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

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.

 

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 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... "

 

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”."

 

In other words, CTB, to merely continue offering up the very argument I accessed is not addressing my assessment of your/that argument.

 

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.

 

Again, the point stands that you are offering a hypocritical argument every time you marry the two.

 

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!

 

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”.