Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 3 February 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States anti-abortion movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abortion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Lead section

I've recently begun expanding the lead section to better represent the most important points in the article. More work is needed. Any objections or suggestions should be made here. Thanks.Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is supposed to represent the world wide pro-life movement. The violent actions of a few on the fringe of the movement in the United States have been denounced by every major pro-life organization. I prefer the old lead as it is more succinct but welcome other comments.Boromir123 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually they have not. There are a few that refused to comment on the murders of late term abortion providers.Bill Heller (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to tweak the lead paragraph. Please let me know if this is acceptable.Boromir123 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a good first start. Let's keep the ball rolling. Can you try expanding the lead section to incorporate the main points of the article? It's still too short. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Boromir123: The reference to violent activism does not strike me as appropriate to the lead, as it would not be appropriate to define any political movement or ideology or group of any kind by its fringe violent extremists. I would object if the lead to the article on Liberalism said that violent socialist revolution has "been associated" with Liberalism, or if the lead to the article on Conservatism said that violent fascist regimes have "been associated" with Conservatism, of if the lead to the article on Islam said that terrorism has "been associated" with the Muslim faith, or if the Crusades were mentioned in the lead to the article on Christianity--even if those leads went on to say that "mainstream" Liberals, Conservatives, Muslims, and Christians "have condemned and rejected" such practices. Any and all of those things might be given mention in the article, but placing such information in the lead is counter-productive. One might misunderstand and think that article is ideologically driven. Chadbald (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting.

I find it interesting that the Pro-Choice talk page is filled to the brim with discussion, yet this page is not. Are people removing sections from this page? If so, why?Bill Heller (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There was this edit recently. William Avery (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, please note at the top of this page, a header box, with a section called "Archives" with 4 pages of archived discussion. -Andrew c  20:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename, move back to pro-life

I believe the article was boldly moved from the longstanding pro-life out of process. We now have a situation were the two movements, pro-life and pro-choice, don't have naming parity, and it's been like that for too long. I'd like to restore this article to simply pro-life as it is shorter, less verbose, simpler, more common search phrase, and has a long history precedent. But before I made the bold move, I wanted to seek input. If no one agrees with me, that's fine. I'm not too attached, but I'd request instead that pro-choice be moved to pro-choice movement for parity. -Andrew c  15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Either moving this to pro-life or moving pro-choice to pro-choice movement is fine.Boromir123 (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead reads The pro-life movement is... The article is about a specific, manipulative, political name for a movement acting exclusively in the abortion debate. It's not about people who are in favour of life, in all circumstances, with no reservations. Many would be supporters of various war activities, and/or capital punishment. It's a very narrowly based movement. It makes sense to say so. The same applies, with less intensity, to the Pro-choice article. It's name is a somewhat more accurate description of its political position, but still manipulative and political. HiLo48 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on your understanding of Misplaced Pages naming conventions, you feel something else is better suited for pro-life? -Andrew c  18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think descriptions of all those who oppose abortion should be grouped together under an Anti-abortion title. An article called Pro-life anything is an advertisment for a movement with a name designed for manipulative marketing purposes rather than truth. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Would Misplaced Pages:NC#Non-neutral but common names not apply to this situation? And would we be excluded from discussing opposition to euthanasia if we had an article at "anti-abortion"? Looking at WP:NC, I am personally convinced that pro-life is most in line with our naming conventions. I'd be glad to explain my logic further, if necessary, but I'm curious how you are reaching your conclusions based on our guidelines. Misplaced Pages isn't about The Truth, so we have no responsibility to be proscriptive in our article naming. -Andrew c  22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-life" makes sense to me, I think it is the generally accepted name in the abortion debate. - Schrandit (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the lead

Should there be a whole second paragraph in the lead devoted to violence and abortion? Seems rather undue. - Schrandit (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps not representative of the pro-life movement by any means, especially from a statistical standpoint (the % of crimially violent pro-lifers is probably remarkably low), and thus I can see that as an argument from weight, I also realize that the media gives the violent acts (or terrorism) committed by a few extremists a lot of coverage. So it may not be undue weight in terms of media coverage (even if that weight is inappropriate/wrong or disproportionate). Because of that, I feel that we should mention something in the lead, though probably not a lot. -Andrew c  00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response under "Lead Section." Wide media coverage of the relatively few violent Muslims does not warrant a "Lead" mention of terrorism in the Islam article, nor should such be true here. Chadbald (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We should definately cover the topic and I think we do a decent job of showing all sides and putting the incidents in context later on in the article. Per the vibe I'm getting here I'm going to trim that second paragraph down to a sentence in the first paragraph but I don't know if we should cover violence at all in the lede. - Schrandit (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Schrandit and Chadbald. The violent actions of a few extremists particularly in the United States should not really belong in the lead in what is really a worldwide movement.Boromir123 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the worldwide business sometimes escapes me. - Schrandit (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced, but for the time being I'm willing to stand aside for the sake of consensus. -Andrew c  18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Polling

I don't see what the polling section has to do with this article. It is too US centric, doesn't represent a world view, and is about both pro-choice and pro-life and everything in between. It shouldn't go in the pro-choice article, and it shouldn't go here. Furthermore, there is some original research in the summary of the polling data. I'd propose removing it, and merging any viable content to the Abortion in the US/public opinion article/section. -Andrew c  22:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Debate Section enhancement

I just added some widely-known information. I know that the start of the section requests more citations, but really, almost all of what I added is so widely known that we hardly need bother. (If you insist, then you will have an easy time finding sources!) V (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it for the time being. It is poorly phrased, seems quite POV, and of course in unsourced. Saying a fetus is worse than a vampire is quite offensive, and if you don't acknowledge that, well.... -Andrew c  23:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit was made partly as an experiment. I was quite sure someone would come along and ignore facts, and revert it. What facts am I talking about? You specified it yourself: "Saying a fetus is worse than a vampire" --the reason the statement is factual is because a vampire only sucks biological resources from its victims; it does not also excrete biological waste products into its victims. If you don't like the facts, and are offended by the facts, tough! The facts are still the facts! V (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources, not novel ideas that random people on the internet come up with. Misplaced Pages is not about The Truth. Furthermore, I don't believe such content, even if sourced, would be appropriate for this article (but maybe the more general abortion debate article or maybe the Beginning of human personhood article, something like that). An argument that a fetus is worse than a vampire has nothing at all to do with the pro-life movement.-Andrew c  01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

By definition, the "Debate" section of this article does not have to only focus on the pro-life side of the debate (else there would be no debate). Thus to allow such a section to exist in this article is to invite exposure of all the flaws in the pro-life argument. I'm quite sure that every single pro-life/anti-abortion argument is fatally flawed, to the extent that the only way the promoters of that side of the argument can hope to prevail is by suppressing exposure of the flaws, any way they can think of (exhibit A being the fate of the experimental post under discussion here, and the feeble rationale you invoked, effectively saying that Truth is unimportant). I formally invite you or anyone else to pick any pro-life/anti-abortion argument you like, and I shall show you its fatal flaw --after which, of course, there will be more feeble excuses made, regarding why it shouldn't be posted to the Debate section of this article! V (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

