Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pro-abortion"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Updates: re: TedC)
m (moved Talk:Pro-choice to Talk:Pro-abortion: In the interested of truthfulness, label it what it is)
(No difference)

Revision as of 19:54, November 5, 2010

I know it's a bit late to comment, but how is an explanation of the term "liberal bias"? Or, how would you put it ("the term comes from the idea that...") in a non-liberally-biassed way? --G7mzh 10:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't saying pro-life just as misleading as saying pro-life? If pro-choice implies pro-informed choice; doesn't pro-life assume that the fetus will become a living baby? Just a thought. --Snotbowst 18:04, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your analogy doesn't follow. People who are "pro-life" favor preserving the life of the unborn child. Whether that effort is successful or not is beside the point.--Aschlafly 20:31, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
It is good that you said pro-life is only about unborned children. How should we characterize those that don't want any loss of life? Such as those that want money to go to the poor for better healthcare, or those against unnecessary war? Pro-life is the obvious choice but it's taken by people who only care about prenatal life, not actual born humans. --NessOkay 21:12, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

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!

Advocacy

I think their maybe people who could be described as pro-abortion, I would describe myself as pro-choice even though I detest abortion I still don't think it should be illegal! --Smeeee 15:44, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

When someone supports taxpayer-funded abortion or knowingly profits or benefits from the abortion industry, then he is pro-abortion. Of course many people who are pro-abortion try to appear to be reasonable, caring, loving ... and merely pro-choice. But we tell the truth here.--Aschlafly 15:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

w00t! CP proved helpful again... and with proving a point against someone who claims she's conservative.
You can't claim you are a certain political side unless you have knowledge of what you're supporting/bashing. o.O Make me a sysop! Nate my opinion matters? 23:56, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Slant of the article

This article seems a bit biased toward being pro-choice instead of neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bipartisanship (talk)

Did you happen to notice the name of the site you are editing? HelpJazz 21:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Biased towards pro-choice?? That's crazy. Read it again. It's heavily biased against the pro-choice movement. Sideways 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I assumed that's what the user meant. And by assumed I mean I didn't notice that he said it backwards ;-) HelpJazz 11:58, 12 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)

Updates

I tried cleaning up the article a bit, a lot of it was more political than encyclopedic (e.g. "a better term is pro-baby murder"). I'm still uneasy about the first paragraph. -danq 17:36, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

The willful and deliberate killing of another human being is murder, this includes babies. That the baby happens to not have been born at the time of the mudrer is moot. TedC 17:56, 15 March 2010 (EDT)
I understand and fully agree. I was referring to the unprofessional writing style. -danq 18:04, 15 March 2010 (EDT)