Is calling pro abortion people "baby killers" uncharitable?

[fix]

So you would condone someone going around calling overweight people ‘fat pigs’ ? After all, you wouldn’t want to say anything that might be taken as infringing on their rights to use any word they want to.

Depends on context as I have said several times. No one has defended gratuitous insults here.

The question of this thread is whether or not using this term is uncharitable. I really cannot think of one instance where using it wouldn’t be uncharitable, so my response is that I think it is uncharitable. When I asked for an instance where this word would be used charitably, I was not given any. I think I’m allowed to hold the opinion that it is an uncharitable term to use.

I have given an example. You apparently just do not like it.

 

[fix]

The Church would never be “against” any individual and it does not pronounce on grammar or editorializing other than that which the Church uses. Now show me where the Church has ever used the term “baby killers” You can’t because the Church would use a charitable word instead.

That is not the standard to use. There are many words the Church may not use in offcial documents. So what? That is the standard you want to defend?

 

[fix]

According the to the natural moral law:

A doctor who is practicing direct and voluntary abortions is a killer, a murderer, a assassin, a poisoner. In addition, he does not respect the hippocratic oath, thus he is a liar, a traitor, a treacherous: he is a dangerous person (shame on him)

A pharmacist, a nurse, a midwife, or who is participating to direct and voluntary abortions is a killer, a murderer, a assassin, a poisoner. He is a liar, a traitor, a treacherous (shame on him).

A voter who is voting for a political program in favor of a direct and voluntary abortion is a Pontius Pilate: he is an accomplice (shame on him).

A judge who rules in favor of a direct and voluntary abortion is a Pontius Pilate: he is an accomplice (shame on him);

A legislator (senator or deputy) who is voting in favor of the direct and voluntary abortion is a Pontius Pilate: he is a coward and an accomplice (shame on him);

A president or a governor who signs a legal deed in favor of the direct and voluntary abortion is a Pontius Pilate: he is an accomplice (shame on him).
In this situation, the executive power, the legislative power and the judicial power are morally wrong, are morally dishonest and are so dangerous for all the society: They are accomplices of genocide.

The Pro abortion people are accomplice of genocide: their intellectual thoughts and their intellectual doctrines are evil, per se. They are wrong.

The fact of financing the direct and voluntary abortion is very immoral, it is to be an accomplice.

Yes, all true. I am sure many cannot wait to claim offense.

 

[thewanderer]

Depends on context as I have said several times. No one has defended gratuitous insults here.

The point being made is that certain phrases are built to be gratuitously insulting/offensive.

I have given an example. You apparently just do not like it.

You gave a very general situation, not an example of the particular circumstances which would make it charitable. Of course that isn’t going to change my mind. Do you really think I haven’t thought of the example of a mother who killed her children? Isn’t that pretty much what happens in the situation we’ve been talking about already?

I’m willing to admit that there is a possibility (though extremely unlikely) that there could be a particular situation in which it would be charitable to use these terms (either fat pig or baby killer). So if someone can bring up an example I will exclude that example from my general statement against these phrases, but my expectation of finding such examples is so low that I will continue to just say they are uncharitable.

 

[shipwrkd]

That is not the standard to use. There are many words the Church may not use in offcial documents. So what? That is the standard you want to defend?

If the standard is good enough for the Church, yes, I will defend it. You seem above that standard.

Originally Posted by fpt
According the to the natural moral law:

A doctor who is practicing direct and voluntary abortions is a killer, a murderer, a assassin, a poisoner. In addition, he does not respect the hippocratic oath, thus he is a liar, a traitor, a treacherous: he is a dangerous person (shame on him)

A pharmacist, a nurse, a midwife, or who is participating to direct and voluntary abortions is a killer, a murderer, a assassin, a poisoner. He is a liar, a traitor, a treacherous (shame on him).

A voter who is voting for a political program in favor of a direct and voluntary abortion is a Pontius Pilate: he is an accomplice (shame on him).

A judge who rules in favor of a direct and voluntary abortion is a Pontius Pilate: he is an accomplice (shame on him);

A legislator (senator or deputy) who is voting in favor of the direct and voluntary abortion is a Pontius Pilate: he is a coward and an accomplice (shame on him);

A president or a governor who signs a legal deed in favor of the direct and voluntary abortion is a Pontius Pilate: he is an accomplice (shame on him).
In this situation, the executive power, the legislative power and the judicial power are morally wrong, are morally dishonest and are so dangerous for all the society: They are accomplices of genocide.

The Pro abortion people are accomplice of genocide: their intellectual thoughts and their intellectual doctrines are evil, per se. They are wrong.

The fact of financing the direct and voluntary abortion is very immoral, it is to be an accomplice.

Not sure where this came from but I don’t see the term “baby killer” used

 

[fix]

If the standard is good enough for the Church, yes, I will defend it. You seem above that standard.

Not sure where this came from but I don’t see the term “baby killer” used

If you limit your vocabulary to what is in Church documents on this limited topic then you would limit how you can express yourself.

The documents are not intended to limit you in the way you imply.

Also, Church documents use the word murder. I assume you approve of that?

 

[R1ch4rd]

If you limit your vocabulary to what is in Church documents on this limited topic then you would limit how you can express yourself.

In your opinion.

The documents are not intended to limit you in the way you imply.

And you know that how??

Also, Church documents use the word murder. I assume you approve of that?

Yes, that’s what it is.
If a person lacks intelligence would you call him “stupid”?

You can have the last word, I’m out of here :sad_bye:

 

[fpt]

If the standard is good enough for the Church, yes, I will defend it. You seem above that standard.

Not sure where this came from but I don’t see the term “baby killer” used

By nature the abortion means to kill or to destroy the life during pregnancy. A baby is a baby from the conception until the childbirth, even if medical science uses other terms. Life is life, it is a fact. It is not negotiable.

Baby killer means to kill during the pregnancy, just after or until the legal majority. By definition to kill a human being is wrong.

 

[thewanderer]

By nature the abortion means to kill or to destroy the life during pregnancy. A baby is a baby from the conception until the childbirth, even if medical science uses other terms. Life is life, it is a fact. It is not negotiable.

Baby killer means to kill during the pregnancy, just after or until the legal majority. By definition to kill a human being is wrong.

fpt, I know that since English is not your native language you probably do not understand the conotations associated with baby killer. They are much more emotive and negative than simply murderer. Yes, abortion kills babies and noone here is denying that. What was being pointed out is that in English this particular term has particular connotations that makes it very difficult to use in a charitable way. This is what people have been pointing to on this thread. They are not trying to deny that abortion kills a child.

 

[fix]

fpt, I know that since English is not your native language you probably do not understand the conotations associated with baby killer. They are much more emotive and negative than simply murderer. Yes, abortion kills babies and noone here is denying that. What was being pointed out is that in English this particular term has particular connotations that makes it very difficult to use in a charitable way. This is what people have been pointing to on this thread. They are not trying to deny that abortion kills a child.

A distinction without a difference.