Baby Killers Need Not Apply For President

[Newbie2]

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.

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’?

Some people do.

“Pro-choice” only applies if one subscribes to:

“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”.

Let’s be frank, the choice in “Pro-choice” is abortion. That’s the common meaning of the term. By default, not choosing means having the baby. One can support both adoption and abortion, but only anti-abortionists are pro-life. If one supports “choice”, one of the choices is abortion; thus the correct pro-abortion label because by default, it’s not anti-abortion.

That’s a fence one simple cannot sit on.

 

[Mirdath]

“Pro-choice” only applies if one subscribes to: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”.

Given that within the span of nine months something is going to happen, I’d say that’s perfectly true.

Let’s be frank, the choice in “Pro-choice” is abortion. That’s the common meaning of the term. By default, not choosing means having the baby. One can support both adoption and abortion, but only anti-abortionists are pro-life. If one supports “choice”, one of the choices is abortion; thus the correct pro-abortion label because by default, it’s not anti-abortion.

A choice is not a choice without more than one option. It does not mean the option to abort is strongly supported (indeed, apathy would seem to be the default stance on it for many – you can hardly say that’s pro-anything!) or that it is preferred over another option. The ‘pro-abortion’ label is inaccurate because it implies that that should be the default choice. It is not.

 

[deb1]

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’?

Not all soldiers die, plus people who support say a war under certain circumstances might not support them under a different set of circumstances. ‘Pro-soldiers dying’ would not cover that.

 

[Mirdath]

Not all soldiers die, plus people who support say a war under certain circumstances might not support them under a different set of circumstances. ‘Pro-soldiers dying’ would not cover that.

Exactly

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

One of the problems with using the language of hate is the hyperbole itself clouds the issue. Case in point, you appear to be using “baby killers” to refer to politicians who are not in favor of changing current secular laws regarding aboriton.

There are severla problems with this. First, although the law is unacceptable to Catholics, there is very little to suggest that overturning Roe v. Wade will do much to curb abotions.

Second, it minimizes the label itself. For example, several of the candidates have some ties to Jack Abramof, the convicted lobbyist. That nasty episode involved support of human trafficing and forced abortions in Saipan. Does taking money from slavery and forced abortion make one a baby killer?

We also know that white phosphor has been used in urban combat in Iraq. Does incinerating babies make politicians who support the war baby killers? We also know that the state department used hush money to cover up for Blackwater’s Pinochet thugs’ drunken antics in Iraq - which included targetting pregnant women, shooting them in the stomach, ‘for sport’.

Does the cover up make all the politicians in charge of the administration “baby killers”?

I would say yes, but I would be loathe to use the inflammatory term nonetheless.

 

[Newbie2]

Given that within the span of nine months something is going to happen, I’d say that’s perfectly true.

A choice is not a choice without more than one option. It does not mean the option to abort is strongly supported (indeed, apathy would seem to be the default stance on it for many – you can hardly say that’s pro-anything!) or that it is preferred over another option. The ‘pro-abortion’ label is inaccurate because it implies that that should be the default choice. It is not.

"A choice is not a choice without more than one option. " Exactly. So if there was no choice, there would be no “pro-abortion” position. Hence, “Pro-choice”=“Pro-abortion”. “Pro-abortion” says nothing about the preferability of one choice over the other.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Sorry, I missed that, the opening post was referring to those who support abortion rather than those who perform them (I took it as abortionists need not apply). In that case ‘pro-serial killers’.

 

[seekerz]

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.

*** If having or seeing or supporting*** babies being ripped out of the womb does not make these people feel ashamed, how can calling them “baby killers” do so?

There is arguably not a single person on this continent who has not at least heard pro-life people say that abortion is the killing of a child. This does not deter those bent on it, but calling them murderers will?

Let’s be real here, the only thing those labels accomplish is to allow pro-life people to vent their anger and frustration. There are better ways to vent.

 

[Steve40]

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.

He also called them white seplecars. All white and clean on the outside but on the inside full of dead mens bones. If I could see the inside like He can I might prefer this term, but since I can’t I have to just comment on the actions performed such as baby killing. In this case it is not possible for me to do as Jesus did because I have neither the insight into the soul, nor the authorty to judge them internally. He has the Power and Authority to throw people into Hell and He does. Jesus is unique in this regard.

 

[goofyjim]

He also called them white seplecars. All white and clean on the outside but on the inside full of dead mens bones. If I could see the inside like He can I might prefer this term, but since I can’t I have to just comment on the actions performed such as baby killing. In this case it is not possible for me to do as Jesus did because I have neither the insight into the soul, nor the authorty to judge them internally. He has the Power and Authority to throw people into Hell and He does. Jesus is unique in this regard.

But He doesn’t always send to hell those we think are going there. So we can’t make assumptions until we know for sure in the afterlife.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

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.

we can play this game all day.

Thank God one part isin’t full of poor hateing, arab killing, raceists.

Now, some people may feel these claimes are true, however using inflamitory, generalizing titles simply flames hate, ignorance, and division.

 

[wow]

The Church teaches us to conquer evil with love…

 

[SoCalRC]

we can play this game all day.

Thank God one part isin’t full of poor hateing, arab killing, raceists.

Now, some people may feel these claimes are true, however using inflamitory, generalizing titles simply flames hate, ignorance, and division.

