Talk:Culture of life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Republicans and Catholics are for life and atheists and Democrats are for death ??? 2 Added Jwbaker's change & links 3 I added some right wing bias to balence out the left. 4 Working together 5 My Wikiformating skills are weak. 6 Revision by 4.250.27.54 7 Entry status as of 03/31/05 8 Harry's paragraph and Ghost's Plagiarism 9 Revert. 10 Rewritten article 11 Merge with Culture of Death 12 Neal Boortz is/isn't Libertarian 13 Is this really NPOV 14 Title 15 Alienus' reverts 16 Texas Futile Care

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] My Wikiformating skills are weak.

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

TYVM

Klonimus 06:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)