Is calling pro abortion people "baby killers" uncharitable?

[thewanderer]

There are certainly cases where it would not be uncharitable.

like what?

How does true charity forbid one from characterizing another as a murderer?

It doesn’t

If someone were in prison and they admitted to murdering two 5 year olds why would it lack charity to say they are murderers?

It depends. There are some circumstances where it would be perfectly fine and others, in particular some when speaking directly to the one guilty, where it can be just plain uncharitable.

I find it easier to see saying that someone is a murderer (who is known to have himselff comitted murder) than to use the word “baby killer” because this particular phrasing of the truth seems to be aimed solely at riling up emotions and so is much more likely to be uncharitable.

 

[benjammin]

And fat people are fat. And people do things to themselves that make them look ugly.

Do you also tell them that they are fat or ugly?

Or do you try to be charitable and simply say nothing?

I know my parents taught me to say nothing.

Unless I am on the witness stand, I do not have to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Doesn’t it depend though. I mean what if your spouse got morbidly obese to the point that she would die of a heart attack. I’m not saying you should be mean, but you have to be blunt and say “hey if you don’t lose weight you will die” just like if you support abortion you support killing babies.

 

[benjammin]

After spending one of the most horrible years of my life in Vietnam, I was called a “baby killer” by demonstrators at my home airport. If you really want to help the pro-choice movement, keep calling them “baby killers”. Although I’m sure it happened during that unpopular war, I didn’t have to killed anyone. All the name calling did for me was to re-affirm the unity I had with my fellow soldiers and it took many years to forgive the name callers. Not only are you acting uncharitable, your helping their cause by uniting them. Better to pray for them.

Well maybe i think it would cause them to think and make them come to the realization what they are doing is evil and that God doesn’t want them to do that. Besides, war is different. In war you don’t intentionally kill people. You try to take territory or prevent another group from doing so. You weren’t sent to kill Vietnamese, you were sent to stop the communists and if some died so be it. You’re a hero, not some babykiller like the liberal pieces of junk said you were

 

[thewanderer]

Doesn’t it depend though. I mean what if your spouse got morbidly obese to the point that she would die of a heart attack. I’m not saying you should be mean, but you have to be blunt and say “hey if you don’t lose weight you will die” just like if you support abortion you support killing babies.

Thats fine, I really don’t think anybody here has been advocating stopping telling the truth. What people have been saying is that the term “baby killer” is unnecessarily inflammatory just as calling someone fat is. I mean, look at your above example. Can you think of any possible scenario where it would be ok to tell your wife “Honey, you’re really fat” There are other ways of saying this that are much more charitable and so should be chosen instead of this.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Just like calling a 300 lbs person “fat,” it depends on the context in which it is used. Also, a more correct term would be “murderer.” There is a difference between killing and murder.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Well maybe i think it would cause them to think and make them come to the realization what they are doing is evil and that God doesn’t want them to do that. Besides, war is different. In war you don’t intentionally kill people. You try to take territory or prevent another group from doing so. You weren’t sent to kill Vietnamese, you were sent to stop the communists and if some died so be it. You’re a hero, not some babykiller like the liberal pieces of junk said you were

In war, you do intentionally kill. The difference between being a killer and a murderer is in why you caused the death.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Well maybe i think it would cause them to think and make them come to the realization what they are doing is evil and that God doesn’t want them to do that. Besides, war is different. In war you don’t intentionally kill people. You try to take territory or prevent another group from doing so. You weren’t sent to kill Vietnamese, you were sent to stop the communists and if some died so be it. You’re a hero, not some babykiller like the liberal pieces of junk said you were

You must be young because your awfully nieve. All the demonstrations made no one think, all they did was unite causes and incite riots. I don’t think too many of our nations leaders were influenced by what God did or didn’t want or they wouldn’t have let a senseless war go on for 10 years. And by the way, war wasn’t that different, we were sent to kill North Vietnamese, we had no intention of taking territory we knew we couldn’t hold. Google “Search and Destroy”. That’s what I was sent to do. Take a helicopter ride to where they were, kill as many as we could then get out. In doing so, innocent civilians and children were killed and those who knowingly and willingly took part were murderers. But I took exception to being put in the same category as them. I was no hero, just a soldier glad to have made it home alive AGAIN, the point I’m trying to make is that name calling is counter productive to the pro - life cause. Ya want to change something, work to change the law that made abortion legal. I’ve also done the charitable thing and forgiven those “liberal pieces of junk” who made me feel un american after giving 4 years of my life to my country.

You asked so I’ll tell ya again. Those for abortion aren’t baby killers, unless they kill a baby and calling them something they are not for it’s shock value is uncharitable…IMO So have at me, but if you really want your question answered, go through all the questions you should ask yourself when you examine your conscience and if it doesn’t jump out at ya there, ask your priest during your next confession. It seems you’ve gotten the right answer from a majority of the replies and are now just defending your position.

