Talk:Anti-abortion movements/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-abortion movements. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This Article is Incomplete

Needs to be more complete. It is very, very short. T.alphageek (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ablitionist movement comment is not personal dialogue

In approx 2008 the abolitionist movement started. They very specifically distance and differentiate themselves from the pro-life movement. The reason I included the part about their beliefs was to be consistent with the other not-well-known movement listed here which also has basic statement of their beliefs with it. See abolishhumanabortion.com for more information T.alphageek (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Find a reliable source, or your suggestion is not actionable. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Name NPOV?

I honestly don't know what the answer to this question is, but calling this Anti-abortion movements, while we call the Pro-Choice counterpart page 'Abortion-rights movements' seems like we're breaking with NPOV and COMMONNAME, aren't we? Shouldn't they be 'Pro-Life Movements' and 'Pro-Choice' Movements? 72.224.172.14 (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the names should include the terms 'Movements" any longer. While there are 'Movements', per se, they are more ideological positions.

I agree with you that they should be renamed 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Choice', as they are the most commonly used phrases by the respective positions. There are no neutral terms that are acceptable to both sides, as calling one side 'Pro' and the other side 'Anti' automatically frames the discussion as weighted to fit their own bias. I also understand that this topic has been heavily debated by both sides with discussions on this page and the Wiki dedicated to this topic. Unfortunately, one side continues to be labeled 'Anti' while the other side neither has the term 'Anti' or 'Pro' associated with it. 'Anti-Abortion Movements' and 'Abortion Rights Movements'

It should also be noted that while the main pages, around the abortion debate, are titled 'Anti-Abortion Movements' and 'Abortion-rights_movements', the articles discussing the issue in the United States continue to use the moniker 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Choice'.

Although I disagree with the decision in naming the main pages, my point here is that the topic for all pages should remove the words 'Movement' as that indicates a trend, rather than a position. Rich 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richhersey (talk • contribs)

I find it dodgy that the pro-life organisations category redirects to anti-abortion movements but the pro-choice categories don't redirect to anything and this article clearly states that calling the other side anti- something is ideologically motivated and not an attempt at neutrality which is (very) nominally a Wikipedia policy. Sioraf (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Their so-called label "pro-life" is also POV and ideologically motivated, as pointed out in discussions about the title. Also inexact, as most of them do not care about the quality of life of anyone and some have committed crimes in the name of their campaign. Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Countermovements

Labeling the anti-abortion movements as "countermovements" to the abortion-rights movements is spontaneous symmetry breaking. Sure, in places where the most recent transition was from illegal abortion to legal abortion, it can be said that the anti-abortion movements were created to counter that transition; but in places where the recent transition was to illegal abortion, it would be the abortion-rights movements that were organized to counter the transition. Either way it seems hardly noteworthy enough to be included in the article, much less the lede. I would like to see this spontaneous symmetry breaking removed, or at least cited. Please respond here before I simply remove the offending parts. Leegrc (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you will want to read some of the books written about the topic, where you will find an avalanche of support for the notion that the anti-abortion movement is a countermovement.[ Thanks for asking, though. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. A great way to stop me from boldly removing the offending text is to put one or more of those citations in the article. Thanks in advance! Leegrc (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Typically, widely understood-to-be-true facts don't need citations. Basic sociology textbooks state outright that a countermovement is a response to another movement. A great many of these give the U.S. anti-abortion movement as an example, perhaps even naming it as a standout example, because it was a clearly observed and explicitly stated response to the U.S. abortion rights movement which had achieved success in Roe v. Wade. The various anti-abortion people did not want Roe v. Wade, so they organized a countermovement. For those who study the issue it's kind of like being asked to find a reference for the sky being a blue color. Binksternet (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I get that in the United States at the time of Roe v. Wade, it was abortion rights movements and anti-abortion countermovements. But you haven't (yet) convinced me that this isn't a myopic viewpoint. In places and times where the transition is towards anti-abortion laws, it is the abortion-rights folks who are the countermovements. Leegrc (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Anti-abortion movements → Pro-life movementPro-life movement – This is the far more common name and the one chosen by members themselves. The article mentions AP style for "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" movements but the other article we have named here at pro-choice. Several related articles and categories use "pro-life" in the name here on en.wp: in fact, this is the only one that doesn't. It really makes no sense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Support on WP:NPOV grounds. --IJBall (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose as per (add: WP:NPOV and) WP:AT. The issue is abortion of the human foetus and with humans, arguably, being responsible for a fairly catastrophic current mass extinction and with human population growing to levels were we can't both feed and fuel ourselves without reliance on non-renewable resources, I don't think that Anti-abortion movements can neutrally be described as "pro-life" at all. Life can also be viewed in terms of quality as well as quantity. The picketing of and attacks on abortion clinics and the pressuring of women, arguably, does not improve quality of life. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That is your opinion and probably too firmly in WP:OR territory to be a solid reason for deciding the title. The title does not have to be reflective of the effect of the movement, but rather what it's actually called, and it seems to be called "pro-life" so naming it based on a personal opinion would be even less neutral. (And how does WP:AT support that? I must have missed something.) ekips 39 23:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
ekips please read the first paragraph of WP:AT "..The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The title Anti-abortion movements (I think preferably written Anti-abortion movement) gives a more specific description of the article contents without the use of the partisan, non-neutral and emotionally loaded pro-life terminology. See also WP:YESPOV especially the first item, "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. " As indicated in my comment below (written prior to reading your non pinged content here) I do not see that there is anything Neutral in the "Pro-life" title. Greg Kaye 09:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough; you make the same points as Binksternet and Ongepotchket below, and I'm inclined to agree but refuse to draw a conclusion because I do not consider myself to have enough information. ekips 39 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~ Both phrases have a sizable number of Google hits: "anti-abortion" gives 2,740,000, while "pro-life" gives 9,770,000; both reveal a large number of news stories, though "pro-life" seems to contain a slightly higher number of "pro-life" websites ("anti-abortion" has a few as well, however, negating the statement that "pro-life" is the only term chosen by members of the movement), and per Pro-life (disambiguation) may be giving some number of webpages that aren't about abortion at all. I give no weight to the arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and personal opinions, though I personally dislike names such as "pro-life" that are not actually descriptive and arguably misleading. ekips 39 00:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Moving to oppose; see below. ekips 39 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. We went over this ground extensively two years ago, and nothing has changed since then. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which had wide-ranging effects on the titles of articles relating to the topic of abortion laws. The current title was settled in November 2012, and it works just fine. Not broken—don't fix. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. For the same reasons. We did go over this two years ago. I find no compelling NEUTRAL evidence offered by Koavf to support this suggestion. If anything, the term "anti-choice" has become more appropriate. "Pro-life" as a term has had its day, and it is time to embrace accurate terms that are not loaded with Christian ideology. Wikipedia is not the place to push a religious agenda, nor a religious term such as "pro-life". Justin, as a long-time editor, I am surprised to see you unaware of what is an obviously inappropriate stance in this case. Ongepotchket (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Except that "anti-choice" has only 435,000 Google hits. ekips 39 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. WP:NPOV should be the overriding concern here, not the personal beliefs or general demographics of Wikipedia editors. While I do not wish to single out the editor Ekips39 above, the final sentence of his comment above is an example of an argument that we must not give any credence to for any reason whatsoever. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you think the "pro-life" construction is for? It was always, from the start, meant to mislead and misrepresent. The US anti-abortion movement, a countermovement against the strides made by people working for greater abortion rights, determined that the "pro-life" appellation would bring a greater number of sympathetic adherents, and would stymie their opposition who must then be considered "anti-life" or "pro-death". The "pro" part of "pro-life" meant that they were for something positive rather than their driving motivation against the increased availability of abortion. However, the great majority of anti-abortion adherents do not go so far as the consistent life ethic path which is much more 'for life'—against all forms of killing. Most so-called pro-life people are in favor of the death penalty, or death as a result of defensive war, etc., making them less pro-life and more anti-abortion, right where they started. See Randall Balmer's analysis in American Religious History. Also, State and Local Politics published by Cengage Learning. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
...And also opinions like this one, and that of GregKaye above. Comments like these, based on one opinion of the merits of the position being covered, need to be entirely ignored in closing this move request. They do not reflect any portion of our naming conventions. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The final sentence of my comment was the weakest part, as I thought I had already made clear with the statement that "I give no weight to the arguments based on [...] personal opinions". If you wish to comment on my arguments, please focus on the ones that I actually intended as such. ekips 39 06:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment in relation to my oppose above. I agree that WP:NPOV (along with WP:AT is absolutely a foundational issue on which the article title should be based. I see nothing neutral in titles such as Pro-life or Pro-life movement. They are incredibly partisan. They give a purely one sided presentation of the issue and a breathtaking lack of any neutrality. I have no personal connection to any abortion related issues btw and this is uninvolved opinion. I do not see that there is anything necessarily pro-life in a movement that pushes by legislation or campaign to influence a decision that is otherwise already fraught with difficultly. "Pro-life" is a non neutral term that has a form conducive to guilt. I do not think that there is anything pro-life in forcing or otherwise influencing a woman to develop a foetus and bring a child into the world in a way or at a time when the child may be viewed as a mistake. Greg Kaye 08:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course "they are incredibly partisan". The article covers advocacy on one side of the most divisive social issue in the world today. That advocacy would not be effective if it were not wholeheartedly partisan. The same applies to advocacy on the other side of the most divisive issue in the world today - it is incredibly partisan.

