Air raiding villages is fun!
This election cycle, you didn’t have to go far on your backwoods radio dial to hear the fear cheers from Sean Hannity.
And, one of his memorable moments, that continues to live on with his show, is his attack on Obama’s 2007 speech in which he said this in regards to our War on Terror:
“we’ve got to get the job done there (Afghanistan), and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”
Also, be sure to watch the short video clip of this speech (somewhat out of context, but how it’s been used by Hannity and others).
Now, I would like to discuss how dead on Obama was with this comment, and how his words are still powerfully important in regards to news reporters over the last few months which have detailed U.S. airstrikes killing innocent civilians.
In October, thousands of Syrians protested in the streets in response to a U.S. airstrike which killed several members of al Qaeda, in addition to eight INNOCENT civilians.
Again, in October, reports initially declared that U.S. airstrikes killed seven civilians in addition to 20 militants, only a military probe found that we in fact killed 33, I repeat, 33, INNOCENT civilians. But don’t worry, the acting commander of U.S. Central Command, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey said that we acted “in accordance with the Standing Rules of Engagement and the law of war.”
And perhaps the most disgusting of all the stories that have been reported, U.S. airstrikes killed 40 INNOCENT civilians and wounded 28 others who were simply trying to enjoy their wedding party!
It seems every time you mention civilian casualties you get two responses — 1) that happens, it’s war or 2) you don’t support our troops.
Sorry, but I support our military troops, I just don’t support our military intelligence.
I mean, without even getting deep into the staged/faked/hoaxed intelligence which led us into the War in Iraq, who are these people making these decisions and where are they getting their intelligence.
Foreign officials are pleading with President-elect Obama to end civilians casualties, because they understand that its possible. Don’t tell them that “civilians casualities are a part of war.” If that’s the case, then redefine war.
As Americans, we must understand the necessity to target terrorists without becoming terrorists ourselves. When thousands of Syrians line the streets in protest of the U.S. airstrikles which killed INNOCENT civilians, they were reacting just as we would react if Syria had killed innocent Americans while targeting a small group of al Qaeda members.
We would not stand for it in our country, so who are we to approve it in other countries?
Who, exactly, “approves” of civilian casualties? I read the above linked articles and couldn’t find an example of anyone at the defense department cheer-leading your examples.
Also missing from your post is a solution that would allow for a civilian-casualty-free war strategy against an enemy that intentionally surrounds itself with and targets civilians. Don’t hold back, man. If you have such a solution, I’m sure the Pentagon would love to hear it.
In the meantime, aren’t you glad you can sit back in a free country with absolutely no personal experience in these matters yourself, and armchair quarterback decisions made thousands of miles away, in a time of war, against an enemy that has absolutely no regard for the rules of war?
It’s freedom baby! Ya!
PT believes that we have achieved “victory” in Iraq and that we have “George Bush to thank” for it. This is an ignorance-is-bliss comment from someone who is asking me to detail a strategy that severely reduces the number of innocent civilian deaths—MORE GROUND TROOPS!
Obama will execute that strategy, I hope.
So, PT, are the thousands of Syrians protesting U.S. airstrikes “armchair quarterbacking?”
Look, you and I don’t need to discuss this topic because you think that I “sit back in a free country with absolutely no personal experience in these matters” and “arimchair quarterback decisions made thousands of miles away,” while I think you curl up in the fetal position inside your bubble, reading the latest conservative Republican soldier blog while chanting “we won, we won, we won.”
But your intelligence is shown with saying “It’s freedom baby” while at the same time saying we should thank Bush for our “victory” in Iraq. Tell that to the mothers and fathers of the troops who died in Iraq when we never should have been there in the first place.
You say:
“This is an ignorance-is-bliss comment from someone who is asking me to detail a strategy that severely reduces the number of innocent civilian deaths—MORE GROUND TROOPS!”
Well, ya. It’s the difference between simply whining and offering a solution. More ground troops? Leaving aside that all of your examples have occurred since the surge (you know, more ground troops), how exactly would more ground troops reduce civilian casualties when engaging an enemy that very purposely surrounds itself with, and targets, civilian populations?
You say:
“I think you curl up in the fetal position inside your bubble, reading the latest conservative Republican soldier blog while chanting “we won, we won, we won.”
Matt’s ace in the hole! When backed into a corner start shouting “right-wing blog! right-wing blog! Braaak!”
