Many conservatives have favored going to war (which inevitably leads to casualties and fatalities), yet disagree with abortion. Do you feel that this is a contradiction, or are they two dissimilar issues?

If it is a contradiction, then so is being anti-war and pro-abortion.

It depends on the intention. Although I might disagree with most conservative philosophy, I don't think that being both pro-war and anti-abortion is hypocritical. The reasoning for the two are rooted in different issues.

I think the one thing that does stick in my craw about being pro-war is that conservatism based upon Biblical ideology doesn't follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" when it really ought to.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

If it is a contradiction, then so is being anti-war and pro-abortion.

Touche.

Chris wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

If it is a contradiction, then so is being anti-war and pro-abortion.

Touche.

Rockbird wrote:

It depends on the intention. Although I might disagree with most conservative philosophy, I don't think that being both pro-war and anti-abortion is hypocritical. The reasoning for the two are rooted in different issues.

I think the one thing that does stick in my craw about being pro-war is that conservatism based upon Biblical ideology doesn't follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" when it really ought to.

Quote :

What does THOU SHALL NOT KILL
in the Ten Commandments MEAN?

Q. I am studying the Ten Commandments. Please explain the Sixth Commandment that says "thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13)

A. The commandment "thou shalt not kill" (found in the KJV Bible translation of Exodus 20:13), is better understood in the New King James Version Bible which states:

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13, NKJV throughout)

Most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way.

According to the Bible not all killing is murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings and not to animals. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10).

Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

The primary reason God hates murder is that out of all creation, only human are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:4-6). Even before the codification of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the murder of other human beings was wrong (Genesis 4:8-12; 4:23-24; 9:4-6; Exodus 1:16-17). While on earth, Jesus spoke out against murder (Matthew 5:21-26; Mark 10:17-19). We also see in the writings of Paul (Romans 1:18, 29-32; 13:8-10; Galatians 5:19-21), James (James 2:8-11; 4:1-3), Peter (1 Peter 4:15-16) and John (Revelation 9:20-21; 21:7-8; 22:14-15) that murder is wrong.

Forgiveness Man is correct (for once) in that while your example IS a contradiction, so is the inverse. But to be honest, I don't know too many people (conservative or otherwise) who would make the claim that they are pro-war. And if they are, they certainly won't call it that. They'll say pro-America or anti-terrorism or anti-communism or some bullshit like that! But since pro-war has a negative connotation, very few people will use it to describe themselves. War is horrible, but unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary. Abortion is NEVER necessary and ALWAYS a choice, which makes it a little more of a moral dilemma for me.

To me, a better analogy goes to the people who are anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment at the same time. That one really boggles my mind because the argument that is used against abortion is that "life is sacred". It's funny how that doesn't seem to apply to convicted inmates on death row. I guess these people see themselves as being worthy to judge who's life is sacred and who's isn't.

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man is correct (for once) in that while your example IS a contradiction, so is the inverse. But to be honest, I don't know too many people (conservative or otherwise) who would make the claim that they are pro-war. And if they are, they certainly won't call it that. They'll say pro-America or anti-terrorism or anti-communism or some bullshit like that! But since pro-war has a negative connotation, very few people will use it to describe themselves.

To me, a better analogy goes to the people who are anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment at the same time. That one really boggles my mind because the argument that is used against abortion is that "life is sacred". It's funny how that doesn't seem to apply to convicted inmates on death row. I guess these people see themselves as being worthy to judge who's life is sacred and who's isn't.

Hey! Easy there!

BTW, I don't know anybody "Pro-War." I think some people just recognize that sometimes, there's an enemy you need to defeat, like it or not. (ie Hitler)

Well, the converse to the latter analogy also boggles my mind. We're all for defending the rights of a convicted murderer but we're perfectly okay with cutting an infant's spinal cord. So yeah, the converse to that one has it's issues too. No matter what issue you try to use to show a double standard with Pro-Lifers, the converse will always be subject to the same problems.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Well, the converse to the latter analogy also boggles my mind. We're all for defending the rights of a convicted murderer but we're perfectly okay with cutting an infant's spinal cord. So yeah, the converse to that one has it's issues too. No matter what issue you try to use to show a double standard with Pro-Lifers, the converse will always be subject to the same problems.

This completely misses the point and makes the assumtion that I am attempting to show double standards with only pro-lifers. I agree with you that the opposite is also a double standard but I don't happen to fit that mold. Can you sit here and honestly say that you are pro-life and pro-capital punishment at the same time? If you can, then your above response pretty much shows that to be a hypocrasy. You'll never hear me say that I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty at the same time, which exempts me from inclusion into the hypocrties! Your issue is with THEM, not me.

