Home - List All Discussions

What if I called someone a "Jew killer"?

But I could prove it was true?

by: yoda

Suppose I called someone on this forum a "Jew killer".... what would be the first reaction? Outrage? A chorus of moans and groans from the PP lifers and the proaborts?
Then what if I proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was a citizen of Germany in 1940, knew about the "final solution" that was going on around him/her, and not only approved of it, but spoke out forcefully and publicly in favor of killing Jews in the concentration camps? (Of course, that would make them quite old by now.) And what if, in addition to that, this poster was openly unapologetic and happy with their part in the Holocaust?
But would those circumstances not establish a "shared responsibility" for the mass exterminations of the Holocaust? Would that person not actually be a "Jew killer", and deserving of being called that?
IMO, the same is true of all those proabort posters who come here and spout off their approval of the slaughter of unborn babies, even when they couch that approval in euphemistic language that almost jumps off the page with "winks and nods". All those who support the slaughter of the unborn in public ARE baby killers by their shared responsibilty, IMO, and deserving of that label.
And if they are "offended" by being labeled for what they are? Good. They should be offended, and the should be ashamed. Shame is probably the only hope they have.

reply from: 4choice4all

Offended? no. Ashamed? not at all. Just saddened at the level of discourse one would take. Saddened that instead of trying to be constructive and create a world they are happy with they'd rather point fingers and call names. Be the Change you want to see in the world....wise words. If you want a world full of hate and venom....continue on. If you want a world full of love and (for you) without abortion...go forth in a constructive(not destructive) manner.

reply from: yoda

You can't be constructive in the middle of a genocidal society. First, you must stop the genocide. Then, you can "construct" a new world.
Stop the slaughter first, baby killer, then we can "construct".

reply from: 4choice4all

Quite the statesman. First...how does one end a genocide? How would you end the struggles in Darfur? call them killers and pat yourself on the back to gain the moral high ground? Has that EVER worked? What HAS worked? Sending in peacekeepers to diffuse the situation and stop further violence? The collective mindset being changed so people band together and demand something more and something different? How about most importantly...understanding what lead to the genocide and working to abolish that mindset?
I do not agree with the assessment that abortion is genocide..it doesn't meet the criteria by any stretch.

reply from: MC3

4Choice4All:
Of course, you don't agree that abortion is genocide. It is the nature of genocide for those who support it to never call it by that name. So in Nazi Germany, cowardice and barbarism became known as "The Final Solution" and in contemporary America it's called "Choice."
But if you think for one moment that history will be fooled by your rhetorical gymnastics, you are as abysmally stupid as you are immoral.

reply from: 4choice4all

And again, another poster that hurls insults instead of making logical points.
Genocide is the intent or act of destroying a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. A fetus is not a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Call it democide(the mass killing by the state) or mass murder or whatever.....but it's not genocide by any stretch.
And listening to it be compared to the Holocaust makes me vomit a bit in my mouth. If abortion is so horrific...let the horrors stand on their own. The problem is for most people...abortion being legal is something they can accept and live with...freely, in a just society...and it's not so horrific to the masses. That's why you try to tie it to the holocaust...you need something to rev up the disgust factor since it's mere existence doesn't do that. It's a tactic that makes your arguments look weak.

reply from: ProInformed

\
And weren't the Nazi's who killed the Jews and others, in THEIR own opinion, just
"trying to be constructive and create a world they [were] happy with" AND not at all ashamed of what they were doing?
I get your point yoda - because I was not one of the citizens of Nazi Germany who endorsed the Nazi holocaust with apathy/complicity, nor a citizen who shushes up just because pro-abort sheeple want to kill innocent babies in our current society minus even verbal objections from the citizens who respond to innocent babies with sanity, compassion, and non-violence.

reply from: 4choice4all

If you compare the Nazi's to every person that supports keeping abortion legal you are drawing an awfully big circle. You just compared half the world to the nazi's...which only makes you look crazy and delusional. How do you function in society knowing half the people you encounter are the equivalent of a Nazi SS soldier? In trying to paint a picture of abortion supporters, you are diminishing the true horror of the holocaust...that's ghastly.

reply from: AshMarie88

Holocaust means "mass destruction of human life"... abortion is "A" holocaust, OUR current holocaust. The definition says it all.

reply from: Faramir

That was the owner of the board.
As a prolifer I expect better of someone who runs an organization devoted to stopping abortion, but he can sink lower than that, even with fellow prolifers.
You're not allowed to post here to present your views. You're allowed to be here for the entertainment value of being a punching bag.