I can only assume you are referring to Michael Yon, who I quoted recently as saying the war is won. Be honest Matt, you don’t really know the first thing about him do you? A.) He’s not a soldier, and B) He’s not a blogger. He’s a free lance journalist whose writings have been widely used by media sources and whose columns about Iraq have appeared in many mainstream publications. He has spent more time embedded in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other reporter I am aware of.
But you’re probably right. He likely doesn’t know what he is talking about.
I’m still waiting for an example of someone who “approves” of civilian casualties, as well as some semblance of a strategy to eliminate civilian casualties. It seems to me the only way to eliminate civilian casualties is to win. Whether or not we should be there is moot at this point.
Maybe we could just go to the enemy and ask them real nicely to stop hiding behind civilians. And, while we’re at it, I’m sure they would be more than happy to start wearing uniforms, adhering to the Geneva Convention, and treating POWs accordingly. If we ask real nice, maybe they will come out from behind their civilian shields and simply meet us on the field of battle and stop strapping bombs to children and sending them to the nearest busy street corner. “Pretty please, with sugar on top.”
Sounds like a winner.
Incidentally, have you considered that your “strategy” for reducing civilian casualties would put more American soldiers in harms way? How will you explain that to the mothers and fathers of the troops that die as a result, when we shouldn’t even be there in the first place?
You always dilute the conversation, PT. I’m talking about the War on Terror, and the ground troops needed there, yet, you talk about the surge in Iraq. It’s unbelievable. You’re good at is deteriorating a conversation. If you want to discuss the use of torture, start a post on your blog. I will certainly discuss it with you. As for the issue of airstrikes into Afghanistan and Pakistan (amazing how there was no mention of the War in Iraq there), we will have to agree to absolutely disagree.
But you can blog on the War in Iraq and we can discuss why we went to war. Let’s just not do that here.
Here, we can talk about our clear disagreement with the strategy to use airstrikes instead of ground forces. If you are saying that the Taliban would be using human shields against our ground forces I would like to you to provide me with examples of your military intelligence which suggests that.
I noticed you failed to say whether or not you think the Syrian protesters were “armchair quarterbacking?” Care to give your take on that news story I posted a link to, or do you care more about ignoring it?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the airstrike that has Syrians upset was part of the war in Iraq:
The U.S. military has not confirmed the attack, but officials have said U.S. gunships conducted a “successful” strike on Sunday in Syria, killing Abu Ghadiya, the top facilitator of al Qaeda foreign fighters into Iraq, and several members of his network.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you said this, which preceded my last comments:
“But your intelligence is shown with saying “It’s freedom baby” while at the same time saying we should thank Bush for our “victory” in Iraq. Tell that to the mothers and fathers of the troops who died in Iraq when we never should have been there in the first place.”
I assume when you mention Iraq, you mean Iraq. That was, in fact, the first mention of Iraq in this conversation. You also are responsible for suddenly broaching the subject of torture, which has nothing to do with our conversation.
I’m not diluting anything. Are you so unfamiliar with the tactics of Islamic radicals that you simply don’t know they routinely use civilians tactically, either by launching attacks from or hiding in areas highly populated? That they routinely target civilians in bombings?
I simply want to know how you combat that effectively without ever having a civilian casualty. I also want to know who in America “approves” of civilian casualties. These questions were asked in my original comment and they are yet unanswered. I have no idea what you want me to say about the Syrians. I never accused them of “armchair quarterbacking.” That accusation was directed at you, Matt, and it still stands, especially in light of the fact you seem to have very little to offer other than shallow moral relativism.
That’s the WAR ON TERROR… al Qaeda!!!!! LOL, craziness.
The approval comes, ultimately, from the President and the Generals who give the OK to airstrike targets where the intelligence (assuming it’s actually intelligent) notes that civilian causalities will occur.
“Have you considered that your “strategy” for reducing civilian casualties would put more American soldiers in harms way?”
This is the shining example in how we do not think alike, PT. I believe that our soldiers are knowingly putting themselves in harms way by enlisting. Those civilians are not. So who, if anyone, should die? An innocent civilian or an American soldier? You tell me which one you rather have die. Seriously, just tell me.
Your still avoiding the subject. When the enemy ALWAYS protects its ability to take innocent life by surrounding itself with innocent life, the only other option is to not engage at all. Is that what we should do? Simply walk away from the depredations of Islamic radicals?
You are an exercise in contradictions. You demand to know how I will explain dead soldiers to parents, then say, “I believe that our soldiers are knowingly putting themselves in harms way by enlisting.”