What does that have to do with the proper article title? Nothing at all. Wikipedia covers lots of "incredibly partisan" groups, and the naming policy on those groups does not say that editors should use their own opinions to decide whether they are allowed to refer to themselves one way or another. It definitely does not say that one side of an issue should be treated differently than the other because in editors' opinions one is right and one is wrong. The naming policy is that we should use the terminology that is most common in English. "Anti-abortion" isn't the most common term, and so it should not be used, especially since it is chosen as a way to frame the perceived badness of the subject described. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This comment suggests strongly that the use of either term would be based as much on editors' opinions as on actual facts. "['Anti-abortion' is] chosen as a way to frame the perceived badness of the subject described" is your opinion, just as "'Pro-life' is a non neutral term that has a form conducive to guilt" is Gregkaye and Binksternet's opinion; as you have said earlier, we can't necessarily decide anything based on either of these. As to treating one side of an issue differently from the other, to argue that this determines how we should treat either side is another form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That leaves "'Anti-abortion' isn't the most common term", which is a relevant point but which appears to be countered by the confusion it could cause when applied to a global topic; see directly below. ekips 39 22:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet's link brings up yet another salient point: "Pro-life" only refers specifically to anti-abortion in the United States, whereas in other countries it generally refers to the death penalty. Since this article is the global one, it may be better to use a more globally comprehensible term. ekips 39 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
One problem with this is that in parts of the U.S., "Pro-Life" has been expanded to include opposition to gay marriage (for example Cleveland Right to Life Updates Mission - Marriage Must Be A Cornerstone to Effort, defining "pro-life" to include opposition to same sex marriage). bd2412 T 21:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
So even in the US "pro-life" is becoming an umbrella term to refer to opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and even euthanasia and infanticide. This is beginning to seem less and less like an optimal choice for referring to a very specific movement, especially since it's hardly subjective to say that "pro-life" is vague and misleading whereas "anti-abortion" is clear and specific. This goes beyond making it sound "good" or "bad"; the former term can mean several things and does not explicitly identify any of them (to someone not "in the know", it might mean anything from anti-aging research to veganism), but the latter term says exactly what it means, and to say that it sounds "bad" is to impart subjective meaning to abortion itself. ekips 39 23:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not very true considering it shows no respect for PLAGAL or the Secular Pro-Life movement. Don't assume all pro-lifers are Christian, since not all are. - Freemindfreeworld (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't assume I assumed something I didn't say. ekips 39 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Despite "Pro life movement" giving 65,300,000 results and "Anti-abortion movement" giving a mere 1,670,000 I still believe the latter is far more common (Until today I've never even heard of "pro-life movement") so will have to Oppose. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Support and propose moving Abortion-rights movements to Pro-choice movements per COMMONNAME and NPOV – the latter because the current titles seem, at least to me, to imply a preference for the pro-choice side. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does imply a preference for the pro-choice side, and yes, that article should be at Pro-choice movements or something similar. Just using self-descriptions for each position is the only way to be neutral here. I'd suggest waiting on the outcome of this discussion first before proposing a separate, move, though, since unequal treatment of the two sides would hurt neutrality more. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
That would seem to be a better way to go; both sides of debate properly named rather than one or the other. Freemindfreeworld (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Except that the current names are already proper, and they don't imply a preference (we could call them "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion", but that would be wrong because "pro-abortion" implies that they want everyone to get an abortion). ekips 39 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Support - this is a much more common name and the one used by members of the movement themselves. SteelMariner^Talk 21:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Support and propose moving Abortion-rights movements to Pro-choice movements per COMMONNAME and NPOV – I did a search on JSTOR and searching for "Pro-Choice movement" and "Pro-Life movement" bring back considerably more results than the current naming. 585 results for "pro-life movement" See: JSTOR: Search Results and 558 results for "pro-choice movement" See: JSTOR: Search Results. The most striking difference here is searching for the current naming drops the results to 162 for "Abortion-rights movements", and 507 for "Anti-abortion movement". Gaming4JC (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Two years ago when we worked out the answer to all of these questions, WP:COMMONNAME was not seen to be a conclusive guideline. Instead, NPOV was cited in the decision to shy away from "pro-life" or "pro-choice" which are both activist terms rather than neutral terms. So your call to NPOV is something I agree with, but the results will be different than you project. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this can be right. You can see, up above, people arguing that opposition to abortion is bad and deserves to be portrayed as bad, and that the present title should be supported for that reason. That ought to make anyone suspicious of the claim that the present title is the most neutral. Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't apply this standard to self-descriptions of other groups, precisely because it would cause neutrality problems. Would the Sunni Islam page be moved because some people felt that not all Sunnis follow the sunnah? Should Wikipedians take it upon themselves to decide who is really a Sunni and modify the scope of the article to only include them? The answer to both is "No, that would seriously violate neutrality". Likewise, the talk page for Objectivisim (philosophy) has lots of claims that the philosophy is not objective, yet it would be a terrible error to move that page to Some opinions espoused by Ayn Rand. The people arguing above that this page title is neutral would not support moving Abortion-rights movements to People who agree with Margaret Sanger - nor should they, regardless of "accuracy". Common, well-reported self-descriptions are neutral in the sense that they are common, and precisely because they aren't subject to Wikipedians' opinions about who is worthy. Discussion of whether these descriptions match their adherents' actions belongs in the article itself (if it belongs anywhere), not in the title with an invisible asterisk pointing to talk page discussions. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that the title should be painted with the same brush as a handful of the opposers; you're confusing cause and effect. As for the comparisons to other pages, I doubt they're comparable, as the titles being argued over here are both common names for the movements and your hypothetical alternative titles are not. ekips 39 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as POV-pushing nonsense. "Pro-life" is a promotional and misleading buzzword, given how many pro-abortion activists, doctors, etc., have been murdered by anti-abortionists. Anti-aborition is neutral, factual description. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose this is not about being proponents of life, this is about being restrictive on abortion. There's nothing about anti-death-penalty, anti-war, anti-euthanasia, etc. And if you're an animal rights person, there's nothing here about anti-meat, anti-hunting, anti-culling, etc. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per my other comments. In summary: a) Both names are reasonably common and both are used by members of the movement, so there's no real need to move it; b) "Anti-abortion" is not only unambiguous, but "pro-life" is widely used with other meanings, particularly in other countries (than the US) but in the US as well. ekips 39 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hatnote

