The Hypocrisy Behind Using Semantics with the Term “Pro-Life”.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Benjamin, Aug 27, 2016.

  1. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    109
    In another tread I observed an argument where an accusation of hypocrisy was being used to claim some sort of distorted defense for taking a side (whether or not taking that side is acknowledged outright) which would attempt to discount the differences between Capital Punishment and the Slaughter of Innocent Unborn by the millions which any honest rational thinker can clearly see it (motive) is in order to justify taking sides with the position of those which are outspoken pro-abortionists. At a minimum if someone goes about a constant attack against anyone who would stand up against the murder of innocent unborn children on the semantical premise that they are not pro-life if they are not against capital punishment makes one a hypocrite if he were to then turn around and say he is against abortion.


    IOW’s with such an agenda the claim of being on the side of defending the Right of Life of the Unborn by someone is absolutely unbelievable when it is clearly rooted in the hypocrisy of that person being obsessively preoccupied with making a defense argument against those who stand up against abortion while basing that argument on capital punishment through playing games with the semantics over a definition of “pro-life”.


    I thought to myself that therein it should obvious where the hypocrisy lies and addressed the motive and type of argument being presented but the thread was closed before I posted. I should probably say that I really don’t expect to see an argument worth addressing against my position forthcoming and am very short on time but I will take the time do so if there is any of an attempt to be rational and offer a valid argument by my opposition.




    Jordan, as you probably know of his very common MO on this board, Zaac loves to throw out his Capital punishment “defense of abortion” (which is EXACTLY what it is.) against anyone who would dare condemn the slaughter of millions upon millions of innocent unborn lives. He is foolish enough to believe that taking the offense against Capital punishment is some sort of justifiable defensive argument against the slaughter of the innocent unborn. He unwittingly thinks he has some kind of irrefutable circular argument that by his “reasoning” (Therein if pinned down to even to the simplest of logical truth Zaac will call it mere psychobabble.) but one can easily conclude the fruit of his spirit is rooted in his beliefs of himself being morally superior to Christians and his pride in the belief of his having a “legitimate” “indisputable” cover up argument on such an all-important heartfelt issue as abortion.


    Zaac has instantly reverted to his Capital Punishment Defense and uses it as some sort of exaltation for his very obvious position when I’ve mentioned the tragedy of abortion. In his foolish enthusiasm over his self-perceived intellectually moral superiority arguments over Christians he doesn’t even take into consideration that he doesn’t even know my position on capital punishment, his focus is entirely on the defense of the position he takes which at best would undeniably logically amount to throwing out the baby (aborted) with the bathwater. His “justification” basically rests in that refuses to distinguish between the severities of the acts. In his unrelenting obsession to discount “anyone” (Christian) who stands on the political issue of anti-abortion, which would clearly be against the Liberal Democratic position, he simply resorts to making a play on the semantics of the term “pro-life” (whether or not one uses that term) and goes into his Capital Punishment Defense of his troubling irrational position.


    IMO he is a man too proud of his delusional moral superiority to Christians to address reason with him in an ethical way, his conscience is overrun with his abilities to present never-ending circular arguments for which he will not accept nor does he value logically true conclusions. He uses the BB as his sounding board against the deeply heartfelt Christian principles against abortion and it is useless to try to confront the irrational trolling practices of one who hides behind a computer screen and only answers to himself. I hesitate to feed this agenda and pretty much think of it as a waste of time, but occasionally need to vent I suppose and expose some truth about the situation going on here.
     
    #1 Benjamin, Aug 27, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    I have seen Zaac use that argument many times, of course what he fails to understand is:

    1. God's command to Noah to perform capital punishment on murderers was never taken back.
    2. Romans tells us that the government bears the sword to punish evil doers- this is a NT command.
    3. They love to cite where Jesus allowed the woman taken in adultery as proof that capital punishment should not be done anymore. but a. This was adultery and not murder and b. God himself was there and chose to have mercy, which is his prerogative.
    4. It's not very loving to our neighbors in this country to allow murderers to live and then make the innocent in this country pay for them to live in prisons.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    72
    All I can do is *slow clap*!
     
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    It is not hypocritical for a person to say they are pro-life for both the unborn and for the living. It is hypocritical for a person to say they are pro-life for the unborn and then to advocate against helping the living.

