Talk:Culture of life/Archive 1

Republicans and Catholics are for life and atheists and Democrats are for death ???

It's obvious more work is required on this article for it to be NPOV. I find it impossible to believe I need to spell out a laundry list of details. 4.250.168.154 16:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It is completely understandable that this article might create that impression. It is also NOT what was intended. Which is why I requested assistance on balence and content. Since this is a hot button issue for many, it demands balence. Although I strove to neutrality on my 1st draft, I recognize that my opinions may've colored my diction. Please help me. And please note that I did not, and will not identify political parties or individuals, aside from their own statements in the links. I feel that you may be oversimplifing that case in your statement. Enough of that has been done be the media. I'd like to see the Wikipedians get it right.- --ghost 20:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the first two paragraphs are pretty neutral, and the third one veers off into the weeds. Firstly, "Culture of Life" was adopted by right-wing politicians before the Schiavo circus: it was included in the Republican Party platform approved on August 31, 2004, which you can find on page 84 of this document: http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf. Under this platform "Culture of Life" is totally interchangeable with anti-abortion, but later has expanded to include anti-euthanasia policies (cf Schiavo).

"Culture of Life" as used by the Republican party is a pile of campaign horseshit, but you have to let the reader come to that conclusion himself. Why not just link to the Republican platform and say this: "In 2004 the phrase Culture of Life was incorporated into the platform of the Republican Party. It is used to refer to the party's opposition to abortion and euthanasia."--Jwbaker 23:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I like the suggested change. The reason for the inclusion of the description of the phrase as a Code word (propaganda) is a nod to the person who originally requested the entry in the Community Portal. The request described it as a Code word of the Bush admin., and that came across as too partisan. I guess my initial attempt didn't tone it down enough. I agree that the reader most reach his/her own conclusions.--ghost 00:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the so-called "culture of life" is Republican nonsense, especially when the same Republicans (esp. Bush) support the war in Iraq, resulting in 2800 deaths of American soldiers at this writing, and over 650,000 Iraqi deaths. This doesn't include the deaths of other people in Iraq, such as foreign journalists, hostages and soldiers from "Coalition of the Willing" counties.

Wow, just wow... I just wonder if anybody above ever googled "pro-life democrat" or looked up Bob Casey (Sr or Jr) in Wikipedia. You could also look up Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani as examples of Republicans that get criticized for not supporting the culture of life. TMLutas (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Jwbaker's change & links

At Jwbaker's suggestion, I think I've toned down the 3rd paragraph. I kept the last sentence "...some have implied that the anything less than this is a Culture of Death, which they equate to Nazi Germany.", because these comparisons have become such a lighting rod. As distateful as most find them, they demand critical thinking.--ghost 01:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added some right wing bias to balence out the left.

Howdy,

As see it, the whole meaning culture of life/culture of death devolves to to the question of "Can a human life be viewed as a means to an end, and not an end in itsself." This is IMHO a question of ethics (Kantian vs Utilitarian). Should:

• A duty towards the preservation and respect of human life

or

• the greater happiness of the living/fully able

...guide society's actions? The CoL folks take the first view. Culture of Life is basicly a society applying Kantian duty towards life to the controversial issues of the day that involve life.

• Abortion (Kill the unborn child to make the living more comfortable)
• Euthanasia (Killing the disabled to make the living more comfortable)
• Stem Cells (Kill viable embryo's to make the living more comfortable)
• Capital Punishment (Kill criminals to make the living more comfortable)

I don't think it's a right wing/left wing Republican/Democratic issue at all. What's interesting in my mind is how the RCC has adopted this Kantian view to bolster it's existing doctrinal views.

So here's my provisional outline of how I think this article should go: 1. Societal application of kantian duty towards life. (human life is an end in itself, not a means to an end. ) 2. Controversial issues 3. Examples of societies that did not view human life as an end in itself, but instead as a means to an end.

• Totalitiarian societies: State > Life
• First world countries: Our Life > Your Life.

3. Roman Catholic Evangelum Vitae 4. Political use of the term as a code word for Republican Right-to-lifeism--Klonimus 06:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response:

em/sigh Adding bias does not balence bias. Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyway...

