Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Violence as a form of activism

Why is the picketing (and demonstrating at a clinic) mentioned in this section? Is it violent? Is it used as an example of how nonviolent the picketing is? This section seems to imply that the picketing may be violent. Please clean it up! Popsix 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Picketing IS violent. Physically preventing someone from getting an abortion is a form of violence.Heqwm (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion. MySpace is the place for that, this is Wikipedia and we write facts, not opinions. And here's a fact: the term "violent" denotes force or extremity in every one of its definitions. Unless an abortionist is being beaten or injured, stopping a woman from having an abortion is, by definition, in no way violent. 66.38.169.238 (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets just make sure that this article is as unbiased as possible. Wikipedia tends to run off at the mouth on issues like this. 71.55.198.10 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)supergrimm

Criticisms

This page doesn't really cover any major criticisms of the concept and movement of pro life. The debate section also seems very softballed. I'd highly recommend adding a criticism piece, most other major contraversial topics have them, such as atheism. One of the major criticisms I have is that the pro life movement makes little to no effort or involvement in promoting life once it has been born through healthcare, better education, and sexual education. I would have figured by now that such glaring inconsistencies would have made it on the page. I would do so, but I know there is little chance I can be NPOV and it would probably just be reverted.--Kugamazog 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• • jus tot id add (late as it may b) that almost every pro life organisation i can think of (and dats alot) is affiliated with some sort of role in promoting life once its been born.....that is childcare for single mothers, counselling for women (those who had abortions and went through with their pregnancy), providing financial care and doing all it can to ensure that mothers as a resut of an unplanned pregnancy are taken care of....on the other hand i cant think of one pro choice organisation that does the same, given the fact that 80% of women in the US regret their abortions, and that depression and suicide is more prevelant in women who have aborted than women who have gone through with an unplanned pregnancy.--217.125.184.92 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rfts (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think the pro-choice article already covers what would normally be under the "criticism" section of this article, and it says at the very top of this article that the rebutals of the pro-life movement can be found at the pro-choice article, and vice versa. 69.165.59.231 08:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, especially given that the debate section is currently viewed--at least by some; see above--as being too critical of the topic, rather than too soft on it. Moreover, one of the difficulties in editing in the Abortion WikiProject is that everything has to be done equally. If we add a criticism section to pro-life, even assuming for a moment that it would be a valid change, we would have to do the same to pro-choice. That said, never forget to Be Bold.

Having discussed that, I would rather strongly disagree that pro-lifers' laser focus on abortion--which, remember, they believe is cold-blooded murder on the same order as the Holocaust--is a "glaring inconsistency." Pro-lifers are just picking their battles, and the first one has got to be about abortion. (After all, what do you care about better education if you're dead?) Your point has been brought up by other, prominent members of the pro-choice lobby, though, so it would be a valid addition to the page (if balanced by adding criticism to the pro-choice page). My two cents. --BCSWowbagger 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you don't see, for example, criticism of the National Rifle Assocation for focusing only on gun rights, right?76.177.174.82 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Newcomer to this page. I suspect that the criticism you mentioned is more one for the Religious Right pro-life movement, as leftist pro-lifers would certainly and actively care about those issues you mentioned. I believe the article already mentions Democrats for Life of America. That doesn't necessarily mean your criticism doesn't belong on the page, if such a section were made; but we would want to specify, I'm sure. Chadbald 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about the "Motivation" section

I wonder if the order of secular and religious motivations ought to be reversed. The involvement of religious beliefs in opposing abortion is relatively recent. It is my understanding that the abortion laws before Roe v. Wade were not the product of religion, but of the efforts of the American Medical Association as doctors began to study embryology in the 19th century. It seems more logical to me to progress historically. The anti-abortion banner has only been taken up religiously in recent decades. This article[1] may be too polemic to cite, but I'm sure better documentation could be found. The language of the relevent sections might need to be finessed in order to accomodate the change, though I doubt this would mean anything substantive. Thoughts? Chadbald 07:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Hippocratic Oath forbade abortions as medically unethical well before the Christian religion. LotR 12:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)#

The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids only "give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion" (which could well be, given the context "give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" because until the 20th century, a herbal or chemical abortifacient was likely to be lethal to the woman. (In the next paragraph, the physician also swears not to "cut persons labouring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work".) Until 20th century medical advances made it possible to perform abortions with no risk to the woman, ethical opposition to abortion was largely grounded in the fact that abortions were extremely dangerous to a woman's health and future fertility. Further, it was not until relatively recently - again, a 20th-century phenomenon - that a fetus was regarded as being really alive until it "quickened" - until there was perceptible movement within the uterus, either by the woman herself or by others. The pro-life movement, which this page describes, was begun in the 20th century, when the availability of safe abortions made it possible for women to choose to end a pregnancy without risk, and which then created a political opposition to that choice. (People who produce isolated quotes from 19th century feminists with regard to abortion in general are not looking at the context from which those quotes were taken.) It would be historically inaccurate to frame the pro-life movement as beginning any earlier than the 20th century: there was no need for such a movement until abortion became safe for women. Yonmei 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it wouldn't be right to closely compare all organized pro-life and anti-abortion groups of today with people and groups of the past which held similar beliefs. It would be untruthful (a fallacy) to deny the existence of, or reconstrue the motives behind those people or groups with such like-minded views. One needs only to look to people like Susan B Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton to see that. - James xeno 08:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were opposed to men making women abort - a dangerous/unsafe procedure in those days, as well as illegal - for their own convenience, just as today's feminists oppose men making women abort for their own convenience. Both were also publicly and firmly for women being able to plan how many children they had and control their own fertility - just as today's feminists are. So we can connect Anthony and Stanton with today's feminists/pro-choice movement, but I don't see much of a connection between 19th-century feminism and today's pro-life movement, which - unlike Anthony and Stanton - in general opposes women having control over their own fertility and the absolute right to decide how many children to have and when. But, as I said downpage earlier, given scientific/technical advances, the position a person would take on abortion in the days when it was unsafe to the woman and when early detection of pregnancy was really impossible, could be a world away from the position a person might take today, when abortion (especially early abortion) is effectively absolutely safe, and when pregnancy can be detected within a few days of the fertilised egg implanting. Yonmei 09:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I don't fault you though, it's an all too common misconception. But the facts quite clearly contradict these unfounded conjectures which claim that the sole motivation behind their opposition to abortion is the unsafe and unsanitary nature of the procedure. (as would be any such procedure of the time. Yet they didn't seem to oppose those as well.) Yes it was more then likely a concern for them. But history definitively shows that the chief reasoning behind their opposition, originated in their strong belief that abortion was a form of infanticide, at the very least a form of violence and completely hypocritical and contradictory to the concepts and ideals of feminism.

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." - Elizabeth B. Stanton (1873)

"No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" - Susan B. Anthony (The Revolution, 1869)

- James xeno 11:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

James, I don't fault you for never having read the article you quote from (Marriage and Maternity") - I understand that the Susan B. Anthony quote you cite is never given its full context on pro-life sites. The article is actually a very strong defense of a woman's right to choose - that a woman herself, no one else, certainly not her husband, should decide when and who with she will have children. The paragraph immediately before the one usually quoted is:

It is clear to my mind that this evil wholly arises from the false position which woman occupies in civilized society. We know that in the brute creation, the female chooses her own time, and we are told that among Indians the woman does not permit the approach of the man during pregnancy or lactation; yet what Christian woman, wife of a Christian husband, is free to consult her own feelings, even in these most delicate situations?

The series of articles and letters from which the two quotes you cite come is a series published in The Revolution discussing the crime of infanticide. Abortion is rarely directly mentioned by the writers of The Revolution: but a woman's right to make decisions for herself alone, putting her her health first, is an important concern for them, as of course it is for modern feminists. The moral stance that so many pro-lifers take, that women should not be allowed to decide to use contraception or to terminate a pregnancy, would clearly be anathema to these early feminists. These articles are recognisably the forerunners of the pro-choice movement: only by taking single quotes out of context can they be pretended to be pro-life.Yonmei 15:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read those quotes and some of the articles they're from. Even if you read those in the best and most bias (pro-abortion/choice) possible way, their stance becomes only mildly questionable. I'm not sure where you read a strong pro-abortion view from an article in which abortion is referred to as "infanticide" and called child murder? A grasp at straws really, maybe even an attempt at an apology for the past.

Please don't misquote me: I never said they were pro-abortion. I said they were pro-choice. I know of no one (except perhaps, now as then, men who don't want to pay child support) who is "pro-abortion". Only someone determined to read the essays/letters as anti-choice could possibly interpret them to think that the early feminists believed women should be forced by legislation to continue an unwanted pregnancy when a safe means of terminating it early exists. Pro-choice means women must have the legal right to decide for themselves about pregnancy: it does not mean pro-abortion. Yonmei 05:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"woman herself, no one else, certainly not her husband, should decide when and who with she will have children."

It always puzzles me that pro-choicers are so afraid of being called "pro-abortion." If someone is truly OK with the ethical issues abortion raises, they should have no problem calling themselves "pro-abortion." But according to what you've said, most pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion," so they must actually have some ethical problem with abortion (some have called it a necessary evil). But if it's evil at all, why aren't pro-choicers ever willing to elaborate on exactly what part of abortion they find to be evil? If they would be honest about that, it would facilitate a much more honest debate.

Pianoman123 18:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to remind everyone that talk pages are for discussing article content, not debating. You may want to take this up on user talk, or go to a chat room, or forum cite away from wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the context of that particular argument. It was a response to the idea that a women should marry whom ever her family wished and that it was her duty to bear as many children as she could, as often as she possibly could. (I.E. Forced pregnancy through force or coercion.)

Which is the modern pro-life position, isn't it? Not, obviously, women forced into unwanted/unwelcome marriage: but that women must be legally prohibited from access to contraception and abortion (and pro-life tends to correlate with the enforced ignorance of "abstinence-only" education, too). The pro-life goal is the legal situation of 19th-century women.Yonmei 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true -- only Roman Catholic teaching, not the pro-life movement at large, makes any statement concerning contraception. It well-understood by the pro-life movement that contraception does not deliberately kill a human embryo/fetus. Furthermore, even stringent Catholic doctrine has no issue with regulating births using natural methods based on a woman's natural cycle of fertility (e.g., the modern sympto-thermal method, ecological breastfeeding, etc.). LotR 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know of no pro-life organisation - certainly none in the US - that promotes use of contraception, and there appears to be a high correlation between people who work to prevent women having access to abortion and people who work to prevent women having access to contraception. Even without the apparent correlation, though, the fact that no pro-life organisation is willing to work for reducing abortions by making contraception widely and freely available says a lot about their priorities.

Yonmei 05:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't aware that only women were responsible for using contraception.

Nor am I aware of any effort to prevent men from getting or using contraception.Yonmei 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)\

That's because there isn't any; nor is there any effort against women, who have the same access as men. LotR 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor was I aware that there was any possible way to bar them from access to it -- contraception is, in fact, widely and freely available (in free-market economies, anyway).

