Talk:Pro-life/Archive1
Contents |
[edit] Title
Pro-life is indeed a neologism but it is pretty much exclusive to the US, in the UK we use the more accurate and less emotive 'anti-abortion'. Not meaning to be jingoistic but I think the article should be re-named Anti-Abortion as it is more accurate and less what RationalWiki's arch-enemy, Conservapedia, would want it to be called.
Hey Fellow UKer - why not log on & get a name? (please sign talk pages using 4 tildes ~~~~. Stick around. SusanThe Earth Moved 21:03, 29 February 2008 (EST)
- True enough, it is a propaganda term, but the article wouldn't really work if it were renamed since the current name allows the article to point out the obvious: 'pro-life' means pro-life for fetuses only, and not necessarily anyone else. 'Pro-life' often also means pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-stem cell research, anti-govt programs to cut the infant mortality rate...etc... Secret Squirrel 22:49, 29 February 2008 (EST)
- Here in the
Middle AgesUS, there is a semi-truce on terms - we agree to call them "pro life", and they agree to call us "pro choice". Unless they get mean. Then they call us "baby killers". I call them "life ruiners". See how it works? And, yes, PS, please make a user name. You can always throw in a note at your IP user place thing that says who you are once you do. See, we get paranoidier about stacks of IP edits, but if we get to trust you as some random name, life gets easier for all... In the Goat, human
01:42, 1 March 2008 (EST)
- Here in the
[edit] Numbers 5:11-31
Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the exact process they used to arrive at the interpretation that this particular passage is about abortion? I'm rather interested. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:11, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- That seems to be Secret Squirrel's edit, so you'd have to ask him/her. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because the passage doesn't mention pregnancy, & the test seems to cause infertility, not abortion/miscarriage. weaseLOId
~ 18:08, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes that was my interpretation and was included with snarky intent. I guess this depends on what translation one uses and how you read the passage. In the New International Version there is "If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away". I read this as causing abortion or miscarriage - but it isn't exactly clear and could be read more than one way. The pro-lifers will say this verse refers to causing infertility, not abortion, citing the next verse, "and she will become accursed among her people. If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children." The Good News Bible renders this passage about the same as above, as does the King James version (albeit with its typical harsher tone, "when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell"). I don't have a copy of the New English Bible but I'm told the NEB specifically translates this passage as causing miscarriage, on the other hand. And the Amplified version uses the words "her thigh fall away" instead of waste away - which sounds more like a miscarriage. But yeah, since this is a disputed interpretation go ahead and change it. Secret Squirrel 19:41, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- Interesting, though...if the verse is about causing infertility instead of abortion, that would be a biblical endorsement of birth control, regardless. Secret Squirrel 19:43, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- Its interesting that you understood the inherent problems with the abortion interpretation, and yet, just to be "snarky," you put it in there without qualifying it. It certainly struck me as a strange interpretation. If I'm not mistaken, everyone is OK with correcting the section in question? -Zahd 20:07, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- We like to be snarky and flippant around here, but that seems to be a lot less prevalent than it used to be. I'm OK with changing it, at least to note that the passage could be interpreted as being about abortion, infertility, or other meanings. Secret Squirrel 20:16, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes. The thing with the New English Bible is that it uses a translation method called "wp:dynamic equivalence" which aims to present the text as it would appear in modern language, rather than the more usual "formal equvalence" which translates literally word for word. Or put in another way, what would the text look like if it had been written yesterday? This can be a good approach in many situations, but it does seem questionable when applied to a 2500-3000 year old text which appeared in a completely different mental and cultural context. This passage is actually a pretty good illustration of why that can be a problem.
