From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) at 07:33, 12 November 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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!


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)

Seems a bit biased

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)