I did like some of what you did with the entry. Your argument for structure has merit, as does your explanation of the usage of the term(s) by some. I feel that it is best to stick with a more encyclopedic format that goes:

• history/background
• current usage/events
• philosophical issues (Your Kantian vs Utilitarian arguments in the talk section might be better in the entry in this format. Please maintain NPOV. I'll try if you do. I find it personally facinating that this conflicts with several Christian beliefs past and present, and contradicts Catholic dogma. Shall we get into Salvation, Free will & Predestination? Never mind. Better to provide links.)
• links/references

Listen. I have kids. I want them to be able to come back to this in 5 years and make sense of what was going on. My bias, & yours, & everyone else's aside. Write with them in mind, and you'll have my gratitude. Thx.--ghost 05:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, Kantian ethics, like most ethical systems, is ultimately a Rorschach ink blot into which everyone reads whatever preconceptions they already have. For instance, pretty much any action can be justified from the utilitarian point of view if one adopts the correct assignment of utility. If one believes that there is a supernatural being that doesn't like people have premarital sex, and that pleasing this being has more utility than saving people's lives, then one might launch a worldwide campaign against condoms to ensure that people will have to choose between following the wishes of this being or risking death. If, on the other hand, one believes that human lives have inherent value and shouldn't be put in jeopardy to indulge the whims of a being that, for all available evidence, doesn't even exist, then one might try to encourage condom use. So how, exactly, is RCC taking a Kantian position rather than a utilitarian one?Heqwm2 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Working together

Again, I like some of your changes. I was writing an explantion to mine as you did yours. lol

Couple of issues to iron out:

• I like your add of moral duty to the first paragraph. With what limits? Any?
• The use of the Nazi reference (& not others) in the 1st draft was a deliberate reference to some of the op-ed stuff floating out there. I feel that others have a place in the Culture of Death entry.
• Speaking of which, I copied your culture of death stuf and am planning on pasting it to that entry
• Valued vs Revered in the Usage - hmm, why's this a sticky one? I thought revered was stronger AND more respectful...

--ghost 05:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to make further discusion more concise. I define ACER as an acronym for Abortion, Capital Punishment, Euthanasia, Research. I.e these are the big "Pro-Life" issues

The scope and nature of the moral duty is something for ethicists/theologians to hammer out. I'm sure with some research we can figure out what is commonly thought of as that moral duty.

Naturally there are sticky issues. At what point does an embryo become "human", how much should consequences of actions matter in determining moral choices etc, fair burden on non involved people, etc. I think alot of people view CoL as societies responce to actions that involve indiviual lives. I.e ACER actions typically result in one death at a time.

Things like War, Poverty, STDs, Violence are IMHO CoL issues, but dont involve single lives.

I think though that everyone professing to support a culture of life, will agree that some moral duty does exsist toward all living humans independant of virtue/utilitarian justifications for the preservation of life. This is a slight split with Kant, as IIRC Kant supported capital punishment.

I think a Nazi and Communist reference is appropriate somewhere in CoL/CoD because these were societies where certain human lives were not valued or respected by the state. For example Holocaust/Pre holocaust actions of the Nazi state, or the induced famines and purges in communist countries. Axis Japan or Islamofascists might also be examples of societies where human life is devalued for the sake of ideology.

In CoD-positive society people might be killed by the state/power groups for

• Political
• Racial/Ethinc/Religious etc
• Economic
• Obscurantist (To prevent the spread of knowlege or idea's, or to create fear)

reasons, and this is accepted by members of that society. I.e Hitler's willing executioners, or Islamofascists

It could just be semantics, IMHO,but valued to me implies valuing the concrete existance of something, vs revered being respecting something abstract.

Klonimus 06:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Both of us are getting bloggish. I understand the need to reference Culture of Death. It is the Yang to the Yin. However, I'd like to see the more negative aspects of CoD kept there, rather than in CoL. I feel that CoL is and should be a positive concept, so the entry should be too.

Moral Duty - This demands it's own entry.

Any thoughts on my other points?--ghost 06:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My Wikiformating skills are weak.

Could somone please set up section headers/formating for this article.

TYVM

Klonimus 06:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revision by 4.250.27.54

The most recent edit by 4.250.27.54 did a pretty good job of stripping out POV while leaving the article's content the same. It was quickly reverted by Carnildo, but I for one vote for a re-revert back to 4.250.27.54's last version. That version seems to do a decent job addressing most of the concerns on the talk page. Feco 07:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some mention has to be made of Kant. The whole culture of life thing, is the church adopting a kantian universal duty to towards life issues. This is a departure from the churches previous Natural Law/Divine Command view of things.