V - That just ain't gunna happen. I draw your attention to the first dot point at the top of this page. It says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." It was an interesting, if dramatic, point you made and referenced at the start of this section. I know you have been scornful of references, but if you CAN link to a reliable source, you may be able to say something like "X says that a fetus is worse than a vampire" in the article, but it simply cannot be just you saying it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I plainly indicated that after discussion of some debate aspect here, its essence might be included in the Debate section of the article (the whole purpose of this Talk page section!) --and I also plainly indicated that such inclusion would be resisted. Next, you are quite wrong; I am not scornful of references. Do remember that Misplaced Pages freely allows editors to draw obvious conclusions. There are plenty of sources about vampires, all agreeing, even with respect to fictional entities, that they take biological resources from their victims. Vampires are never portrayed as also excreting all their biological wastes into their victims. Meanwhile, you can also find plenty of sources indicating that the fetus of any mammal does both. It is therefore quite obvious that a fetus is worse than a vampire, and the rule about obvious conclusions should obviously apply! (On another subject, for anyone interested, I posted some relevant comments on the Talk page of the Beginning of human personhood article.) V (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think the guidelines say, it's obvious to me that "obvious" material, that can be posted without sources, realistically also has to be non-controversial and non-confrontational. Things like "Australia ia a country in the southern hemisphere..." or "World War II was a major war..." You know it's true. Some could argue that your "obvious" conclusion is actually a form of wp:synthesis, combining knowledge of vampires with knowledge of the fetus. I am actually interested in your analogy with vampires. It's one I haven't heard before. And I can see your point in wanting to include it. All you need to do is find someone else who has had the same idea and has written it up in a reputable place. Easy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"reputable place"---do you have any idea how funny that is? For any opponent of abortion, there is no such thing as a reputable place that hosts material poking holes into their arguments. :) For another argument you might not have encountered before, search for the word "genocidal" in the recently archived Talk:Abortion page. On that page is also an expanded argument about fetal parasitism, in the "Difference Birth Makes" section. I've also posted other arguments on the Talk:Abortion debate and Talk:Viability (fetal) and Talk:Roe v. Wade pages, none of which has a counterargument posted last I checked. Prepare to be surprised how many ways the pro-life/anti-abortion arguments fall to pieces. V (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be surprised. Please don't make assumptions about my own knowledge and opinion on the subject. What surprises me is how determined you are to not get material that supports your opinion into Misplaced Pages. There are methods that work, and methods that don't. Stop wasting your time on the latter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't making much of an assumption above; I've originated several arguments that I've never seen anywhere outside my own Web postings, and of course that means Misplaced Pages's rules won't allow them, since none are WP:RS. I did think that the vampire argument might stand a chance due to sheer obviousness. And facts are not opinions. There might be an opinion associated with the meaning of "worse", but that is doubtful. Is there anyone anywhere who thinks that an adult human that has blood extracted and wastes injected will exhibit the same-or-better level of health as someone who only had blood extracted (assuming equal amounts of blood)? V (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More on specific incidents of violence

While horrible all around, someone forcing a pregnant woman by gunpoint to go to an abortion clinic has nothing to do with the topic of "Violence against pro-life movement". Was the woman a pro-life activist? Similarly, a woman calling in a false bomb threat doesn't seem on topic either. But more importantly is the issue of citing these one off, local newspaper stories. Misplaced Pages is not the local news. We should report on incidents that a) have commentary relating them to the topic of this article and b) are reported by multiple independent sources. We should not be compiling a one off list like this ourselves, especially when it runs the risk of original research. Furthermore, it sets a precedent where some users may feel compelled to 'balance' the article by adding similar one off, local newspaper stories related to anti-abortion violence. And then we will end up with two long lists of these isolated (or not) incidents, in an article related to a much different topic. This is a matter of scope, and Misplaced Pages style. We should much favor commentary and summary prose, synthesizing concepts, in lieu of presenting such laundry lists. I say the former is quite unencyclopedic, and we can do better! Anyway, I hope this explains my reverts, and I'd be glad to respond to concerns or explain further. Thanks.-Andrew c  16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Those edits did nothing to address any of my concerns. For example, adding the phrase that someone "chose life" does not make the incident any more related to this topic than before. Keep in mind, "pro-choice" individuals have babies all the time or "choose life". I'd appreciate a more through discussion, and perhaps additional input, before the new, disputed edits are re-instated, per WP:BRD. Reverting to restore new controversial material is never OK, especially when no further attempt at discussion is made. Please consider reverting yourself while we discuss this further.-Andrew c  19:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My own 2 cents: I'm not sure I share your OR concern, Andrew, (or at least not to the same degree) concerning the principle of compiling incidents, provided they are documented and clearly related to the topic (but we had this exchange before). I do, however, share your concern about "mission creep" in this part of the article. This article should deal with a (pretty much) worldwide movement, several decades old, and some of the reported incidents are probably too minor/irrelevant for inclusion. I would be fine with a separate article on the topic of violence targeting members of this movement, and only a brief mention in the main article.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

These are some pretty strange incidents of violence. And by "strange", I mean lame.

The first one isn't even real violence, just its cartoon depiction.

The second was about a really violent person who also killed a "gravel pit contractor against whom he bore a grudge". His stated reason for murdering the pro-life activist is that he didn't like the guy's sign. It's not clear whether the violence was due to opposing the activist's stance or just being offended by it. Quite frankly, I don't like those dead fetus signs, and I'm pro-life.

In the third case, there wasn't any violence, or even the credible threat. The police didn't arrest him, no charges were pressed, and they returned his guns the next day. Also, the text has an ugly typo in it.

The fourth contains the credible threat of violence and an actual arrest, but no violence as such.

The last is about a man who tried to force a woman to have an abortion, which is hardly the same as violence against pro-life activists. Also, he didn't actually use the gun.

No matter how you add these up, you get zero. I can't imagine why we should keep any of these, but I'm not going to just jump in and remove them. Instead, I'll wait to see if maybe I'm missing something here. I find it hard to believe that we can't find better examples of violence against pro-life activists! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For law enforcement, the "threat of violence" is already violence (see violent crime), so I don't agree with your challenges based on that distinction. As for Pouillon, I don't think challenging its relevance as a case of violence against a "pro-lifer" qua "pro-lifer" is reasonable - it's been widely interpreted and commented as such, including in a statement by President Obama.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My take on it is, there is significant media coverage, and scholarly analysis of the topic of pro-life/anti-abortion violence. This is because there is a history of extremists associated with the pro-life movement (to some degree) actually having organized campaigns of terror against clinics and doctors, to the point of murder. This is notable because of the level of organization (a la the Army of God) makes this matter more than isolated incidents, but something institutionalized. And as such, there is media attention and scholarly review. Some of that attention, it could be argued, is unwarranted due to perceived (or actual) liberal media bias. So conversely, some individuals here (and outside Misplaced Pages, mind you) have said "hey, why all this attention to violence against abortion providers? The pro-life movement has suffered violence as well" and that leads to the compilation of such lists as found in this article. However, we have to acknowledge the significant difference in treatment by the media and scholarly community, and we have to acknowledge the significant difference and scope and mission of the two types of violence, where there is no evidence at all of some sort of organized, institutionalized effort to attack the pro-life movement. This clearly explains why we have an article on one topic, but not the other (and that also relates to Misplaced Pages policy regarding notability and weight). Needless to say, efforts to add the flip side of the coin (Violence against pro-life movement) have come and gone in this article, and I have historically opposed such efforts. Last May, another attempt was made to create the section, and this time it introduced two incidents that had significant media coverage, so after some discussion and revising and gathering of sources, we reached a compromise to include those two (despite my personal reservations, as I generally agree with Dylan's analysis above). Earlier today, something that may not be avoidable, but I was hoping wouldn't happen, happened. Someone added another 3 incidents to the section, but without demonstrating significant media coverage or analysis. So as it stands, my goal would be to remove those 3 incidents. I'd be glad to discuss the concept behind the section further, as I think it is problematic that we don't have any source which synthesizes the concept behind "violence against the pro-life movement".-Andrew c  00:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, based on what you've said, I think it's reasonable for me to remove this trio of recent additions. If anyone disagrees, I encourage them to revert my changes, but also to explain your reasoning here so that we can come to a consensus. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the issue you brought up, regarding the concept of violence by and against the pro-life movement. I am sorry to have to admit that the idea of violence against abortion providers is inherently contained in pro-life, and has manifeste.d itself systemically. A central tenet of pro-life is that abortion is identical to -- or at least morally akin to -- murder. In the minds of some of my fellow pro-lifers, it follows that abortionists (and the women who hire them) are literally murderers, so killing these people is a praiseworthy act of defense-of-others or righteous retribution.

The comparison between abortion and murder is ubiquitous within the movement. In fact, the sign I carried in the March for Life spoke of baby-killing, and I saw signs equating mass abortion with genocide. While I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers join me in stopping far short of violence, there is a small but dangerous minority which systemically supports violence as a means of achieving our goal. The Army of God is one obvious example, but I think that the ACLA hit list is an even clearer indication, as it shows an organized attempt to incite violence among others, as opposed to a coincidental collection of like-minded warriors for God. It sickens me that these people pervert our principles by murdering in the name of life.