Of course people are full of contradictions. BUT war is fought by soldiers, grown men and women. They have chosen to join the military and in that joining they consented to being sent to war. It is their choice to be there.

A fetus is "innocent" in the eyes of most pro-lifers, and thus it doesn't deserve to die. A soldier has chosen his or her fate, whereas a fetus cannot. Also, some pro-lifers or people in general consider soldiers to be murderers and heathens. I completely disagree, but that's not the point here.

Soldiers can be viewed as killers, the unborn as an innocent angel.

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Well, the converse to the latter analogy also boggles my mind. We're all for defending the rights of a convicted murderer but we're perfectly okay with cutting an infant's spinal cord. So yeah, the converse to that one has it's issues too. No matter what issue you try to use to show a double standard with Pro-Lifers, the converse will always be subject to the same problems.

This completely misses the point and makes the assumtion that I am attempting to show double standards with only pro-lifers. I agree with you that the opposite is also a double standard but I don't happen to fit that mold. Can you sit here and honestly say that you are pro-life and pro-capital punishment at the same time? If you can, then your above response pretty much shows that to be a hypocrasy. You'll never hear me say that I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty at the same time, which exempts me from inclusion into the hypocrties! Your issue is with THEM, not me.

It doesn't miss the point at all. And "you" was not direction at "you" it was direction as a general second person comment. Saying "one" sounds out of place outside of an essay! (And my response would actually NOT show any hypocrisy. But that's beside the point of the topic. )

Forgiveness Man wrote:

It doesn't miss the point at all. And "you" was not direction at "you" it was direction as a general second person comment. Saying "one" sounds out of place outside of an essay! (And my response would actually NOT show any hypocrisy. But that's beside the point of the topic. )

You posted a response to me (quoting me) then said YOU, so that's pretty much how I took it (and how I will continue to take that). You might want to specify WHO you are talking about a little more clearly in the future.

What is your response Mr. Cryptic? Are you pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time?

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

It doesn't miss the point at all. And "you" was not direction at "you" it was direction as a general second person comment. Saying "one" sounds out of place outside of an essay! (And my response would actually NOT show any hypocrisy. But that's beside the point of the topic. )

You posted a response to me (quoting me) then said YOU, so that's pretty much how I took it (and how I will continue to take that). You might want to specify WHO you are talking about a little more clearly in the future.

What is your response Mr. Cryptic? Are you pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time?

Well pardon me!

Mr. Cryptic isn't engaging in off-topic discussion today! You know where I'll answer it. (The answer might surprise you actually. )

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Mr. Cryptic isn't engaging in off-topic discussion today! You know where I'll answer it. (The answer might surprise you actually. )

What's your aversion to open forum discussion lately? I'm sure I'm not the ONLY one who wants to get to know you a little better.

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Mr. Cryptic isn't engaging in off-topic discussion today! You know where I'll answer it. (The answer might surprise you actually. )

What's your aversion to open forum discussion lately? I'm sure I'm not the ONLY one who wants to get to know you a little better.

I am tired of tangents. I am tired of being turned into the topic. (If you want to know me better, hit me a PM and we can chit-chat. I love casual chit-chat! ) I'm tired of things getting too heated. I'm tired of writing essays! (I feel I am turning into freaking Ferlinghetti writing this thing. )

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man is correct (for once) in that while your example IS a contradiction, so is the inverse. But to be honest, I don't know too many people (conservative or otherwise) who would make the claim that they are pro-war. And if they are, they certainly won't call it that. They'll say pro-America or anti-terrorism or anti-communism or some bullshit like that! But since pro-war has a negative connotation, very few people will use it to describe themselves. War is horrible, but unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary. Abortion is NEVER necessary and ALWAYS a choice, which makes it a little more of a moral dilemma for me.

To me, a better analogy goes to the people who are anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment at the same time. That one really boggles my mind because the argument that is used against abortion is that "life is sacred". It's funny how that doesn't seem to apply to convicted inmates on death row. I guess these people see themselves as being worthy to judge who's life is sacred and who's isn't.

I most co-sign this. It's true that no one says "I'm Pro War" and no one says "I'm Pro Abortion" either. It does seem that some people are pro both though...Just a few extremist's though.