I linked the phrase "Moral duty" to Deontology to facilitate this. Props to Klonimus.--ghost 03:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 4.250.27.54's edit made the article a bit more slick. I like the sectioning of the article. I'll be working from it.--unsigned

I disagree. I feel the edit was a major revision that threw out the baby with the bath water. The fact that seems it was done without consulting the talk page is just irrating. The structure was not bad, but the mass deletes removed content that added value and depth.--ghost 17:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Entry status as of 03/31/05

I want thank everyone that's contributed so far. Whether you agree or disagree with the concepts in the article, is less important than how usable the info is to those who need & view the entry later. I'm removing the npov tag at this point, because so many good folks have worked hard towards getting it right. Oh, and I moved one section of the talk page to reflect the timelines better. Thanks again. Blessings to you and yours--ghost 16:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Harry's paragraph and Ghost's Plagiarism

"Bush himself, who said last week that "it is wise to always err on the side of life," didn't seem so concerned when he signed countless death warrants as governor of Texas, with the most cursory of legal reviews. He also signed a Texas law that gave surviving next of kin complete discretion to remove life-support from a terminally ill patient in the absence of a living will. Last week, an eight-year-old boy died after his tube was removed in Texas because his parents could no longer afford treatment, but the religious right seemed uninterested. As commander in chief, Bush has presided over the criminal homicides of 26 inmates in U.S. military care, after removing by executive memo the usual bans on cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Culture of life?[1]" --Andrew Sullivan

• Wow. While there's a strong argument of the contradictory positions of Gov. Bush vs Pres. Bush here, this is definitely NPOV. I moved it here, 'cuz I wanted everyone to be able to easily access the original text.--ghost 05:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Putting it back in: if the "pro-life" people get to call their opponents Nazis in the article, Sullivan should be able to respond. Dave 05:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. If you want to debate, go to a blog, or at least do it here.--ghost 05:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changing Andrew Sullivan's words to suit your purposes is not "editing." It's plagiarism. Please read an article about journalistic integrity before doing so again. Dave 05:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• What? First, you did not identify the above paragraph as a quote thru wording or punctuation. Second, I followed the link provided to Mr. Sullivan's site and read the article start to finish before making changes to anything you wrote. If the above was in fact written by Mr. Sullivan, it's not that link. If anyone should be concerned with the concept of plagiarism, I doubt it's me. Third, the rewording I did is designed to tone down the rhethoric that is designed to piss people off. Blogs are for pissing contests, this is not. Finally, I moved the section to this page out of respect. Why are you not showing the same?--ghost 06:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Putting Anderew Sullivan's name at the end of a plagiarized paragraph does not undo the plagiarism. Please do not eliminate attributions, merge your writing with columnists quoted in the article, or accuse me of personal bias because I quote an author whose views you disagree with. I happen to disagree with the Nazi analogy in the article, and you don't see me rewriting Ann Coulter's words to suit my purposes. Dave 06:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put any part of Sullivan's editorial in the Culture of Life article, I only corrected typos and did other minor edits; I thought the prior section has been written in conformity with the Wikipedia rules. Keimzelle 06:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a reference to you. Ghost took out the above quote (which I put in originally) and put in his own mangled version of it without attribution. Dave 06:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Dave, the section above that I orginally moved from the article to here in talk, was not properly marked as a quotation. I although you and I agree on alot of things, I cannot be held liable for a copywrite violation that someone else commited. Particularly when none of what they posted was a direct quote from the linked article. If anything, the liability & responiblity lie with the originating poster. Many people would be happiest seeing that paragraph completely removed. I was trying to work with you to tone down what I believed to be original writing, but writing that added value. If Mr. Sullivan needs to be directly quoted, I suggested you copy/paste from the linked article and annotate it properly.--ghost 06:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I did copy-paste it directly. It's the second-to-last paragraph, minus the first sentence. ("Bush himself... Culture of life"). Also, I did annotate it: I indented it to indicate that it was a quote, I said that it was Sullivan's position, and I added a link so that the reader could see context. If you're saying I didn't put quotation marks around it, that's because they are not considered proper form for long, indented quotes. Please be more observent next time. I don't like spending 3 reverts on a page and having to call for outside intervention. Dave 06:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• ...And based on further research, I found out that you are correct in this statement. I apologize. I misunderstood that is excerpt was a quote because it lacked anything defining it as such, other than the indent. In fact, I thought that you had written this on your own, and were trying to contribute to the article. Thus, I looked to edit your "contribution" which would've threatened NPOV, had it been an edit rather than a quote. In the future, having the author's name following the quote or using italics as User: ChrisO did may help you avoid this. As to our competing efforts to edit, your use of reverts might've been minimized had we both been more patient with each other's edits.