I put the hatnote in, because there appears to be several broken redirects that accidently led me to this page. If the redirects can be fixed, I would not oppose the removal of the hatnote. One example something to the effect of Anti-abortion movements/version 2. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell us what any of these redirects are? —chaos5023 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I was looking for the page that discussed the views of the anti-abortion views of the issue, and ended up here. At some I tripped over this page "Anti-abortion movement/version 2", which redirect to the content I was looking for, thus I placed the hatnote link. I think anyone looking for details about the views of either "anti-abortion movement" or "Pro-life" might end up here by mistake. Perhaps a less ambiguous hatnote would be helpful, such as:

This article is about discusses the organizations that oppose abortion rights. For discussion of the issues involved, including arguments against abortion, see abortion debate.

It was not obvious that the article titled "abortion debate" contained the content I was looking for.--Zfish118 (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To elaborate: Currently "Anti-abortion movement" and "Pro-life" redirect here. It would be logical that their views would be discussed here, but they currently are not. The fact that "anti-abortion movement-version 2" redirects to "abortion debate" would strongly suggest that the content used to be here, but no longer is. I have no opinion as to whether that content should be here or not, but it should be clearly stated where it is. I proposed a hatnote to succinctly describe what this page is, and propose the main article, since it is not obvious from arriving here that "abortion debate" is the main article discussing both side in depth, not an overview that links to either side in summary style. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Is the definition "advocating against the practice of abortion and its legality" correct? The first part could be improved grammatically with the alternative wording "opposing the practice of abortion". However the second part needs more attention. I am not sure that "advocating against...its legality" is correct. In some countries there are campaigns based on the practice of abortion being arguable illegal (such as in New Zealand), but in most I suspect it would be more a case of arguing that abortion should be made illegal - which isn't quite what the sentence says.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Links from euthenasia related pages leading to pro-life leads to anti-abortion, which is off topic

Currently many wikipedia pages, such as Terri_Schiavo_case refer to the pro-life link. Which redirect here, this is irrelevant and unhelpful.

I propose we either make a new page for "Pro-life" as an ideological position, which covers abortion, euthanasia, death penalty. Failing that, we should redirect pro-life to right to life, as that more accurately covers the use of that phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L32007 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing link to "Anti-abortion violence", or point "Anti-abortion movement" to "Pro Life" page.

Considering that this page is a redirect for "Pro-Life" it seems to me to violate the neutral point-of-view to include a link to "Anti-abortion violence".

There seems to be an obvious effort to control the language used. The "Pro-Life" movement has nothing to do with "Anti-abortion violence", but and "Anti-abortion" page might well be linked to an "Anti-abortion violence" page.

The link from "Anti-abortion movements" could just as well be piped to the "Pro Life" page, and then any violent demonstrations and actions would be "cleaned up" by using the title "Pro-Life".

If the Pro-Life movement is allowed to be smeared by unrelated "Anti-abortion violence" links, then it seems that on balance the "Anti-abortion movements" page is entitled to a link that demonstrates some of the known abuses of the abortion procedures, such as a link to the wiki-page on "Kermit Gosnell".

All the arguments that support removing a link to "Kermit Gosnell" from the "Anti-abortion movement" page apply equally well to removing the "Anti-abortion violence" link from the "Pro Life" page.

The monitoring of this topic seems to be biased and unbalanced.

PoqVaUSA (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@PoqVaUSA: Making unsubstantiated accusations against other editors isn't a good way to start a discussion, but anyway… Anti-abortion movements (or "pro-life" movements, as you prefer to call them) absolutely relate to anti-abortion violence as these violent acts are done for the furtherance of the objectives of some members of anti-abortion movements. This is not to say that all (or even most) anti-abortion groups condone violence, but naturally the topics are related. Kermit Gosnell, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the anti-abortion movement. Perhaps he relates to the broader abortion debate, but certainly not the anti-abortion movement (the subject of this article).

Also, per WP:BRD, I'm going to ask that you revert your edit while this discussion takes place. Graham (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Graham11: Reverting other editor's modifications to a wiki page isn't a good way to start a discussion, but anyway... Pro-Life movements (or "anti-abortion" movements, as you prefer to call them) absolutely are motivated by some of the atrocities that are committed is some of the most abusive cases, and these are often done because of a profit motive with little regard for the health and safety of those seeking to have an abortion. This is not to say that all (or even most) abortion doctors conduct their operations in a manner similar to Kermit Gosnell. The "Anti-abortion violence" link, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the Pro-Life movement. Perhaps that relates to the broader abortion debate, but certainly not to the "Pro-Life" movement (the subject that is linked to this "Anti-abortion movement" page by redirect).

Also, I have no intention of voluntarily reverting my edit while this discussion takes place.

If there is a ruling against this removal of a single link to a violent fringe element from a single page on this topic, then so be it.

Revert the change again yourself if you are so inclined.

I won't post it again without someone else looking at this.

PoqVaUSA (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting other editor's modifications to a wiki page isn't a good way to start a discussion, but anyway...

Of course it is – it immediately precedes "discuss" in the bold, revert, discuss cycle. What are you trying to say?