Well, there’s your explanation I guess. Not a very good one, but whatever. But at the same time you demand an explanation for their deaths in combat, you seem to want to use them as cannon fodder if it means that no innocent lives will be taken.
I would prefer neither innocent civilians or American soldiers die. Unfortunately, the enemy in this case has not made that an option. I believe it is the military’s duty to protect soldiers lives at all costs while still accomplishing a given mission. I place the blame for civilian losses where it belongs, on an enemy that has no regard for humanity or the rules of war.
So you tell me, how many American soldiers deaths are worth saving a single innocent civilian? How many is acceptable to you to be thrown into the breach? 10? 20? 100? What will you tell their parents? “Hey, they signed up. It’s their job to absorb the bullets?”
“I believe it’s the military’s duty to protect soldiers lives at all costs.”
WOW. WOW. WOW.
Soldiers who die in the War in Iraq should never have been put in a position to be killed. We should never have fought that war, and that fact has already been written into history. You can decide to write the outcome of that war as “victory,” but history has already declared that war to have been without cause. To defend the war with the fact that Saddam was a human rights violator would simply point out the fact that we have not properly intervened in other nations.
Show me a soldier who says “I rather have innocent civilians die via airstrikes if it means I don’t have to risk my life by going in on the ground.” While that surely sounds like something you would say, PT, it’s most certainly cowardly.
Again, you use the term “rules of war” without defining what that means.
Look, PT, you’re going to defend the loss of INNOCENT life because you think it’s better than the loss of American soldiers. That’s how radically different we think. I think those American soldiers are knowing, this could be the day I die. I think the INNOCENT life is going about its daily routine, never knowing that an airstrike is about to finish them.
The contradiction is that soldiers expect to die defending our freedom. In Iraq, they were never defending our country against a threat from Saddam. In the War on Terror, they are defending us against a threat. So please, again, stop diluting the conversation.
Again, you use the term “rules of war” without defining what that means.
You’re kidding, right? It’s all quite spelled out in a little known document called the Geneva Convention. Things such as the wearing of uniforms (makes soldiers distinguishable from civilians), rules for POWs, and treatment of civilians, are defined.
You can decide to write the outcome of that war as “victory,” but history has already declared that war to have been without cause. To defend the war with the fact that Saddam was a human rights violator would simply point out the fact that we have not properly intervened in other nations.
It’s hard to know even where to start with this statement. Perhaps we can talk about the “history” of the Iraq war in 30 or 40 years, when time enough has passed for that history to unfold. I’ll chalk up your claim that it has already been written to the hubris of youth.
You then go on to say that, if humanitarian reasons were a reason to enter this war, than we should have intervened elsewhere also. But you’ve been arguing this entire war is without cause. I’m not sure I can debate this with you until you make up your mind. You’re outraged that small numbers of civilians have been killed in the course of American attacks against brutal killers of civilians, yet you find the hundred of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians under Hussein not good enough a reason to intervene.
Is it your position we should put troops on the ground wherever innocents are being killed? If so, than you support the mission in Iraq. If not, than your outrage regarding the loss of innocent life is suspect.
Show me a soldier who says “I rather have innocent civilians die via airstrikes if it means I don’t have to risk my life by going in on the ground.” While that surely sounds like something you would say, PT, it’s most certainly cowardly.
I begin with the premise that the American military operates in such a way as to reduce civilian casualties to the degree it is humanly possible against such an enemy. If not, we wouldn’t have troops over there in the first place; we would have simply nuked the region and turned the entire desert into glass. As some of the most honorable people in this nation, I know soldiers would rather find a way to accomplish a mission without the loss of innocent life and risk their lives every day honoring that premise.
However, because of the nature of this enemy they are also faced with choices of a degree so difficult you and I cannot even comprehend. What if intelligence giving us a shot at someone is not acted upon? Will not acting mean that 40 or 50 more innocents will be killed in a suicide attack next week? Do you risk the death of a few in order to save the deaths of the hundreds whose lives will be put at risk by not acting?
Do you even think about these things? Or do you just assume we don’t care who dies?
Look, PT, you’re going to defend the loss of INNOCENT life because you think it’s better than the loss of American soldiers.
Again, I operate on the premise that we are there to protect as many lives as possible. The more soldiers we lose the less there will be to protect those lives. I don’t defend the loss of innocent life. I simply understand the situation is not as simplistic as you would like to believe.
