Talk:Consistent life ethic

James Martin is arguably pro-life

I don't think James Martin qualifies as really pro-life on abortion. He is at best a moral relativist on the matter, not in accordance with the consistent life ethic. This is what he posted on X (former Twitter) on the overruling of Roe vs. Wade: "This is no surprise, given the leaked SCOTUS decision on Roe v. Wade. Also, though I am pro life, for some of my close friends this decision is an outrage (sic). Thus, the heavy coverage. But I've noticed that there have been, at least in the hours I've listened, no pro life voices..."Mistico Dois (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The whole section listing authors is questionable because the cited sources are primary, not WP:SECONDARY. I'm removing Martin because you have challenged the listing of him, and because you did not contradict a secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

legacy

I removed the part referring to the article in America magazine from the criticism section, because it is not a criticism, it should be placed in a legacy section St. Gilges (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Outright removal was not indicated. I restored the quote but to a different section, adding that it was authored by Steven P. Millies. He's a notable observer, and the magazine is prominent. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Shane Claiborne no longer pro-life

I removed Shane Claiborne because he is no longer pro-life, by his own words: “On abortion, in the later part of pregnancy — which as I mentioned in the book is just a very small percentage of the abortions that take place, and in every single case I’ve ever seen the life of the parent or the unborn child was at risk — why can’t we just say explicitly that there’s no abortions in the last trimester unless someone’s life is at stake?/ Given our history of regulating women’s bodies, and the delicate intersection between the rights of the unborn and the rights of a person to make their own choices with their body, there’s a really difficult line. Morally, I would come down believing abortion is not the right decision or the best decision in most circumstances, but I also believe that other people should have the right to make that decision in the early stages of pregnancy./ I’m pro-life, but I have many friends who would say that you can be pro-life and believe in someone’s right to choose. We can have some commonsense laws. To me, the broad framework for that is for abortion to be legal and safe, and for us to work to make it rarer and rarer, and to limit abortion in the later term.” Mistico Dois (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the smoking gun here. Claiborne is expressing a wish to reduce the number of actual abortions. The writer of your linked piece does not reclassify Claiborne as not pro-life. Note that the consistent life ethic is not mentioned in your linked piece, which means he is not removed from the group. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you actually read? He now supports the legality of abortion in the first weeks pf pregnancy. This isn`t pro-life for sure. It goes against the consistent life ethic belief thall all life is sacred and should be protected by law since conception. He states: "Morally, I would come down believing abortion is not the right decision or the best decision in most circumstances, but I also believe that other people should have the right to make that decision in the early stages of pregnancy." Can you please explain how come taking a explicitly pro-choice stance is pro-life? Unless you believe that to support the right to abortion can also mean pro-life, which actually Claiborne states in the interview. There were already other people who took a similar stance to Claiborne and were removed from the list of official endorsers of the Consistent Life Network, so I think it will be a matter of time until this happens to him.Mistico Dois (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Who decides who is living the consistent life ethic? It's certainly not you based on ideas you have about someone; see WP:No original research. Your linked story shows Claiborne is taking a stance on realistic results, not on idealism. It also doesn't say he has abandoned the CLE. Stop making stuff up. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have a good answer: the Consistent Life Network, not you. I sent a pm to the Consistent Life Network, I will let them answer about it.Mistico Dois (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

CLN doesn't get to decide who calls themselves a CLE believer/follower/whatever; just like the Catholic church or Mormon church doesn't get to decide who is Catholic or who is Mormon. Mormon's may be ex-communicated, but that doesn't mean that they are no longer allowed to call themselves LDS. It is the individual themselves that gets to decide: see cafeteria catholic. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

≈==Shane Claiborne removed for list of endorsers of the Consistent Life Network== This is not a forum and its not also for what some people would like or think the consistent life ethic to be. The official definition is that it is an ethic that supports the protection of all human life, from conception to natural death. Shane Claiborne once stood for that, but changed his mind recently, concerning the unborn. Since he wasn't in agreement anymore with the anti-abortion stance, he was removed, similarly to others before him, from the official list of endorsers of the Consistent Life Network: Mistico Dois (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Rachel MacNair on Shane Claiborne rejection of the pro-life cause: "from Rachel MacNair, moderator of the comments and on the board of the Consistent Life Network:/ No, it clearly doesn’t qualify as pro-life. That quoted statement qualifies as a pro-abortion statement. It merely lacks stridency. Which is better than having stridency, but still is clearly part of the problem./ But this particular post doesn’t mention Shane at all, and I thought your comment was entirely off point until I saw that it fit in the flow of comments. We’ve certainly veered way off the post itself./ I understand this as your point: you’re aghast that Shane should have a card and be on the list of endorsers, given what he’s said. Be aware he said this long after we had composed a card and put him on the list, and most of our Board members are unaware he said it. So the Board needs to discuss this. We do commonly take people off who have made remarks like that."Mistico Dois (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not erase history. Claiborne's writing on the topic remains in libraries and archives. His dedication to the topic remains a historical truth, bounded now by the years of his belief in it. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)