Well said. I think it is much easier to hate a stereotype than real human beings. The vast majority of abortions in the US are procurred by woman living at or near poverty. Roughly half of them are already mothers, and 27% of them are Catholics, basically our percentage of the population.

There is no doubt that these women are sinning under the Catholic faith, but their sin does not occur in a vacuum. The Church lists nine prinicples that we should not negotiate on in voting. Yes, abortion is one, but so are things like removing obstacles to solid family structures and an obligation to develop a socially just economy.

Labels and finger wagging may make us feel superior, but the Gospel tells us clearly how we, ourselves will be judged. I’d suggest reading Matt 25 and looking at how the Son of Man will divide all nations into “sheep” and “goats”. Then think about how that might apply to our mypotic vision of abortion as someone else’s problem…

Peace

 

[Steve40]

One of the problems with using the language of hate is the hyperbole itself clouds the issue. Case in point, you appear to be using “baby killers” to refer to politicians who are not in favor of changing current secular laws regarding aboriton.

There are severla problems with this. First, although the law is unacceptable to Catholics, there is very little to suggest that overturning Roe v. Wade will do much to curb abotions.

Second, it minimizes the label itself. For example, several of the candidates have some ties to Jack Abramof, the convicted lobbyist. That nasty episode involved support of human trafficing and forced abortions in Saipan. Does taking money from slavery and forced abortion make one a baby killer?

We also know that white phosphor has been used in urban combat in Iraq. Does incinerating babies make politicians who support the war baby killers? We also know that the state department used hush money to cover up for Blackwater’s Pinochet thugs’ drunken antics in Iraq - which included targetting pregnant women, shooting them in the stomach, ‘for sport’.

Does the cover up make all the politicians in charge of the administration “baby killers”?

I would say yes, but I would be loathe to use the inflammatory term nonetheless.

The difference here is that in one case it is exposed and out in the open and in the other case it is not. When it is exopsed and out in the open, you name it for what it is, openly. You are talking about specific incidents which involve specific people, I am not. I can neither confirm nor deny that your accusations are correct. The choice to kill our children is supported by the US Government. This is the documented law of the land. The action of, killing babies, our children, is supported by the US Government.

The US Government has God given authority to protect and not allow the killing. Therefore, I call those within the Government who support the ripping of children out of the womb, baby killers. But, in end where does the power for our government come from? The authority comes God but We The People have delegated certain individuals to carry out this responsibility and because of this, We The People are guilty for the deaths of millions. We have knowingly placed individuals in power who will not stop the killing.

Because We The People are guilty of this sin against God and ourselves, it is important not to sugar coat it and to call it what it is. I have very little respect for those who sugar coat issues that includes the blood of millions at least partially on their own hands. If we sugar coat this it is an effort to let our selves off the hook. Don’t do it. Call it what it is, baby killing, and cry out to God for Mercy for yourself and for the direct supporters of the killing.

 

[Mirdath]

"A choice is not a choice without more than one option. " Exactly. So if there was no choice, there would be no “pro-abortion” position. Hence, “Pro-choice”=“Pro-abortion”. “Pro-abortion” says nothing about the preferability of one choice over the other.

Find me one person who says that abortion should be the default choice, that expectant mothers should choose to abort rather than bring the pregnancy to term no matter what circumstances they’re in – then you’ll have someone to apply that label to. It does not fit the vast majority of those who are simply pro-choice.

 

[Veronica7978]

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.

I understand your resolve in this matter. But I cannot reconcile the killing of people over war as any better. The children of Iraq are also being killed - thereby rendering any person supporting George W. Bush or this war, as a baby killer. ??? I don’t know, enlighten me.

 

[Newbie2]

Find me one person who says that abortion should be the default choice, that expectant mothers should choose to abort rather than bring the pregnancy to term no matter what circumstances they’re in – then you’ll have someone to apply that label to. It does not fit the vast majority of those who are simply pro-choice.

Oh, let’s see…how about Planned Parenthood?

 

[Veronica7978]

Oh, let’s see…how about Planned Parenthood?

I have to agree with you there.

 

[Mirdath]

Oh, let’s see…how about Planned Parenthood?

Cite a PP representative saying ex cathedra that all expectant mothers, no matter their situation, should abort.

 

[Newbie2]

Cite a PP representative saying ex cathedra that all expectant mothers, no matter their situation, should abort.

I assume “ex cathedra” is tongue-in-cheek .

They’re not that stupid, if you pardon my saying so, as to blatently announce they exist to promote abortions. That’s why they’re called “Planned Parenthood” instead of "Abortions-R-Us. Same reason as “Pro-choice” sounds better than “Pro-abortion”.

Take a pregnant girl there and let me know what they tell you. I’ll bet the first option is abortion.

Here’s the first topics on their website, in order:

Birth Control
Learn about the pill, condoms, and other birth control methods.

Abortion
Learn about abortion methods and how to get abortion services.

STDs, HIV & Safer Sex
Learn about the prevention and treatment of STDs, including HIV.

Pregnancy
Learn about pregnancy planning, prenatal care, and infertility.

Emergency Contraception (Morning After Pill)
Learn about how the morning after pill works and how to get it.

You gotta go to the second page to hit “Adoptions”. I don’t believe this was unintended.