The thing about the death penalty, I agree with. However I also see a difference between an innocent baby and a murderer. I don't know if a fetus has a moral right to life though (which is why I personally am pro-life), and I know that an independent human does. If I were God and all knowing, I might support the death penalty, but because I don't know it all, I'd rather not risk an innocent person being put to death. Also, I don't know if taking someone else's life automatically voids your right to life. These are things that I feel too human and short sighted to know for certain and when we are talking about permanent consequences, it's hard for me to sign on for it.

As for the original question, I don't think it's a contradiction because war is not something that one person chooses, it's simply completely different than abortion, IMO.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

The thing about the death penalty, I agree with. However I also see a difference between an innocent baby and a murderer. I don't know if a fetus has a moral right to life though (which is why I personally am pro-life), and I know that an independent human does. If I were God and all knowing, I might support the death penalty, but because I don't know it all, I'd rather not risk an innocent person being put to death. Also, I don't know if taking someone else's life automatically voids your right to life. These are things that I feel too human and short sighted to know for certain and when we are talking about permanent consequences, it's hard for me to sign on for it.

Only men have declaired that death is the correct punishment for murder (the ultimate hypocrasy).

In the bible, Cain was the first "murderer" since he slew his brother Abel out of jealosy. God did not condemn Cain to death, but merely cursed him with being a restless wanderer of the earth. Since God allowed Cain to live, Cain feared that other people would kill him for his crime. So God said "whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance will suffer vengeance seven times over" and placed a mark on him so that he wouldn't be killed.

Most of us have heard that story at some point or another but very few (least of all Christians) actually ever examine its significance. It's clear that "capital punishment" was not part of "God's plan", so any "Christian" who supports it is a hypocrite! They conveniently forget scriptures such as "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay" saith the Lord." and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" and "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." As far as I can tell, there is no Christian justification for the death penalty, yet the majority of supporters come from the "Christian right". The same people who tell you that "life is sacred" or claim to believe that its up to "Jesus" to judge everyone not other human beings.

captainbryce wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:

The thing about the death penalty, I agree with. However I also see a difference between an innocent baby and a murderer. I don't know if a fetus has a moral right to life though (which is why I personally am pro-life), and I know that an independent human does. If I were God and all knowing, I might support the death penalty, but because I don't know it all, I'd rather not risk an innocent person being put to death. Also, I don't know if taking someone else's life automatically voids your right to life. These are things that I feel too human and short sighted to know for certain and when we are talking about permanent consequences, it's hard for me to sign on for it.

Only men have declaired that death is the correct punishment for murder (the ultimate hypocrasy).

In the bible, Cain was the first "murderer" since he slew his brother Abel out of jealosy. God did not condemn Cain to death, but merely cursed him with being a restless wanderer of the earth. Since God allowed Cain to live, Cain feared that other people would kill him for his crime. So God said "whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance will suffer vengeance seven times over" and placed a mark on him so that he wouldn't be killed.

Most of us have heard that story at some point or another but very few (least of all Christians) actually ever examine its significance. It's clear that "capital punishment" was not part of "God's plan", so any "Christian" who supports it is a hypocrite! They conveniently forget scriptures such as "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay" saith the Lord." and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" and "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." As far as I can tell, there is no Christian justification for the death penalty, yet the majority of supporters come from the "Christian right". The same people who tell you that "life is sacred" or claim to believe that its up to "Jesus" to judge everyone not other human beings.

That's an interesting point, I have never thought of the story of Cain and Abel that way.

Quite a debate! I'll just state my thoughts and avoid the argument, I don't support war except for national defense. That is unless your country is attacked in some major way. I certainly do not think there was any justification for the war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was unnecessary too. The original goal was to go in and get Bin Laden then leave. There was justification for that limited goal.

I believe in a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Abortion is not a decision that women take lightly. It's certainly justified in rape cases or where the woman's life is in great danger. In fact, I think the woman involved is the only one qualified to make the decision.

I think the comparisons between the two beliefs are really pointless. Agree or disagree with war or captial punishment, distinction must be made between national enemies/convicted murderers, and children. To me saying that being for the death penalty means you have to be for abortion or you're a hypocrite, THAT says to me that if you are for the death penalty, you have to be for killing ANYONE. Doesn't sit right with me. Regardless of whether or not I believe in the death penalty, or war for that matter, it doesn't take away from the fact that there's essential differences between killing murderers and killing innocent children. So I make a distinction between the two. I'm actually more liberal on capital punishment and probably war than most would believe but that doesn't mean I fall prey to the illusion that killing kids and capital punishment are comparable.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

As far as I can tell

Maybe we need to work on this.