In contrast, while the act of abortion is itself abhorrently violent, the pro-choice movement lacks even an ideological basis, much less any genuine tendency, for supporting violence against pro-life activists. They have no hit lists, much less self-avowed armies. There is simply no parallel here, so any argument that a balanced view requires highlighting violence against pro-life activists is simply being dishonest. This is why I believe that the last two examples should be removed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I absolutely share Andrew c's OR concerns. It's a clear cut case of OR, in effect using news reports as a primary source. We need a reliable secondary source that identifies these activities as being part of a phenomenon of anti-pro-life activity. As an illustration, we don't go into minor court reports and find every case of domestic violence precipitated by a woman electing to have an abortion, and clock that up as an example of anti-abortionist violence, as that would be OR, and pretty poor OR at that. I support the removal of the material.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on having looked at what's now left, I think the whole section should go. The cartoon is not violence, and the murder of Pouillon was by someone not involved in pro-choice organisations, who had mental health issues, and also topped someone else on the same day entirely unconnected to the abortion issue. There is no evidence that he was an activist of any kind against pro-life. NPOV is not the same as pretending niceness and nastiness are in 50-50 balance on all sides in all way and at all times. If it's the case that there simply isn't any organised campaign of violence at all, we shouldn't pretend that there is. "Balance" should not misrepresent reality. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remember that this article is about "pro-life" (not so long ago, it was more precisely "pro-life movement", but it was changed, I believe infelicitously). I fully agree, therefore, that the issues of violence against abortion providers and violence targeting "pro-lifers" should be disconnected, and not under a common heading. Regarding VAAP, the main issue relevant to the article is that of the relationship of the pro-life movement to such violence; as for violence against "pro-lifers", the question is: is such violence significant enough to feature in a history of the pro-life movement? I believe the Pouillon murder is significant - it has had wide national resonance - and has marked the self-perception of the movement. The fact that the perpetrator was not affiliated to a "pro-choice" organization is not, I believe, relevant. It would be if we were discussing including the Pouillon murder in the pro-choice article under a heading "incidents of pro-choice violence" - but we aren't.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've amended the "violence against PL" section, trying to syntethize it so it doesn't turn into a laundry list, while not completely discarding relevant and informative material. I've just changed the title of the following section to re-focus it within the article.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Matthew, to sort this section out. However, I still have serious reservations about what's left. Whatever the US legal definition of violence is, all we have here is one dubious case of anti-pro-life actual violence. It's a celebrated case, but celebrated by partisans, not by independent sources. The other cases look like they are what editors can find, not what has been collated by a reliable resource. It's up to an RS to argue whether or not an abortion-performing doctor flashing a gun at pro-lifers protesting at one of his workplaces represents any kind of trend of violence/violent threat. Assembling these cases to argue any kind of pattern is OR unless it's to illustrate an argument found in RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am rather disturbed about the conversation here. The removal of historical material demonstrating violence against participants in the pro-life movement or people who have chosen to abide by the pro-life viewpoint (for their own personal decisions) by people who admit they are pro-choice in the discussion page clearly violates conflict of interest clause of wikipedia. The removal of historical material of violence against pro-life activists by pro-choice advocates is not much different from the history of pro-choice advocates murdering politicians, talk-show hosts, activists, and intimidations of those people (including people who have chosen life) through the use of violence. There are very notable cases, which should be included in the article. I am curious how anyone editing the article (and removing material) can be unaware of the history of violence against the pro-life movement. One might suppose that the removal of material may be due to either ignorance or malicious intent. Material should not be removed by people who have a conflict of interest. If there is a concern about organization of the material, that is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHalko (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

David, let's please keep the conversation on issues of WP policy, and assume good faith. Vsevolod, I don't believe the current wording is a case of OR - I know Andrew and I have disagreed about this issue before, but I just don't see the bar for OR being set this low in any other article. The assertions in this section are fully backed by RSs, and that, I believe, is where the bar is set all through WP, and should be set here.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the conversation I brought was clearly on WP policy - conflict of interest and vandalism (i.e. malicious intent.) After seeing material deleted wholesale from the article, it was re-added with adjustments made, in good faith, with concerns expressed by an individual with clear conflict of interest. Phrases such as "celebrated" in reference to the deaths of individuals and acts of violence either acted or threatened is disgusting, clearly demonstrating conflict of interest. As individuals add content to the article, added content should not be deleted wholesale by people with clear conflicts of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHalko (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is almost by definition written by editors who are interested in this issue, and people interested in the issue often have an opinion on it. The way forward, I believe, is to try and find an informative, balanced and encyclopedic common ground based on WP policy.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

David, I apologise if my use of the "celebrated" was taken the wrong way. I was trying to find a more elegant way of saying "made a big thing out of through the media". As it was members of the pro-life movement doing this, I had hoped it was clear that I wasn't using the word in the other meaning of "glorifying as a good thing". Clearly my hopes were misplaced and I apologise for any offence caused. (I should point out to you that I haven't actually revealed my own views on abortion anywhere on Misplaced Pages - I'm trying to adhere to NPOV). My view is that identifying the Pouillon case as an example of a phenomenon of anti-pro-life violence is POV in two respects. Firstly, that Pouillon was a victim of someone acting because of opposition to the pro-life movement is a partisan narrative. It does not appear to be the view of independent sources, who document that the killer did not like his signs with pictures of foetuses on them, and who killed someone else the same day unrelated to the issue. As Daryl points out, a lot of pro-lifers don't like those kinds of signs. Secondly, to group examples together without an RS analysis that says (more or less) "there is a phenomenon of anti-pro-life violence" is POV and OR. We're putting together isolated incidents and claiming there's a pattern.

Matthew: I'm surprised you haven't come across someone setting the OR bar so low (or is it high?) on Misplaced Pages before. I've edited in a few controversial areas (meaning controversial for wikipedians) and really focussing on what is and isn't OR is one of the common ways of finding a settled position. Here's an imaginary example of the kind of OR I think is being done here. I scour the newspapers looking for people murdered or attacked with the name "George". I then go to the page called George (given name) and add a section on "Violence against people called George". Obviously this is silly, and one can argue it's UNDUE, but it's also OR, because it's effectively claiming a phenomenon of "violence against Georges", whereby people are attacked because they are called George. I hope we can agree on that. (Even if I find one or two newspaper articles detailing how a person genuinely was attacked because the assailant had something against the name George, I cannot make claims of a larger phenomenon. One swallow (or two) doesn't make a summer.) Now instead of using "George" let's use "Mormons". We can put up a section on the LDS page called "violence against Mormons" and list examples of people who were Mormons who suffered some kind of violence - whether or not it has been established that the violence was an act against Mormonism. I hope we're agreed this too would be OR. However, I also suspect you feel the tug (as I do) of "well...that kind of violent phenomenon might exist - I can see certain people getting wound up enough", and you start to wonder if it really would be OR. The thing is, it still is OR. Unless there is a reliable source that identifies violence against Mormons as a pattern of behaviour, it would still be us joining dots that as wikipedians we're not allowed to join. We're getting distracted by what we expect to be the case, not what the sources allow us to state is the case. Put aside the fact that this is an emotional topic. What we have here is (according to the Pouillon page) the only ever case of a pro-life activist being killed while he was protesting (the appropriate RS does not even state the killer was anti-pro-life rather than against the public display of foetus pictures, or just out to kill people), another man freaking out with a gun (firing shots in the air) when someone told him (and I'm sure it wasn't in a soft, peaceable tone) he was a baby killer, and a doctor in a high-stress, slightly high-risk situation, flashing a gun. A pro-choice POV editor might, with equal justification, label this section as "violence provoked by pro-life activists". That would also be the double OR we're doing now: classifying each event in a way the RS does not support, and stringing the events together to form a larger pattern. Both the current version and this imaginary version are doing analysis that must instead be left up to reliable sourcing. Apologies for the long explanation - and apologies to any Georges or Mormons. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vsevolod: no apologies needed – on the contrary, thank you for taking the time to make your case. I’m going to try and make mine as eloquently! Here’s my central point of disagreement/misunderstanding on the OR/non-OR limit (using another fictional analogy): we’re editing the article about a town named X. X has hosted the county fair in 2002, 2005 and 2008. The article reads:

”X has hosted the county fair several times: in 2002 , in 2005 and in 2008 .”