You weren't aware of a recent and rather horrifying campaign to prevent women from getting access to the regular contraceptive pill and to Plan B? Plan B isn't even yet available over the counter in the US, though the FDA concluded it was safe for such sale in 2005, and many pharmacists have refused to honour prescriptions for contraceptive pills - and some doctors have actually refused to prescribe contraceptive pills or Plan B. There's a recent horrible account by a woman with three children, whose health won't permit her to have any more: she and her partner were making love, the condom broke, and she ended up having to get an abortion because no doctor in the area she lived in would prescribe Plan B until it was too late. Contraception, provided in time, would have prevented an abortion: she lives in the US, it was legal for her to get it, and she couldn't. No pro-lifer appears to have been at all interested in preventing that abortion.Yonmei 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "Plan B", a high-dose, artificial chemical female hormone, is but one of a plethora of birth-control devices. To my knowledge, the jury is still out on whether this artificial hormone actually prevents fertilization 100% of the time (the definition of contra-ception), or whether it "inhibits implantation" some of the time. I've seen debates on this on Wikipedia, and I am not convinced either way. It is for this reason (the "inhibition of implantation"), along with its questionable safety to a woman's health, that it met any opposition. However, even given the opposition to this one form of birth control, it does not follow that the pro-life movement seeks to prohibit contraception, not only because it is but one form of birth control, but also because of the belief by its opponents that it is a form of abortion. LotR 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is nonsensical to say that pro-life organizations work to "prevent women from access to contraception." It is true that Catholic pro-life organizations discourage contraception (regardless of the person's sex, mind you), but this most definitely is not true for the pro-life movement at large, which has a substantial number of non-Catholic adherents. Furthermore, there is a big difference between "not promoting" something, and actively seeking its prohibition (which is the pro-life political agenda). No pro-life organization (or person that I know of) seeks the prohibition of contraception, even if they are against it. This is emotional hyperbole, plain and simple. LotR 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you maintain that no pro-life organizations were seeking the prohibition of Plan B, and no pro-life organizations were supporting pharmacists or doctors who refused to prescribe oral contraceptives, regular or emergency? I'm fairly sure that's not so, in fact.Yonmei 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See above. "Prohibition of levonorgestrel" is not the equivalent of "prohibition of contraception." LotR 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[reset indent]I hate to contribute to a debate that has nothing to do with the article content, but I just wanted to say that I believe User:LotR is ignoring the Beginning of pregnancy controversy. Was there not opposition to Plan B (when it was first approved, and when it was up for OtC status)? Is it not just a Catholic position that hormonal contraceptions can cause an 'early' abortion?--Andrew c 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See above postings. I was not "ignoring" anything -- I thought we were speaking about "contraception." I did not know that "contraception" was being taken to mean "levonorgestrel." LotR 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of "forced pregnancy" was not used as a weasel term back then, as it is today when referring to the abortion debate. They blamed men and society for the situation. They believed the remedy would be giving women the freedom to choose "when and who with she will have children." This is where you and others make two biggest mistakes. 1) The view that each women should be able decide when to have children, clearly did not mean the freedom to decide if they want to be pregnant or not once already so. But freedom to choose when or if they want to get pregnant to begin with.

Well, we don't know that. The original discussion arose because prior to modern, safe abortion, a person might have a moral objection to abortion as being very unsafe for the woman - as the Hippocratic objection to "deadly medicine" would imply, since an abortifacient pessary would tend work only on a pregnancy too early on for the ancients to regard a fetus as really alive. The modern pro-life movement is strongly against women having free access to contraception, as well as strongly against women being able to abort a pregnancy at will, despite the fact that both are absolutely safe and proven to be life-saving for women. The arguments of 19th-century feminists are strongly for women being able to control their own lives and their own fertility - arguments which modern pro-lifers as strongly oppose.Yonmei 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

2) The incorrect (modern) assumption that giving birth, not being pregnant = having children. (basically; born = child, unborn = nothing) Taking even a quick look at a few of their comments about the issue, you could see that's clearly not the case at all. Another thing that always seems to be forgotten by modern neo-feminism of today, is feminism's strong and most basic principles of freedom and personal responsibility.

Hardly "forgotten": the whole point of the pro-choice movement, which is one branch of modern feminism, is that women must not be prevented by legislation from taking personal responsibility. Whereas the whole point of the pro-life movement is to make it illegal for women to take personal responsibility for being able to decide whether or not to get pregnant or stay pregnant.Yonmei 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way, that doesn't change my initial point. - James xeno 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That it wouldn't be right to compare the modern pro-life and pro-choice movements of today with people and groups of the past? Well, on that at least, we are in agreement.Yonmei 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure... in America, the organized pro-life movement we know today didn't really come along until after abortion was legalized, not when it supposedly became safe. Unless, of course, you're speaking of the individual feminists of the early 20th century (e.g. Susan B. Anthony) who believed that abortion was a crime against women and morally problematic. But other than a few of them in the early 20th century, "pro-life" thought was not much of a social issue in the broad scheme of things.

 Pianoman123 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction: I had a vague impression of an organized pro-life movement prior to legalization (I presumed, opposing legalization) but I'll take your word for it that none existed. Yonmei 10:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that none existed, but just not in the form we know today; it was simply less important in the public conscience. Pianoman123 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the notion that the Hippocratic Oath only forbade pessary, not abortions themselves. The "pessary" procedure may have been explicitly stated since it was the only known medical procedure at the time for doing this. The context ("give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel") is already a blanket statement that would include pessary, independent of abortion.

Hardly. A pessary could be an entirely safe medicine: it would depend what it was made of. "Pessary" simply means a "solid, bullet-shaped preparation" designed to be inserted in vagina or anus for absorption of medication internally. "Give no deadly medicine" is likely to have meant "likely to be lethal to the patient" which would have meant a pregnant woman, not a fetus The presumption that it meant "lethal to the fetus" is too big an assumption, based on what we know about 4th century BC medicine.Yonmei 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. However, this doesn't change the fact that abortions themselves were plainly forbidden as an unethical medical procedure in the Oath. And don't underestimate what the ancients may have known -- they certainly knew that pregnancy colloquially meant "with child." LotR 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus, the statment clearly forbade abortions themselves as a medical procedure, and indeed, abortions have never been considered a "medical procedure" until the 2nd half of the 20th Century. And back to the original point: "The involvement of religious beliefs in opposing abortion is relatively recent." Whether or not the ethical principle was concern for the life of the mother, the unborn baby, or both, is really not relevant -- abortions were explicitly forbidden, well before Christianity. It should also be noted that the same advances in medical technology that have enabled "safe abortions," have also given us unprecedented looks at the human development in the womb, undreamed of in Hippocrates's day. LotR 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(Keep in mind that many women continue to die from botched legal abortions today...abortion is by nature dangerous). Pianoman123 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Between 1972 and 1987, 240 women died as a result of legal induced abortions. The case-fatality rate decreased 90% over time, from 4.1 deaths per 100,000 abortions in 1972 to 0.4 in 1987. Abortion mortality, United States, 1972 through 1987. By comparison childbirth itself is far more dangerous - in the US, the maternal death rate was 17 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2000. Pregnancy and childbirth are by nature dangerous: abortion is much safer. Yonmei 10:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's quite hard to find good statistics on the number of abortion-related deaths (for both the legal and illegal types). For one, the NARAL statistics about women who died from back-alley abortions have been admitted to be false, by NARAL's founder, Bernard Nathanson. And it's hard to find info about modern abortion deaths, too, though I have heard about more than what you've mentioned above (the 1987 statistic). In any case, it's important not to see abortion--whatever one's view towards it--as a magic, painless, cure-all for maternal crises (it's none of those things...this is admitted by many prominent abortion supporters). Inasmuch as abortion is an invasive surgical procedure, it will always be risky. Also, one has to realize the implications of saying that childbirth is inherently dangerous. After all, none of us would be here without it, so apparently a little danger is just part of life.

All invasive surgical procedures can be dangerous, yes. But abortion (especially of course an extremely early abortion - and the vast majority of abortions in the US are carried out at >8 weeks) is less dangerous than many such invasive surgical procedures, and certainly (statistically) far less dangerous than pregnancy/childbirth. Most women who have abortions either have or intend to have at least one child, so it's not like abortion prevents women from having children - indeed, one strong reason for keeping abortion legal, easily available, and safe is so that a woman who needs an abortion can have one without risking her future fertility. Sorry, this is turning into a pro-choice argument, I just wanted to make the point that if you oppose abortion, it's not really possible to do it on the basis that it's a threat to women's lives. More women die in countries where abortion is not safe/legal/easily available: not just because illegal abortion tends to be unsafe, or because it's more difficult to get an abortion in the early weeks when it's - to all intents and purposes - utterly safe, but because pregnancy is, far more frequently than abortion is, lethal to women. I understand pro-lifers consider a fetus equally important to the pregnant woman, but I presume most pro-lifers would agree that any woman who has to have an abortion because her physical health is at risk ought to be able to get one, and as fast as possible. Granted I think this applies to something like 2 or 3% of abortions, but that's still a far larger number (about 26 000) than die of having abortions (4).Yonmei 08:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One reason among the many that caused the pro-life movement to form was the dawn of medical advances which shed light on embryology and pregnancy. Christianity was dependent on science to help it form its own opinion on the matter. (After all, you need facts before you can deduce a belief about something not already mentioned in scripture, teachings, etc.) Before the 20th century, the understanding of embryology and fetal biology was at about the same level as it was 1800 years previous...that is, Aristotle's speculation on how human beings are formed. Since they had none of the information we have when they formed their opinions about abortion, it's surely fine to disregard them. It is natural and understandable that quickening was regarded as the indication of life, for the mother's sensation of movement was the extent of the empiricism available to them at the time (whereas we have ultrasound machines and other tools today). The fact that abortions were dangerous (as were all invasive surgical procedures at that time) was a good reason not to do them. To add on to that, modern science has caused an enlightenment in many people, causing them to form pro-life opinions on bioethical issues such as this... Pianoman123 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - indeed, this was my initial point - that the scientific and other advances mean we can't compare objections to abortion in the past to the present. Yonmei 10:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that antibiotics advanced around that same time. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

————— Wow. That sparked a pretty discursive discourse. My question was not whether we should write a comparison of past and present objections, only whether we should organize the Motivations section chronologically. I think this is a good suggestion regardless of how we perceive the validity of those historical arguments. Harmfulness of early abortions was indeed a motivating factor in early opposition to abortive procedures, but it is false to say it stood alone. Stanton and Anthony believed (a la "Marriage and Maternity," etc.) that restrictions on the lives of women and forced pregnancy were a root cause of abortion, and Anthony very justly calls the men who forced women into a corner that abortion was the only way out of "murderers." She clearly believed that "unborn innocents" were human lives, else they could not be "murdered." I'm only suggesting that the Motivations section have a historical trajectory. In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Justices discuss in detail the rise of anti-abortion laws and the positions of the American Medical Association on embryology, quickening, and the beginning of human life. This may be helpful.

