Talk:Center for Bio-Ethical Reform

Website monitored

On the organization's web site are posted positive comments about CBR's methods, including comments of women who say that they finally realized that they had been misled about abortion, that they used to be pro-choice but now would never have an abortion, that they have cancelled abortions due to CBR's work. The group controls which comments are displayed. [4] Some of those women say that they saw CBR photos outside an abortion clinic, and therefore refused to continue with the abortions they had planned to obtain.

I don't understand why this paragraph needs to mention that "The group controls which comments are displayed." - that's the case for every website. The only reason why this is mentioned is to discredit the group. It would be fairer to say, "Pro-choice advocates argue that these images hurt women who've had abortions." http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/gap.shtml#incite

Canbuhay (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Canbuhay

"The group controls which comments are displayed." - that's the case for every website.

That's not true at all. There are many web sites with un-moderated discussions. I do agree with you, however - explicitly saying that they exert control is pejorative. I adjusted the phrasing a little bit. I think it's clearer now, but please let me know if you disagree. Bhimaji (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Canbuhay (talk) Actually even news sites that allow for discussion have discretion to remove any comment they find pejorative. That's true of sites that support legal abortion just as much as sites that don't. Even if they don't have an official policy, every site always has final say as to what is included on their page. But I appreciate you recognizing the pejorative nature of the comments.

I am concerned about this add-on though: "CBR is strictly non-violent, although that doesn't stop them from photographing those who protest their actions peacefully even when requested not to and threatening to find the individuals at home."

Who said this? What is the source? Again anyone can claim anything but this is clearly an attempt by someone disgruntled by CBR to attack it - but what proof do they have?

I studied journalism in North America and there are no rules that say one cannot be filmed if they don't want to be filmed. Ask any movie or star or politician if they want their pictures taken all the time.

As long as the person is in a public place - and someone peacefully protesting CBR is obviously in a public place - they can be filmed. If they do not want to be filmed, they have a right to go to a private place. This is why I can't film inside your house covertly but I can film you as you walk outside the home. North Americans can insist that they not be photographed in private space but they cannot insist the same in a public venue. Just watch TMZ or any of the tabloid tv shows - they can take as many pictures as they want as long as the person they are photographing is in public.

There are of course special cases like those that deal with stalkers but there is no law preventing people from taking pictures of you if you are in a public place protesting just because you don't like it. No one is forcing you there!

As for the "threatening to find the individuals at home" - I would hope there is a good source for this. This is potential slander if not proven - and I don't see any reference for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canbuhay (talk • contribs) 09:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Controvery needs references

"The CBR has controversially compared Nazi genocide victims to aborted fetuses, in the context of its "Genocide Awareness Project." This infers that CBR is comparing pro-choice activists to Nazis. They have also been criticized for their use of a sixteen year old definition of genocide."

The last sentence needs a reference and an explanation about why using a definition from Webster’s New World Encyclopedia is wrong. Frankly, the definition of genocide has grown not narrowed, from its definition of solely killing an ethnic/religious group to include socio-economic groups (Cambodian Genocide) and even cultures (Aboriginal groups in Canada).

It's essential to know who has made this criticism and why their criticism warrants recognition on this wiki page, otherwise this is just a throw-away sentence that should be thrown away.

Canbuhay (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Canbuhay

The other issue is in the "This infers that CBR is comparing pro-choice activists to Nazis." part. This needs to be referenced to somewhere that says that a memebr of the group actually stated that. I know that CCBR does not blame abortion on Pro-choice advocates, but on society and a few leaders who continue to deny humanity to the unborn.

I will change if no answer in a week.

Deepthinker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.215.107 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Phooey Controversy

Remove the paragraph about U.S. BBB. CBR Group voluntarily submits to BBB and is working on the BBB best practices. This is not controversy since only is wanted to be controversy. Most group do not submit to BBB for their certification but article imply that there is something a foot going on.

87.230.56.35 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The real controversy her is about abortion issues not Better Business B. practices. look into it -- Better Business B. "violations" are because this group isn't flying their board members wasting jet fuels and instead doing some of their board meetings using the internet instead. Better Business B. requires all face to face meetings. This group is controversial, yes, because they show aborted babies on campuses and people have to look at them if they walk across the school "quad". 87.230.56.35 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007152805/http://abortionno.org/index.php/site/directors/ to http://www.abortionno.org/index.php/site/directors/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Obvious bias

This last three sections of this article read more like a journalistic hit-piece than an encyclopedia article. It's completely out of character for Wikipedia. Specifically, the way in which all of the accusations made against CBR are presented without any counter-argument, and the complete lack of neutral editorial tone (what kind of language is "further sullying their attempt at making an apolitical, secular image..."?)

--JacobW982 (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)