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

[Jordan Kurecki]

How does Abortion even really compare to capital punishment? 100 percent of babies aborted are innocent...can we safely estimate a majority of those who receive capital punishment get it for crimes they committed?

Also how many are killed in abortions vs executed?

CTB why don't you ever attack abortion when it's clearly a much bigger problem.

 

[TCassidy]

Not to mention, Jordan, that every child killed in the womb is done so illegally, in violation of both the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States by denying the child due process.

Nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . (5th amendment)

Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .(6th amendment)

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Anyone know what Trumps
Position on abortion is?

 

[Zaac]

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.

100% correct. It is indeed hypocritical. And they can deny it and make excuses for it till Jesus returns and it'll still be hypocritical.

 

[HankD]

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.

100% of all babies murdered in the womb are innocent.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Anyone know what Trumps
Position on abortion is?

Pro-life.

 

[Salty]

You are wrong. There are folk who oppose any government program that is designed to help the poor and those in need.

True - because for the most part it is not the job of goverment (esp the Federal) to do so.
It is the job of the church to do so
Problem is there is excessive amount of Federal, state & local regs that charities must follow.

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.

Reference please

 

[HankD]

Anyone know what Trumps
Position on abortion is?

Not just pro-life...

GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence on Thursday predicted Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, would be overturned if Donald Trump is elected president. 'I’m pro-life and I don’t apologize for it,' he said during a town hall meeting here. 'We’ll see Roe vs. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.'

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html

HankD

 

[Crabtownboy]

Anyone know what Trumps
Position on abortion is?

Like just about every other issue you can mention. It depends. He has statements on both sides of the issue. It depends now which side he believes will benefit him most. Lately he has claimed to be anti-abortion. Previously, when he believed it was to his benefit, he was pro-choice.

Trump will flip-flop whenever he believes it is to his benefit. Trump is pro-Trump and nothing else.

 

[Crabtownboy]

True - because for the most part it is not the job of goverment (esp the Federal) to do so.
It is the job of the church to do so
Problem is there is excessive amount of Federal, state & local regs that charities must follow.

Scripture please.

There is nothing in scripture saying that it is not the job of government to help those in need. Our government if of the people, by the people and for the people and that means both the church and the government has a responsibility of helping "the people".

Sadly, neither the church nor the government is living up to its responsibility of taking care of "the people", especially those in need.

Reference please

It was in a major article I read years ago. After checking online the most common percentage cited now is 4%. Isn't that justification enough to abandon capital punishment? The 4% is admitted to be a conservative figure.

The study cited below was widely reported.

From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent, according to the first major study to attempt to calculate how often states get it wrong in their wielding of the ultimate punishment.

A team of legal experts and statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania used the latest statistical techniques to produce a peer-reviewed estimate of the “dark figure” that lies behind the death penalty – how many of the more than 8,000 men and women who have been put on death row since the 1970s were falsely convicted.

The team arrived at a deliberately conservative figure that lays bare the extent of possible miscarriages of justice, suggesting that the innocence of more than 200 prisoners still in the system may never be recognised.

The study concludes that were all innocent people who were given death sentences to be cleared of their offences, the exoneration rate would rise from the actual rate of those released – 1.6% – to at least 4.1%. That is equivalent in the time frame of the study, 1973 to 2004, of about 340 prisoners – a much larger group than the 138 who were exonerated in the same period.

“This is a disturbing finding,” said Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan law school who is the lead author of the research. “There are a large number of people who are sentenced to death, and despite our best efforts some of them have undoubtedly been executed.
he study concludes that were all innocent people who were given death sentences to be cleared of their offences, the exoneration rate would rise from the actual rate of those released – 1.6% – to at least 4.1%. That is equivalent in the time frame of the study, 1973 to 2004, of about 340 prisoners – a much larger group than the 138 who were exonerated in the same period.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Scripture please.

There is nothing in scripture saying that it is not the job of government to help those in need. Our government if of the people, by the people and for the people and that means both the church and the government has a responsibility of helping "the people".