    It is hypocritical to ignore the teachings and example set before us by Christ and quote only the Old Testament.
     
  5. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Here's a New Testament verse for you:
    Romans 13:3-4 KJV
    [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

    It would be nice if you actually dealt with the substance of the points I made instead of just accusing me of ignoring the example Christ gave to us. Also since when is the Old Testament not important? "all scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable doctrine.."

    "The things which were written aforetime were written for our learning"

    Again...the command to Noah to punish murderers was never taken away by God, in fact in the verses in Romans (A NEW TESTAMENT BOOK!) it even affirms that command that predates Mosaic law.

    Genesis 9:6 KJV
    [6] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

    You should believe the Bible instead of liberal democrat politics.
     
    #5 Jordan Kurecki, Aug 28, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    I have never once seen anyone on this board in all the years I have been here advocate against helping the living. Such claims are nothing more than a strawman.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    109
    To that, I'll simply present my actual argument against your strawman and thank you for the example, albeit a weaseling switch from the direct subject (Capital Punishment to "helping the living"), of the hypocrisy in throwing out an attack with an argument (regardless of subject) to defend an alliance with the unrelenting pro-abortionists position while (still) making a play on the semantics of "pro-life".

    Benjamin's argument that apparently went right over [​IMG] your head:

    "...At a minimum if someone goes about a constant attack against anyone who would stand up against the murder of innocent unborn children on the semantical premise that they are not pro-life if they are not against capital punishment (Or pick your subject flavor) makes one a hypocrite if he were to then turn around and say he is against abortion.


    IOW’s with such an agenda the claim of being on the side of defending the Right of Life of the Unborn by someone is absolutely unbelievable when it is clearly rooted in the hypocrisy of that person being obsessively preoccupied with making a defense argument against those who stand up against abortion while basing that argument on capital punishment (Or pick your subject flavor) through playing games with the semantics over a definition of “pro-life”.


    I thought to myself that therein it should obvious where the hypocrisy lies and addressed the motive and type of argument being presented... "
     
    #7 Benjamin, Aug 28, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    You are wrong. There are folk who oppose any government program that is designed to help the poor and those in need.

    There are those who are in favor of capital punishment even though it is now well established that at least 10% of all people on death row are innocent.
     
  9. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    I am against giving a man a fish if I can teach him to fish and he capable of fishing. Only those incapable of fishing should be given fish.

    Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    109
    Neither of those issues discounts my assessment of your argument leading to hypocrisy on the issue of abortion. In fact, you continue to attempt to offer the very argument I have spelled out.

    You seem to have entirely missed the point while continuing to focus on the term "pro-life" through semantics rather than issue of your motive and hypocrisy concerning abortion. Once again:

    Benjamin said:
    "...I observed an argument where an accusation of hypocrisy was being used to claim some sort of distorted defense for taking a side (whether or not taking that side is acknowledged outright) {by a person} which would {in turn} attempt to discount the differences between Capital Punishment and the Slaughter of Innocent Unborn by the millions which any honest rational thinker can clearly see it (motive) is in order to justify {their} taking sides with the position of those which are outspoken pro-abortionists. At a minimum if someone goes about a constant attack against anyone who would stand up against the murder of innocent unborn children on the semantical premise that they are not pro-life if they are not against capital punishment makes one a hypocrite if he were to then turn around and say he is against abortion.


    IOW’s with such an agenda the claim of being on the side of defending the Right of Life of the Unborn by someone is absolutely unbelievable when it is clearly rooted in the hypocrisy of that person being obsessively preoccupied with making a defense argument against those who stand up against abortion while basing that argument on capital punishment through playing games with the semantics over a definition of “pro-life”."
     
  11. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    109
    In other words, CTB, to merely continue offering up the very argument I accessed is not addressing my assessment of your/that argument.
     
  12. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    It isn't semantics. It is real lives of both the born and unborn that I am concerned about. It is dishonest to attempt to divorce one from the other.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    [sarasm]Oh but some people cannot get to the lake to even fish because of cultural oppression.[sarcasm]
     
  14. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    109
    It is dishonest to always attempt to marry the two when you know the purpose for doing so is so you can justify abandoning the one.
     