reply from: AshMarie88

Watch, these people will try to deny the dictionary now!!

reply from: Faramir

What if instead all they see is a self-righteous person browbeating them so that he can feel good about himself?
I think they might be inclined to be more convicted of their own view, instead of less.
My guess is that calling others "baby-killers" does nothing to change anyone's heart except for the worse, saves zero babies, and the only "benefit" is to the person doing the name-calling.
Love and understanding is the best way to "shame" someone. Name calling doesn't do it. It just creates a desire to push back.

reply from: iCelebr8Life

Do people really care more about proving themselves right than about helping women carry to term? How can we ever hope to encourage a woman to see her own preciousness and value as a human being and her child as a precious human being if we call her a murderer? Especially for the thought-crime of considering an abortion?
Are some of my fellow-prolifers really wolves in sheeps clothing? Misguided idealogues? Blinded by anger? How can someone hope to change the hearts of another to stop abortion when they appear heartless?

reply from: Faramir

I agree that our abortion culture can be characterized as a "holocaust," but I don't see how the word "genocide" fits.

reply from: 4choice4all

And I too understand using the term holocaust but not Holocaust...as in comparing it to the nazi eradication of Jews in WWII.

reply from: Yuuki

That's the most logical argument I've heard...

reply from: yoda

There is no "one size fits all". You do whatever you think will work best to stop the killing.
Depends on what you call "peacekeepers". The Holocaust was stopped by the "peacekeepers" of several nations attacking Germany.
That's only because you invent your "criteria" out of thin air, and purposefully craft it to exclude unborn, unwanted human beings. Here is a proper definition (close your eyes, because I know you hate real definitions):
genocide: "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable" (Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992).
The "group", of course, is "unwanted unborn children".

reply from: yoda

Nor were you one of the Nazi collaborators who publicly spouted the party line about the Jews, and how they were only "fit to kill". Those people share the guilt of the Holocaust, and they ARE "Jew killers".

reply from: yoda

Then you two are even, because I'm sure he expects much better from you than he gets.

reply from: yoda

So what? The whole world can hate me, if it saves one baby. As long as my words get through, I really don't care if I am "loved" or not. I'm not in this effort to win friends, just to influence people by stating the truth. I'll leave the popularity contests to folks like you.
The proaborts whom I think of as baby killers are unlikely to decide to change their views about killing babies based on whether they like a particular prolifer. They are more likely to try to convert the prolifer into a proabort. I don't try to convert proaborts, and I don't try to become friends with them. I try to defeat their baby killing arguments.
I disagree. It forces people to face the reality of abortion, rather than dwelling in to euphemistic fairly land that they construct for themselves.
It shakes them out of their apathy, their comfortable little PC world.
But by all means, continue to kiss up to the baby killers, I would be shocked if you didn't do that.

reply from: yoda

Would you object to calling an unrepentant woman who kills her born child a "child killer"? Suppose she was posting on a forum like this one, telling everyone what a good idea it is to kill their born kids? Would you recoil from anyone who called her a child killer, and tell them how awful they are?

reply from: yoda

That's because you aren't looking. Open your eyes:
genocide: "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable" (Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992).

reply from: Faramir

If that's what you feel is the best thing to do, then do what you must.
I don't accept your either/or scenarios, however, as if not doing what you do is somehow "kissing up."
My comments were not directed a you personally, but the principle.
But I think an argument can be made that it does more harm than good.
I am convinced that an abortion causes the unjust death of a human person, and am not afraid to state that to anyone who supports abortion rights. I don't see how also calling them a "baby killer" would save any babies or do any good, other than stroking my own ego, and I think such behavior could contribute to a perception to those on the outside, and possibly who have not yet made up their minds, that pro-lifers might be pompous a-holes.
Overall, I think it's not a good thing, but if you genuinely think you're saving babies, go for it.

reply from: Faramir

That's because you aren't looking. Open your eyes:
genocide: "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable" (Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992).
The only way that definition would work is if abortion supporters desired that all in the womb be eliminated by abortion, and we know that's not the case, since many are parents.
There is no intent to wipe a certain group off the map, and in many cases there is no belief that an abortion kills anyone.
If what is motivating abortion rights activists is destruction of ALL fetal life, then it would be genocide.
I think the word is being used incorrectly in this case.