References 1, 2 and 3 are all briefs in the local paper, each of which mentions the fair in 2002, 2005 and 2008 respectively. No RS says “X has hosted the fair several times: in 2002, 2005 and 2008”, however I believe it is not OR, but admitted and common practice on WP, to present these related facts in an organized manner. Of course, OR could easily creep in: saying, for example

”X has hosted the county fair every three years: in 2002 , in 2005 and in 2008 .”

wouldn’t do: you would have to have a source saying that this rule/pattern exists. Those, I believe, are the limits within which we have to tread. Hopefully, the (perfectible!) wording I suggested respected this. I propose the wording “Members of the pro-life movement in the United States have on occasion been the victims of violence in reaction to their advocacy.” I do not propose, for example, "There is a pattern of pro-lifers being the victims etc". Neither do I propose, “Pro-lifers have been targeted for their pro-life views” – as in all the instances RSs establish that violence was in reaction to their actions, not to their views (a distinction which was, I believe, one of your concerns.) On another point that you haven't mentioned, but I know it was a concern of Andrew's: I understand that it may be a problem to juxtapose a section on "violence against PL" and the section on "PL and violence against abortion providers", and to seem to draw a parallel between the two. Both topics are very different in nature, as they are in scope. I am open to trying to resolve this, if you have any ideas (in wording, or in moving the "VAPL" section to another place in the article - though, no offense to anyone, the whole layout of the article is a bit of a mess). --Matthew Moorhead (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Matthew - thanks for your reply - I understand your view more clearly now. In your example, I would actually say that, if we have a pattern of the fair happening every three years (say four or five examples), it's fine to presume - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the fair was triennial, or at least has been triennial. (One of these days I will write an essay WP:THEBLEEDINGOBVIOUS, because - believe it or not - I'm not that much of a sourcing Nazi, especially when it comes to lesser known topics.) However, I'm not sure your example applies here. The county fair is a single, repeating event, whose calendar pattern can be discerned without referring to a wider context. A better example for the current case would be saying that "people who visit the fair are occasionally called Justin", based on three reports of people called Justin visiting the fair over its 15 year history. The impression given to the reader would be that one was more likely to meet a Justin in the fair than in everyday life. But the fact of the matter is, we are saying this with no idea how many Justins have actually visited the fair, or how many Justins one would otherwise meet. How many protesters on any topic have had a gun waved at them? What's the expectation of violence in any protest? We are now out of the area of the bleeding obvious, and into territory where it's no longer our call, but up to RS.

So, where do we go from here? I suggest we put material on Pouillon into a section that covers his martyr status and the controversy around the shooting (but no forking from the Pouillon article), and ditch the other stuff as UNDUE.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with your solution, Vsevolod, in order to move forward. I don't feel, however, that a section specifically about Pouillon's murder would fit well within the overall article.

Here's my own proposal for a compromise: discard the "violence against PL" section, and reassign the information to the relevant paragraphs in the "types of advocacy" section - with a condensed reference to Pouillon in the Truth display paragraph (RSs state that the murder was in reaction to the fact that Pouillon displayed pictures of aborted fetuses), and a mention of the 2 other incidents as an aside in the part about Picketing. I don't believe the cartoon video, though not irrelevant, can be recycled under my proposal - it would have to be discarded for now.

I'd be the first to say that such a solution is imperfect, but I believe it answers concerns about unduly establishing a pattern linking various events, while not discarding most of the information.

Obviously, the conversation isn't only between Vsevolod and me - any other thoughts on a way forward?--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this, but I've already said what I have to say. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A ludicrous statement

The following statment is comlete nonsense and should be removed; "Some pro-choice advocates also point out that, while they too would prefer to see abortion not happen, making abortion illegal encourages women with unwanted pregnancies to seek Unsafe abortion, placing their own lives at risk." To follow this logic we should legalise theft, murder, rape and car theft because if it remains ilegal then people will only be encouraged to do it ilegally anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The justification for having something in Misplaced Pages is for it to come from a reliable source that we can cite in the article. That statement has a reference but, while its name suggests that it is about this topic, doesn't seem to be at all. I'm wondering if something has got lost along the way. Of course, your view would need the same thing, a reliable source, for it to be added to the article. I happen to agree with the statement in the article. It is my personal view on the matter. I would love to find a better source for it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor that the statement is illogical in a sense, and I agree with HiLo that either view needs to be backed by a verifiable and reliable source. I won't do it right now, but usual Misplaced Pages policy is to removed perceivably biased/controversial statements which aren't properly sourced. As you know, HiLo, my views are opposite of yours, but I'm not really gonna do anything about this. Invmog (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No-one could have views opposite mine, because mine are nowhere near the extreme. It's hard to be opposite the middle. But, back to the statement. What's there now doesn't seem to be properly referenced, but it describes a reality. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop it happening. It makes those wanting to have abortions seek less safe ways of having them. That doesn't have to be read as an argument for making it legal, although many would choose to do so. It is simply a description of something that happens. I'm sure that fact has been written up by people wiser than me, but I don't know where to look for such a source. Removing it from the article would not help the article (apart from obeying Misplaced Pages's rules in the short term). Finding a good source would. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The above comments are extraordinary. In the UK, this was the main reason why abortion was legalised in 1967. In most of the world (outside the US) it is a basic (and probably the strongest argument) for legalisation of abortion and it is very well-documented that it is so. A quick google of this subject reveals this UN WHO document for instance: 'Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic' http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/general/lancet_4.pdf. It states: "Increasing legal access to abortion is associated with improvement in sexual and reproductive health. Conversely, unsafe abortion and related mortality are both highest in countries with narrow grounds for legal abortion." I suspect that this may only be considered a "ludicrous" satement in the US. I checked the reference against the comment in the article and found a weird Zimbabwe source that doesn't appear to refer to abortion. Could someone who has editing rights replace it with eg, this WHO document. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

oh, thought the article is protected - will make the change myself. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life movements in Europe

This comes from my talkpage, following my revert of an IP edit that I marked as "odd".

---

The editor who made this edit is in Finland, which may explain why they would think of the UK as being "southern". This aside, I think he has a point: there's not much pro-life activism in northern Europe. Is there a way we could state this accurately? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That might be the source of the confusion, although I would personally never consider Germany Eastern Europe because I'm British. Do we have sources that say there isn't much going on in the Nordic countries? Or perhaps it's Catholic countries plus the UK? (There'll be stuff in Ireland too, I'm sure).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not easy to source. The best I've come up with are articles that talk generalities, such as this one. Can you do better? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's one from 1996, which goes into some nice detail, although it would change what the article says. If you don't mind, I'll transfer this conversation to the Pro-life talkpage, so that other people can chip in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I'll keep looking for sources, but if anyone else has some good stuff, please offer it up. The section on Europe is actually pretty thin, and would certainly be an interesting contrast with the American situation if it were filled out properly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's 'thin' for a good reason - it's not a hot issue in Europe (in comparison to US). I think (admittedly POV) that 'pro-life' is rather a fringe issue in most of the continent. I think there should be some comment along these lines in this section. DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pro-birth revert

I reverted user:Toussaint's edit because it does not support the statement. The statement said that the name "Pro-choice" implies that opponents of abortion are "pro-birth". However, the source is someone arguing that a particular individual who is pro-life is in effect pro-birth, not that Pro-choice implies it. (In any case, the source is a local newspaper reporting on the views of a non-notable religious organisation which itself is actually pro-life, but believes that pro-life people must also support the creation of a better (i.e. pacifist) world for children.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed by 72.240.91.65

I've felt compelled to revert a repeated change by this user, because I feel it biases the article. While I can certainly understand the motivations, articles on controversial topics represent a hard-fought consensus that cannot be ignored. Dylan Flaherty 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who made said changes, and made them because the section on the debate seems incomplete and somewhat biased. The section is supposed to discuss the arguments on both sides, but it predominantly speaks of pro-choice arguments (including the controversial Roe effect, here without citing any references). I am also concerned about the wording of several sentences, e.g. "he fetus is...preparing to subject her to a major medical/surgical trauma (childbirth)..." This sentence in particular is troubling because whether that was the author's intention or not, it suggests that the fetus is somehow attacking the mother. In short, I feel the article would greatly benefit by showing a wider range of arguments and showing less of a favor to one side. 72.240.91.65 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I've learned about the abortion-related articles of Misplaced Pages is that each and every last one of them has been fought over like a disputed border between warlike third-world nations. Each line in the sand has a history and you don't just go upsetting it without getting a consensus from the people who etched it there with their blood. While I am not unsympathetic with the sorts of changes you'd like to make, you have absolutely no chance of making them if you just start editing. You need to gain a consensus behind you even before you edit, so that your changes will be accepted. This is what I do: I ask, I wait, and if what I hear doesn't sound supportive, I move on to something else. It's not as satisfying as just rewriting the article to fit my view, but then again, that's why it's not called DylanPedia. Please take a lesson from this. Dylan Flaherty 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for also being concerned about the neutrality of the article. My reasons for editing the article are above, and I feel changes are necessary to achieve a neutral point of view. After the first three paragraphs that mostly describe the different positions on the issue, there are three paragraphs that each contain a pro-choice argument (one of which makes no citations), but there are no corresponding pro-life arguments. It was mainly for this reason that I made my edits and later put up the POV flag. At any rate, we're discussing the proposed changes on the talk page now. What do you think: do you think any of my changes are appropriate? 72.240.91.65 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at this edit right now.