Also, on the diversity of the pro-life position, see http://www.feministsforlife.org (secular feminists opposed to abortion), http://www.democratsforlife.org (secular leftists opposed to abortion), http://www.sojo.net (Christian leftists opposed to abortion), http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/index.html (Hindus opposed to abortion). Let us all try to remember that our goal is not to promote or detract from the pro-life position, but only accurately describe it. Some of us might be making the mistake of confusing "pro-life" with the "Religious Right." While many people of a pro-life persuasion are part of the "Religious Right," many others are not. "Pro-life" as it exists today is a large and varied movement. Opposing contraception is not a pro-life issue. It may have a spurious correlation, but many people who oppose abortion, capital punishment, and unjust war (which many consider pro-life issues) are thoroughly in favor of contraception. And all of the organizations I hyperlinked above favor reducing abortion through economic relief and education, not through male hegemony and sexual oppression. I hope this helps broaden some perspectives.

So what do we think? Should the Motivations section be reordered chronologically? Chadbald 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that that the page discusses a "movement," presenting the "motivations" chronologically is certainly a logical approach. LotR 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should keep the ordering the way it is. We are not presenting a chronology here. We are discussing the current motives of the current movement. Maybe we need a more historical oriented section, but Chadbald says that was not the intent. The secular section probably needs a rewrite, because as it is, I'd hate to see it first. On top of that, it makes more sense to me to explain the primary motivation first, and the secondary motivation second, right? Doing otherwise might be giving undue weight. The whole chronology argument really doesn't make sense to me because like I said, this isn't the history section, and it seems backwards to present a chronolgy in the guise of primary and secondary motivations, no?--Andrew c 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that primary motivation, followed by secondary motivation, is also a logical approach. But consider this: While the majority of pro-lifers may be described as religious, and their moral support structures may be church-based, their primary motivations may very well be rooted in their secular knowledge of what happens in an abortion clinic. Thus, I'm not sure I agree that a chronological ordering would give undue weight. LotR 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the section is poorly written. DO we want to give the illusion that most pro-lifers believe abortion is age descrimination? The arguments presented in the secular section are not sourced, and now written well. I just don't think that it needs to go first (but more importantly, I feel it needs an overhaul). If we can come up with a better section, maybe I would support it going first. A side note, the bit about 'right-to-life' and 'law' seems to exclude religiously motivated pro-lifers. It seems to me that the religious ones wouldn't accept the idea of a 'natural law', and only justify morality under God's law. The reasoning is the same "abortion is wrong because it violates a law that says fetuses have rights". However, the motivation is different. Religious adherents would tack on "because God/the bible says so", while the non-religious adherent would appeal to some concept of natural law or humanism that does not require religious motivations. So therefore, I think this matter only confuses things. If that makes sense.--Andrew c 16:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I think you're right that the section could be better organized and written in general. If my memory serves me correctly, I think this proposal for rewriting may have been touched upon before, but nothing was ever done about it. The great majority of the section merely presents the moral positions of the world's major religions on abortion -- these moral positions may be distinct from the personal motivations of pro-lifers (which was my point above). In fact, as it stands now, a chronological reordering would indeed give the appearance of undue weight as you originally commented. LotR 17:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

I am 100% for including multi-cultural views, however the new hindu section is completely off topic. It is Hinduism's view on abortion, not Hinduism in the pro-life movement. There is a big difference. This page isn't a generic place to post everyone's criticisms of abortion (try abortion debate or a few other articles). Does anyone have verifiable information on the pro-life movement in India? Or pro-life Hindu actions in the US or any where else?--Andrew c 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article makes strong but weakly substantiated links between religion and pro-life ideologies. The article would be better if it analyzed the pro-life movement separately from pro-life in general, and then goes on to talk about religious stances towards pro-life ideology. The article makes a strong and inappropriate statement that the basis of the pro-life movement is religious in nature.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.48.55.105 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 November 2006.

Mother

What is wrong with just saying "woman"? If some editors do not agree that being pregnant=being a mother, but everyone can agree than the person who is pregnant is a woman, what is the big deal about using the less controversial of terms? Nothing wrong with "playing politically correct games" in this instance, if it means a more neutral article. Chooserr fails to realize that even people who are politically correct have valid POVs when it comes to wikipedia.--Andrew c 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C, I doubt I can convince you that I'm right, but I dislike the attempt to change established definitions. I just do. Chooserr 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, your personal dislike noted, can we agree to use the less controversial term for the sake of neutrality? --Andrew c 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mother is an accurate term. I don't see why we need to agree to change it to woman. Chooserr 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You BELIEVE that mother is an accurate term. Others disagree. The term is controversial. On the other hand, everyone can agree that woman is accurate. In order to accomidate everyone's belief, and thereby be neutral to everyone's point of view, we should use the less controversial term. It has been argued that being pregnant does not equal being a mother (if you and your siblings die, does your mother stop being a mother. Alternatively, do we commonly consider a woman who has undergone an abortion and has no children a mother?). Whether we agree with this is beside the point. We should respect this POV, and choose the most neutral language. This issue has come up in the past with other users. I know AI/Alienus had issues with this use. It seems to me that people have an argument against the use of mother, but no one has an argument against the use of woman, so we should obviously pick the one that has no argument, right?-Andrew c 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine Chooserr 04:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a convention throughout abortion-related articles that the term "woman" is used over the term "mother." It is not as though this change was isolated or without precedent; I don't think anyone's trying to reinvent the wheel here. While the term "mother" is not a loaded, politicized term, like "contents of uterus" or "preborn human baby," and it is in a biological sense accurate, its usage in reference to women who have had abortions is still problematic to some for the reasons Andrew has outlined. But "woman," is a broad, open-ended term. It doesn't preclude the potentional that women who have abortions are mothers — after all, mothers are women — but it escapes being conclusive on the matter. -Severa (!!!) 07:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "mother" IS an accurate term in a biological/scientific context, as it means "human female parent," whereas "woman" only means "human female." "Mother" is more specific than "woman." Genetically speaking, a pregnant woman, like it or not, IS a parent (while the offspring survives). If she is not genetically a parent, then just what exactly constitutes "pregnancy"? However, after considering the context of the sentence, the term "woman" is acceptable since it makes mention of pregnancy when referring to the woman, whereas the term "mother" may actually confuse the sentence since it also has non-biological definitions. LotR 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mother" is more precise. The article currently refers to squares as rectangles. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

National Abortion Federation

Statistics from the National Abortion Federation[24] show that violence against abortion clinics or providers has decreased steadily since a peak in 2001. However, the majority of the health-care facilities that perform abortions in the United States experience protests from pro-life demonstrators every year, of which the most common form is picketing.[25] Most clinics that perform abortions experience picketing at least 20 times a year[25]: in 2005, 13,415 incidents of disruptive picketing were reported.[24]' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chooserr (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The above section is located under extremism, and provides some valuable information, however everything after "however" has nothing to do with extremism, and may equate picketing with extremism. Also I'm unsure whether the sources are NPOV, and believe that "disruptive picketing" is subject to various interpretations. What exactly counts as "disruptive"? Praying the rosary outside? For those reasons I'm thinking of removing it, but want others' opinions. Chooserr 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, I found "Disruptive picketing (defined as protest activity that harasses, intimidates, and impedes the movement of staff or patients)". Hope this helps.--Andrew c 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? I checked the 24th source link, and all I got was a chart - no definition of what counts as disruptive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chooserr (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Try #25.--Andrew c 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A more neutral article title needed

"Pro-life" is too POV.--Azer Red Si? 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly no great secret that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are manipulative political frames. But they are what the organizations in question call themselves. How NPOV could any other appellation be? Besides, though the entire issue is blown out of proportion, as well as presented with no context, by the media, it is certainly notable and we have to find a way to cover the issue. Any perceived POV bias can be handled by carefully explaining that "Pro-Life" is not a term WP is applying, but a term self-applied by the groups in question. Kasreyn 04:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments that "Pro-life" is not NPOV have been made here many times. But besides the valid points just made above, you have in addition the fact that many, many people use the term, even those who hold the opposite viewpoint. From one perspective it's just a label that stands for a very emotional and politically charged issue. -- RM 12:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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. -Severa (!!!) 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed from "term dispute" section

One method of resolving the dispute is simply to use the terms each group uses for itself. This approach is rarely adopted by news organizations. I removed this because the first sentence is redundant while the second is an unreferenced claim that I imagine any of use could refute with a survey of news regarding "pro life" and "pro choice" -related events. As such, doing so would also probably be redundant as well. --Lenoxus 00:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The second sentence seems to be entirely backwards from my experience; I've seen vanishingly few news organizations that use phrases like "self-described pro-life" or "so-called pro-life"; the great majority of the time, news organizations buy into the reframe without so much as batting an eyelash. Kasreyn 23:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the story behind that sentence is that the AP published style guidelines specifying the use of "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" instead of pro-life/pro-choice. [2] I agree it is worded poorly, but I just wanted to comment that it came from somewhere.-Andrew c 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. As an aside, I think the link you provided is the first time I have ever been shocked speechless (well, for a minute). I don't think I've ever read anything as stupendously hypocritical as that blogcritics piece in my life. You sadden me, good sir.  :( Kasreyn 04:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused (I didn't intend to sadden anyone). I have nothing to do with that blog post (besides googling "Associated Press abortion guidelines" or something like that and running across that site). I posted the link because there was an image supposedly from the guidelines, and there is a little background information in the first paragraph. I didn't bother to read the rest. Sorry about the confusion.-Andrew c 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No no, not to worry. I didn't mean I thought you wrote it. I was merely saddened to learn that people (specifically that piece's author) had plumbed new depths of hypocrisy. I meant no criticism of you, Andrew. Cheers, Kasreyn 08:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Singular They

You put singular they in the edit summary, and expect me to realize that it is actually the PLURAL they? Anyways, I feel that it is a cumbersome way of writing, and singluar his is standard, so you might as well object to the use of the word "the" or "a". Chooserr 02:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary said "singular they fix". I thought that implied that I was fixing the singular they problem that some people find controversial. Sorry my summary was not clear. It isn't asking too much to expect you to read and then realize what you are reverting. The use of a neuter "his" is controversial. Just look at the MoS talk page, there his a whole archive devoted to it. There has been no consensus for or against its use, but we can both agree it simply isn't "fine", and that it is in fact controversial (probably more so than singular they). My solution was to avoid the use of both controversies and use a plural they. I hope this is a reasonable compromise. I wouldn't have minded "his or her" which one editor suggested, but another reverted claiming something about gender not being binary. That is a POV and shouldn't dictate our style guideline for sure. I say, just avoid the controversy if at all possible.-Andrew c 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be the first to admit that I'm a stickler for grammatical correctness. But, if you read the article, Singular they, you will learn that such constructions actually have quite a long history of use. I'm not against using neuter "his" in certain contexts, but, in the context of an encyclopedia, it sort of rubs me the wrong way. We're trying to be as inclusive as possible and defaulting to neuter "his," when there are grammatically-sound alternatives, strikes me as counter to that spirit. Personally, I prefer to alternate between "his" and "her" consistently in writing, unless it isn't logical to do so. "His or her" is also good, but problematic, because the fact is that human sex isn't a simple matter of male/female (See intersexuality). I do agree that bypassing concerns of gender neutrality entirely by simply opting for a plural construction over a singular one is probably the easiest solution. -Severa (!!!) 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed fact tagged sentences

An anon editor removed these two sentences, which were fact tagged. Please do not put them back into the article unless you find and cite a reliable, verifiable source.