reply from: yoda

And yet, you will not say that an abortionist or a woman who hires him is the cause of that "unjust death"? You pretend it's just some sort of natural phenomenon? Some kind of unfortunate accident? No "killers" were involved, right?
I can absolutely assure you that it does my ego no good at all. All it does is remind me of what a wretched, wicked world this is.
And that's a problem for you? You're more worried about how you personally are perceived than about saving baby's lives at any cost? You still cling to the need to be thought of as a saintly fellow by everyone, is that it?
Try giving up your ego driven need to be popular. Sacrifice popularity for dedication.

reply from: yoda

Sometimes it is so frustrating to hear the same old errors repeated over and over and over...... but usually it's the proaborts who do this. Today it is one of the PP lifers.....
The "group" is UNWANTED, UNBORN babies...... and yes, the proaborts do want to "wipe that certain group off the map".
Now you're speaking as if they were all complete and utter fools. Do you really believe that?

reply from: Faramir

What is a "PP Lifer"? Planned Parenthood? Show me even once sentence of support by me for that organization, please, otherwise, kindly withdraw your name calling, as it's totally bogus. Or do you think being insulting with such a falsehood saves babies?
I don't see what you're saying about genocide, though. It's not babies that are unwanted, it's pregancies. There's no desire on the part of abortion supporters to wipe out a particular race or group, as I see it.
If I'm wrong, maybe I'll see it eventually. No harm done, though, since I already see that abortion is a grave injustice which robs a human person of his right to live.

reply from: yoda

You're serious, right?
You make a distinction between doing away with a "pregnancy", and killing the baby? You think they don't even know that eliminating a pregnancy by abortion kills a human being/baby/child/person? You really think they're that stupid?
They're not that stupid. They want a dead baby, and that's what most abortionists see as their "job" to deliver. Otherwise, why would they want to kill the ones that accidentally survive abortion attempts?
You're really stretching on this one.

reply from: Faramir

Use of that word doesn't ring true to me.
It doesn't seem to fit.
I understand most downs baby pregancies are aborted, so if that's the case, I could see genocide applying to them in particular, but not to fetal life overall.
And if they're intent upon destroying all unwanted babies, then they would be making efforts to destroy all unwanted born babies as well. Do you agree that there are some born babies that are unwanted? Do you have any evidence they are being targeted?
At any rate, I just don't see it, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility. What is the harm in not seeing it that way, btw? Is there any?
And how am I a PP Prolifer?

reply from: 4choice4all

Faramir you make excellent points.
If abortions were performed as a sort of genocide then the goal would have to be to wipe out the human race...since abortion crosses all gender, ethnic, religious and social lines. The women that have abortions are not part of some masterminded plot to wipe out humanity.

reply from: yoda

And that's your "logical objection"? It "doesn't ring true to me"? That's it?
<Groan>.... you don't read a word I say, do you? You just fire off a knee-jerk response, don't you?
NO ONE SAID "fetal life in general", did they? I said "UNWANTED, UNBORN CHILDREN"....... are all unborn babies "unwanted" IYO?
What's the "harm" in being wrong about any abortion related subject? So a few more babies here and there may or may not die, no big deal, right?
That is a stereotype of all who claim to be prolife but spend more time defending proaborts than defending babies. Do you fit that description?

reply from: yoda

I could rest my case right there.....
Yeah, you're a real intellect all right....... you didn't read a thing I said either, did you?

reply from: Faramir

I don't think so.
But I don't think that message board posting does much to "defend babies" anyway.
It's a place to learn and exchange ideas.
If a prolifer came on this board pretending to be a "pro abort" he or she could learn much by the counter arguments, and be a stronger prolifer for it, so there is no harm in assuming various positions as an intellectual exercise and for the purpose of bringing forth ideas.
I might push hard that "genocide" doesn't apply, and you or someone else might eventually convince me that I'm wrong, and that the word does apply, but I wouldn't have learned it unless I took that position first, even if wrong, and maybe other things could be leaned in the process of debating it.
I think it's kind of sad and self-defeating that all ideas cannot be expressed without a nasty label being affixed to someone for doing a little thinking outside of the box.

reply from: 4choice4all

Yes..when opposing sides can see a common thread it's obviously the sign of the end of times.
Maybe it's a sign that they are human and found a thread of human commonality and used it to try to bring some human decency to the debate.

reply from: Faramir

One time an atheist told me I made an excellent point in a religious discussion.
Of course my assertion that Jesus is God, was then no longer valid because of the athiest's support.
It's only logical.

