Talk:Pro-life - Revision history

Northwest: Revert - blatant liberal opinions and censorship of the truth not welcome here

2017-02-09T00:32:07Z

Revert - blatant liberal opinions and censorship of the truth not welcome here

ChristianAdvocate at 00:15, February 9, 2017

2017-02-09T00:15:39Z

ChristianAdvocate at 00:15, February 9, 2017

2017-02-09T00:15:14Z

Cmurphynz: /* Death Penalty? */ new section

2012-07-11T09:24:49Z

Death Penalty?: new section

DavidCalman: /* I clarified this page. */ new section

2012-06-13T02:19:48Z

I clarified this page.: new section

Aschlafly: /* The catholic church is not against death penalty */ The Catholic Church has not embraced pacifism, nor has it equated capital punishment to abortion.

2012-04-14T00:53:59Z

The catholic church is not against death penalty: The Catholic Church has not embraced pacifism, nor has it equated capital punishment to abortion.

AugustO: /* The catholic church is not against death penalty */

2012-04-13T16:53:35Z

The catholic church is not against death penalty

Aschlafly: /* The catholic church is not against death penalty */ You make an excellent point, and I've edited the entry accordingly. Feel free to edit it further.

2012-04-13T16:25:43Z

The catholic church is not against death penalty: You make an excellent point, and I've edited the entry accordingly. Feel free to edit it further.

Andreacc: /* The catholic church is not against death penalty */ new section

2012-04-13T16:20:53Z

The catholic church is not against death penalty: new section

JonM: Rm vandalism

2011-12-24T06:02:33Z

Rm vandalism

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __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?

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == Death penalty ==
-One question: If you all claim to be pro-life, then why do you support the death penalty. Everyone has a sacred right to life, and it is a cardinal sin to take it away from any human being, punishable by damnation in Hell.
+One question: If you all claim to be pro-life, then why do you support the death penalty. Everyone has a sacred right to life, and it is a cardinal sin to take it away from any human being, punishable by damnation in Hell. [[User:ChristianAdvocate|ChristianAdvocate]] ([[User talk:ChristianAdvocate|talk]]) 19:15, 8 February 2017 (EST)
 ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __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?

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:24, July 11, 2012
Line 47:		Line 47:

	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>		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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:19, June 13, 2012
Line 43:		Line 43:

	:::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)		:::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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:53, April 14, 2012
Line 41:		Line 41:

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:53, April 13, 2012
Line 32:		Line 32:

	: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)		: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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, April 13, 2012
Line 30:		Line 30:

	"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"		"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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, April 13, 2012
Line 24:		Line 24:

	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)		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"