Friday, February 24, 2006

You too could be a hypocrite!

One thing I have been pondering for a while is regarding abortion. I have two questions

1. How can one consider themselve Pro Life and yet be pro war and pro death penalty.

2. How can one argue against the death penalty and against all war because of humane reasons, but be pro abortion?

Just some things that don't add up in my mind.

16 comments:

Eric Nielson said...

1. The extremes here are death penalty and abortion. Death penalty is driven by the extreme poor behavior of the one on death row. He deserves a stiff penalty, just a matter of how stiff. In an abortion the unborn child did nothing to deserve having their life taken away would be a common way to look at it. War? This comes down to political belief for me. Some may feel that the benefits outway the cost in some wars.

2. I have a hard time seeing the pro abortion stance in an absolute sense. Being against the death penalty and anti war all comes down to philisophical and political opinions, I can see both sides.

annegb said...

Wow. I don't think I could find you again on a dime. I will totally forget how I got here.

Really good point. Really good. I suppose then if one didn't want to be a hypocrite, one would have to be against abortion and opposed to the death penalty....and I just tied a knot in my brain.

Ian said...

Eric,

Of course my post is really kind of black and white. There are in betweens that my post kind of ignores, but sometimes I think extremes are one way of looking at an issue.

The central issue is life. Should we want to preserve all life if we are truly "pro-life."

I don't see war as necessarily a political issue. I see it, in many ways as a moral issue. I think that Chief Captain Moroni saw it this way. Moroni was strictly anti-war. That is unless it was necissary.

It really amazes me that many "christians" are so bent on passing all this "christian" legislation, "whilst and at the same time" being "pro-war", often without even looking at the incentives for a given war.

Many liberals are all for the little guy, the prisoner, the terrorist etc. but they overlook the littlest guy of all, the unborn child...

I think that is really the meat of what I was trying to say.

annegb,

Don't forget, come back often. Really.

Oh, and I'm not trying to judge anyone. I just think about these contradictions a lot and I thought I would throw this out there.

Wade said...

How can one consider themselve Pro Life and yet be pro war and pro death penalty.

It's easy for me to see how one can be pro war (not for every war, but pro war in general) and pro life. Indeed, they are synonymous for me! Let's consider the reasons for going to war against the Third Reich: We thought it would probably be a good idea to kill people who took it upon themselves to undergo ethnic cleansing and who were daily killing innocent people. In my mind we took action even a little too late (because we were a little selfish until we were sucker-punched by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor). Additionally, leaving WMD totally out of the picture, I still support the war in Iraq for the same reason: i.e., because I think it's a good idea to kill people who kill innocent people at random. Essentially, I am pro war (I don't Love war and there's a difference) because I love life!

Second, it's not a stretch for me to see how some people are pro life and pro death penalty. Eric has pretty much laid it out: There is a HUGE difference between someone who on one hand has spent their life killing other life, and another person on the other hand who is perfectly innocent and willing to come into this world, yet its parents wish to kill it because they are narcissistic and naive.

The problem I see with the questions in your post is you are leaving good and evil out. We should defend, reward and welcome good life; we, as societies, should cleanse ourselves of evil life!

Thus, your question posed to leftists who support the killing of the unborn life (yes it is life, the heart is beating and the body and mind are progressing!), and who also support those who kill them and others who murder innocent people (i.e. Sadam & Tookie Williams) is a good one and one that most people wish to avoid!

Ian said...

[We] should cleanse ourselves of evil life!

I guess if you look at it from that point of view, then wars and death penalty are perfectly acceptable.

I am reminded of a quote from Gandolf.

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

It's exactly how I feel on the subject. I am personally aginast war, but there are at times when war is unavoidable. But the death penalty is nearly always avoidable.

Wade said...

...there are times when war is unavoidable. But the death penalty is nearly always avoidable.

I disagree. There is no difference in the ability to avoid war than there is in avoiding the death penalty.

How would you describe the difference you seem to believe in?

Ian said...

I think that World War II was pretty unavoidable. If we hadn't joined in the frey, we might be speaking Japanese or German today.

Putting someone on death row to death is easy to avoid. Just don't kill them. They can rot in their cell until the day they die. Not harm no foul.