• Many Christian groups encourage that these babies be adopted by Christian families, so that Christian values can be taught.
• In this sense, some argue that restrictions on abortion rights may indirectly serve to increase the pro-life position in society.

Thanks.-Andrew c 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Entire "Debate" section not NPOV

The "Debate" section needs to be completely rewritten. It shows a clear pro-choice bias, clearly downplaying any attempts that the pro-life movement has made to place legal limits on abortion. Cato152.23.91.128 04:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, however, I am not sure whether the section has been edited since your comment. Anyway, I am removing the two tags from the section.—Red Baron 14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this entire article is biased against the Pro-life side. The article itself states:

'Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues, and in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life people tend to use terms such as "mother", "unborn child", "unborn baby", "pre-born infant" or infanticide.[32] Pro-choice people tend to use terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus". Each side accuses the other of using a preferred set of loaded terms.

However, consistently throughout the article 'fetus' is used, which is a non-neutral 'pro-choice' term. If you wanted to be neutral, then the pro-life articles should refer to the fetus as the unborn child, and the pro-choice articles should refer to the unborn child as a fetus.

Another place the article states: The major stated goal of the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life."[5] This protection would include fetuses and embryos, persons who cannot communicate their wishes due to physical or mental incapacitation, and those who are too weak to resist being euthanized.

Why is it considered inappropriate to say 'this protection would include the unborn child', when it is ok to say 'this protection would include the fetuses and embryos'?

This article has a pro-choice slant on it throughout, and should be rewritten with a neutral tone.

Also, the whole article focuses on what the Pro-life side is AGAINST. Why does it not state what it is FOR??? The opening line of the article should be 'pro-life' - supporting, defending, protecting life. The opening life of the pro-choice article begin discussing how it is FOR-Choice (Pro-Choice!). Likewise, this entire article should be re-written being FOR-LIFE (Pro-Life!) Danielchi (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's generally easier for users to keep up with the most recent conversations if you post at the bottom of the page. To start a new topic, you can always click the "+" plus sign tab between "edit this page" and "history" to start a new topic. Next, it sounds like you are proposing that these two articles be written from a sympathetic point of view. On wikipedia, we try to write from a "neutral" point of view (see WP:NPOV). This means that we try to to take sides when there is a debate, that we present all notable views with due weight given to each, and that there shouldn't be any inherent bias if at all possible. Now you do bring up an interesting point when it comes to "fetus" vs. "unborn child", especially because we state in the article that the pro-choice camp uses "fetus" while the pro-life camp uses "unborn child". However, if we were to change the whole article so every instance was "unborn child" it would be obvious that the article was leaning towards to pro-life view just based on the language used. However, words like "fetus" are technical terms used by the medical community. They are not as emotional or leading as "unborn child". Therefore, in the past, most editors have agreed to stick with the language of the medical community. And unfortunately for us, one side of the abortion debate does tend to also stick to that sort of language. But then again, pro-choicers have also been known to use emotional, less accurate language as well in terms like "blob of tissue". And I would never, ever suggest adding that phrase to the pro-choice article. We shouldn't try to create two sets of standards for different articles based on the subject matter. We should have one universal standard that applies to all wikipedia articles. Therefore, I support finding a set of terminology that we can consistently use here and in other articles. And I prefer to keep what we already have, which is the language of the medical/scientific community, and we should try to avoid the more emotional language from the pro-life and pro-choice extremes. And I will admit this isn't entirely "neutral" in that it has a pro-science bias, and science may be a bit more pro-choice than pro-life. But I believe it is a reasonable solution. I'd be interested in hearing out other ideas. I played with the idea of presenting both points of view, such as calling it a "fetus/unborn child/blob of tissue" but for obvious reasons, such a solution would be unnecessarily wordy and look awkward repeated in an article. Anyway, just my thoughts.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your tip regarding starting a new topic.

I think you are right. I think the pro-life article should - if anything - have a slight pro-life slant, and the pro-choice article - if anything - should have a slightly pro-choice slant. Any article or person will always have some bias, but we should try to reduce that as much as possible. The fact this article is referred to as 'pro-life' rather than 'anti-abortion', and the 'pro-choice' article is not entitled 'pro-abortion', already indicates a slight writing 'from a sympathetic point of view'.

You are correct that 'fetus' is the medical / scientific term used, but there are many times we do not use the medical term in everyday life. The doctor, when talking to a pregant lady will seldom refer to 'the fetus', but will generally call it, 'your baby'. Also, we never say 'Gerald Ford terminated on Dec 26', even though 'terminated' is the medical term for 'death'.

You state correctly: if we were to change the whole article so every instance was "unborn child" it would be obvious that the article was leaning towards to pro-life view just based on the language used. However, by using the term "fetus' the article is leaning toward the pro-choice view.

Perhaps I would not feel so strongly about it, if the second point I raised was addressed: The whole article focuses on what the Pro-life side is AGAINST. Should it not clearly emphasize what it is FOR??? The opening line of the article should be 'pro-life' - supporting, defending, protecting life. The opening life of the pro-choice article begin discussing how it is FOR-Choice (Pro-Choice!). Likewise, this entire article should be re-written being FOR-LIFE (Pro-Life!)

Suggestion opening line: Pro-life describes the political and ethical view that the fetus has the right to be born and live. Danielchi (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think using terms of "self-identity" when it comes to the subject of an article is different from writing from a sypathetic point of view. I've seen an editor throw around the idea of using the terms "Anti-abortion advocate" and "abortion rights advocate". However, the title of the article is determined, when there is a naming conflict, by Wikipedia:Naming conflict. The most common term and the term of self-identity (among other factors) take precedent. So under those guidelines, this article should be named "pro-life" and the other article should be named "pro-choice". However, since "unborn child" vs. "fetus" is not the title of this article, the naming conflict guidelines do not apply. I think we should strive for universal language that would work across articles, and again, my preference is to use the more technical/medical/scholarly language than less accurate and emotive lay terms. As an encyclopedia, we aren't here to try to comfort expectant mothers, nor are we here to persuade anyone to have an abortion. We are here to give overviews on topics from a professional, neutral perspective.

Next, as a pet peeve of mine, I want to make it clear that "terminated" is not the medical term for "death". In the medical literature, fetuses are not terminated. Pregnancies are terminated. Note the difference. As for the rest of the article. If you have verifiable, reliable sources to cite, then feel free to expand the article yourself to focus on what pro-lifers support. I do not believe your proposed first sentence would work because it is too specific. It may work for the 3rd sentence. However, the end of the 2nd sentence, and the existing 3rd sentence basically say the same thing as your proposed sentence, right?-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are correct. 'Terminated' is not the medical term for 'death' - I think it is 'expired'. Sorry about that. But my point remains the same: We don't always use the medical / technical / scholarly term to describe an event or object - we describe the best term / the most commonly-used term. (We don't say Jerry Ford expired. We say he died.) In every day usage, I have never ever heard anyone refer to the 'womb-occupant' as a 'fetus'. I have always heard it referred to as 'baby'. . Sometimes some web sites use both terms, baby and fetus. without causing any confusion - perhaps that is an appropriate way forward.

I agree wikipedia should be neutral. However, only using the term 'fetus' is not neutral. the term fetus is biased toward the pro-choice argument. Just like only using the term 'baby' would not be neutral and biased toward the pro-life argument.

I understand your 'preference is to use the more technical/medical/scholarly language than less accurate and emotive lay terms', but on an emotionally charged issue such as abortion, I think it is very important find a good 'middle ground'. Consistently and only using the pro-choice term does not seem appropriate. Danielchi (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion?

I'd like to see the section on "diversity of pro-life views" revised and expanded. 69.140.164.142 05:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain, in a bit more detail, what you'd like to see changed, or what you'd like to see added? Alternatively, you are welcome to jump right in and start editing the article, as long as you keep in mind attribution (all new content needs to be cited and sourced from reliable sources).-Andrew c 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Question definition of "Pro-life"

There are many problems with this definition of pro-life. First of all, the term conception can mean either fertilisation or implantation. Even Wiki acknowledges this controversy. Pro-lifers, by definition, believe life begins at fertilisation not implantation. If they believed life begins at a point after fertilisation, that would justify abortion and therefore disqualify them as pro-life.

Secondly, mentioning that the pro-life perspective is derived historically from Christian tradition, misrepresents the pro-life perspective. Pro-life Muslims, Jews and Hindus, among other religious groups, have been generally against abortion well before Christians in the US began to oppose abortion. This definition of pro-life is obviously based on the American experience of the abortion debate and does not include those of us from other parts of the world. The section that deals with the religious influence on this perspective should touch on this and not the definition section. Remember, this wiki page is defining what it means to be pro-life not what the US pro-life movement is about.

However, my main concern is that this article implies what is in contention is that human life begins at fertilisation. That is not in contention. As sexual beings, human existence begins when the male gamete fuses with the female gamete at fertilisation. What is in contention is the value we should place on this new life. In other words, what makes pro-lifers, pro-life, is not that they believe life begins at fertilisation - many pro-choicers acknowledge this including Peter Singer, bio-ethicist from Princeton but that they believe life should be valued from the moment of fertilisation.

but In other words, this sentence:

Many pro-life individuals believe that personhood begins at conception rather than at birth or at some point in-between. This perspective is historically derived from the Christian tradition and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.[1]

Should be changed to:

Pro-lifers believe that human life should be valued from the moment of fertilisation. They argue that human life before birth should be accorded the same value as human life after birth. In other words, they believe personhood begins at fertilisation.

Without these changes, the current definition of "pro-life" is not just biased but inaccurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canbuhay (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 April 2007.

I agree that your rewrite of these sentences is an improvement and thus would support the change to the article. It is a more straightforward characterization of the pro-life position. LotR 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that conception sould be changed to fertilization. I do not agree that Pro-lifers, by definition, believe life begins at fertilisation not implantation I'd agree that the most vocal organizations hold this position, and I also agree that the Catholic Church holds this position (which brings me to another point...) I'd even go as far to say that "Many pro-lifers" hold that belief, but not all. However, if we are going to try to represent the majority view, we shouldn't hide the fact that the Catholic Church and the most vocal pro-life organizations are Christian (especially in America/UK). Furthermore, the original version has a citation where the proposal has none. Also, the proposal is a bit verbose/redundant. All three sentences could easily be combined into one. I do not see the proposal as an improvement.-Andrew c 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pro-lifers generally believe that human life should be valued from fertilisation until natural death" (a paraphrase) is more accurate and general than "Many pro-life individuals believe that personhood begins at conception rather than at birth or at some point in-between". Pro-life individuals usually do not couch their advocacy on the strictly theoretical grounds of when "personhood" begins, but rather on the simple notion that the dignity of human life should be valued (at all its developmental stages). One usually does not hear "the most vocal pro-life organizations" spouting on with debates about "personhood," but rather convictions about "respecting the dignity of human life." The 2nd statement of the original wording introduces the misleading POV that being pro-life (anti-abortion) only has basis as a Christian doctrine, when in fact this is not universally true. If one insists it be tied to a written (as opposed to oral...) religious tradition, then it ought to be Judaism, since it is the Hebrew Scriptures (written well before Jesus) that speak to the unborn in the womb. I agree that the three sentences could be combined into one, and that the reference to bioethical utilitarianism can be retained.