Sadly, neither the church nor the government is living up to its responsibility of taking care of "the people", especially those in need.



It was in a major article I read years ago. After checking online the most common percentage cited now is 4%. Isn't that justification enough to abandon capital punishment? The 4% is admitted to be a conservative figure.

The study cited below was widely reported.

From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent, according to the first major study to attempt to calculate how often states get it wrong in their wielding of the ultimate punishment.

A team of legal experts and statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania used the latest statistical techniques to produce a peer-reviewed estimate of the “dark figure” that lies behind the death penalty – how many of the more than 8,000 men and women who have been put on death row since the 1970s were falsely convicted.

The team arrived at a deliberately conservative figure that lays bare the extent of possible miscarriages of justice, suggesting that the innocence of more than 200 prisoners still in the system may never be recognised.

The study concludes that were all innocent people who were given death sentences to be cleared of their offences, the exoneration rate would rise from the actual rate of those released – 1.6% – to at least 4.1%. That is equivalent in the time frame of the study, 1973 to 2004, of about 340 prisoners – a much larger group than the 138 who were exonerated in the same period.

“This is a disturbing finding,” said Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan law school who is the lead author of the research. “There are a large number of people who are sentenced to death, and despite our best efforts some of them have undoubtedly been executed.
he study concludes that were all innocent people who were given death sentences to be cleared of their offences, the exoneration rate would rise from the actual rate of those released – 1.6% – to at least 4.1%. That is equivalent in the time frame of the study, 1973 to 2004, of about 340 prisoners – a much larger group than the 138 who were exonerated in the same period.

And yet you focus on this over the 100 percent of innocent babies that are killed...

 

[Benjamin]

How does Abortion even really compare to capital punishment? 100 percent of babies aborted are innocent...can we safely estimate a majority of those who receive capital punishment get it for crimes they committed?

The claim of moral equivalence between the two issues is an absolutely absurd argument and there is no hiding the reason for the claim which is made by those motivated to justify their taking sides up sides with those who openly advocate the Slaughter of millions upon millions of the innocent unborn. The argument reeks of absurdity and hypocrisy!

Also how many are killed in abortions vs executed?

MILLIONS compared to hundreds wherein of the hundreds only a very small percentage may by innocent. It is a very very weak minded attempt to try to justify the obvious motive by those who would suggest a moral equivalence at every turn in their defense for the purpuse of taking up sides with those who unapologetically support the atrocities of murdering millions of innocent unborn!.

CTB why don't you ever attack abortion when it's clearly a much bigger problem.

Luk 6:45
(45) A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

 

[Benjamin]

CTB,

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.

...As expected if one of the opposition's favorite arguments were to be nailed to the wall...

A few months ago I was challenged to bring this topic up for debate after the opposition used these tactics to challenge my stand against abortion and I strongly rejected their premises and conclusion. Although, then same as now I really didn’t expect any valid arguments by the opposition against my taking their claims to the mat and exposing the dishonesty, motive and hypocrisy behind their making such an argument, because there is no valid defense against taking up sides with unrelenting Pro-Abortionists if in the truth of your conscience you believe abortion to be the murder of millions of innocent unborn lives. If you truly hold the unborn as God 's children's lives and therefore invaluable this issue alone overrides all defenses of standing with those who unrelentingly don't. That is/should be the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.

The veiled Radical Leftists around here are in the habit of opportunistically preying on the term “pro-life” in order to insert their absurd argument of moral equivalency to justify their hidden allegiance with those who openly endorse the practice of abortion.

In fact, for those of us who are conscientious enough to avoid using the term (“pro-life”) in a debate (therein not facilitating “Ambiguous Pronoun Reference Fallacies”) which would give the Radical Leftists who are relying on an opening to smoke cloud the overriding importance on the issue of abortion they will put the term in your mouth for you so they can in turn make their play on the semantics of the term and then make their claim of moral equivalence and then by some sort of deluded concept of reasoning and morality believe it to justify their position of siding with pro-abortionists.