1. I think "for any reason" may be redundant here. That's what "on-demand" means.
2. I don't believe there's any doubt that abstinence, sex ed and contraception can all lower the number of unwanted pregnancies. The only debate is over to what extent each of these is effective and moral.
3. The reason it says "a form of" is that it is not identical to infanticide, as a fetus is not technically an infant, although I would argue that it is morally equivalent.
4. I don't think abortionfacts.com is a reliable source, except perhaps if narrowly taken as a statement of the pro-life view. Still, if we need that, we can find better sources.
5. I'm not sure why "she has" is better than "there is". If anything, the latter suggests that it's a family decision.
6. Removing the carefully neutral text about the Roe effect and replacing it with "claimed to" seems like obvious bias to me.
7. No problem adding the sentence about what pro-life advocates feel, but using the phrase "mother and baby" to refer to a woman who does not wish to be pregnant and to the fetus she is trying to abort seems, well, obviously biased. Let's stick to medical terms, and then this change would be acceptable.
8. The next sentence, about homocide, is highly problematic. The first link requires membership and the second is not a reliable source. Without a reliable source to stitch these two ideas together, it would be original research on our part to synthesize them.
9. The last change is also problematic, as the "counter-argument" seems to be irrelevant. It may well be that legalizing abortion makes it more common, but that does not counter the likely true claim that pro-choicers would rather that fewer women have abortions. Their basic argument is that they want to reduce abortions by addressing the demand side, not the supply side. Likewise, whether the specific number of maternal deaths from unsafe abortions before legalization was accurately stated has no bearing; it's just a cheap shot.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that most of these changes do not seem to have much of a chance of gaining consensus. Dylan Flaherty 18:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life legislation

Is it consistent with NPOV to describe a non-person, such as a law, as "pro-life"? I argue that, because it is not a question of self-identification, we must use neutral terms for the legislation and prefer description of the legislation's effect to political euphemisms; in this I am supported by Andy Walsh, Kansan, and VsevolodKrolikov. Schrandit and John J. Bulten argue that because a law's supporters describe it as "pro-life," so too should we.

I urge anyone interested in commenting to read all previous discussion, beginning at my talk page, continuing to Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion_stance_wording, and ending up at Talk:Pro-life#Pro-life_legislation.

(Note that the same question applies to the phrase "pro-choice legislation.")

Roscelese (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Political positions of Ron Paul#Abortion stance wording:

There seems to be an edit war over whether his position on legalized abortion should be described as "anti-abortion" or "pro-life". I cannot find any overall Misplaced Pages consensus on the term that should be used; I do note that in the actual Abortion article, "pro-life" seems to be used more ("anti-abortion" tends to be used in the context of things such as the violent fringe of the movement). Having said that, I also know that the Associated Press Styleguide recommends the use of "anti-abortion", so there are good arguments that could be made on both sides. Regardless, an attempt should be made to discuss the issue here rather than edit warring. Kansan (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To sum up my position as laid out on my talk page: We accept "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as descriptors for people, because they are self-identifications; unlike other editors in this discussion, I do not go about editing descriptions of people to put in buzzwords I like. However, laws are not people, and cannot self-identify, so we have to treat them as we'd treat anything else and describe them in non-biased language. This can take the form of using a neutral descriptor - "X supports anti-abortion legislation" - attributing the biased descriptor - "X supports legislation he describes as pro-life" - or suppressing the descriptor entirely - "X supports laws which would define a fertilized egg as a legal person." However, the latter two aren't really appropriate for a heading, so I think in this particular case we're obliged to use the neutral text.

Dictionary usage moreover is against applying "pro-life" to non-people/groups. (Interestingly, the OED accepts "pro-choice" as a word one can use to describe a law, but I think it's best to keep the policy equal.) I used OED, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage.

I've been changing these because WP:NPOV is the standard we should be striving for. The self-identification rule allows for balance if not real neutrality, and while one might disagree, it's at least consensus. "X is pro-life" sort of implies "X describes himself as pro-life." If, on the other hand, you start letting biased text through in non-SI cases, NPOV is gutted. "This law is pro-life" - well, it certainly doesn't believe that abortion is wrong itself, because it hasn't a brain. Who has described it as pro-life? And why are we only listening to them instead of people who have described the law as anti-choice? Better to go with neutral text. Roscelese (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved editor to the discussion, I do tend to agree with the arguments presented, most of all because buzzwords such as "pro-life" assume a familiarity with current political terminology/buzzwords, whereas the term "anti-abortion" succinctly describes the position. The usage of the term "pro-life" for people is as much of a courtesy to allow people to go by self-defined terms (and, on the same token, we would prefer "abortion rights legislation" to "pro-choice".) On the balance, I support usage of "anti-abortion". Kansan (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Thanks to the vicissitudes of the pro-life movement, I can anticipate some surreal sentences coming up once we try to use "pro-life" as a neutral descriptor - "X supported pro-life legislation like , which would reduce unplanned pregnancies. Pro-life groups opposed the law..." But that hasn't been an issue so far, and thus isn't a cornerstone of my argument. Roscelese (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Political positions of Ron Paul is the wrong article for this discussion; copying it to Talk:Pro-life#Pro-life legislation, as previously proposed on R's talk. R made this same change in perhaps 50 20 articles, so while the Ron Paul watchers should be free to comment there, it really needs the pro-life article watchers. JJB 20:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Begin new comments below.

I too consult many dictionaries, and without detailing at this time, it is clear that R's many edits and reversions are fighting a personal bete noire of what she considers POV phrasing, as her user page says. There is no appreciable difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion", with or without hyphens, that prohibits one from being used for legislation and allows the other, or that makes one more neutral than the other. If anything there is a sense of "anti-abortion" that restricts it effectively to "anti-induced-abortion", making it the wrong word due to that ambiguity, which "pro-life" does not have. "Pro-life legislation" passes the Google test with flying colors. The fact that R marked all these revisions as minor (for which she has apologized), and that no discussion was originally initiated anywhere, indicates a misunderstanding of process as well. (I would certainly appreciate R's links to WP guidance on self-identification, because I broadly support self-ID and have not found it covered sufficiently in policy to my taste.) About 5 editors have objected or reverted these edits, so there is no consensus for them at this time. I would appreciate below the views of regulars to this article (as well as the Ron Paul position article where this discussion was first posted) as to whether the phrase "pro-life legislation" should be verboten on WP. JJB 20:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a persistent problem with counting, JJB. My edits (in under 20 articles) have been reverted by three people, one of whom is yourself, one of whom has an extremely clear agenda (as I pointed out, if you think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are of equivalent neutrality, you cannot be trusted to give an unbiased perspective on this issue), and one of whom hasn't yet commented in this discussion.

it is clear that R's many edits and reversions are fighting a personal bete noire of what she considers POV phrasing, as her user page says - because God forbid anyone should have the goal of making an encyclopedia neutral. The horror!

Funny how most hits for "pro-life legislation" are from self-described pro-life activists. They couldn't possibly have a reason to describe the legislation in non-neutral terms. I'll also refer you to WP:GOOGLE and point out that if you're going to insist on relying on that, "homophobic legislation" (fex) gets plenty of hits and is another thing one isn't allowed to say on Misplaced Pages because of NPOV. From a purely pedantic perspective, hey, "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well" gets loads of hits too.

There is no appreciable difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion", with or without hyphens, that prohibits one from being used for legislation and allows the other, or that makes one more neutral than the other - really? You don't understand that "pro-life" is a term created to paint the movement in a positive light (because who isn't in favor of life?) while "anti-abortion" is both specific and non-euphemistic?

