Hypocritical Religion - Abortion and War

Will someone please explain to me why so many of the religious are against abortion but yet are pro-war. It's seems to me to be a bit hypocritical.

Why is abortion always wrong?

Why is war always right?

Why do most religious support the death penalty?


Where in the Bible does it say ANYTHING about abortions???? If anything, the Bible is FOR killing children.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.


Deuteronomy 13:6-10

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.


And please spare me of the "But that was the Old Testament" load. It's still your bible. If the Old Testament is invalid, then it would have been removed by now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's called cherry picking scriptures to suit ones agenda, for which theists are infamous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unborn children cannot defend themselves from suction machines that tear off their limbs?

I don't support the death penalty btw.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is war ok with you?

 

Only in defense. I don't believe in surrendering to injustice. I'm a fighter.

 

You are starting with a fallacy right there.
The first one is forgivable, because some (though few) DO believe that abortion is always wrong. Most make exceptions for the health and safety of the mother – at least.

Since when, though, do you hear religious people claiming that war is always right?

If Christians support the decisions of the state blindly (which they don’t, usually) they have support for that in the New Testament:
Matt 22:21 “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Most?
Really?
Which ones?

I think you are likely referring to American Evangelical Christians, and extending that to “most religions”.
If you ARE referring to American Evangelical Christians (or any of the Abrahamic religions), how could you possibly ask that question, then follow it with these quotes…

These passages are about as obvious as they can be that the death penalty is supported by the Old Testament, and then you say…

What’s good for the goose…


By the way, you don’t seem to know a whole lot about the history of the Bible and the role the Tanakh plays in it – am I correct in this, or have I misread you?

 

Despite the religion of peace.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Its not so much that abortion is wrong and war is right, but abortion has a more narrow field of application and war is quite broad.

IOW its the nature of war and conflict in the material world that societies have recourse to war. IOW no amount of civilization is capable of overcoming the phenomena of war in the material world.

I guess one could similarly argue that its the nature of being under the hammer of an out of control libido and reducing life to mere issues of financial input versus financial intake that societies always (or popularly) have recourse to abortion. The challenge of religion is these things can be overcome by civilization.
(and on a side point, for as long as society operates in the context of industrial economies, things will never be highly civilized)

 

AHHHh hahahah ... yeah, tell that to the Meccans.

 

If the criterion is the ability to defend onself than pretty much every war is immoral. Also most wars cause abortions.

 

It makes no sense since every war causes abortions. Certainly allied bombing of Germany and Toyko caused a large number, but even in smaller wars you are going to have 'collateral' abortions, abortions that will also have killed the mother, of course.

 

Abortion is evil because a woman chooses it, the choice (and often the deed) giving her independence from religious authority in a variety of ways. (Unchosen abortions - early miscarriages - are seldom even recognized as deaths by the established religion). The killings in war are the choices of men, and do not give women independence from religious authority. Capital punishment likewise does not threaten - usually enhances - the power of the established religion.

Control of the sexual availability of women is one of the major power centers of institutionalized religion.

The positions are consistent, merely the justifications clash.

 

the intentions may be consistant, but the positions are not.
But I agree with you and I understand why you framed it that way.

 

Though most of these accept the fact that pregnant women will die in bombing campaigns in 'just' wars. Their foetuses, and probably they themselves by any standard, are as innocent as the peacetime rape victim's foetus and the rape victim herself.

 

Of course, which is why I said defensive. I doubt the pilots dumping white phosphorus by the bucket load are going to lose their babies.

 

Yes, the Catholic Church has been anti-abortion for a time now. I think it was there policy to forbid Abortion only so there would be more Catholics in the World... Democracy and everything... they wanted more Catholic Voters.

The Other Religions being against Abortion was simply a Political Ploy. Protestants had never cared about Abortion. But several decades ago some Right Wing Think Tank devises a Strategy for prying away the Catholic Vote from the Democrats in America... they would fund Right Wing Activists to go about the American Midwest and assemble Anti-Abortion Nuts, and make Abortion a Voting Issue.

It worked. Now American Catholic Bishops ignore every social issue and vote along with Right Wing NAZI Republicans for one reasona and one reason only, that they pretend to care about abortion now.

Hmmmm. It is strange that it was not an issue in 1961 when Jack Kennedy was elected President.

Anyway... don't get sucked into thinking that Abortion is a REAL Issue. its not... it is just Political Pieces being moved around the board. If you think it is real, then you have only allowed them to manipulate you.

 

History is more the province of War than Philosophy.

If we would seek to justify War, then we only need to observe how successful Civilizations had managed how to survive, and by what neglects unsuccessful Civilizations had perished. a lot of it comes down to Winning Wars and Losing Wars, respectively.

