Talk:LIFE (pro-life organization)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

[edit] is it encyclopedic?

Well, "life" is hard to google for, but I do see that the BBC links to www.lifeuk.org in their "Related Links" area of some articles about abortion topics, e.g. [1]. So does the Telegraph: [2] This suggests that they are legitmate and fairly notable. FreplySpang (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

...that aims to help young women and unborn children that need financial and moral help. To accomplish this they often gives [sic] talks about abortion, cloning, IVF, teenage sexual health an [sic] relationships. Could someone explain the connection between "financial and moral help for young women" and cloning? Perhaps low-interest loans for home-cloning businesses? --Calton | Talk 04:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Calton,

Sorry I didn't make it clear. Their main goal is to help women, and unborn children with both financial and moral support. Moral support means they'd help the women through it, tell here she's not bad, and generally give her a shoulder to cry on if need be.

The talks they give are seperate, but also one of their goal. I didn't mean to put "to accomplish this". Chooserr

[edit] Neutrality

I've placed a neutrality tag on this article.

1) It is riddled with POV, feel-good statements. To take a single example (of many):

"LIFE was founded to provide a compassionate alternative to those faced with a crisis pregnancy and the charity’s work is informed by the principle of respect for the lives of each human being; both born and unborn. The caring services are delivered for the benefit of mother, father and baby".

The POV implication being that the alternatives are lacking in compassion and of benefit to no-one. While this negative implication may be the case (I personally don't know) the article does not demonstrate it is so.

Another example or pretty blatant POV...

"its views on ethical issues are grounded in principles of justice, anti-discrimination and human rights."

... and "[LIFE's} speakers provide a clear and reasoned articulation of the charity’s principles"

C'mon, that was written by someone in LIFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.93.235 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2) This article reads as if it were largely written by members of LIFE or those strongly approving of LIFE's activities. Again, for all I know it's a terrific organisation, but the article is unbalanced because of this writing style.

3) There is not one single citation from a reliable source!

I realy don't want to get bogged down in a discussion on the rights and wrongs of abortion, but would welcome input from other users on how to improve and balance the article. 86.153.93.235 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed the article to a sensible length, hopefully still giving enough info on LIFE's work. There was much repetition, a lot of needless detail and some pretty excruciating self-promotion! The article was subject to a massive re-write and expansion (and, IMHO POV push) in sept 2007: to my mind, the author did LIFE no favours, blurring what seems to be valuable work under a tonne of corporate-sounding happy talk. It was his sole contribution to WP, which is usually indicative.

Removed neutrality tag as (I hope) the POV has been pruned away totally. Citations still needed. 86.153.93.235 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)