Post 66 In Luke 22:35 Jesus tell us that our weapon is more important than the shirt on our backs. Post 71 I asked you if you believed if Jesus was God and if you didn't, then we should agree to disagree.
Post 73 You answered "Yes and No", therefore, see post 71 above. We should agree to disagree.
Now you seem to have veered from asking how pro-lifers can support war towards spouting anti-war lies and propaganda regarding the war in Iraq. Saddam initiated the violence, and I point out the fallacy of your argument in Post 56. Then in post 60 you agree and state, "Yes, Saddam initiated violence. His reason was that Kuwait was really a province of Iraq. We did not agree and initiated violence in response." The fallacy in this argument is that both Saddam and the U.S. initiated violence. Any reasoning mind can clearly see the contradiction in this logic. Only one can initiate and then others respond.
FACTS about Iraq: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Saddam used gas on the Iranians numerous times during the decade of war with them. Saddam gave secret nuclear technology to Libya and Qaddafi gave them to us after we caught Saddam. Now here is a big fact that many don't know when discussing possible WMDs in Iraq and the threat to our very existence.
Saddam had 500 Tons of Uranium in Iraq! 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium.
Again, I'm not trying to persuade you, however, I will point out the errors in your logic and errors in your facts. "Errors in facts" I like to call "lies and propaganda" when stated repeatedly after being pointed out and supported with evidence.
What violence did Saddam initiate directly against us? Please don't make the incorrect claim that he initiated 9/11. We invaded Iraq. We were opposed in this by several of our allies as well as many religious people including the Catholic Church. The fact is that we initiated violence against Iraq - some in this country think it was justified and just as many or more do not. If having nuclear capability is sufficient reason to invade, then our country is the most justified target - we have more than anyone and we are the only country to have used nuclear weapons on other human beings. (I know there is a very good case for that use - especially from our perspective.) However, how does any one country get the right to decide what other countries can have or not have?
This current war is not supported by the United Nations - the first Gulf war was. Our actions, in defiance of the majority of world opinion, are being undertaken because we believe that it is in our best interest - the innocent life lost in this endeavor is justified because it promotes our well being. Because we are powerful, we can insist on the choice to do this. In this case, we as a nation, are pro-choice (at least for us) and the innocent life lost in war is an unfortunate but necessary consequence. But you are supporting the opposite of this situation for our women.
I know there are significant differences in this. Countries exist on their own, with the ability to contribute something to the quality and circumstances of their existence.
An unborn baby is completely dependent upon and attached to the woman within whom it exists. Nothing happens to that developing human before it happens to the woman. That developing human is part of the physical structure of the woman and alters her physiology significantly. To take away her right and responsibility to determine what is best for her and her family is almost like an external power determining what will happen in our physical environment - as in completely giving up our national freedom to the United Nations. We are not likely to let that happen but there is outrage when we can not take freedom of choice away from our pregnant women.
It is clear that no human being comes into this world except through the environment of a woman's body. That may change - with the development of an artificial womb - but it is now the case. I do not believe that our spiritual life, created by a spiritual God is dependent upon a material, human sex act and a woman's choice to deliver a baby. Human will is not more powerful than God. To realize our true spiritual existence, in the image of our perfect Source, we need the freedom to make our own way towards that true and wonderful existence. Life is eternal and spiritually indestructible. Human consciousness is limited and flawed - it must be overcome. No one can force this on another, we must have the freedom to make that progress on our own - even if it appears that innocent human life is interrupted at whatever stage. If it is "God's will" that a person should be here in this human environment, then nothing can prevent that from ultimately happening in one way or another. What is more powerful than God?
This may be beyond what you are ready to contemplate, but I offer it anyway - just in case.