Talk:Consistent life ethic/Archive 1

Scarequotes
Why "economic injustice"? Why not simply: economic injustice? To put it in scarequotes suggests that it is only so-called by a few people, in turn suggesting that it doesn't exist, in turn suggesting that all economic consequences are just. Only a radical market-fundamentalist (and a rich one at that) would advocate this view ... (I've edited it out). LeoTrottier 07:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Health Care/Safety-Net
I'm rather surprised that there is no mention of these topics in this article now (didn't there used to be? were they edited out?). Surely these would be a prominent part of most, if not all, proponents of the Consistent Life Ethic. Without survival (material needs), there can be no continuity of life and all that entails (freedom, morality, knowledge, justice, etc.). Life needs to come first. Shanoman (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Symbol
Did the person or persons who invented the symbol recognize that it very strongly resembles a number of traditional symbols of the Christian Trinity? See Image:BorromeanRings-Trinity.png, Image:Triquetra-Vesica-solid.png , or some other images in commons:Category:Holy Trinity, etc. AnonMoos 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't create the image, but, regarding its similarity to other symbols...is that a bad thing? KHM03 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's bad or good, but it seems slightly peculiar for a movement which claims not to be tied to any one particular religion... AnonMoos 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the image to the article, but now I do wonder to what extent the symbol is universally recognized by proponents of the ethic. It was designed by the creator of the Consistent Life net ring, and she explains, "The ring logo shows three circles, the circle being a symbol of life, intertwined to signify the consistent ethic theme". But it seems to be the only symbol for the ethic that anyone has created, and a number of websites use it. I can't see any explicit connection to the Christian Trinity. Fishal 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I used to be a board member of Consistent Life, and I am unaware of this symbol ever being used except on Kelly's web ring, which is her own personal project. It is not a symbol of the movement as a whole. --JayareIL 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Division
Perhaps this article should be divided into 3 new ones, for the philosophical, religious, and political aspects present? DeathLoofah 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide more context
I like to troll around Wikipedia looking for articles to delete or clean up. I'm leaving this one alone, but it really doesn't satisfy me in terms of providing sources and asserting notability. For a movement with such grandiose ideals, is there nothing more to say about it? YechielMan 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of recent reduction of this article
Based on my knowledge of Catholic ethics, as an outsider, I can say that this is an important topic that seems to have been cut unnecessarily. Granted, it would be helpful to cite sources. However, as I tried to provide above, the sources are readily obtained and verified for the core info. Bernardin's initiative, and the organization-building that has followed, are important steps in late 20th C. (etc) American Catholicism. Whether or not we agree with their political stand, it is certainly a notable articulation and organizational effort for Catholic ethics.

Please comment here if you disagree about the need to put the article back into shape. I have restored some materials without doing a simple revert, please consider what I have done as a neutral but informed person. Thanks, HG 10:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Did not coin the term
This is almost a direct quote from the book cited, p.v. The footnote is adequate at the end of the sentence

Also, I think the first sentence is supported by the remainder of the article, assuming it remains properly cited. Of course, the sentence may now be a bit redundant... HG 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Why is this talk page included in many categories? As far as I know this is an improper use of categories. Joie de Vivre 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories were byproduct of Yechiel's earlier comment. I've deleted them thanks. HG 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Change to lead paragraphs
Some strange stylistic things happened when the article was reduced and expanded again. I've edited the article so that the first paragraph is a short list of the CLE's ideas, while the second paragraph focuses exclusively on Bernardin's contributions. Fishal 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Pornography
The article is not particularly clear why pornography fits into this. I presume it's because of the belief that pornography is demeaning to the people involved and therefore this is regarded as damaging their lives but this isn't clear Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't know how that snuck in there; it's unrelated. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Sheen ?
Martin Sheen really supports this organization ? I doubt that it´s true.81.193.190.105 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's true. Remclaecsec (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Then he must be a complete hypocrite because he entered a Tv series where he played a pro-abortion American President and based on his opinions, see his Talk Page, he doesn't even have sure were he stands on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.19.212 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fetuses vs. convicted criminals
I think one of the most recurrent criticisms of Bernardin's philosophy is that it creates a moral equivalence between innocent fetuses and convicted criminals. For instance, while no unborn baby could ever commit a serious felony, many executed people were actually guilty of some serious crime. ADM (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but there have been cases where capital punishment has killed innocent people and it always creates that chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifenik (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposing edits to reduce bias
"Consistent Life Ethic" is a term coined by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, right? I think this needs to be stated.

I also propose the following edits to reduce some of the POV bias. Change: "An ethical stance is a coherent combination of value judgments about the world, God, and self." to: "An ethical stance is a coherent combination of value judgments about the world, one's diety (if applicable) and self." OR "According to CLE, an ethical stance is a coherent combination of value judgments about the world, (the Christian) God, and self." (Otherwise, of course, the implication is that non-believers cannot have an ethical stance and also that non-Christian/Catholic gods don't count.)

Change: "In his first attempts at defending life, Bernardin spoke out against nuclear war and abortion." to: "Initially, Bernardin spoke out against nuclear war and abortion." (As "In his first attempts at defending life" is clearly heavily loaded with POV assumptions.) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is Joseph Sobran
and how is his criticism relavent? Does simply being a pundit make his opinion in this article particularly relevant? --Benfergy (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism
I think it is arguable and somewhat biased to put this article in the WP Conservatism, because as anyone can see, the Consistent Life Ethic claims to be above these definitions: "In today's fragmented world of Left / Right and of Conservative / Liberal, Consistent Life emerges as a voice of unity. We witness to the human rights of all . . .the unborn, those on death row, sick or infirmed, global neighbors and victims of war, of poverty, and of racism ."85.240.19.75 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide View
From my own understanding, the Consistent Life Ethic is basically active, at least for now, in the United States, even having supporters from other parts of the world. It is possible that they will be more active at the international level but it is too soon to predict that.Mistico (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Abortion in cases of rape
The article doesn't specify whether this ethic supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, or non-lethal risk to the mother. It would seem that the notion of "consistent life" would be against all of these, but has anyone prominently advocating the ethic explicitly said anything about it? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)