reply from: iCelebr8Life

Would you object to calling an unrepentant woman who kills her born child a "child killer"? Suppose she was posting on a forum like this one, telling everyone what a good idea it is to kill their born kids? Would you recoil from anyone who called her a child killer, and tell them how awful they are?[/q
Yes, I would refrain from calling a woman that had an abortion a child killer, even one that did not regret it. I would pray for her to feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit and "Forgive her Father, she knows not what she does," and I would speak with her with compassion that she might come to understand the harm that has been done in the taking of a human life that she might pour out her sorrow and repentance.
If she were advocating killing born children, I might think she was a troll or a mentally ill person. If she were a troll, calling her a killer would surely delight her. If she is mentally ill I would avoid calling her a killer and I would ask questions in a non-judgmental was as possible that I might discover if I needed to involve the authorities.
If people call her a child killer, I wonder what they hope to achieve. There's no recoil, there's no condemnation from me.
For me it is more important to prevent abortions than it is to call women "baby killers."

reply from: MC3

I fully understand the emotions of those on this forum who claim to be pro-life and, yet, object to the aggressive rhetoric that some of us use in our pro-life efforts. The fact is that all human beings want to be liked and, for some, this desire is pursued at virtually any cost.
However, I don't fall into that particular group. If the question is whether I have ever gone over the top and said things I later regretted? Absolutely. But am I going to worry about making friends with those who advocate the wholesale slaughter of the unborn? Absolutely not. As I have said before, I am not here to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with these people. I'm here to stop them. Period. End of story.
Now, I have no doubt that some of you will find that response unacceptable. Like every armchair quarterback, I'm sure you feel that you know best. And maybe you do. So I am going to challenge you to come down out of the bleachers and spend the next few years fighting these remorseless cowards 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If your touchy-feely / warm-fuzzy approach starts to show progress, I promise that I will be the first to embrace it. But let me make one thing perfectly clear to you. Until you really get in the game, you have not earned the right to pass judgment on people like me.
Of course, I realize that, in most cases, all this is going in one ear and out the other. After all, it's always easier to rock the boat than it is to row it.
In any event, I will make one final point. Imagine that someone has kidnapped you and taken you to a warehouse somewhere. Once there, they strip you naked and lock you in a cell from which there is no possibility of escape. You are alone, helpless and completely subject to their will. Next, they tell you that at nine tomorrow morning they are going to take you to another location where someone is going to slowly tear off your legs, rip your arms from their sockets, crush your chest, collapse your skull and, finally, grind you up in a garbage disposal.
Also imagine that there is a group of people trying to stop this from happening. I can assure you that you would not care one iota what this group of people was saying about the degenerates who were about to torture you to death. You would not be demanding that they treat your killers with dignity or respect or engage them in a civil discourse. In fact, the people trying to save you could be the nastiest and most vulgar people on earth and you would be praying for them to come bursting through the door of that warehouse.
Well, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is precisely the situation over 3000 babies are in AT THIS VERY MOMENT! For them, this is not some ivory tower debate that must only be conducted by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. For those babies, this is about life and death. Let's also not forget that, tomorrow, another 3000 defenseless victims will be thrown into that same brutal situation, and the day after that another 3000, and another 3000 will be teed up the next day, and so on.
Given that reality, all I will say to you is that if my approach to stopping this holocaust doesn't meet your holier-than-thou standards, or if my unkind attitude towards the killers offends you, tough.

reply from: galen

_____________________________
It took a long time for the germans to admit what they had condoned... and so too for the people under Melosavich, and those who murdered w/ impunity in Rawanda... the problem w/ genocide( and yes abortion fits) is that it is such a horrible thing that the only way one can live with it day to day is to pretend it is something other than what it is.