There is plenty "Christian" justification for the death penalty, speaking from a strictly "Christian" (and not any particular denom) POV.

There is really nothing to work on. I doubt you know more about Christianity than I do. And there is especially no point if your "justification" can only be explained in a private forum. Either say what the justification is (according to you) or agree to disagree. You have a tendency to express your opinions without explaining them, and frankly I grow tired of that. If you're going to take a position on something (and especially challenge the positions that other people take) then DO IT, stand by it and justify yourself, otherwise you're really just wasting everyone's time. Stop being scurred of being attacked! If you can justify your arguments then there is no ammunition for attack and if you are that compelled to take a stance that's radically different from the majority, their attacks shouldn't phase you.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I think the comparisons between the two beliefs are really pointless. Agree or disagree with war or captial punishment, distinction must be made between national enemies/convicted murderers, and children. To me saying that being for the death penalty means you have to be for abortion or you're a hypocrite, THAT says to me that if you are for the death penalty, you have to be for killing ANYONE. Doesn't sit right with me.

And it SHOULDN'T because that's not what it means, nor is that how most people with half a brain would view it (no offense). There is a major difference between being "pro-choice" and "for killing anyone". There is not a comparable analogy. Pro-choice people are not necessarily for "killing anyone", they simply don't believe that a fetus qualifies as a life. You can dispute that fact all you want to, but that is their justification. Conservative, right wing pro-lifers on the other hand often use the argument against abortion that "life is sacred". If life is so sacred, then why must a distinction be made between a convicted felon and an innocent person? Are they not both ALIVE? Why not just dispense with the bullshit and come straight out and say that a convicted felon's life isn't worth anything at all? That is what support in the dealth penalty basically says!

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Regardless of whether or not I believe in the death penalty, or war for that matter, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's wrong to knowingly kill innocent people. So I make a distinction between the two. I'm actually more liberal on capital punishment and probably war than most would believe but that doesn't mean I fall prey to the illusion that killing kids and capital punishment are comparable.

Again, you miss the point entirely. Nobody disagrees with you that it's wrong to kill innocent people! In fact, that is often the argument of people against capital punishment. Everyone agrees that killing innocent people is wrong! What they disagree on is what constitutes a PERSON, and in some peoples eyes a fetus doesn't qualify. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that is their opinion. So it's less of a hypocrasy to be against the death penalty and to be for the termination of a fetus as long as you don't view the fetus as being a person. Its a much bigger hypocrasy to claim that "life is sacred", then champion the execution of convicted felons!

^^^^You doubt. Yes, I know!

I don't think it's a much bigger hypocrisy at all. Many feel you aren't truly Pro-Life without being willing to accept Captial Punishment in extreme cases. And frankly, if somebody doesn't think a person is a human, that doesn't make killing them okay. If a delusional person suddenly believes that Bob down the street is not a person, does Bob's murder become acceptable? Nope. I didn't miss the point at all. The fact is that somebody's right to life shouldn't be held to whether or not somebody is willing to acknowledge their humanity or not.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Many feel you aren't truly Pro-Life without being willing to accept Captial Punishment in extreme cases. And frankly, if somebody doesn't think a person is a human, that doesn't make killing them okay. If a delusional person suddenly believes that Bob down the street is not a person, does Bob's murder become acceptable? Nope. I didn't miss the point at all. The fact is that somebody's right to life shouldn't be held to whether or not somebody is willing to acknowledge their humanity or not.

I know "many" feel like that. I simply contend that this hypothetical "many" represents hypocrites with variable values.

And unfortunately, your example DEPENDS on the prospect that EVERY PERSON who doesn't believe that a fetus represents a "person" is "delusional". That is merely your opinion and as such the validity of your argument only has worth from the standpoint of your own opinion (and those that share your opinion). It is not a universal truth! The concept of being a "person" is itself a relative, abstract idea that differs from individual to individual. Imposing your own standard of "personhood" does not bind everyone else to that standard. So yes, you ARE missing the point because the only points you can make are those that depend on your own perspective. Until you can think outside the box and view things from more of a universal perspective you cannot justify your position universally.

Well, I'll contend that you're mistaken.

No it doesn't contend on that. I didn't say they were delusional, exactly. I can think plenty outside the box. No, I am not missing the point. I just am rejecting it. Just cause you don't believe somebody is a human doesn't give you the right to kill them.

And I did notice how your idea that personhood is basically subjective actually opens up quite a lot of debate doors. I'd kick my way through if I wasn't bored with the bickering.