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)
- Easy. Call them Anti-war, pro-peace, pacifists, givers, ect., ect. There are plenty of words to describe people who do that. They are charitable. Reformers. Kind and Good Americans. Pro-life is just for the abortion debate because they want to put the rights of the unborn children above the choice of their mothers who ether don't know their fetes can feel their pain and don't understand what they are doing till it is far too late. MHarris
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)
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)
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)
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)