Pro-Life movements (or "anti-abortion" movements, as you prefer to call them) absolutely are motivated by some of the atrocities that are committed is some of the most abusive cases, and these are often done because of a profit motive with little regard for the health and safety of those seeking to have an abortion.

What I prefer to call them is of no relevance here. What matters is that the article title is Anti-abortion movements.

The "Anti-abortion violence" link, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the Pro-Life movement. Perhaps that relates to the broader abortion debate, but certainly not to the "Pro-Life" movement (the subject that is linked to this "Anti-abortion movement" page by redirect).

The Anti-abortion violence article is about violent acts committed by members of certain anti-abortion movements. Obviously it is more germane to this topic. If the see also section were to be expanded, there are numerous articles that are either more germane to the subject than Kermit Gosnell or are related to the broader abortion debate but that have a broader scope.

Also, I have no intention of voluntarily reverting my edit while this discussion takes place.
If there is a ruling against this removal of a single link to a violent fringe element from a single page on this topic, then so be it.
Revert the change again yourself if you are so inclined.

I have done so, in accordance with WP:BRD. Graham (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The sanctimonious hypocrisy here is astounding.

Linking the pro-life movement with people who murder doctors is ok, but providing a link to some of the things that motivate the pro-life movement is off topic, because they are not really pro-life; they are anti-abortion.

What is astounding is the extent to which people seem to be honestly blind to their own hypocrisy, even when confronted with it.

PoqVaUSA (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Biologically, human life begins . . ."?

"Biologically, human life begins before birth (i.e., at fertilization, when the genetic material which will develop into a fetus first assumes zygote form and acquires unique DNA)"

I think most biologists would take exception to this unless you refer to an individual human life ("A human life begins . . ."). I will insert "A" in the text.

Rationalization: Certainly the egg and sperm are alive, and the progenitor stem cells that gave rise to them are alive. Many fungi go through many generations of haploid asexual individuals; both diploid and haploid forms are considered to be alive. Same for bacteria. It is generally believed that life began once, about 4 billion years ago, and has been continuous ever since. It would be impossible to say when human life began, even given all the information, because of the multitude of small changes (in large populations) involved and the difficulty in defining "human". And while it seems reasonable to say "A human life begins at fertilization", that zygote and the resulting embryo would not be called "human" by any definition except the genome. Yes it has the human genome, but so does a white blood cell. A more useful question would be "when does humanity begin?".Eaberry (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm reactivating this discussion so that IP User:73.60.41.24 can defend their edits with RS. I have notified them.

They have made unsourced changes which have been reverted. It appears to be slow edit warring over a long period of time. They made this same, and/or essentially same edit several times over many months. They must seek consensus. Without a consensus based on RS, I expect all editors to revert such edits on sight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not the IP user, but ~~will not that~~ the material being discussed is not documented in the cited source "Catholic365"? The cited article does not discuss DNA or fertilization at all. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. It was an unsourced edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with leaving out "According to some beliefs", if the article "A" (A human life . . .) could be put back in. It is important to make it clear we are talking about one individual human life, and when it begins. Before conception this particular life did not exist, there were two other life(forms) that united to produce it. This does not say it has any characteristics we would regard as human, which might motivate us to avoid killing it, but it is the same life that eventually will take on those characteristics, and this life started at conception. If we list things that separate humans from other animals that we are comfortable with killing for food or sport, like intelligence, the ability to use language to formulate and convey complex ideas, the use of tools- even at one or two months post-partem a baby would not qualify. Playfulness (giggles and squirms in response to attention)? what about kittens playing with a ball of string? Attentiveness, responsiveness, awareness of others? Same for a dog that gazes into his master's eyes with apparent feeling, cringes with tail between legs when he is scolded? But I am getting out of bounds, this is supposed to be a discussion of how to improve the article, and my point is we have to say "A" human life . . . "Life" began 4 billion years ago, and "human life" at least 100,000 years ago, and they have been continuous since. If we say "according to some beliefs" without listing those beliefs, it is weasel text. Where is the reference for when life begins"? How about "A human life can be considered to begin at . . . "- true enough, anything can be considered, and if the reader doesn't happen to consider it so, he can at least appreciate that rather obvious point of view. Eaberry (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC).

"And while it seems reasonable to say "A human life begins at fertilization", that zygote and the resulting embryo would not be called "human" by any definition except the genome" Please explain when does human life begin then? After Birth Macbeth? What about C-sections After they resemble a human? What about the physically handicapped? After pain sensory develop? What about those afflicted by Hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy? After heart develops? What about those without heart? After brain activity? What about those who have no brain activity After consciousness? So your okay with infanticide or murdering people while not conscious? (sleeping) Viability? What about artificial wombs/ Why is viability different for every person (and location)? At this point we are pretty much within 1-2 weeks of conception... Because every other definition of when a person can be granted the rights of a human make so much scientific sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk • contribs) diff Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this is out of place on this article talk page, but if you hat it please hat the other similar stuff! Medically, part of the definition of abortion is that the fetus is not yet capable of sustaining individual life. Biblically, we do not know when life begins... that is God's secret. Is that too hard for us to accept? Many mothers know that they have experienced a death after an early miscarriage. And yet there seem to be times when even a late abortion is not murder, see Absolute Strangers. Disclosure: In case it's not obvious, I am anti-abortion but to some extent pro-choice. Look at the Coptic Church website for some other Christians who agree with me. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Abortion Statistics

Discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism

Title of the Article

Title of Article / Page and other problems

The equine is, alas, deceased. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There need to be separate Pro-Life and Pro Life Movements titles that comply with wiki titling. Pro Life AND Pro Life Movements are BY DEFINITION NOT limited to or by Pro Abortion rhetoric or procedures. Pro Life AND Pro Life Movements focus on ALL TYPES of IMPOSED DEATH (Epivalothanasia) womb to the tomb including but not limited to abortion, contraception, sodomy, "mercy-killing" (euthanasia), and any medical and/or legal and/or political "entities", "procedures", "processes", "medications", "institutions", "religions", "cults", "movements", "political parties" (persons, places, things) that promote "imposed death". Pro Life entities, organizations, movements, persons, places etc work to prevent physical death or injury to any human being from conception to natural death; including but not limited to the promotion of complete curative medical recovery for body and soul (unlimited and inclusive of individuals, families, extended support entities); accurate scientific & medical information; informed choice; and Pro Life efforts also extend to and include assistance for and rehabilitation of the victims, the survivors, the perpetrators and advocates of imposed death. Startarrant (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is longstanding consensus to use this wording and it is corroborated by sources — which your statement isn't. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 05:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Carl, can you cite some of those sources?Bro rick (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Startarrant - User:CFCF hasn't put up support, and I think you have some points for either a separate topic or for a WP:TITLECHANGES to this article if you want to put it up for a title change.

(1) Commonname -- raw Google counts favor "pro-life" at 129 Million, with anti-abortion at 26 Million; and in google Books, it is 906 thousand to 360 thousand.