You seem to want to decimate the military in order that innocent life is never lost. That is a strategy for failure and disaster. When the greatest, most humane, fighting force is no longer viable, who will protect the innocents then? The U.N.? Europe? Please.
When you say you “support the troops,” it seems to mean you support bashing them against the rocks of a strategy that plays right into the hands of the enemy.
By all means, complain ad nauseum about the loss of innocent life. But for God’s sake, at least acknowledge the military’s great efforts to avoid it, the enemies willingness to embrace it, and the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been spared from Hussein and his butchers. At least acknowledge that our military is faced with impossible choices on a daily basis and must react, or risk the horror of that indecision.
And please, stop pretending you have any concept of that and spare us all the finger-wagging. Stop pretending you even have the beginnings of a concept why and how decisions are made on the ground thousands of miles away. The truth is (and the difference between us), neither you and I have even .00001% percent of the info we need to judge our actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. Knowing our military, I prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt knowing it does everything possible to avoid innocent deaths. You, apparently, can’t be bothered to think about these things before passing judgment on things of which you have no concept.
“You’re outraged that small numbers of civilians have been killed in the course of American attacks” – PT
“Small numbers!?!?!?” “Small numbers!?!?!?”
You’re right, I’m outraged.
Do you read/follow/comprehend the news.
“According to an AP count of civilian deaths this year, U.S. or NATO forces have killed at least 275 civilians, while 590 have died from militant-caused violence like suicide bombs.”
Read the full story — http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2008/11/05/karzai_demands_obama_end_civilian_deaths/
“Small numbers!?!?!?” Despicable!
Here you go, this decision is up to you. It is announced today that Iran has enough nuclear fuel for a warhead. Iran has publicly stated it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. It has, no doubt, installed any lab for constructing such a warhead in a highly populated area. The facility is likely bunkered and heavily guarded making an air strike using penetrating weapons the only viable option for its destruction.
Israel has a population of 7 million.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/20/africa/20nuke.php
Provided Iran will not give up its fuel and proceeds with the construction of a weapon, all the while continuing to assert Israel should be destroyed, what will you do? Would you risk the lives of millions to save hundreds? Or would you risk the lives of hundreds to save millions.
Make the choice Matt. Whose blood do you want on your hands? Either way it’s on you. Decide.
Oh, the Geneva Convention… that’s the document we signed but didn’t adhere to when detaining suspected terrorists, right? I guess I didn’t think those were the rules of war, because the U.S. would always follow such rules, right? I forgot, not when Republicans say we shouldn’t.
Yes Matt, it is also the document that spells out quite clearly that enemy combatants who don’t wear uniforms or treat prisoners and civilians in a suitable manner do not qualify for the protections offered. You must have forgot that part.
Is it just me, or do you seem far more prepared to condemn the actions of your own country than those of religious fanatics that believe it is fine to kill as many people as it sees fit for its own twisted reasons? Far more prepared to insure the rights of suspected terrorists than detering them from wholesale slaughter?
I guess everything is relativistic in your world.
Tick, tock, Matt. Iran’s getting closer to that nuclear attack. Are you willing to accept the blood on your hands for acting and preventing it?
Does doing nothing absolve you of any culpability in the case of an attack? After all you didn’t kill any civilians, Iran did. Will you sleep well at night knowing potentially hundreds of thousands of people are dead, but your conscience is clear because you didn’t kill innocent civilians?
What is the correct choice? Kill, or be killed? You must decide.
I’m going to have to go with kill, so that Ahmadinejad can be recognized as the Devil and the Jewish people can return to their land so that Jesus can come back to earth.
The fear mongering never stops with people like PT. I appreciate your point of view on this, PT, and appreciate even more that we do not have a president-elect who thinks the same way you do.
Nice punt Matt. Landed at the three and bounced straight up in the air. Yet it is a microcosm of decisions faced by our military every day, with real life lives on the line. They don’t have the luxury of trite sarcasm.
The fear mongering never stops with people like PT.
Interesting. Matt has a seizure every time Christianity rears its ugly head in America, but calling attention to the very real threat of Islamic radicalism (over 12,000 terrorist attacks since 911, how many have Christians done?), and one is guilty of “fear mongering.”
I would suggest Matt is the perfect example of the American leftist: More than willing to confront theoretical “evils” (the U.S., Christianity) safe in the knowledge there will never be any cost for doing so. But when true evil must be dealt with he wants no part of that difficult task. Much easier to sit on the sidelines and condemn the people with the courage to confront the problem.