- Personally, I don't read this passage as having anything to do with either abortion or birth control or the like, especially because of the internal evidence - being a law text, Numbers is not usually particularly subtle, so it is likely that if this had been about pregnancy, it would have said so quite clearly instead of making vague references to abdomens and thighs. The text seems more likely to be describing a point of procedure rather than a punishment. It shows how, in the absence of witnesses, to answer the question of fact regarding whether or not the suspected adultery has taken place. It's a trial by ordeal, basically. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 13:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)
- I went ahead and fixed it, largely by quoting more of the text. There was a lot to cut out, but the relevant bits are highlighted. -Zahd 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)
[edit] Racism
Our drive-by troll highlighted this section and I'm inclined to agree. With no citation, it merely looks at somebody's opinion and playing the race card against pro-lifers. Either we can back this statement up, or we delete it. --Ψ GremlinTal! 11:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not a drive-by troll. I was a part of the original group on here, which by your creation date shows that you were not. Please learn what a troll is instead just tossing the term around.--God 11:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm digging in this at the moment. Reproductive rights are not my speciality, so I can't cite anything off the top of my head. It seems that there are two contradictory claims about abortion and race/ethnicity: the claim that low birth rates in the West will lead to it being "out-bred" and the claim that abortion and contraception are a racist plan to minimize the population growth in developing countries (example). --ZooGuard (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think they're necessarily contradictory - in the US, it's mostly minorities getting abortions, a fact that's brought up by one side or the other (either casting it as a racist idea, or as a civil rights issue), whereas the fact that developed countries' populations are shrinking compared to the developing world is a frequent talking point in a variety of issues. More to the point, I don't think I've ever seen the issue of race brought up in the way it is in this article, and it just seems like a smear. Sake Fueled (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] The entire article is badly written and unfairly biased
Simply put, the entire article is rubbish. There is very little actual text talking about the Pro-Life position itself, its arguments, or anything similar. Every section of the article is dedicated to associating Pro-Life supporters as being anti-life and extremely hypocritical, using weasel words like "often" and "frequently" to refer to very rare opinions and actions. Heck, the description of a Pro-Life person ("in favor of protecting the life of every human fetus regardless of the consequences") is wrong, as it implies all Pro-Life positions still support abortion if it would lead to the mother's death.
The worst part of all is that RationalWiki isn't even supposed to have a position on the abortion debate, as it's near-entirely a debate of morality where rational science has very little involvement. -86.45.253.150 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are free to suggest specific changes to the article. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm confused - why isn't RationalWiki supposed to have opinions?
GodotGrow a vagina 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well yes, we do have a POV. Though logical and well-written objections could change that POV.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- "all Pro-Life positions still support abortion if it would lead to the mother's death" - huh what? ħuman
04:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- "all Pro-Life positions still support abortion if it would lead to the mother's death" - huh what? ħuman
- Well yes, we do have a POV. Though logical and well-written objections could change that POV.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm confused - why isn't RationalWiki supposed to have opinions?
- Thank you, however the hell wrote this. You revisionists won't even permit the foremost, generalized pro-life arguments on the page FOR pro-life arguments. I am absolutely stultified by your arrogance, that you unfairly bias articles, and remove any and all writing contrary to your position. That is simply not how you argue--denying everything your opponent says, dismissing what they say without even providing a substantiated reason, and destroying content like it was never there--that is called denial, unreasonableness, and impropriety. You win arguments be actually REFUTING what your opponent says, and doing so DEFTLY. Simple denial is the least deft device of which I can think.--Animalian (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- People have been refuting your arguments. Look at the responses on this page & the abortion talk page. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- People have been refuting your arguments. Look at the responses on this page & the abortion talk page. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Thank you, however the hell wrote this. You revisionists won't even permit the foremost, generalized pro-life arguments on the page FOR pro-life arguments. I am absolutely stultified by your arrogance, that you unfairly bias articles, and remove any and all writing contrary to your position. That is simply not how you argue--denying everything your opponent says, dismissing what they say without even providing a substantiated reason, and destroying content like it was never there--that is called denial, unreasonableness, and impropriety. You win arguments be actually REFUTING what your opponent says, and doing so DEFTLY. Simple denial is the least deft device of which I can think.--Animalian (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Destroying others work is not refutation. It is intellectual dishonesty. To TRULY destroy my work, you actually have to REFUTE it, not just delete it. I would also note that you are being unreasonable when you won't permit pro-life arguments on the page FOR pro-life arguments. If you find the arguments I raise lacking, GIVE the refutations. Make a NEW SECTION like I have been trying to do. If I write bullshit, and you can impugn my bullshit, all the better for you. First, actually learn how to ARGUE and how to EDIT--to refute arguments rather than erase them, ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM CITING THE MOST PREVALENT AND STRONGEST PRO-LIFE ARGUMENTS ON A PRO-LIFE PAGE.--Animalian (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-abortion violence
So I was looking around RW and noticed that we don't really have an article on anti-abortion violence (murdering abortion doctors, bombings of clinics etc.) and was thinking we should have one. This article mentions it and I saw another article on Army of God that was copy and pasted from wikipedia but nothing concrete. I don't think it's really fair to include it in the pro-life article since the majority of pro-lifers would never plant a pipe bomb in their nearest planned parenthood. Any ideas? --Sammygirl (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)