S
Steve40
Guest
The candidates may not be perfect, but one thing is clear at least for one of the parties. Baby Killers need not apply. I thank God for this and hope it indicates a national trend.
- Status
S
seekerz
Guest
Candidates not a topic for discussion here I believe.
Besides, I am one who believes that use of inflammatory labels for those who support abortion, just engenders hate and is counter-productive. It seems that the judicious language used by the Magesterium in all documents I’ve seen condemning abortion, reflect this sentiment. By all means hate the sin, but what does it accomplish to call people names?
Besides, I am one who believes that use of inflammatory labels for those who support abortion, just engenders hate and is counter-productive. It seems that the judicious language used by the Magesterium in all documents I’ve seen condemning abortion, reflect this sentiment. By all means hate the sin, but what does it accomplish to call people names?
S
Steve40
Guest
I didn’t mention any candidates or parties but if the name fits let them wear it, Stinking Baby Killers. But, to your point I will pray for their conversion.
R
RomanCrusader
Guest
Abortionist leaders are modern nazis.
D
deb1
Guest
Fetus killers?
I think when it comes to political believes we shouldn’t use hateful labels. But really, abortionist do kill unborn babies.
Why is the term abortionist better then baby killer?
M
mapleoak
Guest
Then don’t use inflammatory labels. Just use an accurate description of what they are, such as ‘serial killers’.
S
Steve40
Guest
A few years back I was in a Doctor’s office and I was concerned about the procedure she was about to perform on my wife. I won’t go into the details for personal reasons but the doctor reassured me by telling me that she does not do terminations.Fetus killers?
I think when it comes to political believes we shouldn’t use hateful labels. But really, abortionist do kill unborn babies.
Why don’t we call them Terminators? But, then again I wouldn’t want to offend Arnold by associating him with them. But wait a minute, Arnold supports them, so why not offend him by calling abortionist (i.e. baby killers), Terminators?
S
seekerz
Guest
I will restate the point that labels are in bad taste. How do you even get a chance to dissuade someone from performing or seeking an abortion when you’ve insulted them before making your approach?
The tactic is counterproductive and makes us seem desperate. We are commanded to judge not - period. The sin is fair game, the sinner is not, never has and never will be.
In my opinion, a person may only be referred to as a killer when he has been found guilty either by civil or religious authorities. It is not a label to be placed by individuals upon other individuals. Sorry, that’s just mean and no matter how wrong abortion is, two wrongs do not a right make.
The tactic is counterproductive and makes us seem desperate. We are commanded to judge not - period. The sin is fair game, the sinner is not, never has and never will be.
In my opinion, a person may only be referred to as a killer when he has been found guilty either by civil or religious authorities. It is not a label to be placed by individuals upon other individuals. Sorry, that’s just mean and no matter how wrong abortion is, two wrongs do not a right make.
T
Tim_Hayes
Guest
The vast majoirty won’t change their position without being ashamed of their position. Call someone an abortionist and we know what it means buts it also covers those who get terminated validly through other opertations shall we say, albe it in small numbers.
Call them baby butchers and they will hate being labelled as such.
Remember out of sight out of mind, if you bring the horrors of such actions to the forefront of people’s minds then they are forced to confront in their subconscious their own position.
So baby butchers etc is a valid phrase to be used especially with those who are serial offenders such as doctors who carry them out willy nilly.
Maybe different for some mother who has just made a very bad decision, but the same cannot be said for those who consciously make the same decision day in day out.
Call them baby butchers and they will hate being labelled as such.
Remember out of sight out of mind, if you bring the horrors of such actions to the forefront of people’s minds then they are forced to confront in their subconscious their own position.
So baby butchers etc is a valid phrase to be used especially with those who are serial offenders such as doctors who carry them out willy nilly.
Maybe different for some mother who has just made a very bad decision, but the same cannot be said for those who consciously make the same decision day in day out.
M
Miles_Mariae
Guest
What do you mean they need not apply? Are the democrats losing in the polls? If so, that would be great news!
S
Steve40
Guest
Speak the truth and let people have their own judgements about what you say. Don’t judge what they will think ahead of time. If it were you, deep down, wouldn’t you want to hear the truth?