Golly. What a warrior.
You just don’t like people disagreeing with you PT, and as soon as someone does you try to paint them in the corner and pretend they are hiding from you.
I will always paint my opinion as just that, my opinion. You will continue to paint yours as the divinely inspired Truth. The difference between you and others I’ve talked to, is that they are able to discuss with a sense of civility and you baffle the world with forceful contention.
Aawww, shucks Matt. Did this not work out the way you had hoped when you posted the suggestion the American military thinks it is “fun” to air raid villages? When you opined that we “approve” of civilian deaths? When you insinuated that we are the terrorists?
I had no expectations, but I’m still very happy with the end result, thank you. Believe me, I would never expect that you would understand why thousands of Syrians poured into the streets to protest U.S. airstrikes.
We just have a different tone when it comes to issuing our opinion, PT.
(On a side note, goodbye, PT. Keep in touch via the blog, and good luck in the future. I’m sure your reporting will be missed at ECM. I know your blog will be, and I genuinely hope ECM allows another conservative voice to rise up on here. I think people benefit from both conservative and liberal opinion.)
Oh, I understand why thousands of Syrians would take to the streets, Matt. I just wish they had a fraction of that outrage when Islamic radicals bomb civilian populations at will. Their outrage over civilian casualties is a bit…shall we say…selective.
Off the subject, thanks Matt. I appreciate your kind words. Best of luck to you as well. You are a passionate person and an excellent writer. It’s been my pleasure to share this space with you.
Matt,
I have a question for you that takes this in a little bit of a different direction than that which you and PT were pursuing. It seems that you two have finished your exchange so I thought I might take the opportunity to bring this up.
In the above exchange you speak a great deal about the need to protect innocent civilian lives…
“In October, thousands of Syrians protested in the streets in response to a U.S. airstrike which killed several members of al Qaeda, in addition to eight INNOCENT civilians.
Again, in October, reports initially declared that U.S. airstrikes killed seven civilians in addition to 20 militants, only a military probe found that we in fact killed 33, I repeat, 33, INNOCENT civilians.
And perhaps the most disgusting of all the stories that have been reported, U.S. airstrikes killed 40 INNOCENT civilians and wounded 28 others who were simply trying to enjoy their wedding party!”
You speak with passion about the loss of innocent lives by people who were just going about their own business.
Further on in the exchange with PT you argue that the U.S. should be willing to sacrifice their own troops in order to better protect the lives of the innocent because the troops understand that there is a certain amount of risk associated with being in the military and they decided to join anyway knowing that this risk was present. The innocent civilians made no such assumption of risk:
“I believe that our soldiers are knowingly putting themselves in harms way by enlisting. Those civilians are not. So who, if anyone, should die? An innocent civilian or an American soldier? You tell me which one you rather have die. Seriously, just tell me.”
You take this argument to the point of saying that it would be “cowardly” of troops to not offer their very lives to protect innocent civilians….
“Show me a soldier who says “I rather have innocent civilians die via airstrikes if it means I don’t have to risk my life by going in on the ground.” While that surely sounds like something you would say, PT, it’s most certainly cowardly.”
“I think those American soldiers are knowing, this could be the day I die. I think the INNOCENT life is going about its daily routine, never knowing that an airstrike is about to finish them.”
In response to pt’s suggestion that the number of innocent lives lost are relatively small you respond…
“Small numbers!?!?!?” “Small numbers!?!?!?
You’re right, I’m outraged.
Do you read/follow/comprehend the news.
“According to an AP count of civilian deaths this year, U.S. or NATO forces have killed at least 275 civilians, while 590 have died from militant-caused violence like suicide bombs.” ….
“….Small numbers!?!?!?” Despicable!”
And finally you site the protest of “thousands of Syrians” as clear evidence that we are taking the wrong approach and have the wrong policy….
“When thousands of Syrians line the streets in protest of the U.S. airstrikles which killed INNOCENT civilians, they were reacting just as we would react if Syria had killed innocent Americans while targeting a small group of al Qaeda members.
We would not stand for it in our country, so who are we to approve it in other countries?”
Having read through your impassioned arguing for the lengths that the U.S. should go to in order to avoid the unintended loss of innocent lives in our military engagements, my question for you is, what are you willing to do to protect the intended loss of innocent lives on our own soil?
