View source for Talk:Pro-life

__TOC__
==
Could someone please explain ''why'' the reason for the term "pro-life" is "liberal bias"? Especially when said reason (life begins at conception) is surely in accordiace with Conservapedia thinking? 
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 11:39, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The claim that the Democratic party wishes to have no legal restrictions placed on abortion is just plain wrong. [[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 18:17, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

No mention of abortion clinic bombings/car-into-smashings? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)

"Pro-Abortion"? Come on now, please. That's just offensive. Most Liberals are as "pro-abortion" as most Conservatives are "pro-crusading". Can the statement regarding that please be revised? Thinking that Liberals enjoy killing babies is disgustingly ignorant. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 16:49, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Then what are these people doing?  Are they removing mere lumps of flesh?  We say they are killing babies, which is exactly the case, and the "pro-abortion" crowd is working tooth and nail to defend that very thing.  THAT is the offensive part.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, but I prefer to consider myself and my peers as "pro-choice", because it sums up my beliefs. I do not ''enjoy killing babies'', I simply agree with a woman's right to chose. Chosing to have an abortion or not could be the most difficult decision a human being could possibly make, and under most circumstances, I do not agree with it. But I think that the foster care system is broken, and that the child would not be given a proper, fair, or quality chance at life. I don't think that people sitting in a large room in Washington have a right to tell a woman what to do regarding the most important part of her life.
::Most (''and I mean nearly all'') people who are not "pro-life" are "pro-choice".  They do not like abortions, but believe that it is not their place to make the decision. I just do not think that the statement about "pro-abortion" vs. "pro-choice" is appropriate.
:::The point is, when that certain someone who is pro-choice excercises that choice, a dead baby is the result each and every time.  The baby has no choice, no right to choose, no right to live at all.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::::Of course, liberals dispute that the life of the fetus begins at conception.  This seems to be an intransigent point on both sides, as for one side it's religious, and for the other, it's scientific.  I respect both positions (I myself am pro-choice) and I can't say that characterizing one's opposition pejoratively is a civil debate tactic.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Ok, so we disagree, I understand. I would just like to know if it would be ok to reword the section regarding the "pro-abortion" statement. I find it offensive and not an appropriate way to prove your point.[[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 13:57, 5 March 2008 (EST)
== Remove statement? ==

Can the following statement be removed?
:"Due to rulings by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], the [[United States]] allows abortions at virtually any time in pregnancy.  Many state [[government]]s even pay for abortions using taxpayer dollars."
It would be relevant to the [[abortion]] article, but I don't see the relation to "pro-life". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Edit war ==

Can we have some explanations about the edit war? I agree with the last edit, which was reverted (see above). As for what the SC cases actually said, why don't we find a reference either way instead of just reverting each other. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== The catholic church is not against death penalty ==

Cathecism:

"Preserving the common good of society requires that the offender be deprived of the possibilities of harming someone. In this respect, the traditional teaching of the Church has recognized as a fundamental right and duty of legitimate public authority to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the crimes, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, THE DEATH PENALTY"

:You make an excellent point, and I've edited the entry accordingly.  Feel free to edit it further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Perhaps you want to use the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM current version of the catechism]:
::'''2266''' The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

::'''2267''' The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
::"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
::"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The Catholic Church has not embraced [[pacifism]], nor has it equated capital punishment to [[abortion]].  While the passage you cite has caused some to claim that the Catholic Church has reversed its longstanding support for capital punishment, there has not been a fully explained shift in theology about this.  Even the above quote does not preclude capital punishment that does not deprive the offender "definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:53, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== I clarified this page. ==

I knew that the decision you mentioned was ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', so I made that clear, because Conservapedia has an article on that. I would call that a quality edit. [[User:DavidCalman|David]][[User talk:DavidCalman|Calman]]<small>''Keeping it trustworthy and free of [[liberal bias]] since 2012.''</small>

== Death Penalty? ==

Hi, I'm not really familiar with U.S. politics but would opposition to the death penalty be considered pro-life?  I'll have a look for sources, but if it is could someone please add it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 05:24, 11 July 2012 (EDT)