In every case there are Selfish Amoral Barbarians that border upon Civilized Territories and they will raid and plunder until stopped. We can compare them to the Modern Somali Pirates. War is really Civilizations only option. Follow the Raiders back into their own territory and destroy them. This is good for another reason. With the Most Aggressive Barbarians in a region dead, the Moderates and Friends of Civilization are more likely to rise to influence. Once purged of Thieves and Bandits, territories are often Annexed into the Civilized Zone. Civilization spreads.

Civilizations collapse when Wealth is Concentrated into Non-Public and Non-Government hands. Rich People who only think of themselves will decide it is better to have Peace, because they don't want to pay the taxes necessary to keep an active Army on their borders, protecting against Barbarians. Or Police in the Cities protecting against Crime.

Of course there are other influences. If a Civilization is lucky enough to institutionalize a really good Moral Religion, then it can save a great deal of money on Internal Police. Moral People don't need as many cops. And a very appealing Religion can be set upon the Barbarians... through Missionaries and such. Moralizing the Bandits saves one the trouble to slaughtering them.

It is odd that Atheists insist that Missionaries are so bad... when the only alternative to Missionaries is to send in Punative Expeditions.

Anyway, War can be very useful. In the years to come, with the Earth's Population getting more and more out of hand, the Powers that Be will have to recognize the Utility of War and announce that no further Crap will be taken from any Tribe or half-baked Nation... that if some Society somewhere demonstates itself as being Barbarian, to any suspect degree, then it will simply be Wiped Out and re-settled. the Ancient World did a lot of Wiping Out and Re-Settling. Its a lost art which we should endeavor to retrieve.

For instance... we know which tribes in Pakistan and Afghanistan support the Talaban... and theTalaban has been hostile to the Civilized World. The West's biggest difficulty over there is separating the Active Talaban Fighters from all of their Social Supports. Well, the difficulties are dispensed with as soon as one goes after it all. Simply wipe the Territories clean. Then ask the Palestinians if they want a New Territory and move them in.

We can always find somebody that wants the Land if another people do not seem to appreciate being a Member of Nations.

Oh, there is also the matter of whether Civilization or Barbarism is spreading faster. Now, usually Civilizations are Attractive... that Civilized Institutions have more appeal than Barbarian institutions. But when Civilization is on decline and civilized benefits are reduced, then Barbarism increases in Popularity. For instance, modern Hollywood Movies glorify Barbarism and hold up Civilization as the Big Villian. Usually when this Stage arrives, Collapse of Civilization is already inevitable. But if a Powerful Nucleus of Civilized Forces were to mobilize and swiftly neutralize the Centers of Barbarian Threat, then perhaps Civilization could be prolonged. Look at the History of Catholic Europe... Christian Civilization before the Reformation and Collapse of a Unified West... what the Mongols and Turks called the "Franks". There were several big internal military operations that neutralized certain rebellious regions and hostile classes of person. Christendom was able to limp along for another one hundred or two hundred years.

 

See that's disingenous. You are defending something general with a specific case.

The implication of this example might be that you agree that civilian populations should never come in harm's way. Sometimes when countries vastly more technologically advanced wage war far from home, only one side has its babies on the line. But then even in Afghanistan forces fighting American and other troops kill babies. They also have 'collateral' kills on other Afghan people. It is nearly impossible to fight a war and not kill babies, innocent civilians, journalists - including those critical of the war - etc. And babies are not the only ones who cannot defend themselves.

 

If you believe abortions are wrong, then you pretty much must be against most use of bombs and missiles, even the pot shot use that technologically much weaker groups use. You need to be against automtic weopon use anywhere near civilians: so, for example, both sides in the battle of Fallujah would be hypocrites if they were against abortion.

Nuclear weopons are of course immoral to any anti-abortionist. Anti-abortionists should also have pretty stands against a variety of chemical companies - though I rarely see them in those demonstrations. And they should have freaked out at Nestle's back when the company was killing newborns by 'educating' women to drink their baby formula rather than breastfeeding them.

I wish the world's anti-abortionists really were interested in protecting foetuses. They would find themselves against pretty much every war and would find themselves, on many occasions, in demonstrations with the Left, often against corporate interests.

In fact, if they were consistant, the world might very well be a much better place.

 

They both seem to be about persecuting others for their sins. Wars punish the "others" for being wrong, backward, or different from yourself. That was also the justification for them in the Bible (Christianity is the only religion I'm pretty well briefed on, it may not be the case in others). God wanted the Israelites to wage war against groups or people who worshiped different Gods and had different social and political practices. Killing them off was their punishment for being wrong and different. Those against abortions seem to have a similar line of thinking. It isn't really about protecting innocent babies, as much as it's about punishing mothers who have sinned or who are trying to sin by shirking off the responsibility of their actions (otherwise they wouldn't be so many willing to make exceptions for rape or the mother's life being in danger) There is a need to punish sinners.