Here is another stab: "Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued from fertilisation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Judeo-Christian morality (especially in the United States), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.[1]" Note that I am not attached to this exact wording and am open to further iterations. LotR 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with removing the idea (and wikilink) personhood completely from this article, but I see your point that pro-lifers do not always frame the debate in those terms. I also am not convinced that the "Judeo" part is significant to the movement. The use of "generally" is much better than "by definition". The wording could be tweaked, but I think that is a fair compromise (assuming the idea of personhood is added later in the article.)-Andrew c 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am by no means suggesting that the idea of personhood should be removed from the article, but only from these specific sentences. I think it is touched upon in a later section, specifically under the "Motivations/Secular" section, if my memory serves. I don't believe it is wikilinked there, though. I agree that Judeo can also be taken out -- I stuck that in because the original sentences were talking about a religious tradition, in which case "Judeo-Christian" is more accurate terminology, but in the current phrasing it is not. So, that leaves:

"Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued from fertilisation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States), and has also influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.[1]" Again, I am open to further iterations, if necessary. LotR 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys are massively oversimplifying this. I describe myself as pro-life; however I'm not Christian (or anything) and I support legalised abortion. Surely everyone is pro-life? Nfitz 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. By calling themselves "pro-life", the anti-choicers are implying that anyone who wants a woman to be able to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term is somehow "anti-life". They also like to call anyone who terminates an unwanted pregnancy a "murderer", which goes along the same theme. In contrast, pro-choicers aren't against life or for abortion, they're just for giving women the choice, while the "pro-life" crowd is against giving women this choice. In this way, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are terms that frame the issue; the difference is that the first one is a lie. ThAtSo 03:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps then, as Wikipedia should be NPOV, the article should be called "Anti-Abortionists" or "Supports of Restricted Access to Abortion" so as not to create bias? Nfitz 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about neutrality among reliable sources, not the truth. If we posted the truth, then the page on theism would causally mention that there's no God, too. ThAtSo 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would, if that were the truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.37.102 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 July 2007.

It would, except that the truth is not always uncontroversial, even when it's obvious. That's why we need to stick to neutral sources. ThAtSo 02:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to see implantation as the beginning of life. Nothing starts; a person becomes joined to another person. At birth, those people separate. Before, during and after, they are distinct beings with their own DNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.112.162 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy, pro-choice

There is a sentence (These sorts of restrictions are often seen within the pro-choice movement as attempts to limit access to abortion and to violate the right to privacy.) which has come under recent edit attention, so I am coming to talk to hopefully avert more edit warring. Two anonymous editors (presumably the same person due to similar IP address) removed the last clause of the sentence (and to violate the right to privacy.). There was no explanation for the first blanking, but the second time the edit summary was Pro-life activists do not see themselves as trying to violate rights. This sentence, however isn't about how pro-life activists see themselves, but how pro-choice activists see laws the restrict access to abortion. Because Roe v. Wade dealt with the constitutional right to privacy, mentioning that language only makes sense in this context. I see no reason at all to remove half of the sentence. But I am more than willing to hear arguments to the contrary. -Andrew c 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct -- the sentence plainly states that this the pro-choice viewpoint, which it is. It makes no value-judgment on the statement, and there are plenty of analogous sentences stating the pro-life viewpoint. LotR 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is this sentence? Joie de Vivre 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle of the 2nd paragraph of the "The debate" section.-Andrew c 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Debate-first paragraph

"Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos." Isn't the debate really over whether or not a baby is a human? Shouldnt that be posted? Zantaggerung 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, this is part of the debate, but it is not the defining aspect of it -- some pro-choice individuals are willing to acknowledge that human embryos/fetuses are indeed human, but deny their personhood, and some pro-lifers, while acknowledging their personhood, are willing to make exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape and/or incest. LotR 13:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question: this paragraph may be slightly POV. The Pro-Choice article states that Pro-Choicers tend to refer to unborn humans as "fetuses" or "embryos", while Pro-Lifers refer to unborn humans as "unborn babies" or "children". The paragraph uses vocabulary of a Pro-Choicer, which leads to suspicions on the authorship of the paragraph. A replacement such as, "and this includes unborn children/fetuses." could work better. Actually, I have noticed the same usage of these words on the Pro-Choice page. "On the issue of abortion, pro-choice campaigners are opposed by pro-life campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-life view considers human fetuses and embryos to have the full legal rights of a human being; thus, the right to life of a developing fetus or embryo trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy." Is an example, though there are many more, and when referring to actual abortion, the article never uses the word "child" or "baby". 70.122.244.36 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Abstinence-only sex education needs a little TLC

Of course, I'm speaking of the article, not the type of educational program. I figured that people interested in the Pro-life article might be also interested in the Abstinence-only sex education article (given that in my experience many Pro-lifers are also supporters of AO sex ed or vice versa, so thus some editors might be quite knowledgeable about both), which really needs to have an "Arguments in support of abstinence-only programs" type section added and expanded. Right now most of the information seems to be accurate and sourced, but it does not really detail enough about the reasoning behind AO sex ed, nor does it detail much about how the programs are typically - or supposed to be - executed (though it does address which of the textbooks in some of the popular programs are accurate from the scientific standpoint, which in my opinion is still helpful, but not the whole picture; also reactions to the 2004 study that found that the most widely-used programs also used the textbooks with the scientific errors and misrepresentation of facts? Lacking. There's got to have been a change or reaction of some sort, one would think, it's been over 2 years...). All in all, the cricticisms are detailed, but the opposite viewpoint does not get nearly enough screentime to make it a balanced, NPOV article. I've always been a little inherently skeptical of the AO approach to sex ed, and I don't have anybody I know of that I can turn to who knows much about the execution and reasoning behind it, so I don't trust myself to be able to find the most noteworthy examples of supporters that, well, don't sound crazy to me. :P In short, we need people who truly understand the pro-AO position on sex education to be editing.

Anyway, just figured I'd drop a note over here about it. Runa27 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

External link

This link was added to "External links" by User:Marykderr in this diff. As a "Mary K. Derr" is the owner of the site, I removed it and explained about WP:COI on their talk page. An anon immediately reinstated the link. Its possible that the user signed out to re-add the link, so I removed it again for discussion here. Joie de Vivre 17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not do this in intentional violation of rules. I thought it was OK because the site is noncommercial/educational/service-oriented--even the book that led to its creation is decidedly no source of profit. Also it represents an underrepresented perspective. Editors, I hope you will visit the site and considering putting it back in. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marykderr (talk • contribs) 18:04, 7 June 2007.

First of all, thanks for coming to talk and discussing this matter. Second of all, on talk pages, in order for everyone to keep track of who is saying what, we "sign" out comments. SO next time you post, just type four tidles (~~~~) at the end of your post. OK, onto the link. Wikipedia is not, primarily, a web directory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You may be interested in the open directory project, which is a place for users to add links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is highly discouraged for someone who owns a webpage to come to wikipedia to place a link to the webpage. Instead, if you are passionate enough about a topic that you have a webpage about it, why not consider contributing content, articles, sources, and making other positive encyclopedic additions to the articles on the topics you are interested. Wikipedia needs more good, sourced, reliable, verifiable content in almost every article. Wikipedia does not, however, need more links to external webpages, especially if they are placed there by someone associated with the website. I hope you understand. If your webpage becomes notable enough, perhaps one day it will be listed here, but the idea of this wikipedia article is not to link to as many websites as possible (and I personally think the list is too long as it stands, but I'm an exclusivist in that regard). Anyway, thanks again, and if you have any more questions or concerns, feel free to raise them here or on my talk page.-Andrew c 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

US vs rest of the world

Is "pro-life" used outside the United States? There are, and have been, debates on abortion in the UK, Ireland etc. so what do they use? David.Monniaux 05:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In Belgium we use anti-abortion instead of pro-life. We don't really have a specific term for pro-choice as far as I know. I hae never heard pro-abortion for example. It is important to note though that abortion happens less often in a lot of countries compared to the US. 193.178.209.212 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Hicham Vanborm

Article overview

I edited the front page word from "Beliefs" to "Overview" because 1. Pro-choice article has tha same word to describe "beliefs" 2. People can be pro-choice without being religous and have any "beliefs".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.102.70.201 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 July 2007.

Please don't top post. You can easily create a new thread by hitting the plus sign tab at the top of the page. Also, make sure to "sign" you comments by typing four tildes ~~~~ after each post. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

When Does Life Begin

Thank you Andrew for catching the cut and paste! I was quite surprised. The essay I vandalized is my own work, however, so I give myself permission. Please "unrevert" it. Thanks, Jude McCarney, author of "When Does Life Begin." http://judemccarney.blogspot.com/2007/06/when-does-life-begin.html

It is not enough to simply give permission for the content to be used in Wikipedia, restrictions from other uses must be waived as well. WP:NFC "For content to be "free", there must be no significant legal restriction on its use, redistribution or modification, for any purpose" Neitherday 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to release your own work under the GFDL (which is what you are doing when you post to wikipedia). However, your contribution still doesn't quite meet up to wikipedia standards. Please consider revising and adding citations to sources before restoring the text. Thanks for your consideration. Also, on talk pages, please sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of your post (~~~~) or hit the signature button if you have the edit toolbox enabled. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Papal gathering picture

Clicking through to the larger size, the people obviously have their arms in the orans posture, but with the smaller size they appear to be making a less savory gesture.

I would think this should be fixed. A.J.A. 17:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which gesture you see, but, at a smaller resolution, it is dificult to make out the fact that the people are raising both arms due to the lateral view. A one-armed salute certainly would have negative connotations from a historical perspective. However, if we are to maintain consistency in the sizing of images in this article, I don't think it would be possible to increase the image to a size at which the all the second arms were clearly discernable. I'll add a note in the image caption about how the people in the crowd have their arms raised in prayer instead. -Severa (!!!) 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't linking 'pro-life' with the US anti-abortion movement POV?