As for self-ID, I don't think it's in the MoS per se but it's certainly been a recurring issue at talk:pro-life. Roscelese (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Without answering the formal fallacies from your arguments, it remains to demonstrate the dictionary usage at hand. Yes, I would take you up on your offer to quote the OED.

• New International (3rd unabridged): neither word present, due to date.
• Merriam-Webster (10th): "antiabortion ... (1971): opposed to abortion"; "pro-life ... (1961): ANTIABORTION".
• New World (3rd): "antiabortion ... opposed to induced abortions and to their legalization"; "pro-life ... opposing the right to obtain a legal abortion".
• American Heritage (3rd): "antiabortion ... Opposed to abortion: the antiabortion movement." "pro-life ... Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."

Every dictionary has one simple definition for each word. Clearly, MW, in addition to noting that the first citation of "pro-life" is 10 years older than the first of "antiabortion", has decided to finesse the issue by regarding them as straight synonyms, so there is no advantage there to choosing one over the other generally; individual editor clusters should decide at each article, rather than my hunting down and shooting the phrase "anti-abortion legislation" or "laws" in 20 articles without discussion. Further, WNW and AH clearly give "antiabortion" a narrower scope than "pro-life", WNW limiting antiabortion to induced abortion, and AH expanding pro-life to all embryo/fetus protection; thus we could also, if we were minded, make a good argument for using "pro-life" in all cases, being the older word and the more generic and less ambiguous word. Your idea that some source permits your WP:OR rule that legislation is never pro-life is not borne out, as every definition refers to opposition to abortion, and opposition can be attributed to laws as well as people, or else you could not call the laws antiabortion by any of these sources. You then discount your outlier evidence, namely that OED uses "pro-choice" as describing laws, which is an appeal to yourself when you don't like the source, on your rationale that "I think it's best to keep the policy equal." Equality is disputed. One side focused on the words "proabortion" (1972) and "antilife" (1929) as proposed equality-keeping antonyms of "pro-life" (1961), the other side focused on the word "antiabortion" (1971) as a proposed equality-keeping synonym and "pro-choice" (1975) as a proposed antonym. But all these words have different nuances and usages, so equality is a nonstarter argument because the different camps just go on using different words. In short, to make such a sweeping change you would need a broad consensus at this article first, just as I would need if I decided to make a sweeping change in the other direction. (Incidentally, I co-led a social club with a NARAL director for a year, and, in the Ron Paul Revolution, I and a self-ID'd pro-choice Paulite told the media that Paul brings unity on even this issue, which means he's doing a better job on carrying out WP's mission of consensus than WP is today.) JJB 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's lovely that you have a "pro-choice" friend, but I'm afraid that isn't at all relevant - your anecdote about Ron Paul supposedly bringing unity would be undue and OR if you tried to edit based on it.

As for your position, I'm still skeptical about the grammatical point, but that's really a subset of the neutrality point, which your paragraph on synonyms and antonyms still fails to address. I've explained at length why the statement "this law is pro-life" is biased, because it privileges the opinions of "pro-lifers" over "pro-choicers" in a non-SI case; have you anything to say? Roscelese (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have used pro-choice and pro-life as far back as I remember, just like we use self-ID on all the political issues I can think of. I can think of no decent reason to change. While I could appreciate a move to pro-abortion/anti-abortion I see how that would get very sticky very fast, I say we we stay with pro-choice/pro-life as descriptors. - Schrandit (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing when one uses levity to lighten the mood of a challenging discussion and one is mistaken for someone who wants to insert OR into an article (which would be COI too as per my userpage). Anyway, the only "privilege" I see is that more laws are pro-life than pro-choice, primarily because the Supreme Court holds that the Constitution is pro-choice, and so that camp holds the "turf" and the other camp ends up with more textual citations. That's not a privilege of certain opinions any more than the pro-choice designation of the status quo of the Constitution is a privilege. It's just "facts on the ground". But looky there, Google has 223,000 hits for "pro-choice legislation" also, and what a coincidence that the leaders are NARAL, prochoiceny.org, and Misplaced Pages on FOCA. So you seem to be well-represented; this is hardly a "privilege" of some opinions over others. Are you saying it would be more neutral for pro-lifers to get to name legislation they oppose (proabortion), and pro-choicers to name legislation they oppose (antiabortion)? The bete noire is still the explanation I'm going with. JJB 02:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, dude, I'm saying it would be more neutral to avoid political euphemisms in ostensibly neutral prose. (And let me again refer you to WP:GOOGLE.) As for "pro-choice legislation," I've no problem with rephrasing that in a neutral form as long as the same standard is consistently applied. (Ie. no "pro-life legislation" and "legislation which would expand abortion access," that isn't balanced.) Like other editors, I have only a limited amount of time and energy so I may not devote equal amounts of the same to removing instances of "pro-choice legislation," but I'm not insisting on a standard that favors one position over another (unlike the ridiculous "pro-abortion"/"anti-abortion" proposal).

Queries:

1. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Ron Paul supports legislation which would do " - sans descriptor? That's my preferred phrasing for in-paragraph discussion. If you don't have a problem, proceed to question 2. (If you do have a problem, ask yourself if it is consistent with NPOV to pepper articles with gratuitous instances of a non-neutral phrase.)

2. Since that kind of phrasing isn't possible in a header, would "Abortion-related legislation" or something similar be a suitable replacement for all headers that currently say "Pro-life legislation" and "Pro-choice legislation"? Then the paragraph would elaborate. Roscelese (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Do I really need to say it again? I'm not the one who's changing descriptions of people. While I would prefer neutral (rather than merely balanced - of course, "pro-abortion" is neither, unless you'd really like to rename this article "anti-choice") terminology, I recognize that describing people/movements as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is consensus, and I have always let it stand. However, this is not an issue of self-identification, because as far as I can tell, none of these laws identify themselves (are you using some other arcane definition of "self-identify" that doesn't mean "identify themselves"?) as "pro-life."

If you're referring specifically to how we describe laws and are just using "self-ID" as a smokescreen, remember that there is, actually, no consensus - that's why we're having this discussion - and also read what I wrote to you on my talk page about how no, we don't actually always take proponents' word for it. Roscelese (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Roscelese. The best choice between two loaded descriptors in this case is - neither. "Abortion-related legislation" / "Legisation on abortion" and "...supports a law that would..." There's simply no need to get tied up in the issue. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

While that would be acceptable in some cases, it should not create a requirement to delete the objected phrasing everywhere. Sometimes the shorter phrase is clearer (re R's query 1). As American Heritage makes clear, sometimes "pro-life" conveys a nuance that "antiabortion" does not (laws banning embryonic stem cell research and mandating parental notification for abortions are not antiabortion per se, but are pro-life). And sometimes (as in the cases where R has been reverted), the reliable sourcing for "pro-life" (or "pro-choice") is just overwhelming. Thus there is no need for a taboo; current harmonious editing interaction, case-by-case, is sufficient. JJB 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I specifically said "in this case". Sometimes it's appropriate to use "pro-life", but it's not required in the Ron Paul article (with the exception of his explicit self-description) . You need to explain why a neutral editor would object to the formulations I put above.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You speak vaguely. For as long as I can remember we've had a compromise between pro-choice/pro-life. Roscelese has attempted to substitute the term pro-life with language she finds more neutral and descriptive. Her precise wording has met with near universal objection on the grounds that what she perceives as neutral wording others find less than neutral. I don't know how, exactly, you would go about changing the descriptions on abortion related articles (of which, there are at least tens of thousands) so you will understand my supreme hesitation. - Schrandit (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For as long as I can remember we've had a compromise between pro-choice/pro-life. - Go ahead and prove it then. The whole reason this discussion is happening is because there is no consensus on how to describe laws. (Check out that "near universal objection," too - you and JJB against me, Laser brain, Vsevolod, and Kansan. Maybe a little review of math would help here: 2 < 4. Even if you count ClovisPt, who hasn't joined the discussion, as being on your side, you're still outnumbered - hell, even if you weren't outnumbered that's hardly a "near universal" objection!)