reply from: Faramir

Some would say it is simply being "civil" and and that you're reading way too much into someone refusing it call another person a "baby killer."
On this very forum you have permitted one prolifer to call another prolifer a whore, a scanc, and a "killer of three" hundreds of times. You have allowed horribly abusive things to be said here not only towards "pro aborts" but towards other pro-lifers, and such "aggresive rhetoric" is not right and is inexcusable, and to oppose it is to not "make friends" with anyone.
You're making an either/or fallacy as so many others here do, and you're wrong. It does not follow that to be civil and to oppose abusiveness, even towards the enemy, is out of a desire to "make friends" with them and to "be liked."
Again, it's not one or the other. This thread is about calling the opposition "baby killers," and to question that or refuse to participate in such self-serving rhetoric is not to want to "hold hands" with anyone.
I don't know enough about you to "pass judgement" on you and I don't recall anyone else having done that. I respect the cause you've embraced and respect your experience. But I reject the idea that to simply be civil and to refuse to be abusive is to be "warm and fuzzy, touchy feely, etc."
You're the one who has done the fighting and has the experience. Can you share what progress you've made using your methods and how many less abortions there are because of them?
I don't have a clue what "your approcach" is, so I would not question it.
But I do know a "pro abort" made a reasonable point about use of the word "genocide" and you did not refute her idea, but but simply made a personal attack and called her "stupid and immoral." Is that what you mean by "your approach"?
Can't even an "armchair quarterback" question whether that approach is really effective and saves babies? Can't an armchair quarterback question whether those on the outside looking in and who don't yet have a strong opinion either way might wonder if that's all prolifers have?
Can't an armchair quarterback take note that others who have NOT used the "baby killer" tactics and who do have real experience, have saved many babies using a more humble, loving, and compassionate approach?
And if you're looking for "holier than thou" types, consider looking at those who go around smugly calling others "baby killers." As an "armchair quarterback" I'm disgusted by the abuse some prolifers dish out in the name of "the babies." It's not for "the babies," but for themselves.
I stand corrected if you can show me the siginifcant number of babies this approach has saved.

reply from: galen

_______________________
nope ours are worse... the jews could have risen up and defended themselves ... and in some instances did... ever see a fetus w/ and AK - 47?
its worse when you deliberately try to harm / kill another, and that person has no means of defending themselves.

reply from: lukesmom

Are we not facing the eradication of the physically and mentally disabled through abortion? How does this not compare to THE HOLOCAUST? BTW, THE HOLOCAUST also killed physically and mentally disabled irregardless of whether they were Jewish or not, gypsies and everyone who disagreed with the "final solution".

reply from: galen

______________________________
well put... even from a pacifists POV.

reply from: Faramir

Kewl that "pacifists" can at least stick the knife in verbally...

reply from: 4choice4all

The purpose of abortion is not to kill off the disabled. It's to end a pregnancy. It's about intent.
So the Jews don't deserve as much sympathy because they had the option to fight back? You truly don't understand what genocide is all about. Nor do you care. Because it might mean you have to stop ranting, put away your pitchfork, stop calling names, stop inserting mindless talking points in place of real dialogue and let go of some of your venom long enough to listen. So sad....you have just as much blood on your hands as Tiller. Truly. You are the opposing side...you are the ones that are supposed to rectify what you see as a holocaust or genocide but you can't stop putting your ego first long enough to truly do a thing.
I'm thinking of my oldest daughter. For her generation they are forever touched by a story of a girl that changed the hearts and minds of people by simply keeping a journal filled with hope and beauty and light during the darkest despair. Something that simple will probably do more to rid the world of genocide than any amount of nazi bashing. But all that hate does is create more hate. MLK said only light drives out darkness and only love drives out hate. If you truly thought the world was overrun by genocide and another holocaust ....are your actions adding to the darkness or are you a beacon of light?

reply from: lukesmom

So every parent who recieves a poor or fatal prenatal diagnosis for their WANTED pregnancy, has an abortion because they no longer want to be pregnant or could it be they don't want to be pregnant and parent a disabled person? Is that why people with down sydrome are being killed prenatally through abortion? You are deluding yourself.
Say WHAT? Talk about "ranting" about an assumption on your part. LOL!
Yup, the "beacon's of life" are the killers of the unborn in your book, I guess. In my world and the world of the sane, killing of the innocent not only adds to the darkness but is supported by those in the thrall of darkness. Ooohhhh, I am getting poetic now. LOL. I must be getting tired.

reply from: 4choice4all

no...but you are talking about an individual"s action and intent...whereas genocide talks about a concentrated effort by a group.
Are name calling and personal insults and a refusal to act civilly part of that beacon of light?

reply from: lukesmom

What about PP as a group makng a "concentrated effort" to rid us all of unwanted unborn? Need I even mention the "glorified" Margaret Sanger?
I have called you names and made personal insults to you and acted anything but "civilly" to you, even after your last post of insults and rants? I am guessing you don't aspire to your own "beacon of light" expectation.

reply from: 4choice4all

PP isn't encouraging women to not want their children....the provide options for women to control and manage their reproductive health.
I'm thoroughly convinced that there is a group on here that is incapable of civility and honesty.