US anti-abortion people calling themselves 'pro-life' is a propaganda tactic. Why should wikipedia help their propaganda? Pro-life has a clear and unambigious meaning. Pro-life shouldn't mean 'pro-life restricted to the abortion movement'.--77.251.196.241 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

- Hear here! I'm anti-abortion, but def don't consider myself part of the 'Pro-Life' movement. There should be a way to clarify this on the Wik. (BTW, Im not for any pro or anti abortion laws, I'm libertarian in this case.)--71.97.131.187 06:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The term pro-life is used in Canada, the Philippines and in most English speaking countries. I know this as a member of the pro-life movement here in Canada. The pro-life group in the Philippines is called "Pro-life Philippines" (http://www.prolife.org.ph/) and Hong Kong also uses pro-life (http://www.hkpll.org/). French and Spanish pro-life groups also use the word life prominently in their names and many of their names roughly if not directly translate to "pro-life" in English (http://www.hli.org/nigeria.html, http://www.vidahumana.org/, http://www.hli.org/article_statements_comit_nacional_pro-vida.html, http://www.adv.org/) Various groups associated with or supported by US groups tend to have similar monikers. And even if we don't use "pro-life" in the name of our organizations, those of us involved worldwide in the movement, use the term to describe the broader movement against abortion. Anti-abortion is actually used as a derogatory term by our English-speaking opponents to make us sound "negative" especially when they use the term in contrast to "pro-choice".

Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are labels we use to describe ourselves. Some on wiki apparently won't even give us that but that all that displays is a bias on their part against our position.

What is very US-related though is this section on the "abortion debate". The abortion debate may have started there in the 70's but not elsewhere around the world - so the abortion debate hasn't gone on for 40 years (even in the US, the abortion debate first started with first-wave feminists who OPPOSED abortion - http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/NorahVincentLATimes01-03.pdf (I know this is a pro-life group but clearly the quotes mentioned show that even early feminists were debating abortion). The American legal system is not the same as Canada's or anyone else for that matter (for example, the federal government not the Canadian provincial governments, decides all criminal laws regarding abortion so provinces can't ban partial-birth abortions unlike US states). This section has to be rewritten to reflect the international debate and not be so myopic and discuss only US laws and regulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canbuhay (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Overhauling article

Andrew c, I really do think the article can be improved. I figured I'd be bold and fix it up and folks could edit that from there. What parts do you feel were good and what parts were unacceptable? Benkenobi18 21:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking through your deletions, it seems like you purged any mention of the other side of the debate. If we don't present all points of view, we are making this article a POV fork, which is prohibited. I can understand that perhaps you thought it was off topic here, but from the looks of things, the content you outright deleted seems to work fine here. I'd be glad to listen to your rationale behind these deletions. I can understand deleting things that had citation needed tags, but you also deleted stuff that had citations (like in the violence section). You removed an unreferenced tag without supplying references. As for the changes in the lead, you altered it so as if to say that there is ONE definition of pro-life, where the previous wording had left it open to include multiple individuals who self-identify as "pro-life". I believe the previous lead was more detailed and more nuanced than your version. Also, there were significant changes to the "overview" section. You added the phrase "unborn child" which has been discussed before as being more POV than fetus/embryo. You added that emergency contraception was an abortifacients, which is simply a POV. Not a single one of your changes was supported by a citation. So generally, you removed balance and other points of view, while adding your own personal POV to the article. To answer your question "what parts do you feel were good", look at my last edit to see what changes I restored.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Looking through your deletions, it seems like you purged any mention of the other side of the debate. If we don't present all points of view, we are making this article a POV fork, which is prohibited."

Ok, the article is about "Pro-life". The purpose of the article shouldn't be to say that "Prolifers say this, prochoicers say this", the goal is to present the "Prolife argument" without ambiguity. This isn't to say that the prolife argument is more correct, but to say that this is what prolifers believe, and why they believe what they do. Would you disagree that this is the purpose of the article? To describe the pro-life movement and their beliefs?

"I can understand deleting things that had citation needed tags, but you also deleted stuff that had citations (like in the violence section)."

Yes, there is an article that deals specifically with abortion related violence. Abortion-related violence. The part I left is what the prolife organisations say about violence, and their rejection of violence and their rationales for rejecting violence. That is important. I feel the material is best left to the other article, and not here which is why I removed it, because NONE of the material in that section has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is pro-life.

"As for the changes in the lead, you altered it so as if to say that there is ONE definition of pro-life, where the previous wording had left it open to include multiple individuals who self-identify as 'pro-life'."

Well I don't see what was incorrect about my definition in the opener, that all prolifers believe in this. It's like saying all Catholics believe in something, etc. The choice is between nuance or information. We can be nuanced or we can inform people. I understand that there are some who self-identify as prolife, but the question is what does it mean to be prolife in the first place? If I want to look up what "Pro-life" means I expect to see a succinct summary of the prolife position, not a 'nuanced' article as you describe.

"You added the phrase "unborn child" which has been discussed before as being more POV than fetus/embryo."

Yes, I left fetus where we are actually talking about a 'fetus' or an 'embryo' which are scientific terms referring to certain gestational ages. I replaced the incorrect term "fetus or embryo" with unborn child. My question for you is this. What is the correct term for the child within the womb, from conception onwards? Fetus and embryo only covers the majority, but not the entirety of what that means. By saying Fetus and embryo you are changing the meaning. Fetus/Embryo does not mean exactly what unborn child does.

"You added that emergency contraception was an abortifacients, which is simply a POV."

No, it's not, I'm sorry. I actually said, "prolifers believe EC to be an abortifacient" which is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkenobi18 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

EDITS

I'm going to break this edit piece by piece and see if we can't reach a consensus. I want you to tell me what is wrong with each edit to each section and why each one of them is bad. Benkenobi18 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

1. OPENER (MY EDIT)

The term Pro-life represents the philosophy which states that the unborn ought to be considered human persons, and thus legally entitled to the same rights as other persons, among which includes the right to life. Prolife activism applies this philosophy to many bioethical issues, including, but not limited to: abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and the death penalty.

What are your objections to this part? I've changed the wording somewhat. Benkenobi18 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2. CURRENT OPENER

"Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos."

I think my version is more concise, gets the same point across without the weasel words, 'a variety of perspectives' 'It can be used', etc. I'm reading an article on prolife. I want to know what it is not what it might mean, or what it can mean. Benkenobi18 00:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply with my objections to your opener. First of all, is pro-life a philosophy? Can't it also be a political position? Or a phrase to represent elements found in a brand of Christian ethics/ideology (i.e. the Catholic Consistent Life Ethic). Next, pro-lifers don't believe that "the unborn ought to be considered human persons", for the most part, pro-lifers believe that there is no difference between a fetus and a person. The phrasing implies that the unborn really aren't persons, although they "ought to be considered" as such. Next, are there other rights, besides the right to life, that pro-lifers want to give fetuses? The right to vote? The right to property? The right to drive a car? The right to bear arms? While my examples might sound humourous, I believe that pro-life implies the right to "life" and nothing more. The sentence Prolife activism applies this philosophy to many bioethical issues is grammatically incorrect. Activism is not a noun that takes an action verb. The word "activists" could work here, but there many pro-life individuals, who aren't activists, who oppose stem cell research. I do understand your concern that we perhaps leave the lead too open ended, but we also much watch out that we aren't claiming that there is simply one definitive definition of "pro-life" and nothing more. I think a way to move forward here is to find sources that define pro-life, so that we can work toward finding a majority definition of the term, and at the same time work on weeding out the more weaselly parts of the current intro (and the less notable views).-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was this removed? The current header is inaccurate, as pro-life is much broader than just abortion. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Last Edit

I didn't notice you put that back in again until now. You never mentioned it in your description, not a word. Why didn't you discuss that in the talk? I took it out because it has nothing to do with the actual topic of the article. Sure it's sourced, but it has nothing to do with the actual topic which is prolife. That's why I took it out. I'm reverting it unless you can show me why that part should go in. I thought you were better then to say I was vandalising an article, can't you be open and honest with me about the changes that you want to make? I'm trying to work with you, please don't make changes without at least talking about them here. You asked me to talk it out, I'm hoping you can abide by your own request.

Benkenobi18 06:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary was not deceptive because I used the "undo" fuction, therefore my edit summary was prefaced with "Undid Benkenobi18." Next, we are currently under discussion about your major changes. You do not yet have consensus for your changes, so we should revert to the long standing version while we are under discussion. Reverting multiple times is considered edit warring, as you are well aware, and not only isn't productive, but is against policy. Next, the information IS helpful to readers. The paragraph discuss the general topic about churches official opinions on the topic of abortion. We present both sides to avoid this being a POV fork. I believe quoting from the mission statement is a bit much though, so as a compromise, I've only restored the key bits. Let's leave it in unless there develops further consensus to completely remove it. And right now, since there is only two of us, it would help to have more opinions, so we could file a WP:3O, or WP:RFC or personally contact editors who have contributed to this article in the past. I'll reply to the above later, so please be patient.-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Was just bothered by the 'vandalism' allegation. Yes, of course the paragraph should say, mainstream churches have a variety of opinions on abortion. I deliberately did not remove that section. I left the statement, many mainstream churches do support abortion. Some support some do not. Many Lutherans, Methodists, United church folks do not support abortion. As it was that paragraph seemed to be an advertisment for the RCRC folks. That's the only problem I have with that section. That is all. Benkenobi18 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the WP:3O, or WP:RFC, I have no problem with the WP:RFC. I don't know the previous editors of this article so I'd encourage you to contact them. The more folks the merrier. WP:30 seems way too premature. I think we can work out a consensus. Benkenobi18 23:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

diversity

This bit is mistaken. Pro-life is about what is done to innocent individuals, customarily in a medical situation. It is about bio-ethics. There are other issues such as capital punishment and the ethics of war (including WMDs) which are separate. They are not part of the pro-life debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.112.162 (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think other pro-life views should be incorporated. I do not want other people to consider utilitarian ethics (which isn't endorsed by the religious right) to be "pro-death". —Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image of pro-life van with photos of aborted fetus

I propose to include this image: http://flickr.com/photos/7256752@N08/418307013/. It showed up on Talk:Abortion.

Objections?

Suggestions as to where it might be included?

Thanks!

LCP 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

---THAT IS DISGUSTING AND DISGRACEFUL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.194.150 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 October 2007

Question as to why it's in the article ("Types of activism") then? The picture seems to be there more to shock readers rather than give information.76.194.241.106 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Exodus 21:22

I've done a little digging and there seems to be some reliable sources that interpret this verse to mean God puts less emphasis on the fetus than the mother. The most cited example is Bruce K. Waltke, “Old Testament Texts Bearing on the Problem of the Control of Human Reproduction,” Birth Control And The Christian. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1969. While the author takes a different position, the position is also mentioned as the majority view in Millard J. Erickson's Christian Theology p.572. This PDF also has a big bibliography on this position (see page 180). I do not think it necessarily belongs in the article, so I have not added the text myself, but I did want to do some research, and then share it with everyone else, in case someone wanted to consider these reliable sources.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, the PDF file you provided does a nice job of summarizing this, and is itself a reference for this interpretation. However, it also presents a pro-life interpretation as well. The original text could be reintroduced with this reference, but it would have to mention that both "sides" have interpreted it to favor their position. -- LotR (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there was a mistranslation. http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion It merely refers to an early birth. But I'm an atheist anyway, so it doesn't matter to me. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Links

First, to the anon. Please be more careful when reverting. You undid the neutral edits of other editors. Next, the article had a clean-up links tag on it. We all have to keep in mind that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it clearly isn't a online directory (use dmoz.org for that). The external link to organizations that have wikipedia articles (where their external link is clearly found) were removed. This helped to clean up the list. On top of that, a few non-notable, self-published sites were removed (like the geocities site on "Pagans for Life"). The same clean up was performed on pro-choice as well. Perhaps removing the EL links to the organizations that already have wikipedia articles isn't the best solution, so I'm wondering if anyone else has ideas on how to clean up the old link list? Maybe we could remove any link that doesn't describe in detail, and in an encyclopedic manner the pro-life position or movement? This would get rid of a number of links that are simply listing organization (since wikipedia is not a link directory), but would increase the encyclopedic value of the links.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assorted edits

The distinction between pro-life and anti-choice is an important one, and deserves to be mentioned.