I don't know how, exactly, you would go about changing the descriptions on abortion related articles (of which, there are at least tens of thousands) so you will understand my supreme hesitation. - Don't you worry your pretty little head about that. Not a lot of articles actually use the objectionable phrase, so it'll be quite simple, and of course, no one's making you do it. Roscelese (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with adding a few extra words (ie. "pro-life legislation" to "legislation which would restrict abortions and ban embryonic stem cell research") in the interest of neutrality. Not only is it more neutral, it also provides more information! Right now, a reader can't necessarily know whether a politician who sponsors "pro-life legislation" is active only on the abortion issue or also in embryonic stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, etc. (Parental notification laws are anti-abortion, though, so no luck there.)

the reliable sourcing for "pro-life" (or "pro-choice") is just overwhelming - Such as? NYT doesn't use "pro-life law/legislation" at all (the only hit is from an op-ed), BBC doesn't use it at all, AP doesn't use it at all, Guardian doesn't use it at all, the notably conservative Telegraph doesn't use it at all, Time appears to have used it only once, it isn't used any more often than "anti-abortion legislation" in WSJ, Fox News uses almost always "anti-abortion law/legislation," and uses of it in Newsweek outnumber uses of "anti-abortion legislation/law" only by one. Where is this overwhelming consensus you're talking about? Roscelese (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Come here to have a civilized conversation or stay at home.

WP goes with self-ID, yes, even with laws right now, that's why you had to run around trying to change all these articles.

Over 30,000 articles use the two phrases (I didn't even look for the stray anti-abortion/pro-abortion) so you will forgive my "pretty little head" for its worries. I'd like to know what, exactly, you plan on substituting them with.

"Parental notification laws are anti-abortion, though, so no luck there." There are another half dozen ways those laws could also be described. The issue is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. - Schrandit (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP goes with self-ID, yes, even with laws right now, that's why you had to run around trying to change all these articles. - Which is, of course, why "anti-abortion law/legislation" gets more hits than "pro-life," even ignoring my recent edits. That really proves your point!

Over 30,000 articles use the two phrases - LOL yes, over 30,000 articles use "pro-life law/legislation."

^ Remember that suggestion I made about math?

I'd like to know what, exactly, you plan on substituting them with. - Then I suggest you read all the comments I've been making, in which I've explained that very thing a number of times.

Debate it if you like, but there's no way in which the laws are "pro-life" other than the way in which they're anti-abortion. Embryonic stem cell research and physician-assisted suicide are often grouped under the same heading, but parental consent/notification can't possibly be argued to promote "life" other than by restricting abortion access. Roscelese (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<R, you say, "There's no way in which the laws are 'pro-life' other than the way in which they're anti-abortion," which logically entails that "antiabortion" has some broader way of use than "pro-life"; but the dictionaries above, the experts on word use, all disagree with you, as does the OED implication you cite. Misplaced Pages is not a site for unilateral language taboos as you seem to favor. You are to be thanked for not continuing the crusade in the light of the nonconsensus, of course. Maybe you can find a reliable source taking your novel view that "pro-life law" is some kind of contradiction in terms. JJB 22:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

When I say "There's no way in which the laws are 'pro-life' other than the way in which they're anti-abortion," I'm referring to the above discussion on whether or not "pro-life legislation" can be used to describe laws against embryonic stem cell research and physician-assisted suicide, as I explained above. (I do not think that is appropriate usage either.) Parental notification laws don't prevent suicide or the destruction of lab embryos. All they do is restrict abortion. (Putting aside proponents' tendency to describe them as "protecting parental rights" or whatnot, that's not at issue here.)

Maybe you can find a reliable source taking your novel view that "pro-life law" is some kind of contradiction in terms. - I? Why don't you find a reliable source that consistently uses that phrase in preference to "anti-abortion"? I've already discussed, at length, how my position is based on Misplaced Pages's NPOV principles.

If you want to see for yourself, why don't you try editing something like Nuremberg Laws to say that they protected German blood and German honor? That's how one proponent described them - indeed (since they have a title) how they self-described! - and we know the way in which proponents describe them is always right. Roscelese (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy there, Godwin. You say "Parental notification laws don't prevent suicide or the destruction of lab embryos. All they do is restrict abortion." Who says all they do is restrict abortion? Again, I can think of half a dozen ways to accurately describe such laws. Why must we be boxed in to describing them the way you see them? - Schrandit (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, shoot. How are parental notification laws "pro-life" other than by restricting abortion access? Roscelese (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said they do more than restrict abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And as I've been saying the whole time, that's not what's at issue here. JJB said above, "laws...mandating parental notification for abortions are not antiabortion per se, but are pro-life." I've been explaining that that position makes no sense. Roscelese (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Parental notification laws are about many things. Why must we be cornered into only describing them, and the sentiment behind them, as you wish? - Schrandit (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even addressing whatever else you want to call them. JJB said above, "laws...mandating parental notification for abortions are not antiabortion per se, but are pro-life." I've been explaining that that position makes no sense. Roscelese (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your contention that we should neglect description save that which you favor makes less sense. - Schrandit (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yes, I'm totally saying we should neglect description. That's why I've been continually advocating for providing a description of the laws in question rather than just saying "pro-life" and leaving - that really reflects a desire to neglect description. Roscelese (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

random break

Woah. You lot are really going off on one. If I understand this discussion correctly, you want to use it to decide the use of the terms "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" across all pages? Wow. A tad ambitious. Frankly, I think you should not have brought this discussion here, because it's not about the Pro-life movement per se. Schandit considers my suggestion "vague", which I find puzzling. I'll try to make it clearer how I think the other article (you know, the one with its own talkpage) should be.

1. The section title should be either "Legislation on abortion" or "Abortion-related legislation".
2. The quoted self-descriptor is entirely appropriate.
3. In the text, one can write "Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values". (Obviously not actually with the strikeout, that's just to illustrate what I would remove. His "position" is quite clear from the text.)
4. There is simply no need to label opposition to stem cell research either "pro-life" or "anti-abortion". It adds nothing to the text but POV and produces reams of circular talkpage clutter.

I fail to see how a neutral editor would find a problem with this version. Now, unless there are any other of the regular editors of this page out there willing to give their advice on how another particular page might handle the issue (not how the whole encyclopedia should), I humbly suggest you repair to talk:Political positions of Ron Paul to continue your discussion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's a useful conversation to have. This started because I replaced "pro-life legislation" with "anti-abortion legislation" across a number of pages, and I think finding some kind of standard is a good idea. I've actually thinking of putting in an RfC though, because apparently being actually outnumbered is not enough to make certain editors stop claiming they have an overwhelming consensus in their favor - do you think that would help?

Also, there does exist a tag for random break, but I can't remember what it is, sorry. Roscelese (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, my recommendation is to avoid conflict and POV by avoiding either term where possible. (In the Ron Paul article it seems eminently possible, and I suspect it is elsewhere too). The current discussion seems not to appreciate that "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" are part of a bigger debate that includes the pair "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". (pro-abortion is generally deemed quite offensive by "pro-choice" people; anti-abortion sounds negative, and pro-choice and pro-life are apple pie phrases) All four terms are not very NPOV. I think that an RFC is a better idea than randomly selecting one of the talkpages in the area to carry on a dispute.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

TLDR

Basically, labels like "pro-life" should be attributed (one person's "pro-life" is another's "anti-abortion", and so forth). So, "org X says that law Y is pro-life" is fine. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it's not attributed, so both "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" should be avoided in favour of the non-controversial phrase "abortion legislation".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In some of the articles where I changed "pro-life legislation" to "anti-abortion legislation," it wasn't clear from the article what specific policies were being referred to (and presumably it would be a good idea to somehow indicate what side the person is on). What would you advise in that situation? "Anti-abortion" with a tag? Roscelese (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we should make "pro-life" into "anti-abortion" just as a rule-of-thumb for the same reasons that people would object if we changed all references of people being "pro-choice" to "pro-death." Pro-lifers claim it's about life; pro-choicers claim it's about choice.

By the same merit, if we changed all of the above-mentioned phrases to "abortion legislation" as to use a 'non-controversial phrase,' then some might argue that "life legislation' (or the termination thereof) could/should also be used. I could be be wrong; just a thought. Invmog (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, okay, maybe you didn't read the discussion, but:

1. We're not discussing changing references to people being "pro-life" or "pro-choice." The statement "X is pro-life" sort of implies "X identifies as pro-life." But "This legislation is pro-life" means that someone has described it as "pro-life." Someone has probably described it as "anti-choice" too - why do we put one and not the other in our text, since it's not a question of implied self-identification?