I want to sincerely thank those who've gotten involved since Dave and my misunderstanding. The article is MUCH more than it was before. That's what Wikipedia should be about.--ghost 18:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert.

I just did a revert to

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_Life&oldid=11726696

Way too much crufty editing has occured since then. If you want to pig fight, please do it the talk page, and not in the encyclopedia entry its self.

Klonimus 06:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten article

The article was seriously lacking in factual content - the phrase originated well before Evangelium Vitae, it was Republican policy well before 2004, and it's been an issue of controversy well before Terri Schiavo. I've completely rewritten it to provide a sounder set of facts. What we still lack, however, is a decent critical view (not a rant!) - anyone care to provide one? -- ChrisO 10:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Methinks you threw out the baby with the bath water. Way too much POV language. But it's a good start, and in that I am well pleased.

Klonimus 12:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added some rhetoric to both sides. Please do not remove it (or alter people's quotes). This is a controversial issue and both sides should be heard. Dave 06:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alot of good quotes have been added. One POV I haven't seen, and would like too, is a normally left-wing commentator supporting the concept of CoL. Jeese Jackson leaps to mind. I know several more liberal members of the House of Representatives also spoke in favor of CoL during the debate (such as it was) over Terri's Law. I think Klonimus made a good point when he suggested that the article make the reader reach their own conclusions.--ghost 23:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Culture of Death

Dave suggested on Culture of Death that it be merged with this article. I feel that the current version of CoL may be strong enough to support such a merge, where my original submission was not. Please refer to Talk: Culture of Death and vote your opinion.--ghost 23:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neal Boortz is/isn't Libertarian

Unfortunately, argueing the political affiliations of a talk show host may be pointless. They shift with need. I inserted "self-descibed". Hope that settles things.--ghost 15:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The original issue was over whether or not he was conservative. Since it's really irrelevant which he is (we both agree on that), I just took out the political allignment entirely. Dave (talk) 21:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Is this really NPOV

Is this statement really NPOV;

The phrase culture of life is used principally by Republicans in United States politics and Roman Catholic doctrine as shorthand for a concept that human life, at all stages from conception through to natural death, is sacred.

Because what I see through the words and deeds of others is that life at all stages from conception through to natural death is not being treated as sacred by these people. I think there's a better way to articulate this, but I'm not quite sure how best to put this.
JesseG 03:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

A minor point but shouldn't this be "Culture of life" instead of "Culture of Life"? "Life" is not a proper noun. -Will Beback 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've often see it written as "Culture of Life." I think the phrase itself is considered proper. Killua 14:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus' reverts

Alienus, Tom Delay, according to the picture page itself, is not even in the room. Image:PBAsigning.jpg Check it out. "Extreme" is certainly a pov judgment call, and "some" is much more accurate and NPOV. And, last I checked, it is not the policy of WP to host the opinions of "not yet politically significant commentators" especially when there isn't even any reference to anyone. "Some say..." without saying who that someone is is unacceptable per WP policy. Although I'm quite sure there have been some politically significant commentators who have brought up those points, so if someone should get cracking if they want that part to roughly stay the same. Killua 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Tom Delay, you appear to be incorrect. The image description mentions a wider-angle shot, Image:PBAsigning wide.jpg, which does include Tom Delay. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it appears you are right. In that case, I believe all who are not pictured should be mentioned, not just Tom Delay. It seems rather odd that while four in the room are not pictured, the one with the most controversy is the one mentioned. Killua 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed — I also find it odd that the people in the photo are not mentioned. On this edit, then I will agree with you; and I'm removing all of the names entirely, because including everybody would make too long a caption and not help the article much. If anyone wants to know who those people are, they can read about it in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act article where such information is applicable. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as "extreme" goes, remember that there is a critical difference between being neutral and being vague. While I don't know enough about the subject to judge how accurate "extreme" is, "some" is a horribly nondescript word with less meaning. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Extreme" is an extremely value-heavy term. I cannot see how saying Pro-Lifers who believe in a certain thing are extreme is NPOV. I don't even know how prevalent that belief is among Pro-Lifers, so it might not be extreme among them at all. The simple fact is, unless you can pull upon some evidence that says only a small percentage of Pro-Lifers believe this, you can't say it's "extreme." Killua 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But why did you revert following part:

Other not yet politically signifcant commentators include other issues they perceive as supporting the culture of life such as a living wage, opposition to racism and invidious discrimination, and access to health care[citation needed].