I would agree that it is important to keep in mind that except for the Grace of God, killer is a label that most, including myself could wear.
I am not sure who has the greater sin, those who are guilty by commission or those who are guilty by omission. The omission of those in God given authority is great in this case of over 40 million children dead. A portion of that blood is on all of our hands.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Go ahead, call people who don’t perform them but support the ability to choose (which, as so many seem to forget, includes, and generally preferentially at that, the choice to bring to term) ‘serial killers’ or ‘baby butchers’ or ‘modern nazis’ or whatever, and cement your image in their minds as that of a frothing-at-the-mouth fundamentalist. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.
P
Pong
Guest
It’s not vinegar being used, but usually the substance being used in this case atracts flies…:dts:
S
Safe_Eagle
Guest
It’s interesting how social conservative issues are being neglected in the debates, both republican and democrate. I agree with ealier posters that say we need to lay it on the line.
Look we have a holocost going on. If we were to have a terrorist run for president, we wouldn’t say “Ok, I understand you are a terrorist…how do you feel about universal health care?”
Come on! The ills facing this country are directly related to moral issues. Unless we correct those first we’re in trouble.
Look we have a holocost going on. If we were to have a terrorist run for president, we wouldn’t say “Ok, I understand you are a terrorist…how do you feel about universal health care?”
Come on! The ills facing this country are directly related to moral issues. Unless we correct those first we’re in trouble.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Indeed, they will hate the label. But it won’t make them hate what they do.
Mirdath is right - inflammatory labels make us appear irrational and consumed with rage. Its a practice that backfires on the pro-life movement and pushes people away from us.
Remember, much of the support for abortion is soft. In the US (not sure about other nations) the majority support early abortions but that support drops as the weeks go by. We need to be sure that we win over those soft supporters. Inflammatory rhetoric deprives us of that chance.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Methinks we can look to Christ for an example; the only term that I can recall he used was “brood of vipers” to refer to sinners (Pharisees). Although there may have been a different cultural meaning or language difference considerations, but it doesn’t seem he was trying to avoid offending them.
On the other hand, I’m guessing that there was lots of worse things he could have called them.
The goal is to get them to see the error of their ways, not galvanize their supporters. Methinks calling them names may help us feel better, but not achieve the goal.
On the other hand, I’m guessing that there was lots of worse things he could have called them.
The goal is to get them to see the error of their ways, not galvanize their supporters. Methinks calling them names may help us feel better, but not achieve the goal.
G
goofyjim
Guest
That quote directed towards the Pharisees could very well be used against some of us here. The Pharisees were too busy setting up their own idea of the kingdom and excluding sinners such as prostitutes and tax collectors while being sinners themselves. Mind you, I stand against abortion, but not without providing some alternatives if a young woman does get pregnant and can’t afford it. Let’s not just shame the unwed mother but come up with some money to cover the birth and life of a child so as to support her in being prolife.Methinks we can look to Christ for an example; the only term that I can recall he used was “brood of vipers” to refer to sinners (Pharisees). Although there may have been a different cultural meaning or language difference considerations, but it doesn’t seem he was trying to avoid offending them.
On the other hand, I’m guessing that there was lots of worse things he could have called them.
The goal is to get them to see the error of their ways, not galvanize their supporters. Methinks calling them names may help us feel better, but not achieve the goal.
D
deb1
Guest
Yes. I agree with you.
D
deb1
Guest
Although the post about not labeling didn’t have much effect on me, this reasoning does.
When it comes to labels, I have several of them: Mother, Wife, Teacher etc. We all do. So, I don’t see anything wrong with labels because our speech would come to a halt if we didn’t use them.
But the fact that the press will label us as insane fundamentalists does have sway with at least me. Because most in the press are prochoice we have to be more careful that we always take the high road.
I think that a better tactic would be to change prochoice to proabortion. It isn’t hateful but it does more adaquetly describe what the prochoice people believe.
M
Mirdath
Guest
No, it’s far less accurate. I am pro-choice, but I would much rather see the option of bringing a pregnancy to term chosen.
Do you call people who support wars, even just wars, ‘pro-soldiers-dying’?
- Status