2. There is absolutely no equivalency between "anti-abortion" and "pro-death." Period.

Anyway - "life legislation" is still a non-neutral phrase, because a lot of "pro-choice" people would probably disagree that it was about life. Whereas I doubt that a supporter of "pro-life" legislation would flatly deny that it was about abortion! Roscelese (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

There has been a breakdown in communications on this article, resulting in removal of well-cited material, tendentious editing and unlikely claims about consensus. Outside assistance would be helpful. Dylan Flaherty 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal and Political Aspects

The following suggested edit in this sentence has been challenged and reverted: "However, following Stupak's vote in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, pro-life organizations accused Stupak of having betrayed the pro-life movement, and the SBA List revoked a pro-life award it had planned to give to him."

This sentence is well-cited, balanced, and highly relevant to the rest of the section. The section lists Bart Stupak as a leading pro-life Democrat in the United States. Following the health care reform controversy, it is fair to say that Mr. Stupak's pro-life credentials are not deemed to be in good standing by some in the pro-life community. The article should reflect that. Thoughts?184.74.22.161 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm hardly the first person to object to this, so let's see what the previous stated reasons were.

"(Reverting to balanced statement about Stupak and the award he was not given, not Dannenfelser's global redefinition about who cannot be pro-life.)"

"(rv too much emphasis given Dannenfelser, per WP:COATRACK)"

Have to admit he has a point, eh? Dylan Flaherty 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that Dannenfelser's name is not even mentioned in the disputed sentence, I most certainly do not believe that the other editor has a point. What's the problem?184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No responses for a week, and the objection to the sentence doesn't make very much sense. I am re-inserting it.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

bioethical utlitarianism

Hi everyone,

A recent edit brought me to the sentence:

The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, influenced by Conservative Christian values, especially in the United States, and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.<ref>Holland, S. (2003). Bioethics: a Philosophical Introduction Cambridge, UK : Polity Press; New York : Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Pub.</ref>

What is bioethical utilitarianism? What forms of bioethical utilitarianism have been influenced by Conservative Christian values?

The words, "bioethical utilitarianism", were added in August 22, 2006:

This perspective is historically deriven from Judeo-Christian ideology and its influenced forms of bioethical utlitarianisms. <ref>Holland, S (2003) Bioethics: a Philosophical IntroductionCambridge, UK : Polity Press ; New York : Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Pub</ref>

Can someone with a copy of Bioethics: a Philosophical Introduction verify this?

I read the exerpt of the book thoughtfully supplied by Amazon.com:

page 206-207

'consequentialist' is someone who thinks that consequences alone determine morality. ... Utilitarianism, the main version of consequentialism, says that good consequences are ones that maximize happiness, whilst bad consequences fail to maximize happiness. ... Utilitarianism is an intuitively appealing line of thought. It pervades our liberal, secular culture.

(Note that the author is writing in the UK. I suggest that "liberal culture" he is talking about is classical liberalism rather than modern liberalism in the United States.)

It sounds like utilitarianism conflicts with Conservative Christian values.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While Christianity is probably worth mentioning in the overview (though I could see a reasonable opposing argument) that sentence is vague and not terribly informative. Is bioethical utilitarianism a common defined term? I imagine my definition of it could very from another man's. Outside of a quote from that book I think that sentence has been mashed with others to the point of being less than accurate at the moment. - Haymaker (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that United States anti-abortion movement be renamed and moved to Anti-abortion. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Pro-life → Anti-abortion — The name Pro-life is what they call themselves, however, for our international audience such as what we have on Misplaced Pages, a more precise term would probably be more appropriate. Anti-abortion is also the word often used by neutral sources in describing organizations that call themselves "pro-life" There are plenty more, it is clear that news writers approaching this from a neutral point of view use anti-abortion as their term of choice because of its preciseness rather than the more vague term "pro-life." By calling this article "pro-life" wikipedia is inherently promoting these anti-abortion organization's viewpoint. As nominator, I SUPPORT this move. -_WikiMan 20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this debate already, and I doubt consensus has changed since then. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, I think its pretty fair to say that Anti-abortion is more neutral and that pro-life is a loaded term. Though it seems that Pro Life at 3 million has a fair number more Google hits than Anti abortion which has 800k I think anti-abortion is well enough used that going for the more neutral term is better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Of more value for wikipedia is the Google News results: "pro-life" brings up 1480 results in Google news , "anti-abortion" brings up 1330 which leads me to think the difference in number of uses isn't substantial. _WikiMan 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, while I'd be fine with switching pro-life/pro-choice to anti-abortion/pro-abortion I think we're better off sticking with self-identification. - Haymaker (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• You're missing an important point: pro-choice is accurate in that people/organizations that consider themselves pro-choice are just that, they support the choice in various issues. They do not push abortions, they push the choice to have an abortion, or to keep it, or to use proper birth control, etc. "Pro-life" is inaccurate for the reasons I listed above, organizations that call themselves pro-life are perpetuating the unscientific notion that birth begins at fertilization/conception which is a POV, anti-abortion would be more appropriate because that's exactly what they're referring to. However, if it would make you feel better, would you Support this move if I also nominated pro-choice to be called pro-abortion? _WikiMan 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd never get consensus for that move, so from a purely practical perspective, I'd advise against bothering. There isn't really a concise common-use term for "pro-choice" that's equivalent in neutrality to "anti-abortion," and having the article titles be equivalent is important. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, pro-life is a vague term, designed for people to be OK with. Who's going to be against life? The opposite term could be "people in favor of the legality of abortion". --Againme (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, propose speedy close as stoking unnecessary controversy. Roscelese seems to confirm my suspicion that this attempts to overturn a recent significant consensus. "Pro-life" correctly includes "anti-abortion", "anti-infanticide", "anti-euthanasia", includes some anti-contraception and anti-capital-punishment, and supports the nexus of all these positions with an essential undergirding "whole-life" ethic. I have no problem with "anti-abortion" being a spinout article extending coverage on that portion of the pro-life position. Self-identification is very applicable. JJB 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Rationale added JJB 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please can you justify your position? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sir, from the lead of this article: "Pro-life describes the political and ethical opposition to elective abortion, and support for its legal prohibition or restriction." This article clearly discusses the abortion debate. Therefore, your reasoning is invalid. _WikiMan 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per neutral sources using Anti-Abortion. Also, Pro-life would suggest the opposite is Anti-life. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support self-evident that "Pro-Life" is not NPOV; it means their opponents are 'anti-life'. It also lacks precision as it does not accurately describe the article. The article is not about, eg, anti-euthanasia or anti-suicide. The article says it's about "the political and ethical opposition to elective abortion, and support for its legal prohibition or restriction". 'Anti-abortion' is more accurate, mor neutral and more international ('pro-life' being especially associated with the US) DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as has been said before in the archive the last time this came up. "The convention throughout abortion-related articles is to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" per the self-identifying terminology guideline in WP:MoS." Marauder40 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you link to this exact guideline, I can't see anything on WP:TITLE that makes that point? I'd have thought WP:NDESC or WP:POVTITLE would be the most relevant pieces of policy. EDIT: I found the guideline MOS:IDENTITY - but that's a guideline, whereas the other two are policies and thus carry more weight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This discussion will end up being more about editor's views regarding abortion rather than a dispassionate analysis of the content of the article against WP:AT, which is sad. A move here is likely to see a cascading series of move requests that will have more to do with US domestic politics than Misplaced Pages's naming policy. While this could be seen as Misplaced Pages defining the opposition to this group's aims as "Anti Life" this is easily avoided by actually naming the opposing topic Pro-choice, which of course we do. I find the whole "defining the opposition" argument a little strange to use as justification for this move however. If the article on this topic was named as "Anti abortion" wouldn't that then define the opposition as "Pro-abortion". Is this any better than "Anti Life"? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your argument does not answer any of the arguments made in favor of the move above. I understand that as Catholic, it is hard for you to think that your position is anything but pro-life, but could you consider allowing it to be renamed to be a more precise description of what the position is all about? Anti-abortion would not define the opposition, it would not define anything but provide precise identification for the article. Pro-life inherently endorses the view that a fetus is somehow a "life" and therefore violates WP:NPOV. _WikiMan 23:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Abortion articles
• Top-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Requested moves