If you want that idea in here, and I think it is probably a proper idea, you should mention who said it, or where it came from. A citation isn't needed for 'not yet politically significant commentators' because wikipedia doesn't care about 'not yet politically significant commentators.' Wikipedia only cares about significant websites and other valid resources.Killua 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is poorly written, and probably should not include the phrase "not yet politically significant commentators," but I think it's relevant to mention these other issues. If you object to that particular phrase, reword it. If you think the sentence is dubious, either give it a citation or tell convince that it's false. But what you DON'T need to do is delete the whole thing — because if you go down that road, you're going to be blanking every paragraph on Wikipedia with a {{fact}} template next to it. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I probably should've reworded it instead of deleting it. Thanks for doing that, and I generally agree with your edits now.Killua 14:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Texas Futile Care

I streamlined this section, since the material is covered more completely in the linked articles. I also put the main idea first instead of last, and provided a link to the main article. Jonathan Tweet 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The law is currently as of writing not adequately described as there seems to have been two laws, one for adults in 1999 and extending the law to minors in 2003. See the article reference for details. TMLutas (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording questions

A "culture of life" is frequently supported in United States politics by social conservatives on moral issues and fiscal liberals on economic ones. I've never heard of "culture of life" used in an economic sense; is that statement accurate? And: Advocates of a "culture of life" argue that a "culture of death" results in political, economic, or eugenic murder. Is "murder" the right word to use here? - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

More cites, please

This article is obviously about a controversial topic and makes various assertions. Although the article does have some cites, in keeping with Wikipedia's policies it really should have more. This is true regardless of one's personal views on the subject. I had considered putting the {{refimprove}} template on the page, but decided that it might seem more affable to just mention this on the Talk page first.

Examples:

- The definition of ""culture of life" given in the intro paragraph. - Whose definition is that?

- "By contrast, a society which tolerates or espouses these practices is known as a "culture of death"." - So-called by whom?

- "Advocates of a "culture of life" argue that a "culture of death" results in political, economic, or eugenic murder. They point to historical events..." - Again, who?

I probably won't be working on this article myself. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects Philosophy, Religion, Politics

Added the templates of WikiProjects Philosophy, Religion, and Politics. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Texas Futile Care Law

Not sure this belongs on *this* page, although it's certainly important material and convered elsewhere. If included, if should be rewritten to emphasize relationship between these events and "culture of life"-Damascus911 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Main article: Texas Futile Care Law

Under this law, signed by then Texas Governor George W. Bush, hospitals and physicians have the right to withdraw life support from a patient who they declare terminally ill. The National Right to Life committee was one of the co-drafters of the law and the law passed unanimously in both houses of the Texas legislature.

On March 15, 2005, six month old infant Sun Hudson was the first minor to die under this law.

In December 2005, Tirhas Habtegiris, a young woman and legal immigrant from Africa, was removed from a respirator against the wishes of her family.

This Page Doesn't Deserve to Exist

By its title and tone it indicates that people who disagree constitute a "Culture of Death." By their continued existence and the fact that they allow the arrogant folk who presume to speak for all of LIFE, they show that they are not a "Culture of Death." This page should be renamed to "(OSTENSIBLE) Culture of Life." Tapered (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This article really should be deleted

This article has very minimal references and most of the fundemental ideas are completely un-cited. The page reeks of NPOV and it doesn't seem like there's any effort being made to fix this. Can it be deleted already? --71.234.175.1 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dispute section issues

Critics of the terms "pro-life" and "culture of life" claim that the terms are loaded language.[citation needed] - This needs to be sourced. It also needs an explanation as to why "loaded language" is a concern.

In 2005, 68% of White evangelical Protestants in the United States opposed abortion, 58% opposed euthanasia and 15% opposed the death penalty.[further explanation needed][6] - An explanation is needed as to why this is relevant

Two examples commonly raised are that politicians who say they endorse the culture of life are often supportive of capital punishment and war.[citation needed] - Again, why is this relevant?

Some[who?] argue that religious conservatives do not have a monopoly on valuing life, or that they devalue it themselves, or that by emphasizing quantity of life they devalue quality of life.[citation needed] - This sentence is trying to say way too much. It is unsourced, and very unclear.