To be more specific, you have called the 275 civilian lives lost as a result of US & NATO actions despicable. Is that a term you would also be willing to apply to the loss of 48 million innocent lives to abortions in this country since 1973?
You argued that U.S. soldiers are assuming risks when they join the military and they know that they might die, because of this you argued that it is better that they lose their lives in order to preserve innocent lives that made no such assumption of risk.
Would you agree then that couples who engage in behaviors that they KNOW could result in the creation of an innocent human life (whether they intend to or not) should be asked to make a certain amount of sacrifice in order to protect the innocent life that their actions have now placed in harms way? Or should the innocent die intentionally because it would be too much of an inconvenience for the couple to have to carry the baby to term?
You point to “thousands of Syrians lining the streets in protest” as evidence that our policies are wrong. What of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who march for life every January 22nd? Is that ample evidence for you that this nations policies on abortion are wrong?
You place hope in Obama’s willingness and ability to put an end to innocent civilian deaths in our military engagements. Is there really any hope that Obama will do anything to help the millions of innocent children who die in the name of convenience every year because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I for one do not see Obama doing anything to help these innocents.
I can’t help but wonder, after this impassioned plea for the saving of innocent human lives in our military engagements, what your view is of the millions of innocent lives lost every year to abortion?
You have told me previously (albeit tongue in cheek) that you refer to Dr. Suess’s books for moral guidance. I might suggest a few passages for your reference if you are casting about on this one…
“…some poor little person who’s shaking with fear
That he’ll blow in the pool! He has no way to steer!
I’ll just have to save him. Because, after all,
A person’s a person, no matter how small.”
So, gently, and using the greatest of care,
The elephant stretched his great trunk through the air,
And he lifted the dust speck and carried it over
And placed it down, safe, on a very soft clover.
“Humpf!” humpfed a voice. Twas a sour Kangaroo.
And the young kangaroo in he pouch said “Humpf!” too
“Why, that speck is as small as the head of a pin.
A person on that?…why, there never has been!”
“Believe me,” said Horton. “I tell you sincerely,
My ears are quite keen and I heard him quite clearly.
I know there’s a person down there. And, what’s more, Quite likely there’s two. Even three. Even four.
Quite likely…“…a family, for all that we know!
A family with children just starting to grow.
So, please,” Horton said, “as a favour to me,
Try not to disturb them. Just let them be.”
“I think you’re a fool!” laughed the sour kangaroo
And the young kangaroo in her pouch said, “Me, too! You’re the biggest blame fool in the jungle of Nool!” And the kangaroos plunged in the cool of the pool.
“What terrible splashing!” the elephant frowned.
“I can’t let my very small persons get drowned!
I’ve got to protect them. I’m bigger than they.”
So he plucked up the clover and hustled away…..
“….All that late afternoon and far into the night
That black-bottomed bird flapped his wings in fast flight,
While Horton chased after, with groans, over stones
That tattered his toenails and battered his bones,
And begged, “Please don’t harm all my little folks, who
Have as much right to live as us bigger folk do!”
Wow, M.J., I don’t know how I ever missed this comment. I apologize if you’re still out there. We had a blogging brainfreeze at ECM for a while, so I stayed out of the blogosphere, specifically my ECM blog, for a bit.
But, to address your question — I am impassioned about safe sex and pro-choice. There are laws in place to address the issue of neglectful parents (whether it’s a pregnant mother or a runaway father-to-be), so I look at the grey areas where parents should have the final say. If the mother’s health is determined to be at risk, you cannot mandate birth. If the doctors tell the parents their child has an 80 percent chance of being born with fatal chromosome defect or a life-threatening heart defect, I don’t believe the parents should be forced to put their prospective child through that if they choose not to.
The issue, to me, is advocating education on why parents SHOULD avoid abortion at all costs and why those with an active sex life MUST practice safe sex if they are not trying to have children.
The biggest point I can make on this topic, is that I would never dare tell a woman that she had to have a baby if her doctor told her there was a chance she wouldn’t survive the birth. And I would never dare tell someone they had to get an abortion if they knew there child was going to be born with anencephaly (look it up, but WARNING, not for the weak of heart, mind, soul or stomach).
There should be contraception more readily available for teens, because it’s unrealistic to think that they won’t engage in sexual acts. But most importantly, parents need to advocate alternatives to sexual intercourse. A physical relationship can be sexually satisfying without the risk of pregnancy.
I’m sure this wasn’t the answer you were looking for, but it’s how I feel. Just wanted to let you know in case you were still waiting for a response.