   Maybe
Death penalty for others:       Yes
Partial-birth abortion:    No
Parental consent for abortion:   Yes
Parental notification for abortion:   Yes
Abortion for rape and incest:    Maybe
Embryo abortion:     Maybe
Fetus abortion:      No
Infanticide:      No
"Morning after" pill:    Yes
Withdraw troops from Afghanistan:    No
Withdraw troops from Iraq:       No
Lynching:     No [this must be a joke]
House bombing:    No [depending on whose house it is:) ]

[dazzleman]

so, WWII doesn't count to AuH2O? Incidentally, that's really the only war in our nation's history that I would consider absolutely morally justifiable.

Not even close to being justifiable. By far the most inhumane war the US conducted.

Well let's see, first we were attacked by an imperial power, and then after declaring war on them we had war declared on us by imperial powers in Europe than were trying to kill off a large portion of the population, what's inhumane about that?

You're both right - and wrong.

WWII was morally justifiable, and would have been even if the Japanese hadn't been stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor.  It would have been shirking our humane responsibilities to allow a combination of murderous nations like Germany and Japan to take over the world.

On the other hand, it was, necessarily, conducted in the most inhumane way of any war since.  The Germans started the trend, and got back what they deserved in good measure.  We had a set policy of "dehousing" German workers, which meant deliberately killing civilians in large numbers.  There was none of the obsession we have today with sparing non-combatants in enemy nations.  In World War II, each German civilian was considered an enemy.  The fire-bombing of Dresden was the deliberate killing of about 300,000 civilians, as the city served no military purpose.  The atomic bombs were dropped with the purpose of killing civilians.

I think it was necessary and served a greater good, given that those countries had started a horrible and murderous war and refused to surrender.  We couldn't pull any punches in destroying them.

[dazzleman]

To all of you anti-death penalty pro-abortionists,  You support killing innocent children, but not the worst of our society? Pretty sick I must say.

I agree, whatever mental gymnastics the liberals go through to try to justify this position.  The common thread is the "take no responsibility" attitude of liberals.  Killers should not really be responsible for their crimes, and abortion for them is simply a matter of personal convenience, of evading responsibility for careless sexual behavior.

[dazzleman]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

You really have a distorted view of things.  Your defense of German atrocities is sickening.  Please don't call yourself a Republican; you are an embarrassment to the party.

[dazzleman]

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

You really have a distorted view of things.  Your defense of German atrocities is sickening.  Please don't call yourself a Republican; you are an embarrassment to the party.

Actually he is correct. The British DID begin bombing German civilians as retaliation for an accident that occured during a German bombing raid in London. I know what AuH20 is saying and I think you are misunderstanding him. He is referring to German vs British Civilians. Not Jews, Poles, etc. He is correct in his statements that the British were the first to initiate bombing civilian houses over Berlin and the rest of Germany during WW2.

You're forgetting the fact that the London bombing was not the first German bombing of civilians in countries that had done nothing to them.  The Rotterdam bombing in Holland preceded it, as did the bombardment of Warsaw.  Germany started with bombing civilians in peaceful countries, and got back what it deserved in spades.  When I see the Germans whaling and moaning about the suffering they endured under allied bombing, it leaves me totally cold.

This defense of Germany is nuts.