Even the tenets of opposition to abortion and euthanasia as part of the culture of life are not undisputed. For example, Leonard Peikoff argues that "Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the 'right-to-life'.[7] Another example is Andrew Sullivan, a self-professed Catholic who opposed the religious right on the issue of euthanasia for Terri Schiavo.[citation needed] - "Even the tenents..." is inappropriately dramatic. It should plainly state that Peikoff and Sullivan disagree. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Culture of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150212211142/http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html to http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027122758/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003809/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P88.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P88.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114155524/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114155524/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114072804/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114072804/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114072804/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114072804/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027122758/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Culture of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104190710/http://www.abortionno.org/gap.html to http://www.abortionno.org/gap.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've tried a clean-up of this article. A lot of material was unsourced or vague. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Murphy O'Connor

I removed the following text "Without morals, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor said, "it is the strong who decide the fate of the weak," and "human beings therefore become instruments of other human beings... We are already on that road: for what else is the termination of millions of lives in the womb since the Abortion Act was introduced, and embryo selection on the basis of gender and genes?”" as it doesn't seem relevant to me, but it has been restored by BrianCUA. I would therefore like to reach out to see if we can establish consensus. My concern is that O'Connor doesn't use the term "culture of life" in the quote. Nor is "culture of life" referenced in the supporting source. He is simply talking about his opposition to abortion. Presumably BrianCUA you want to include this as abortion is on the list of things that John Paul II has linked to the "culture of life". However, if we simply cite material to any of the items on John Paul's long laundry list of dos and don'ts then we will quickly end up with a very long and somewhat rambling article. I suggest instead that we encourage material where the individual or source has specifically mentioned an issue in relation to "culture of life". Does that sound sensible? Contaldo80 (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you keep referring to JPII as if what he said about a culture of life is the sum total of it. He has been dead for 25 years but the line of thought continues. Even while he was alive plenty of Catholics and others made contributions. Regarding your proposal, I don't know of any policy that says a source must specifically mention the name of the article to be included. Abortion is clearly an issue within the realm of a culture of life. Can you cite for me something to support your proposal beyond your personal preference? --BrianCUA (talk)

BrianCUA - you've just restored it again without even bothering to engage on the issues or to discuss concerns. This has to be pretty close to edit-warring surely. It's a very aggressive and confrontational approach. Your argument for "achieving consensus" seems to be that I have to get your permission to make edits. Can you please remember that articles are not owned by anyone editor. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to make edits. But, when you make edits that are reverted, best practice is to take it to talk. You didn't do that. You just made your edits again.--BrianCUA (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

George Bush

The article makes clear that Bush used "culture of life" specifically in reference to abortion. BrianCUA if you say the source says that he used it in relation to more than abortion then please demonstrate that here. Mindful that one of the supporting articles is "Bush woos Catholics on abortion". Can you try and dial back the confrontational approach too please. We're all trying to work on articles to improve Wikipedia - it's not a competition. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the source beyond the headline? The subhead is "Nominee echoes Pope's 'culture of life' phrase." The text of the article states "When George W. Bush speaks about the abortion issue, he does so in authentically Catholic terms, and he has embraced a very Catholic notion of the ethic of life of which abortion is just part of a whole that includes issues like euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide." --BrianCUA (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Republican National Platform

Contaldo has doubted that the RNC's platform spoke about issues besides abortion and euthanasia in their platform. Had he read the source, however, he would have seen the following under the section on "Promoting a Culture of Life:"

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies... We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services... we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children... We affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all people. We oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity... We applaud Congressional Republicans for their leadership against those abuses and their pioneering legislation to focus research and treatment resources on the alleviation of pain and the care of terminally ill patients.

The platform includes more than those two issues under the heading of a Culture of Life. -BrianCUA (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by Slugger O'Toole

Slugger you have reverted almost all of my edits to your preferred version (no surprise). But you did not address the concerns raised. The lead implies "culture of life" is widely understood as referring to a number of things. But then the sources used as exclusively Catholic ones. If you want to argue that "culture of life" has wider usage then you need to provide sources that demonstrate wider usage. Please engage constructively and not defensively. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources are not exclusively Catholic, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. There are Protestants who are quoted as using the phrase. There is a liberal, secular organization that uses the phrase. A political party included the phrase in their platform. All of these are sourced in the article already. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)