The sentence “The pro-choice view considers that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy and that this entails the guarantee of reproductive rights.” is grammatically incorrect.

If you’re going to claim that hormonal birth control “may” prevent implantation, you need to present a reliable source establishing that.

Hormonal birth control does NOT cause abortion. That is not something up for dispute. The phrase “they regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients” is both grammatically and factually flawed. We should present a flat-out incorrect view as simply “another viewpoint”.

What is wrong with this sentence: “The Catholic Church, along with many other pro-life groups, opposes birth control in general, even forms such as condoms for which the above concern does not apply. Arguably, by discouraging birth control and thus increasing the number of unwanted pregancies, these putatively anti-abortion groups actually increase the number of abortions.”?

“The movement in the United States largely began after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that held abortion to be a constitutional right.”

That statement is seriously at odds with the facts. If we are talking about opposition to abortion in general, it existed long before RvW. If we are talking about the political movement, it happened long after RvW. Operation Rescue was founded in the late 1980’s. The Pro-life Action League was founded in 1980.

“They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong.” Unjust war is, by definition, war which is wrong. So that’s a tautology.

“However, this group is a distinct minority, but they are a growing and burgeoning movement, and seek to put new meaning into the phrase "pro-life".”

Absolutely horrendous sentence structure. I can’t for the life of me understand why this was restored.

“The dominant use of the terms also constitutes a false dichotomy, in that it is usually assumed that they are mutually exclusive. If one is morally opposed to abortion, but opposes legislation prohibiting it, one can reasonably described as being both pro-life and pro-choice.”

What’s wrong with this sentence? Heqwm (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making some of those basic grammatical changes. However, the two proposed sections you suggest adding are problematic because they completely lack sources, and appear to be original research. On wikipedia, all content needs to be verifiable, and we do that by attributing ideas to reliable sources. We cannot publish our own thoughts here. Do we have a source that says you can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time? Do we have a source that says Catholic opposition to birth control causes more abortions?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Choice view on legal rights of fetus

Forgive me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Pro-Choice view is that a fetus has no legal standing and therefore no legal rights. However, once born, a child gains legal rights and could then, for example, sue for damage it suffered while a fetus. The reason I raise this is to check whether that is indeed the Pro-Choice view. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the simplest solution to this dilemma would be to find sources to support either statement. It is my personal opinion that it just sounds wrong that pro-choicers do not believe a fetus has rights. Perhaps they believe it's rights are intertwined with the expectant mother's intentions. Like if the woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term, then the fetus has certain rights that it wouldn't have if the woman wanted to terminate. But again, this is just my personal opinion. It sounds like it is also your opinion that pro-choicers do not believe a fetus has rights until it is born, and then it gains some rights retroactively. But again, these are just our thoughts. We really need to go to the sources to settle this. Here is one article "Pro-choice groups agonize over fetal murder law", and this, and this, etc. I'll keep digging.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I just came across my first 'edit conflict' as I tried to post a minute ago. What I tried to say that the first pro-choice source I found from searching through google had an article about the danger of 'fetal rights'. The article had the following quote- "Emotive cases may be used to shock the courts into ruling that a late term or viable fetus is a person, or has legal standing." That seems to suggest that this pro-choice writer does not believe a fetus should have legal standing.

The source was [3] (near the bottom of the page) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a forum, and the view is from some random British lawyer. Forums are almost never reliable sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - I don't think its just any 'random British lawyer' - the Pro-choice Forum says of itself "Pro-Choice Forum aims to foster interaction between academics with a special interest in the issue of abortion, and others with shared interests, especially providers of reproductive healthcare services and pro-choice advocacy and campaigning organizations." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, yes, Barbara Hewson is indeed simply a random British lawyer. She's interested in the abortion debate; so are you. So are a lot of people. It doesn't make them notable at all, and her opinion on a forum does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In order the achieve these aims, Pro-Choice Forum organises lectures, debates and conferences; publishes pamphlets and leaflets; and publicises research about abortion and related issues on this site and elsewhere.

Or how about this quote- "Those on the other side fear that laws to protect a fetus could infringe on a woman's right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman-possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy (e.g., smoking, drinking or using drugs). That is from [4] Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Some of the sources I am about to link to I understand are not reliable, but they help to establish that certain views do exist in the real world, and this may stimulate discussion and ideas. First of all, I found this from the Pro-Choice Action Network that says Potential persons have only potential rights, not actual rights. I then found this by Wendy McElroy that states I also contend that the fetus is not a human being. It possesses no rights. And then we have a libertarian perspective here: Nor is there any such thing as "fetal rights" that conflict with any real person’s rights. And we have this and [5] and [6]. So I do agree that some pro-choice people do not believe a fetus has any rights. But I also believe there are pro-choice people who believe a fetus has some rights, or that a fetus gets rights depending on it's developmental age, or, more simply stated, that a fetus' rights are intertwined with the mother's rights. The last link says Embryos and fetuses do not yet have the full rights of humans. in summarizing the pro-choice veiw, and that is basically what we already said in the article. I would support going back to what we've had in the longstanding version. Next to that, I would support a phrasing that suggests that "some pro-choicers believe a fetus should not have any rights, while others believe the rights of the fetus are intertwined with the rights of the pregnant woman, or that a fetus gains rights at various proposed points (i.e. viability, 8 weeks, after birth, etc)." This way we can get all the views possible in, however, I do not believe we really need to get into that much detail about the nuances of the pro-choice position in the article about the opposite position. Anyway... just some more of my thoughts.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Thanks for your efforts - you do seem to have established that it is common for pro-choice groups to take the view that a fetus has no rights. I have not come across any source in which a pro-choice group or supporter argues that a fetus has any rights or gains rights at any point other than when it is completely born. If you find any reference please post it. Otherwise, I think the article should make clear that the pro-choice position is that a fetus should have no legal rights. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been established that it is a common position that either the fetus has no rights, or no independent rights, but not that the pro-choice view is that the fetus has no rights. What phrasing were you thinking of using? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Killerchihuahua. The article at present says "The pro-choice view does not consider a fetus to have full legal rights, so the issue is instead considered to be the human rights of the pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term." I think the inclusion of the words 'full legal' may imply that a fetus may be viewed as having rights but less than full and/or perhaps rights that are 'non-legal'. I think the sentence would be better if it simply stated "Generally, pro-choice advocates do not view a fetus as having rights, so believe that the rights to be considered are the human rights of the pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term." Is that a fair statement of the position? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. that's funny. I guess the way I phrased it it made it seem like I was drawing that conclusion. The libertarian position did not say that a fetus has no rights, just that it didn't have any rights that superceded the rights of a "real" person. Similarly, the 3 links that I did not summarize all put forth positions that a fetus does have rights, or that it gains rights once it is developed enough. Therefore, I have already posted multiple links that contradict the notion that the pro-choice position is that a fetus has no rights. I also found a citation that almost verbatim says what the current article says. I therefore support keeping "full legal".-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - I don't want to keep this going if the consensus is against me, so perhaps a different approach may be to change the wording in the sentence from stating what pro-choice 'does not consider..' to stating what it 'considers'? In other words, the sentence presently reads "The pro-choice view does not consider a fetus to have full legal rights," - this could become "The pro-choice view considers that a fetus should have less than full legal rights,"... Is that acceptable? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the continuing issues is that it's hard to summarize something like that into one statement when the 'movement' is so diverse. (we have similar issues at this article, because pro-life often involves issues other than abortion such as euthanasia and stem cell research and even the death penalty and war, but not always). What did you think about my idea of saying something like "The pro-choice view often considers the rights of the fetus intertwined with and superseded by the rights of pregnant women."-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

slight change? Instead of 'and superceded by', how about 'but always superceded by'. Cheers - I'm off to bed! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro choice ambiguous term.

First of all the term 'pro choice' relates to an ideology, that is not clearly defined, and appears misleading, mostly because it ignores the term abortion, and the reality that the unborn does not have a choice in the matter; so the term 'pro choice' is really misleading. If anything 'pro abortion choice' is more accurate.

In reality the term 'pro life' is also a choice, one that is not curently reflected in the term 'pro life'.

Perhaps the terms can be expanded or explained to reflect what they really are.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find this has already been discussed at length on past Talk pages. Suggest you read archives. Yonmei (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem in the references

There is a layout problem in the bottom of the page. I'm not capable of fixing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.23.49 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Done.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism.