    #14 Benjamin, Aug 29, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    I respectfully disagree. Life is life and it must be protected, aided and made as good as possible for both the born and the unborn. Two try to divorce the two, the born from the unborn, is to my hypocritical. A person must be pro-life for all, both the born and the unborn, or they are not really pro-life for any as they are already abandoning them once they are born.

    How can you justify abandoning the already born. I have some idea on this, but will not mention them as they would created rabbit trails people would run down and that would derail the OP.
     
  16. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    109
    Again, the point stands that you are offering a hypocritical argument every time you marry the two.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    And I continue to disagree with your stance. Life is life for both the living and the unborn.

    What does Christ have to say on how we should treat others?
     
  18. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    109
    You can say you disagree with my stance but you have no argument for truth behind your stance which I refute.

    Again here is the point CTB: You continually marry the two (Capital Punishment and the Slaughter of Millions upon Millions of the Innocent Unborn) while claiming they are inseparable (I believe this claim of moral equivalence is preposterous, but that is beside the point and a different issue.) (A) for the purpose to establish a motive to justify taking up sides with those who are outspoken pro-abortionists. THEREFORE, to turn around and (B) make the claim that you stand against abortion is “hypocritical”, at best.

    In other words, the end result BEHIND your argument is that you have argued with the motive to be on the side of pro-abortionists while claiming on “moral grounds”, no less, to be against abortion. There is no logic truth to stand on BEHIND such an argument and such an argument is made in hypocrisy!
     
    #18 Benjamin, Aug 29, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Life is life and death is death. The life of the born and the unborn are decidedly linked. To claim otherwise is an intellectual contradiction.

    Your statement on pro-abortionists is illogical. Their logic is as inconsistent as the illogic I have been speaking about.

    As I say, I am both against abortion and also pro-life for the living; how can that be hypocritical?

    Far too many folk who claim to be aginst abortion simply do not want to pay the price of taking card of those children who are poor or in need. That is hypocritical. Being against abortion costs them nothing unless they are willing to spend time and money and perhaps jail time in defending their stance. If they are not willing to, as the civil rights leader, Ella Baker, often said, to 'put your tail on the line,' you are not really for what you claim.
     
  20. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,878
    Likes Received:
    109
    Again, you merely continue to repeat the same argument (a play on the semantics of the definition of “pro-life” rather than “Abortion”) of which I refuted and spelled out as hypocrisy. There is no contradiction leading to my conclusion (based on that "pro-life" is NOT the ISSUE - "Abortion" IS the ISSUE - and you are playing semantics on the definition of the TRUE ISSUE as a cover up argument.) and you have not even come close to addressing my assessment of your argument which leads to my conclusion of your hypocrisy on the issue of "Abortion".

    Read my lips, I have not once used the term "pro-life" to define the "Slaughter of Millions upon Millions of the Innocent Unborn” it is YOU that use that term AND the reason YOU do is to redefine the subject in an attempt to cover up your hypocrisy on the issue of "Abortion". - therein your unscrupulous attempt to use of "Semantics!" is revealed! Motive comes next...


    Prove it. You have not addressed the logic in my argument is the slightest and simply saying it is illogical is not only meaningless but is demonstrating your inability to understand and reason with logic.


    I have thoroughly demonstrated how your claim to be against abortion is hypocritical and how using semantics with the term “pro-life” as if the subject were about “Capital Punishment” carries no weight in your argument that you are against the true subject which is “Abortion”. On the contrary I’ve shown how your worn out argument undeniably at its roots has the motive to justify your taking up sides with those who are outspoken pro-abortionists and therefore is laced in hypocrisy. Your question of how that can be hypocritical merely shows your inability to recognize, comprehend and address what I have repeated spelled out for you.

    Again, none of that off subject rhetoric even comes close to addressing the subject of my assessment of your argument being based on semantics over the definition of “pro-life” to cover up the true issue, which I have specifically defined as the “Slaughter of Millions upon Millions of the Innocent Unborn” (NOT “pro-life” -therein is play on semantics on the definiton ;) Get it? ;) ) and further I have spelled out the motive BEHIND your argument is to justify your taking up sides with Unrelenting Pro-abortionists which undeniably demonstrates your hypocrisy of this true issue which ONCE AGAIN is “ABOUT ABORTION”.
     

Share This Page

Loading...