(2) POVtitle - either Pro-life or Pro-choice is a NAME they gave to themselves, (however misleading), which seems by POVtitle should outweigh the descriptive label "anti-abortion".

(3) Precision - as you note above, pro-life would include positions against euthenasia (e.g. priests for life), assisted suicide (e.g. lifenews.com), the death penalty, and war -- "anti abortion" does not cover these. And there are texts explaining these are parts of an overall possition. On the flip side, anti-abortion threads from societal 'civil rights' or the unborn or 'gender war' when Asian girl embryos were aborted that would be outside "pro-life" are not here. Even the snarky rational wiki makes these points clear.

On the other hand, the largest subsection of pro-life seems to be dealing with abortion, So I think "anti-abortion: would still be a mention -- so the title might become pro-life movements but the lead would have to say "also referred to as anti-abortion". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Startarrant, you are referring to a consistent life ethic which is definitely a very, very small group of people compared to those who advocate for capital punishment, strong national defense (war), strong police presence and against abortion. The problem with your request is that the term "pro-life" does not mean "for life and against all forms of killing." Rather, it is a political term used to give a positive spin to political activism against abortion. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm not an "activist" I haven't spent an instant of time rounding up people or robots to discuss this topic and rarely have time to remember [unless a robot tags me] that I even began this discussion once upon a time. So I'm impressed that anyone found their way here to discuss this matter. Most of the comments are substantive and reasonable and frankly quite informative. I'm always amazed to hear how "very, very small" Pro-Life advocates are but given the LARGE, LARGE and LARGER numbers of FORMER pro-abortion advocates (although Pro-Death also covers LIVE-harvesting, euthanasia, epivalothanasia, contraception-abortifacients, political exterminations/genocides as well as Pro Abortion options euphemistically referred to as Pro Choice options such as LIVE fetal farming, LIVE fetal experimentation, enforced or paid full-term "abortions" for LIVE-harvesting, fetal body part sales, etc) who now call themselves Pro Life and/or Pro Lifers, I think that even IF once upon a time only a handful of "Roman Catholics" with their "Catholic issue" were "Pro Life" [and I know and have always run into too many "PRO LIFE ATHEISTS" ... "PRO LIFE" : ... Protestants (40,000 sects x members) ... Humanists ... Jews ... Mormons ... JVs ... Quakers ... Orthodox [all the Eastern / Middle Eastern / Russian sects] ... Muslims [all their sects] ... Hindus ... Buddhists ... etc etc etc etc ] along with all the "former" Pro Choice Pro Abortion Pro Death advocates currently turned Pro Life -- that "very, very small group of people" may be reflected more accurately in some of the Google numbers cited above. However, the Pro Death nukes of these legalized state-mandated global extermination policies are designed to reduce ALL the "numbers" to a very, very small group of "people?" so perhaps this is not a numbers issue as much as one of simple grammar and definition albeit self-definition. Someone with a better understanding of how to effect wiki changes may need to take this a step further. The LACK of WIKI "neutrality" "accuracy" and "verifiability" in the ANTI-ABORTION terminology is overwhelming even IF Pro-Life websites (and all the people webmastering and viewing them) are not considered or calculated. Startarrant (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As you were told above, every previous discussion on this topic has resulted in a consensus that this title is the correct one. You are welcome to start another one, but it is unlikely that it would have a different result. Also, can I suggest that typing IN random CAPITALS does not exactly help your case - it just looks like ranting. Mind you, rambling nonsense like "However, the Pro Death nukes of these legalized state-mandated global extermination policies..." is just more likely to make people ignore you anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps if I put this in caps Black Kite might be able to see it even with black sleep blinders on. But I will just repeat it here yet again:

(1) Commonname -- raw Google counts favor "pro-life" at 129 Million, with anti-abortion at 26 Million; and in google Books, it is 906 thousand to 360 thousand.

(see above) so the consensus is very clearly for the usage of the word "pro-life" Pro Life ... etc.Startarrant (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It is important to remember that there is one perspective that is not after the truth they are simply playing power games. Changing language to fit their perspective; for example, pro-life to anti-abortion, and pro-choice (no choice for the child) to abortion-rights; it contains inherently bias as it is from the positive rights perpective.

When you lose tract of the truth for your own political perversions you end up like Wikipedia. There used to be trolls mucking about on Wikipedia for fun, now its just radical ideologies seizing territory on a dead whale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.244.37 (talk • contribs) diff Andrewa (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Look who is talking about perverting the truth. Anti-abortion movements do not give a crap about human life, damaging the lives of would be-parents, or what happens to potentially unwanted children. They are not "pro-life" at all, just use the label as a propaganda term. The pro-choice movements offer no choice for "the child", because there is no child. It offers a choice to would-be parents about whether they are actually capable of having and raising children. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: While I agree that there are contexts where "pro-life" is essential within an article title, such as United States pro-life movement, I am not certain "Pro-Life" is a term used worldwide, which is the scope of this article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment 2: In the English language "pro-life" has become the dominant term used for the movement. If you mean to imply other languages, this Wikipedia article is an English language article. Other languages may have other terms, but such terms are not relevant for our purposes.TraLeSollecitudini (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