Maybe I misunderstand your question.

Wade said...

They can rot in their cell until the day they die. Not harm no foul.

This is very mistaken! It is very common for those on death row to kill from prison. Indeed, these prisoners give calculating orders and the orders are subsequently fulfilled, resulting in the death of many innocent people! I'm at work right now, but I'll post a link to this information later in this thread.

Furthermore, what harm or foul would there be if we were speaking German or Japanese now? Your idea of "necessity" for war seems somewhat off to me. It's all measures of degree is it not?

It seems pretty selfish to only consider war necessary if only our Country is threatened with being overthrown. Surely the Japanese could have never overthrown us and we NEVER needed to go on the offensive. We could have easily defended our borders without attacking offensively, i.e. dropping the a-bombs.

Ian said...

I think I get the Gist of what you are saying regarding those who kill in prison, or are directing crimes outside of prison. I suppose that in a situation like that, the death penalty could be an acceptable choice, or perhaps solitary confinement.

Regarding WWII. If we hadn't gotten involved, not only could we be speaking German, but we could all be Nazis. We too could partake in the joys of genocide! If we hadn't joined the Brits in the war, who knows what could have happened. Unfortunately, there's no way to convince me that war isn't occasionally warranted.

I think that far too many "Christians" are too gung ho for war and too gung ho for the death penalty. As I recall, Jesus taught peace.

Wade said...

As I recall, Jesus taught peace.

Indeed He did, and all should foster peace in their personal relationships!

However, it is misguided for governments to apply some of the principles Christ taught - not because they're bad principles - rather, because they won't work because or the conditions of the world.

This is why Christ taught us to render under Ceaser what is Ceaser's. In other words, if we fully implement Christ's teachings into governmental decision making, we would have NEVER entered into the second World War because after all, Christ taught us to "turn the other cheek". In my mind it is clear Christ wasn't referring to governments turning the other cheek, rather individuals doing so.

The Gospel of Christ is to be applied on the micro level, not the macro level. Indeed, if it were implemented on the micro level, it would by default infiltrate into the macro.

Ian said...

I have to disagree.

When Jesus cleared the money changers, he showed that, sometimes as individuals must take violent action.

The lessons of war that we learned in the Book of Mormon are that, we should avoid war if at all possible. This was at a governmental level. There are times when war is the only option.

To say that governments can do what they want, without being accountable to Christs teaching, eliminates accountabilty for individuals involved in government.

I do not beleive that the government acts independantly in and of itself. There are individuals that make decisions within that government and I beleive that those individuals will be held accountable for decisions they make. This includes decisions to go into war wether justified or not.

Watt Mahoun said...

Ian, I'm for what's good and right no matter which political party takes it as a wedge issue. This makes if very difficult to identify with any party platform...which sucks.

BTW, I totally agree with your take that governments are people...and so are corporations, and churches. All have no more natural rights or privileges than their individual members.

Of course, this would make many things unacceptable that we currently allow governments, et al to do.

Good post and comments.

Wade said...

I do not beleive that the government acts independantly in and of itself.

Neither do I. That is why I said the following in my previous comment: The Gospel of Christ is to be applied on the micro level, not the macro level. Indeed, if it were implemented on the micro level, it would by default infiltrate into the macro.

Wade said...

But still, I think it is misguided to attempt a "top down" implementation of Christ's teachings - at least in the way I think you're are advocating.

Ian said...

I think that perhaps the orignal post was not a top down proposal. I was talking about individuals that hold contradicting beleifs.

I personally feel that far too often we look to laws or the government to make decisions like this. Your example of micro making it's way into the macro makes perfect sense to me. I completely agree with it.

One example I use sometimes is a weed that you need to kill. Making laws are like cutting down branches. You can stop one person at a time with laws. Killing the root is like changing society. If you can fix society, they you won't have any need for laws.

But, perhaps my orignal point was that we often see contradictory opinions, only because that is what our party beleives. We are allowing the macro to determine the micro in our own lives. Many people follow party lines without developing our own opionion.

Wade said...

Many people follow party lines without developing our own opionion.

Well said! Thanks for the discussion, I think we're pretty much on the same boat.