reply from: yoda

Probably not. And that's not what the owner says it's function is. So, what do you do outside the message board to save babies?

reply from: yoda

How lovely. So you're saying, we can all love one another, live in peace and harmony with one another, get along like kids eating ice cream, and just forget about the 3 or 4 thousand innocent, healthy unborn babies being slaughtered every day?
Is that "human decency"?

reply from: yoda

Withholding the truth is as bad as telling a lie, IMHO.
You're avoiding the question. The question presupposes that "born child killing" is just as accepted as unborn child killing is now. If that were the case, would you still avoid calling her a child killer?
If someone does not recoil from that phrase, there is nothing that anyone can say to reach them. It is the lowest moral standard there is.
How sad that you think those two things are mutually exclusive.

reply from: yoda

That's the part about this that really bothers me the most. Some who say they are on the side of the babies talk about this situation as if there were only two sides, and so both sides should make "compromises" in order to get along.
They forget totally that the only parties to actually be in any physical danger are the babies, the "third party" to the debate. They forget that although they are not in any physical danger from the proaborts, the babies most definitely are.
So, in their safe position, they feel they have nothing to lose by making compromises with the proaborts, and everything to gain. Life can be so much more comfortable if we make nice with our enemies, right? And if "their enemies" don't "make nice" with the third party, the one party that is being slaughtered, so what? Maybe if they treat their enemies nice enough, they will feel generous towards the third party and decide not to kill so many of them, right?
Those of us who speak from a position of safety have no moral right to make any compromises with those who seek the deaths of the "third parties".

reply from: yoda

If you had even the slightest experience trying to save babies in real life, you would know that saving babies is not done in a way that produces documentation very often. All we have are our personal experiences and our personal perceptions, in most cases. Feedback is rare, but rewarding.
So, we have a disagreement between someone who has dedicated their entire life to saving babies, and someone who drops into the forum that the other person started, from time to time. Now, whose judgment should we trust most?

reply from: yoda

No, they're just encouraging them to kill the ones they don't want.
That's soooo much better, isn't it?

reply from: 4choice4all

Maybe they take seriously the command to Love thy enemy as thyself. Frankly, I think I'd take the advice of Jesus Christ over the advice of the rabid prolifers on this board.
When you are talking about genocide, the distinction matters. When you are comparing PP to the Nazi's...the distinction matters. If you are being catty, well frankly nothing matters...logic is optional and points aren't really necessary.

reply from: yoda

And you worry a lot more about being the victim of a "verbal knife" than about the actual baby slaughter, don't you?

reply from: yoda

The problem (well, one of the problems) here is that you are misidentifying the "enemy". We are not the enemies of you proaborts, the babies are. It is the babies that you are killing, not us. We are just the observers. We watch while you kill the babies.

reply from: 4choice4all

I was talking about why some prolifers choose to not be rude and inflammatory....maybe they actually take the directive 'love thy neighbor as thyself" seriously.

reply from: ProInformed

Pro-aborts are going to KILL thousands of innocent human babies today - NOT pro-lifers. That is an undeniable FACT. Real pro-lifers are no more worried about being called "catty' by rabid, baby-killing pro-aborts than the troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camps were worried about being approved of by the Nazis.
Every child born in the US after Roe v Wade has had 1/4 to 1/3 of their siblings or peers KILLED by the abortion holocaust, they don't exactly need your approval or permission to call the abortion holocaust what it really is, no more than the surviving Jews are going to hush up or use euphemisms just because there are some 'people' who still endorse the Nazi holocaust.
If you don't like being compared to Nazis then stop the abortion holocaust.

reply from: Faramir

What is the downside to simply being civil?
You keep confusing "making nice" with being civil. You keep insisting that to refuse to engage in what some would consider to be abusive and unChristian rhetoric, that it is somehow "kissing butt."
By your logic in your firs post, wouldn't anyone who voted for Obama be a "baby killer"?

reply from: 4choice4all

Whenever anyone hurls an insult at me I consider the source...and in this case, I'm not bothered by it.

reply from: yoda

Who is your neighbor? Is it the prolifer who protests in the street in front of the abortuary? Is it the proabort who drives by and yells profanities at them?
Or is it the baby that is going to be killed inside the abortuary? Can an unborn baby be your neighbor? Why not?
And why is the stark, naked truth "rude and inflammatory" to you? Does the bare truth hurt you so much? Yes, and I understand that you don't wish for photos of aborted babies displayed, for the same reason.

