Talk:pro-life

Fundamentalist association
The definition: has been removed from the content page. It would seem that such a broad usage is not supported by evidence. Eclecticology 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) favoring Christian fundamentalist views of medical issues

Fair enough question. Google says:
 * pro-life
 * 14,000,000
 * god OR jesus OR christian OR christ OR pray pro-life
 * 6,320,000
 * catholic "pro life" -jesus -christ
 * 1,790,000--Halliburton Shill 21:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How are two terms being found on the same page evidense of usage? This page seems to be talking about the Jewish God, as well as the Christian one...and that is only the first hit. Please see WT:CFI to understand what we typically consider "usage" and "evidence," I had a very hard time finding running text citations for this usage, but there is a LOT to sift through, which is why we give things a month on WT:RFV. - TheDaveRoss 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As a follow-up, I was curious what sites would turn up without any mention of the standard christian fundamentalist references. The first site that turned up was UK Pro-Life, so I looked through it, found all the same word games I typically find on fundamentalist pages, using all the same language, but without mention of the various key words.  So, I continued reading through the site and discovered the article "Why the Right to Life Trumps Other Issues".  Who's the first person they quote?  Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life  .  Reading that article I discovered I missed a few keywords, like church and faith (and, of course, priest).  So the results above are actually an understated reflection of the connection between regligious fanaticism and the pro-life cause.--Halliburton Shill 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 5,540,000 for god OR jesus OR christian OR christ OR pray OR bible OR church "pro life" -jewish -hebrew--Halliburton Shill 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The way you worded your definition, one can only assume you mean all Christians hold that view. Even if you could prove that is a core fundamentalist concept, you'd need provide attestation for that usage; you'd certainly need to reword your "definition."  --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for verification
From pro-life at Requests for verification:

Rfv-sense - opposed to stem-cell research. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added embryo destructive and a source. Pass a Method (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The book says that the pro-life are opposed to embryo-destructive stem cell research, not that the term pro-life means that. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What would constitute evidence? It can't be merely that pro-life groups are often opposed to stem-cell research. After all they are often religious, vote for like-minded people who run for political office, etc., but those attributes are not part of a good definition, though they are somewhat (ie, probabilistically) implied by "pro-life". DCDuring TALK 16:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this trenches too far into encyclopedic matter. Sense 1 could be adjusted to indicate that it applies to abortion or other actions perceived to threaten a fetus or embryo. A usage note might help, indicating that these are narrowly applied senses, and that for example, those who oppose abortion do not necessarily tend to oppose capital punishment. bd2412 T 01:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pro-life™ is, as far as I can tell, mostly known for seeing the Bible as the literal word of some genocidal god, who nevertheless is to be considered omnibenevolent (all-loving is still redlinked). Senses where pro-life™ "happens to be" against life, are useful for people who don't know that euphemistic use of pro-life. --80.114.178.7 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't want to go there. There is no limit to the perversion and subversion of language in political and commercial speech, eg, "progressive", "liberal", "fairness", "freedom", "conservative", "sugar-free", "organic", "green", "gluten-free", "sports drink". And it's always most notable when it's the other team doing it, so that community-destructive conflict and/or POV-cleansing is inevitable. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that "it's always most notable when it's the other team doing it", perhaps an is acceptable. --80.114.178.7 23:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think every counterintuitive policy position that gets called "pro-life" constitutes a separate definition. If you really think it needs clarification, you could maybe construct a usex illustrating how pro-life is used in connection with stem-cell research, but let's not pretend it specifically refers to that single issue. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We gave it 2 months. I'm calling it. Deleted. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)