Now I’m getting off my soap box :tiphat:

 

[doormouse73]

Thats fine, I really don’t think anybody here has been advocating stopping telling the truth. What people have been saying is that the term “baby killer” is unnecessarily inflammatory just as calling someone fat is. I mean, look at your above example. Can you think of any possible scenario where it would be ok to tell your wife “Honey, you’re really fat” There are other ways of saying this that are much more charitable and so should be chosen instead of this.

i understand what you are saying about using other ways and words to get a point across.you are right,i agree 100%.

but if i was to go about it in that way, my wife would listen and either say it straight away or use it for a later day to say to me i was calling her fat.

they get the message they just dont like the stigma with it,in my eyes.

 

[R1ch4rd]

And if your wife asked if this dress made her look fat, you would say…

You all can say what you want but I’m gonna say “Hon, that dress makes you look great. Hey, I’m starting to get a bit of a pot belly, maybe you could help me trim down”. Not only is it more charitable…but it keeps me alive!

 

[ahs]

You all can say what you want but I’m gonna say “Hon, that dress makes you look great. Hey, I’m starting to get a bit of a pot belly, maybe you could help me trim down”. Not only is it more charitable…but it keeps me alive!

For me it really depends…if a certain outfit is very much un-flattering…I’m gonna tell her so she doesn’t go looking through pictures later on and then ask why no one told her.

As to calling pro-aborts “baby killers”…charitable or not, one must ask if this is really going to make them change their mind or give any consideration to the pro-life side. Try going to anyone you know with a particular fault and point it out: "Joe, you’re really arrogant when you… " or “Sally, I can’t stand how you do…” and see whether they respond with, “Gee, Dave, you a re so right…thanks so much for pointing that out!”

When you call it out like that, it will trigger a defensive postion and a reluctance to change. That’s just how people work. The trick is finding a way to point out that they are killing babies in a way that makes them want to think more about it…not in a manner that makes them angry and puts them on the closed-minded defensive.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Originally Posted by R1ch4rd
And if your wife asked if this dress made her look fat, you would say…???

For me it really depends…if a certain outfit is very much un-flattering…I’m gonna tell her so she doesn’t go looking through pictures later on and then ask why no one told her.

This was a trick question and it was me that acted “uncharitable” because IMO there is no answer that will keep ya out of trouble. Even silence is wrong. This one just can’t be won, the only thing a guy can do is try to minimize the bleeding

 

[fix]

like what?

I think I mentioned the case of a mother who killed her own children. Why baby killer is offensive and murderer is not is a point I fail to see.

It depends. There are some circumstances where it would be perfectly fine and others, in particular some when speaking directly to the one guilty, where it can be just plain uncharitable.

I find it easier to see saying that someone is a murderer (who is known to have himselff comitted murder) than to use the word “baby killer” because this particular phrasing of the truth seems to be aimed solely at riling up emotions and so is much more likely to be uncharitable.

As I have said intention and circumstances are determinative.

 

[thewanderer]

I think I mentioned the case of a mother who killed her own children. Why baby killer is offensive and murderer is not is a point I fail to see.

As I have said intention and circumstances are determinative.

While murderer has an emotive aspect to it I also has a much more clinical aspect than baby killer. Because of this I can see cases where murderer can be meant and understood in a purely clinical way rather than an emotive. I just really don’t see that with baby killer.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Originally Posted by fix
I think I mentioned the case of a mother who killed her own children. Why baby killer is offensive and murderer is not is a point I fail to see.

In this case of a mother who killed her own children, when she was charged, it was for murdering her children not “killing her babies”. I doubt that any media service or court proceeding referred to her as baby killer even though she murdered her children. Which statement would anger you more: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury this woman is a murderer, or Ladies and gentlemen of the jury this woman is a baby killer. I don’t think the judge would condone the words baby killer, why would your Church?

 

[fix]

In this case of a mother who killed her own children, when she was charged, it was for murdering her children not “killing her babies”. I doubt that any media service or court proceeding referred to her as baby killer even though she murdered her children. Which statement would anger you more: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury this woman is a murderer, or Ladies and gentlemen of the jury this woman is a baby killer. I don’t think the judge would condone the words baby killer, why would your Church?

That is not the only venue that the word could be used. Why would the Church be against an individual referring to one who killed her babies as a baby killer? Does the Church pronounce on grammar or syntax or editorializing?

 

[fix]

While murderer has an emotive aspect to it I also has a much more clinical aspect than baby killer. Because of this I can see cases where murderer can be meant and understood in a purely clinical way rather than an emotive. I just really don’t see that with baby killer.

I do not wish to limit anyone’s use of any particular word. Nor can I say any use of this particular term is always wrong.

 

[thewanderer]

I do not wish to limit anyone’s use of any particular word. Nor can I say any use of this particular term is always wrong.

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.

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.

 

[R1ch4rd]

That is not the only venue that the word could be used. Why would the Church be against an individual referring to one who killed her babies as a baby killer? Does the Church pronounce on grammar or syntax or editorializing?

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.

thewanderer:

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.

IMO thewanderer said all that needs saying. I know what I would say, anyone else can use whatever word they want. :tiphat:

 

[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.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Well, my two cents on the subject is that it is not good to replace calm and thought out arguments with name-calling. Name-calling will only serve to turn people away as opposed to possibly win them over to our side. When taking courses on how to debate the pro-life position they addressed the issue of attacking the subject instead of people. Personal attacks is not true debate and accomplishes little to nothing.