reply from: yoda

Exactly.
We prolifers are all safe and snug behind our computers, or on our riding lawnmowers, so we can smugly say "Don't be rude to those who are killing babies", because it might cause someone a bit of discomfort. Can't have that, can we?

reply from: yoda

Here's a better question: why is stating the stark naked truth NOT civil?
Nah, that's not what she said, nor what I've said. We've both said that making nice OR "being deferential" to the proaborts as they spread their baby killing message is the same as helping them. And it is.
That depends upon their knowledge of his position on abortion and infanticide.

reply from: yoda

That's the ticket. That's the right attitude.
Now, which insult were you referring to? And why do you consider it an insult?

reply from: xnavy

prolifers do practive the love others as themselves, they love the unborn who are being senselessly killed. if roe v wade had been back in
the 50's i would not have been born, i would have been one of those unwanted fetus killed. obama probably would have been aborted
since his parents were in college. i love the unborn as well as the born children as i am also a mother of 3 children and the first one
unplanned, he is now in college.

reply from: lukesmom

Is the active participation or condoning the killing of thousands of innocent unborn considered "loving thy neighbor as thyself"? If so, could you please do a little less "loving" and allow these people to continue their life?

reply from: ProInformed

Exactly.
We prolifers are all safe and snug behind our computers, or on our riding lawnmowers, so we can smugly say "Don't be rude to those who are killing babies", because it might cause someone a bit of discomfort. Can't have that, can we?
I wonder if there were 'civil folks' chastising the troops who were headed to the concentration camps to liberate the surviving prisoners of the Nazi holocaust to make sure they didn't call any Nazis they found there names, or to not say words like 'killing' because it might be insulting to the KILLERS? Ah but the cowardly Nazis ran away before the liberating troops got there didn't they?
Who should care if killers dislike being called killers anyway?!?
Certainly nobody who is opposed to the killing of innocent humans should worry about insulting the killers of those innocent humans by calling them killers.
The fact that thousands of perfectly innocent human babies will be killed today by pro-aborts, and that killing will be defended and excused by pro-aborts is all that really matters.
The killers and those who defend the killing DO have a choice to STOP the killing and to STOP defending the killing, don't they?
Yet they persist in the slaughter of thousands of innocent human babies per day, day after day, with no shame or restraint, so any whining they do about ther killing being called killing should not worry anybody at all.
After all, did we chastise folks for accurately, justifiably, calling Scott Peterson a killer/murderer when he killed his wife Lacey and unborn son Conner? NOPE not at all. And did anybody care if Scott maybe didn't like being called a killer/murderer? NOPE. AND did ANYONE suggest that THE way to try to convince murderously adulterous males, violently midlife crisis males, to not kill their wives and children as a way to 'escape' their 'parasitic' spousal and parental responsibilities was to make sure we never use words that indicate we think that killing your wife and kids so you can be free to be with the other woman is a negative thing? NOPE. Did anyone suggest that THE WAY to prevent other males from committing the same killing for the same sort of reasons was to attack those who call such men killers? that THE reason efforts to prevent such crimes are not more successful is because those of us who call such men killers aren't willing to talk 'nice' to them?!?
Since when did covering up for heinous acts, sanitizing them by using euphemisms, ever cause a decrease in those heinous acts being committed?
For those who naively believe that then why don't we all just start describing ALL acts of violence committed against innocent victims, ALL perpetrators of such violence, with nice-sounding euphemism, eh?
You know saying the 'Nazi holocaust' sounds so mean and judegmental, doesn't it?
Shame on us for not using nicer words to describe what the Nazis did to their prisoners, eh? Maybe if everybody could have been shamed and chastised into talking nice to the Nazis the Nazis would have voluntarily stopped the killing (oops - a 'bad' word) all much, much sooner, eh?

reply from: nancyu

Kewl that "pacifists" can at least stick the knife in verbally...
Looking for sympathy faramir?

reply from: 4choice4all

You know....ol' JC was a little quite on his thoughts on the unborn....but was loud and clear on how to treat the born.

reply from: lukesmom

You are really reaching here. Could it be?! I think so...A proabort talking religion? What a freak! I KNEW she a prolifer deep down. HEHEHEHE

reply from: 4choice4all

The prochoice side is full of religious people. A local seminary regularly sends students to counter protest at the local clinc. I was inspired to escort when the head of my local Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice came and spoke at my church.

