Please read the section below to ascertain your point has not already been covered.
Using the "pro-death" line
I see that when I had edited out an opinion, leaving a factual statement, the opinion was restored without comment. How is that adhering to the commandments to rely on verifiable facts in these articles, and how can you expect people to find Conservapedia credible when the commandments are applied subjectively? I'd appreciate a response.
DanH, how do you rationalize that your reversal of my edit was not in violation of Conservapedia Commandment #5? It's disrespectful for a SysOp to arbitrarily undo edits like mine, that are in the spirit of the Commandments, without comment.
- Dan, I'm going to agree with Dinsdale to a certain extent. Using the "pro-death" line was a statement of opinion (even though true), and use of it to describe pro-choice and abortion is extremely rare. What needs to happen is to write the article in such a way (with citations) that the reader is left with the feeling and idea that "pro-choice" is exactly "pro-death". Karajou 16:01, 7 January 2008 (EST)
I put in the pro-death bit as vandalism a few months ago. I had quite a laugh when it was still there later!
Slant of the article
- Did you happen to notice the name of the site you are editing? HelpJazz 21:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)
If by "biased against" you mean it only gave the anti-choice POV, then you're right - especially after my big intro edit just now. A more balanced treatment would explain the reasoning given by pro-choicers for their position; not just the reasons given by pro-lifers against 'choice'. --Ed Poor Talk 09:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
- Thanks, Ed. I think all articles about non-conservative views deserve a fair treatment; it's the only way to truly start changing minds. HelpJazz 11:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm just joining the discussion. I would note that in current news, none of the four Republican candidates were making a big issue of Abortion vs Life unless asked. It was Barack Hussein Obama that issued a mandate against the Catholic Church for their hospitals and universities (a violation of the Constitution) and they said he would 'compromise' by mandating that insurance companies must cover costs (also a violation of the Constitution). The charges against the Republican Party candidates for being 'mean' were paved by George Stephanopoulos in the January debate. Some note that the 'Abortion' issue has been changed by Democrats to a 'contraception' debate because they lost the 'abortion debate' with the American people. Just saying, RushEcho 18:50, 2 March 2012 (EST)
The article mentions pro-abortion people support taxpayer funds for abortion. However, this is not necessarily true. Many people believe that abortion should be legal, but that for various economic reasons or religious freedom reasons, taxpayer funds should not fund abortion. Gregkochuconn 06:52, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
- I have added a paragraph to this effect. If you don't like it, feel free to modify or remove it. Gregkochuconn 06:56, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
Spectrum of Beliefs
In my opinion, the article does not represent the spectrum of pro-choice views, which range from accepting medically necessary abortion, to accepting legal abortion only to avoid back-alley abortion, to accepting legal first-trimester abortion for women's rights but opposing abortion personally for moral reasons, to accepting all abortions. Only the last view is effectively presented (and, due to the nature of the site, reasonable critiqued), making the site appear intolerably slanted.