·This is an obvious case of Wikipedia bias, which uses essentially mob rule to get their way. It makes no sense to use the term "pro-choice" with "anti-abortion." Either say "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" or "pro-life" and "pro-choice". TraLeSollecitudini (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see how you would think that, as an inexperienced Wikipedian with an obvious religious POV. In fact you're wrong, and here's why. Wikipedia adheres to the neutral point of view. "Pro-life" is a marketing brand and a value statement. When the exact same policies that are advanced by "pro-life" people also lead to some of the highest rates of maternal and neonatal deaths in the developed world, as is absolutely the case in the Southern states of the US, it is reasonable to refuse to accept the marketing brand "pro-life" and call it instead what it actually is: anti-abortion. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am admittedly an inexperienced Wikipedian, but that does not make me an inexperienced thinker. The present terminology is definitely not neutral (and I'm speaking from a real-world sense-- not from how Wikipedia defines "neutral point of view", which in my mind should be the same but clearly is not). Your dismissal of me for being religious (and what an assumption that is!) makes clear that those involved with this article also present a clear bias. I can't see how you can suggest that "pro-life" is anymore a "marketing brand"/"value statement" than "pro-choice" is. Gallup Poll uses "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terminology in their polling, as do many other respected polling organizations. While "pro-choicers" may occasionally refer to pro-lifers as "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion," colloquial usage is definitely "pro-life", even among pro-choicers, and I am speaking as a native San Franciscan who has certainly heard this conversation spoken throughout my life. Your point about the highest death rates (what a claim that is!) also takes no consideration of the death of unborn children that abortion causes. That the unborn is a human is not a religious belief, but a biological fact. But your anti-scientific assertion pales in comparison to your obvious suggestion that Wikipedia has taken a position on the abortion topic-- to you, Wikipedia sees the unborn child as a non-human. Since this is the case, abortion to Wikipedia is not killing any humans. Hence, Wikipedia has an obvious bias here towards the pro-abortion position. This explains why the article is called "anti-abortion." And hence you only confirm my point: this is an obvious case of Wikipedia bias, and your quick dismissal of me and others in this post also demonstrates its mob rule.TraLeSollecitudini (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely is neutral. The so-called "pro-life" movement is generally strongly in favour of the death penalty and is also largely responsible for policies that reduce women's access to preventive healthcare, leading to much higher maternal and neonatal death rates in "pro-life" states. To call them "pro-life" is to adopt a marketing term that ignores their lack of any interest in saving life outside the one highly specific context of foetal life. Just look at the legislative actions being pushed by them at the moment - the change in Article X funding, for example, would prevent a doctor from referring a patient for termination of an unviable pregnancy even where the mother's life is in danger - it contains no life of the mother exception, and several model bills in State houses have been the same. The only thing you can neutrally say about these groups is that they are anti-abortion. The only life they seem to care about is that of the foetus, and that appears to be the case even if the woman was raped. Guy (Help!) 05:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence that pro-lifers are "generally strongly in favor of the death penalty," but even if that is the case your argument is logically flawed: even if let's say most pro-lifers are in favor of the death penalty, being pro-life doesn't mean to be against killing in every respect. Most pro-lifers (as pro-choicers) would be in favor of using force even to the point of killing in the case of self-defense. Likewise, pro-choicers are not "pro-choice" in every respect. By your line of reasoning, I could equally argue that you are not truly pro-choice because you (presumably) do not allow me the choice to sell cocaine to children, to steal from banks, or commit other crimes. Of course, the term "pro-life" is a name given to a movement (just as the term "gay" is given for homosexuals even though not all homosexuals are happy or "protestant" given to Christians of post-Reformation theologies even though they do not protest in every respect of the term). "Pro-lifers" consider themselves pro-life because of the issue of abortion, which is, they argue, the killing of an innocent human being. A further point: You make various unfounded and derogatory claims that pro-lifers don't care about mothers or what-not, but again, the question at hand is not about whether or not the term is the most fitting, but whether or not the most familiar term used colloquially. Both sides can provide plenty of arguments against the other for their terminology (for example, I would argue tht many many women do not truly have a choice in abortion, but are pressured to have abortion by their families, circumstances, etc.). Such arguments, however, would make no progress in identifying terms as long as the central disagreement exists (e.g. if you accept that the fetus is a human being that deserves rights than of course you would be pro-life and presumably would find such a title appropriate. Likewise, if I thought that the fetus was not a human being and/or deserved no rights, yes, of course, pro-life would seem unfitting to me). The very fact that you cannot possibly separate yourself from your own prejudices and opinions about pro-lifers continues to confirm my initial position against Wikipedia. TraLeSollecitudini (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It is quite amusing to read the Anointed that attempted to ad-hoc redefine groups that define themselves as on thing that removes nuance to castigate the wrong thinkers. Netoholic's point is irrelevant as the movement and group are referred to as pro-life and redefining is POV. No Such User dont even know how to use google to look up British pro-life movements, Canadian. Pro-life movement in many ways stems from but is not restricted to the Roman catholic church. Andrewa, yes there is spin but anti-abortion does not free from spin as most pro-life persons are not against abortions in the case of ectopic pregnancy. NightHeron Both Reuters and AP start with the vision that abortion is a right. if instead framed as anti-murder of child and murder rights would you approve of that? The terms may be slanted, but those terms are the terms they use. Is the word Liberal mean the same thing everywhere in the world? No but the use of the term is useful to the persons using it. Same with the persons that call themselves pro-life and pro-choice. You are inserting POV. House of Change incorrect as previously stated anti-abortion is inaccurate as there are some abortions that pro-life person agrees with. this is your POV. LeadSongDog I doubt you are a lead song dog why should you be able to use this name? Your are being childish, the name of something is a useful identifier, the rest of the article can be used to demonstrate the persons/groups perspective. Alternatively, a simple "pro-life movement (anti-abortion)" would remove political bias of those that want terms to be descriptive in a subjective purpose. Your idea would remove all labels b.c they are 'inaccurate', yet language is imprecise b.c it is a negotiation between humans. the pro-life definition is defending life from conception (fertilization) to natural death. Nat Gertler: so you from on high get to decide the name of a movement b.c your better than them? Neutrality funny name, same argument as Nat and others. (bad argument) Paintspot Infez same argument.

TLDR most of the dogpile votes were all by people echoing the same argument that redefining a movement based on their Anointed Vision (POV) even though not all abortions are opposed by pro-life movement. Rather this is an attempt to simplify the movement for their castrated minds that cannot understand nuanced positions on punishment and life. I move to change the name of pro-life movement to pro-science as it adheres to the science that when two haploid cells fuse, they generate a new human life that has a diploid set of unique DNA that grows, divides, metabolizes energy. I bet many of these mods hold a MacBethian view of babies, they aint alive unless they pass through the magical birth canal. anti-science rhetoricians trapped in their nihilistic prisons of subjective bs that attempt to redefine everything to fit their perfect vision. $100 says these people that oppose name change are all abortion rights persons who find themselves on the progressive left.Underground5122 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Requested move 1 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-abortion movements → Pro-life movementPro-life movement – It is widely acknowledged, as documented in this article, that both terms are considered to be POV political framing by those on the opposing sides. In order to arrive at the most WP:NPOV solution, we should step away from the public debate and instead use external evidence to support application of our WP:Article titles policies like WP:SINGULAR and WP:COMMONNAME:

This Google Ngram shows that "pro-life movement" has a dominating lead over the alternative, and is trending even higher.
Currently on Google Books there are 47000 results for "pro-life movement" and 15,200 results for "anti-abortion movement".
Google Scholar displays 5920 results for "pro-life movement" and 3200 results for "anti-abortion movement".
JSTOR displays 808 results for "pro-life movement" and 647 results for "anti-abortion movement"
Page view comparison of existing redirects shows a consistent and strong editor/reader preference for "Pro-life movement" as far back as July 2015.
Per WP:SINGULAR, the current title doesn't qualify to use the plural the main focus is on the broad movement, with by-country summaries, (not a list article) and Google Ngram evidence shows this is much more commonly referred to in the singular.

These findings fully satisfy WP:NPOV because they are dispassionately objective, consistent with the existing base of human knowledge, and meet most readers' expectations. I suggest that rather debate political sides here, it would be more helpful to focus discussion on any other available evidence in support of our policies/guidelines and present it. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose. Anti-abortion and pro-life are not synonyms. Unreal7 (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant since both meanings are covered in this article and the Terminology section already explains the viewpoints on this. Your reasoning is just personal choice of POV not based on evidence or policy. -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: "pro-life" is specifically an American construct, and should not be imposed to an article with global scope. Per MOS:COMMONALITY, universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles.. No such user (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The predominance of "pro-life movement" exists even in British English sources ("pro-life" also beats "anti-abortion"). You might be speaking only from your personal experience. -- Netoholic @ 09:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, many of these (on both sides) will be spin and therefore really primary sources. The enormous effort made on both sides to promote their cause makes deciding what is the more common name in genuinely secondary sources impractical. Andrewa (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Support עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Since 19 May there's been an extensive discussion at Talk:United States pro-life movement of retitling it with "pro-life" replaced by "anti-abortion"; and since 21 May there has been a discussion at Talk:United States pro-choice movement of replacing "pro-choice" by "abortion rights." Those two articles both state that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are examples of political framing. Both Reuters and Associated Press recommend "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" as neutral terms. The article under discussion does say that some members of the pro-life movement regard "anti-abortion" as political framing, but it's not surprising that they like a favorable-sounding term and dislike a neutral term.