reply from: lukesmom

Interesting, we (prolifers) are attacked all the time by proaborts for being "religious fanatics". Do they consider you a religious fanatic too? What religion are you?

reply from: 4choice4all

Fanatics exist in all religions but not all whom are religious are fanatical. They don't call me a fanatic because the label doesn't apply.

reply from: Faramir

If abortion is the same as the Nazi Holocaust, should all those who have aborted be tried and imprisoned (or executed)?
In the case of abortion, the Nazis, are not just the evil PP people, but each and every woman who aborted.
I hope that you're consistent and strongly support dragging these women to special trials for their crimes against humanity.

reply from: Faramir

You did a wonderful job of destroying the magnificent strawman you created.
Nobody ever suggested using "nice-sounding euphemesms." EH?

reply from: Faramir

I'm surprised you would let Obama voters off the hook for voting for an obvious baby killer.
It was common knowledge he was prochoice and that McCain was prolife. It doesn't matter if they didn't know about infantacide. Isn't abortion enough? Isn't being the most proabortion presidential candidate ever enough to qualify him and all those who voted for him as "baby killers"?

reply from: yoda

Now you're getting it! Let's call murder "termination of organic processes", okay? And kidnapping will become "temporary relocation"!!
Wow, we can make a fortune selling new dictionaries!!

reply from: yoda

Actually, that seems to be what YOU are constantly suggesting. Don't you think we must find a euphemism for phrases like "baby killer"?

reply from: yoda

Some people, unfortunately, don't have "common knowledge". I heard a radio interview done by an employee of Howard Stern where the people on the street said they were for Obama, but agreed that he was prolife.
Those people are guilty of ignorance and stupidity, but not baby killing.
Those who knew full well what his positions are, however do share in that guilt, IMO.

reply from: Faramir

Some people, unfortunately, don't have "common knowledge". I heard a radio interview done by an employee of Howard Stern where the people on the street said they were for Obama, but agreed that he was prolife.
Those people are guilty of ignorance and stupidity, but not baby killing.
Those who knew full well what his positions are, however do share in that guilt, IMO.
There are prolifers on this board who have spouses who voted for Obama.
Surely they told their spouses (if they did not already know) that he's pro-abortion and a baby killer, and yet their spouses voted for him anyway, making them baby killers along with Obama.
You're worried about pro-lifers who want to enter into a civil discussion on a message board with pro-choicers, while in real life there are many pro-lifers, including some on this board, who are not only refraining from speaking harshly against the baby-killers, BUT ARE SLEEPING WITH THEM.

reply from: 4choice4all

Aren't their prolifers on this board that have had abortions? Surely if a vote for Obama makes you a baby killer...then an actual abortion puts you in the same category.

reply from: carolemarie

The mark of an intelligent person is the ability to admit that they are wrong and change a postion that is incorrect....

reply from: 4choice4all

Oh...I have nothing against them. I'm trying to follow the line of thinking.

reply from: Yuuki

Well then I must be intelligent!

reply from: OutsidetheBox

Sorry Old person Avatar untill the sex cells reach a certain developmental stage they are not a person therefore its not killing anymore then masterbation for men or regualr ovular cycles in women is murder.

Btw yoda was green not white but when he talks its kinda of reminds me of you...

reply from: Faramir

Who said the above?
Must be a "baby killer" huh?

reply from: yoda

Which troll are you? And why did you change your name?
To respond directly to your nonsense, after fertilization there are no "sex cells" as you so euphemistically put it. Sperm and egg are "sex cells", but after that it is a human being. And ALL human beings are people, want to see the definition? And abortion is not technically murder, but only because it is legal under present court rulings.
So all in all, your little spurt of nonsense was a waste of your time and ours.

reply from: yoda

I don't know, but I would say they are more of an "enabler" than a baby killer.

reply from: yoda

As usual for you, apparently you can't handle the actual question in the thread title, so you go on and on killing strawmen. Typical.
I'm not worried about anyone's actions but my own. That's why the question in the thread title and subtitle is asked that way. Of course, you are unable to understand plain English, so I understand.
In fact, no one has actually responded to the question as asked. Now, that is telling. That screams out information about those killing strawmen on this thread.
If you or anyone else wants to actually respond honestly and intelligently to the actual question asked, I'd be happy to respond. But if you want to go on endlessly killing strawmen, I'll just ignore you.

reply from: yoda

bump .............. still looking for someone to respond to the actual question in the thread title and subtitle...... and for Cecilia to answer "the question".


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics