Drones, and the victims they cause

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Of course you don't care, it doesn't fit your agenda. And I don't mean that as an insult.

I don't have an agenda. An opinion is not an agenda.

[GandD 5,966]

So they are anti-choice. They want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. I have a problem with that.

They're anti choice in the way most are anti choice for a guy with a guy to choose to shoot another guy.

Edited April 26, 2013 by GandD

[spookyturtle 9,465]

If a drone kills a pregnant woman, is it taking one life or two?

(A feeble attempt at putting the thread back on track)

The only victim is the woman since an unborn child really isn't a living thing and therefor has no rights. It is nothing.

[Karee 4,190]

Looks like I failed.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I don't have an agenda. An opinion is not an agenda.

I thought you were pro choice?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They're anti choice in the way most are anti choice for a guy with a guy to choose to shoot another guy.

It's not a matter of opinion or belief whether a guy is a living, breathing person in his own right. That comparison fails.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Looks like I failed.

Keep trying. If at first you don't succeed.......

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I thought you were pro choice?

I am. Or in your words, "pro-abortion" .. since they're the same.

[GandD 5,966]

It's not a matter of opinion or belief whether a guy is a living, breathing person in his own right. That comparison fails.

Oh come on. We all know the actual point a fetus becomes an individual is ambiguous.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I am. Or in your words, "pro-abortion" .. since they're the same.

So my choice is it is an agenda.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh come on. We all know the actual point a fetus becomes an individual is ambiguous.

Not really. There's is the broadly recognized matter of viability. Now we can argue what that point is by a couple of weeks but there's no debate that a fetus is not viable for 20+ weeks.

[duraaraa 203]

Oh come on. We all know the actual point a fetus becomes an individual is ambiguous.

That's exactly the reason I think women should be able to choose. It's all totally ambiguous.

To pull it back on topic (I might fail too), the kids in Pakistan are not in an ambiguous state. They have no choice but to live where the live with their families, and they are casualties. Are we really saving lives with these drone strikes?

I'm all about hopes and dreams, and I'm sure those kids have them. The fact that a foreign (to them) country like the U.S. comes in and says, "It's so important for us to kill this person, that we'll kill you too" is just nasty.

Edited April 26, 2013 by duraaraa

[GandD 5,966]

Not really. There's is the broadly recognized matter of viability. Now we can argue what that point is by a couple of weeks but there's no debate that a fetus is not viable for 20+ weeks.

No points of development matter cus it's still opinion. Some folks think once the two components successfully combine, the life begins in its most basic form. They're not technically wrong so we're left to debate the levels of development after in respect to humanity. Either way, you can't ever reach a conclusive "win" on the subject.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Back to topic. How do you propose to deal with the enemies of the US in a way that there is no loss of innocent life? Should we have accepted Pearl Harbor since attacking Japan would and did cause a massive loss of civilian life? Should we not fight for anything at all? Talk to me.

That's exactly the reason I think women should be able to choose. It's all totally ambiguous.

To pull it back on topic (I might fail too), the kids in Pakistan are not in an ambiguous state. They have no choice but to live where the live with their families, and they are casualties. Are we really saving lives with these drone strikes?

I'm all about hopes and dreams, and I'm sure those kids have them. The fact that a foreign (to them) country like the U.S. comes in and says, "It's so important for us to kill this person, that we'll kill you too" is just nasty.

And the fetus has no choice either.

[duraaraa 203]

Back to topic. How do you propose to deal with the enemies of the US in a way that there is no loss of innocent life? Should we have accepted Pearl Harbor since attacking Japan would and did cause a massive loss of civilian life? Should we not fight for anything at all? Talk to me.

We should handle it exactly how we handle bank robberies, high speed chases, and other situations in the U.S., and value the safety of the innocent over the capture of the guilty.

I think that soldiers should be in the United States, defending the United States. I don't think that they should be in hostile countries overseas, period.

Edited April 26, 2013 by duraaraa