NPOV is a basic pillar of Wikipedia and takes precedence over minor matters, such as what term is most popular on a website, or what term is used most commonly by members of the movement about themselves.

The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are misleading and inaccurate, as well as politically slanted. The issue is: one side believes in prohibition of abortion; the other side believes in the right to abortion subject to certain restrictions (depending on stage of pregnancy). NightHeron (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose "Anti-abortion" is a neutral description, "pro-life" is a POV promotional term favored by one side of an ongoing controversy but opposed by the other side that debate. Changing article name is a step in the wrong direction. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are euphemistic BS sloganeering, foisted upon us by those who don't want readers thinking too hard. "Pro-life" doesn't mean "supportive of all life forms, for instance mosquitoes, or streptococcus, or slime molds", it refers to one very particular life form. Similarly "pro-choice" has nothing to do with choosing chocolate vs. strawberry, or jazz vs. blues. We should use words that mean what they say. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – it is not documented in the article that "anti-abortion" is considered POV framing by both sides. It is stated that some on one side don't like the term, which is not the same thing. It is the neutral term; "opposition to choice" would be framing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. See Talk:United States pro-life movement#Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title is accurate, common, precise, and neutral; the proposal would be the reverse of those things, needlessly introducing a politicized euphemism. Neutrality^talk 03:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. You couldn't get more POV than "pro-life", which implies the other side are "anti-life" or "pro-death"! The simple fact is that these movements are against abortion, either entirely or partially. That is not POV. That is fact. The current title is therefore entirely accurate and the best available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per above. "The current title is accurate, common, precise, and neutral; the proposal would be the reverse of those things, needlessly introducing a politicized euphemism." Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I linked to the Discussion section above, but I'd particularly like comments at its subsection Talk:United States pro-life movement#Three terms to avoid, as one of these three is pro-life. Andrewa (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That RM closed as consensus to move the articles , one away from pro-life to anti-abortion and the other from pro-choice to abortion-rights. So it seems that despite the lack of the discussion I suggested there, my suggestion that these two terms are to be avoided has been upheld. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Novel concerns over article title

After reading the discussion above, which contained good points by both sides, I have two concerns about the "abortion rights/anti-abortion" naming convention.

The first is motivated by a comment by Necrothesp: that the movements discussed by this article oppose abortion, either entirely or partially. His wording implies that if one supports any restriction on abortion whatsoever, then one is "anti-abortion", even if one has no objections to abortion in cases in which the other 99% are sought. This is not an accurate representation of the people who identify as pro-life, and I suspect that the "no restrictions whatsoever" position is not representative of people who identify as pro-choice. Consequently, the convention advocated by the consensus would not be renaming a political movement for the sake of removing bias; it would be attempting to develop an original classification system for political opinions related to abortion. Is Necrothestp's view of the ideal contents of this article representative of the rest of the editors? If so, can we at least acknowledge that we're doing is not removing political framing, but something else?

The second concern is that this combination of names doesn't seem to be free of unbalanced framing. One side is framed in terms of rights, whereas the other is framed in opposition to that side. This implicitly means that the latter side is against rights, which has obvious negative connotations. While that's not inherently unfair, it is an issue in this case because both sides see themselves as advocating for rights. For one side, it is the right to obtain an abortion. For the other, it is the right of the fetus to develop naturally. Consequently, wouldn't a more balanced naming convention be "abortion rights/fetal rights", and the proper title for this article be "Fetal rights movements"? Matthew V. Milone (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason is very simple. Anti-abortion campaigners campaign against abortion. Whether that's some abortions or all abortions doesn't make a lot of difference, but someone who campaigns for abortion up to 24 weeks with restrictions thereafter for enviable pregnancies or where the life of the mother is at risk is not campaigning against abortion, they are campaigning for abortion rights. Anti-abortionists seek to restrict abortion beyond the generally uncontroversial third trimester restriction that is common in many jurisdictions around the world. Look at the proposed Title X changes: they would stop a doctor from referring a woman for termination or even mentioning that termination is an option, even where the foetus is unviable or the mother's life is in danger. That is the reality of anti-abortion campaigns on the ground. The thought leaders of the anti-abortion movement want abortion banned, period. Not just elective abortion. All abortion. And the evidence is right there in the model bills they sponsor. Guy (Help!) 04:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Uncontroversial abortions

The introduction states, "Abortion is the intentional termination of a human pregnancy.". I'm not necessarily disputing that this is the definition we should use, since it's taken straight from the Oxford dictionary, but it does lead to some incorrect views about the movements described in the article. Under this definition, C-sections and induced labor at 40 weeks post-fertilization technically are abortions since they both intentionally end a human pregnancy. This doesn't align well with common usage. While I don't see that as unacceptable, it creates a perverse situation that is unacceptable. Specifically: there is no opposition to these sorts of "abortions" from any of the organizations in the article, but a person who understands the technical definition of abortion would be misled into thinking at least some of them did.

As other editors have mentioned repeatedly, one of the issues with the term "pro-life" is its lack of specificity. What seems to have gone largely unrecognized is that "anti-abortion" isn't an accurate description of these movements, either, because there are some types of abortion that none of them actually oppose (at least in the legal sphere). Saving the life of the mother, C-sections, and induced labor are all examples of this. The latter two aren't mentioned in the article, and although the former is, it is stated with the very weak "not all" when it would be more precise and just as accurate to say "very few" or "virtually none". If someone has evidence to the contrary (i.e. notable organizations that lobby against abortions that would save the mothers' lives), then show it. Otherwise, it's a misleadingly weak statement that should be strengthened. Additionally, a line should be added under Terminology to address the point I raised here. The alternatives would be change the definition in the introduction or to re-open discussion of the article's name. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"Abortion" is a medical term that refer to the death of fetus, and only the death of a fetus. The death could be due to natural illnesses or defects (commonly known as a "miscarriage"), or it could be a death induced by a doctor or the mother directly. C-Sections, induced labor, and/or natural delivery, fall outside of this definition because the fetus survives. There is no need cover these within the article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you missed the point. As I quoted directly from this article's introduction, abortion is the intentional termination of a human pregnancy, and pregnancy (according to its page) is the time in which offspring develop inside a woman. Consequently, anything that ends this condition is an abortion, and that would include C-sections and other things. I'm not arguing that your definition isn't better, only that the section on terminology should reflect whatever definition of abortion is in the article. To that end, either the article's definition of abortion should be changed to the one you gave, or a note should be made that some forms of abortion (using the definition that's currently in the article) are not controversial. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Abortion only refers to situations where the unborn child died (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion). –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll update the introduction of the article accordingly. I'll also strengthen the claim about lack of opposition in the case of endangerment to the mother, since there was no objection on that point. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Abortion is still controversial, even when there is danger to the mother. Aborting a fetus under any circumstances is forbidden in Catholic hospitals, for instance, even when the mother's life is in danger. I am reverting that language, because the original source is no longer available online, so I cannot verify if that clam that "few, if any, notable people" is made in that source. Every claim must be well sourced, particularly when editing controversial articles, . –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Morally or theologically controversial, yes--legally controversial, no. The claim I made by the edit was that it was not legally controversial, and Catholic hospitals' refusal to perform abortion doesn't contradict that. Asking someone to show that no one notable promotes X is like asking someone to show that there is no teapot floating somewhere in space between Earth and Mars. It's not reasonable to insist that someone prove a statement like that. On the other hand, it's a very easy statement to disprove, in principle. All it would take is one person or political organization that meets Wikipedia's notability standards to state that they're legally opposed to abortion under all circumstances (ideally after having been asked about this scenario, specifically), and for that statement to be available online. Consequently, the statement should be considered true unless someone finds evidence of the contrary. Also, if the source you refer to for the "not all people" claim is no longer available online (or even simply not referenced in the article), then it is unsourced as well. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"Consequently, anything that ends this condition is an abortion, and that would include C-sections and other things."

To get even more technical, abortion refers to when a fetus is removed or expelled prior to viability. Live birth , by definition, occurs after viability (whether by natural means or C-section), and is thus not an abortion. –Zfish118^⋉talk

"Consequently, the statement should be considered true unless someone finds evidence of the contrary."

This is not an acceptable standard for content written on Wikipedia. Please review WP:Reliable source. Every statement, especially controversial ones, must be directly attributed to an external (non-Wikipedia) source. The absence of a contradictory source is not sufficient. You do not have to personally verify that "no one notable promotes X", but you must state who makes that claim and the context of the claim, so that the credibility of the claim can be assessed. –Zfish118^⋉talk

"and for that statement to be available online".

This is not required. Editors are expected to be honestly represent any source used, whether online or offline. Providing links when content is available online is a courtesy, but not a requirement. –Zfish118^⋉talk

"All it would take is one person or political organization that meets Wikipedia's notability standards to state that they're legally opposed to abortion under all circumstances"

It is trivially easy to find notable individuals and organizations who make this exact claim. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first quote: I don't know why you're bringing this up. As I stated repeatedly, I am not and was not advocating the definition of abortion that statement relies on; I was stating the logical consequences of the definition of abortion given in the article prior to me editing it.

Regarding the second quote: I'm aware of that rule, but Wikipedia has no firm rules. The statement "not all people who consider themselves pro-life legally oppose abortion if the mother's life is in certain danger" is deceptively weak, because no notable people who describe themselves as "pro-life" legally opposes abortion in that situation. Consequently, strengthening the claim is an improvement. You're also missing the point about provability: the problem isn't that I personally can't prove it (that would be original research, anyway); it's that no one can prove it, so there won't be any sources for it. In contrast, it would be very easy to prove wrong if it was incorrect--and it hasn't been proven wrong. Consequently, the claim is verified, just not by the letter of the rule of what counts as verification.

Regarding the last quote: I worded that poorly. The statement we've been discussing in the article specifically mentions "people who describe themselves as pro-life", and those are the people who I assert have no one notable who seek to prohibit abortion to save the life of the mother. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your entire premise is incorrect, though. Abortion has both a technical and a common meaning, and both are aligned here. Nobody uses "abortion" to describe live birth. Guy (Help!) 04:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticisms

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2019

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

Life of the mother exception

The entry contains the following unsourced text:

For example: no public figures who describe themselves as "pro-life" are legally opposed to abortion if the life of the mother is in certain danger.

In Chile, there are people who support a law that opposes all abortion even when the life of the mother is in certain danger.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/opinion/sunday/abortion-banned-latin-america.html

What Happens When Abortion Is Banned?

By Michelle Oberman

New York Times

May 31, 2018

"When I first visited Chile, in 2008, it was one of a handful of countries in the world that banned abortion in all cases, without exception."

There were also people in Ireland who opposed abortion even when the life of the mother was in certain danger. I was waiting for someone to come up with a source for the original claim, but it looks like it should go. --Nbauman (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The people in this movement have actually killed pregnant women to prevent them from having an abortion. They don't care about mother's lives or human lives in general. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you give us a WP:RS to support that? --Nbauman (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

We have an entire article about it: Anti-abortion violence. Murders, bombings, arsons, assaults, and kidnappings. See the source here: http://prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_stats.pdf Between 1977 and 2009, anti-abortion "activists" in Canada and the United States performed:

8 murders.
17 murder attempts.
41 bombings.
175 arsons.
96 attempted bombings or arsons.
390 invasions.
1400 vandalisms.
1993 acts of tresspassing.
100 attacks with Butyric acid.
659 anthrax threats.
179 cases of assault and battery.
406 death threats.
4 kidnappings.
151 burglaries.
525 cases of stalking.

You can find more details on the attacks here: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_domestic_terrorism_tmln&haitian_elite_2021_general=haitian_elite_2021_abortion_based_rhetoric_and_actions Dimadick (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Question Why is Anti-abortion violence not even mentioned in this article? That seems ludicrous! Black Kite (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who made the edit you're referring to. Previously, the first two sentences of the paragraph were: "However, some in the "pro-life" movement view the term "anti-abortion" as an inaccurate media label as well.^[1] For example: not all people who would describe themselves as "pro-life" are opposed to allowing abortion if the life of the mother is in certain danger." (Note that the original claim was unsourced as well.)

I made the edit because I thought that the previous wording was deceptive, since "not all" is an extreme understatement: no public figure has described themselves as "pro-life" while being legally opposed to abortion to save the mother's life. The original wording is akin to stating in Wikipedia's article on gun control that "not all people who oppose assault weapons ownership believe violators should be executed with their own weapon". Given that Wikipedia articles are only supposed to provide relevant information, that wording suggests there are some who think that people should be executed with their illegally owned weapons. Now, unlike the gun control example, there are some people who hold the extreme view on abortion, but those people are not in the more specific group that is the subject of the paragraph: people who call themselves "pro-life". While Dimadick and Nbauman provided examples of people being opposed to abortion in all circumstances, none of those people also describe themselves as "pro-life".

That being said, I understand why the statement was removed. Even though the statement is easily falsifiable and hasn't been disproven with a counterexample, it's also impossible to reliably source. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

[1]
NR Interview (13 November 2013). "What's 'Pro-Life,' Anyway?". National Review Online. Retrieved 4 February 2016.