I was unaware of the rulings that mostly prohibited abortion before 40 days, especially considering the idea that the embryo is "mere water" according to the Talmud. I added a fact tag because of that. I also added some other information showing the "mere water" statement as well as Rashi's statement on the "life" as well. DanielZimmerman (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Orthodox and I've had numerous discussions with various Orthodox, Chasidic, and Haredi rabbis on this subject. The majority stated that halakhah permits abortion at any time, even into the third trimester, not just during the 40 day period, for reasons affecting the mother's health or wellbeing (including mental health, though in all situations, it must be determined by a panel of competent rabbis). The reason given is that the mother is actual life while the fetus is only potential life, as a human does not gain a soul until it draws its first breath. Similarly, one of them told me, and several other rabbis agreed, that for this reason of a fetus not having a soul, a stillborn birth or a miscarriage is not given proper funerary rites. It was also confirmed by three of the rabbis that halakhah permits abortion for any reason up to 40 days after conception, so long as there is intent to eventually have a child (the same reason given for the permission of birth control). This may be where the misunderstanding comes from. Unfortunately, I am not that well versed in Hebrew or Aramaic, so someone else is going to have to hunt down the citations in the halakhic texts. Ruyn13 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Murders and terror

A small paragraph under "violent activism" as a second level sub-sub-heading is not adequate attention to be given to the terrorist activities of many pro-life organisations. I have therefore added a short, referenced statement in the lead and request that "violent activism" is changed to Pro-life terrorism and that the terrorism subject is discussed in more depth. --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For example Islamic terrorism is discussed directly on the Islam article! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Modern_times_.281918.E2.80.93present.29 - there would be outcry if I added a section the the Army of God to Christianity! Such (likely unintended) hypocrisy --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is not Islam, nor Christianity, I am going to ignore your second comment. I have reverted your edit for now on the basis that the source you provided did not back up the claims. The article did not say that the organization who sent the mailings were "pro-life" or "terrorists". We do have a pro-choice activist claiming terrorism, but that is just a partisan opinion, not a stated fact from the BBC. I believe a sentence that you propose could be created, but I believe the wording would have to be tweaked a bit, we'd have to have a solid citation, and we'd need to balance it by metioning the majority of pro-life groups that oppose violence and terrorism.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Then how about "a number of groups have committed murders of abortion doctors and attacked clinics in the name of the pro-life campaign". As for the balancing comment "the majority of pro-lifers oppose this - I agree with you fully on that one in principle however looking at this relative to the rest of the encyclopedia, do you think the regulars on Al-qaeda would allow a similar statement "most muslims oppose terrorism" on "their" article. Terrorism should be dealt with in the same way whatever it's ideology - shown to be widely condemned, that is the main reason I am backing your view that it should be noted that most pro lifers are opposed to terrorism. My egalitarian rant is really irrelevant. --77.98.178.218 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you fix your link to the MIPT's terrorist list? It isn't working for me, and I've tried to search google to find it unsuccessfully. Your placement of citations makes me concerned that the clause in the name of the pro-life campaign is not backed up by the cited sources. It smells of original research (the MIPT's website only gets a single hit for the phrase "pro-life"). I wish you would have waited for further comment and discussion here before trying to re-instate your edit because my concerns have not been completely met yet.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The MIPT link is a long standing reference at Donald Spitz, perhaps the link is dead or archived - I will to my best to find it again. I think is is common knowledge and/or common sense that terrorists who attack abortion clinics do so in the name of the pro-life campaign but if you really want me to source it I will do --77.98.178.218 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of me wanting you to source it, it's a matter of WP:V. In order for wikipedia to be trusted (since anyone can edit it), all content, especially controversial content, needs to be verifiable to our reader (and we do that thought citing reliable sources). Even things that may seem like common sense to you may be challenged, so we must avoid original research in favor of following cited sources. I agree that it shouldn't be that hard to find a source that says there have been extremist groups who have self-identified under the "pro-life" banner, but we really do need that source for verification and reliability reasons. I'll check the internet archives to see if I can find an archived copy of that link.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that link was simply an alphabetized list of organizations from Arm to Aut.[7] I presume that organization that is being referenced if "Army of God".[8] Note that the archived page on that organization does not use the term "pro-life". So what we have here is a source that does not support "A number of designated terrorist groups" because only one group is listed, namely "Army of God". We'd need additional sourcing to say that there are multiple groups, and then we'd need additional sourcing to state that Army of God considered themselves "pro-life". I'm removing the paragraph for the time being until we can clear up the sourcing issues. Please be patient and work with me before restoring the content. I'm positive we can reach a compromise that meets basic wikipedia policies if we continue to work together here on talk.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm going to work on a list of sources here - help out if you can! :D -77.98.178.218 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• "On the surface, the Army of God is pro-life, and naturally. there are millions of other Americans who identify with the same generic. label." - An academic paper focusing on the Army of God - biography, history, activity etc.
• Army of God claims responsibility for Atlanta bombings
• Further detail from MIPT

Perhaps we could refer to individuals as well as groups as many pro-life terrorists are in fact lone individual extremists - for example Michael F. Griffin --77.98.178.218 (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Initial impressions of Pro-Life & Pro-Choice pages

While the pro-choice article features two smiling and happy-looking people, the pro-life article features two people with taped mouths and another person with his head hanging. Please try to maintain a consistent attitude between articles which define opposing content. These two images create a very one-sided first-impression POV for a very two-sided debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.89.72 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good point. Here is an example of a "positive impression" image which could be used for the ProLife page http://www.prolifeacrossamerica.org/archiveBillboards/billboards/WhatICouldSmile.jpg Das wunderbar (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, new posts go at the bottom of talk pages. In fact, you can click on the tab at the top of the page to start a new discussion. Next, Wikipedia is limited to using images which are generally freely licensed. That means that we can't always pick the best images. For example, the link that Das wunderbar posted would most likely not be acceptable here because of copyright issues. I also personally disagree with the assessment of the use of images in the two articles. Finally, hypothetically speaking, many pro-life supporters consider abortion to by a type of "holocaust". Doesn't seem like it would be in good taste to show gleeful pro-lifers protesting abortion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what the guy's trying to point out is the fact that when users who don't have experience with the issue already (i. e. kids) want to learn about the two topics and look at the two articles, they will automatically be biased because of the happy image in the pro-choice article vs. the negative image in the pro-life article. This is a huge example of a POV manifesting itself in those two articles. By the way, so what if the guy posted the thing at the top of the page? Maybe he's a new user (as evidenced by an anon post). Stop the unnecessary criticizing and try to think objectively about this. Also, the image I posted as an example is supported by a pro-life website.... SUre the copyrights may not work, but showing a smiling baby is still something that pro-lifers would definitely support and it would make for a much more "unbiased" way to present the two sides of the debate. At least this way the two sides would be presented with the same initial attitude towards their own side rather than having two articles which present a negative attitude towards one side and a positive attitude towards another.

Das wunderbar (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a better (already being used on WP) picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Infant_looking_at_shiny_object.jpg

Das wunderbar (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I will post this picture with some text to the top of the article. Also, I will not delete the pic with the people with their mouths taped shut, but I will move it to section 3 (the debate) where it will be more appropriate to put an image of people protesting their side in the debate.

Das wunderbar (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted you because I dispute the use of that image on this page. That image does not represent the pro-life movement. Trying to say it does it clearly original research. It'd be almost as bad as putting this image at the top of pro-choice page (except at least we know the person who wrote on the infant's t-shirt was pro-choice, where there is no evidence that the shiny object image was taken to promote the pro-life view). I think your suggestion for the billboard was better because at least then it is clearly pro-life imagery, and avoids original research. (quick side note. KC disputed the choice of caption, rightly so, based on suggesting to avoid hotly debated and uncited "facts" in captions). Next, can we be patient and keep discussing this further before changing any image on the page? (to avoid edit warring) I have found this image, which has a license acceptable for wikipedia (though the billboard itself is still copyright, I'm sure fair use for this article could be applied) but would need some cleanup in a photo editor (and may be too blurry to do anything with. Here is a sampling of images from flickr with acceptable, free licenses: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. There are more, but nothing that jumps out as smiling, happy pro-life protesters. Looking at the images that aren't acceptable on wikipedia (due to non-free licensing), there is [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Some of these have smiling people in the images (but keep in mind, that we cannot use any of those images as is. We'd need to contact the uploader and see if they'd be willing to donate their image by releasing it under a different license). So does anyone like any of these images? Should we work on trying to get more free images, or use one of the already existing free images? Here is another idea, please see Abortion#Abortion debate. Perhaps we could use those two images at the top of each article respectively?-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The one on the billboard looks good. I think we should try to use that one.

Das wunderbar (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit, and I'd like to share some of my thought process. How is the image of a smiling baby any more representative of the pro-life movement than say an image of a bloody, aborted fetus? I think it is clear that the pro-life movement uses both forms of imagery, and choosing to present only one type of imagery at the very top of the article is in essence skewing the balance to portray only one aspect of the movement. Perhaps, if we are going to go with presenting themes in pro-life imagery as the top image, we could consider something more like that "van" image shown lower in the article. That image contains both the happy baby and bloody fetus imagery, and therefore shows a more complete view of pro-life imagery than just including one or the other. I think it would be a disservice to our reader to purposely try to show only one form of imagery for the expressed purpose of trying to paint the pro-life movement in a more positive light. That said, I don't think I can support an image of a single billboard being the top image. I know it is hard to capture an entire movement in a single image, but choosing such a narrow ad campaign such as that one billboard seems to be a step in the wrong direction. I think I'm growing more fond of my last idea, using Image:March for life 2007.JPG, because it shows such a large, and diverse group in a notable context (March for Life). Alternatively, I personally like link numbers 11, 16, 17, 24, and 25 (only 11 and 16 are free, so we'd have to request and hope we could get one of the last three donated if we wanted to pursue one of them). All that said, I think we could definitely use that billboard image in the article. In fact, I will work on an edited version (cropped, lightened, sharpened) to add to the article. I just don't think it will work as the TOP image.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My $.02: I like 16 or March for life. I'll wait to see what you can accomplish with the Billboard; I agree it is not the best choice for the top image. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

->Thank you for sharing your thought process; here's mine. If a reader goes to look up information about the pro-life or pro-choice movement, he or she should not have to be subject to a pair of articles which portray one movement in a negative light while portraying the other in a positive light.

->This succinctly explains why I feel a bloody fetus would not be appropriate for the pro-life article (at the top). Hopefully this also expresses how I do not think the current pair of first images the readers see are "fair" towards both sides of the debate.

->Additionally, I know a lot of people who consider pro-choice outright murder, holocaust, etc and would be deeply offended if they saw pro-choicers portrayed in such a positive light as they are here.

->A happy baby is something which I believe pro-lifers would wholeheartedly support.

->Smiling people holding a pro-choice sign is something I believe pro-choicers would whole-heartedly support.

->Please, no bloody fetuses... that just grosses me out.

->For the record, I like 16, also.

Das wunderbar (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I post 16?

Das wunderbar (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added the image 16 to the top of the article, and moved the other one down. I've tried to work on the billboard image in photoshop, but it is out of focus (or perhaps motion blurred) so I really can't do anything to improve the quality on that image. Anyway, I'm glad we could all agree on a free image for the time being!_Andrew c ^[talk] 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad too :) sorry for the anger in my posts at the beginning of the discussion there.

Das wunderbar (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "pro-life"

Right now, the opening section defines pro-life as "a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that fetuses and embryos are human beings, and therefore have a right to live." I think this should be reworded to emphasize more powerfully the fact that the anti-abortion definition is vastly more common than any of the others. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-life and even http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pro-life. I'm revising it now, but I thought that I should bring this up here in case there is disagreement. Vadskye (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com is a horrible reference to use on terms of words. It can't even get etymology of many words right. Secondly, just because the use of a term is common doesn't mean it is the only way to use it. Take the term "fanny." It's more commonly meant as a buttocks, but in many parts of the UK, it means female genitalia. Pro-life being used as a term to describe anti-abortion is simply political framing. The definition is alot more complex than simply "anti-abortion." http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/index.html for instance. "NRLC Vice President Robert Powell, a Texan with a disability who served as a pro-life champion in leading the struggle to protect the lives of people with disabilities and older people from euthanasia." It's my understanding that he was for abortion. Also, try out http://www.californiaprolife.org/ for more information. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to get into a discussion of the viability of dictionary.com as a source, but it seems like it uses a variety of different sources in its definition, like M&W (see the bottom definition). Dictionaries aren't perfect, but I thought M&W was one of the best. Anyway, you're right, pro-life has other uses, but they are vastly less common than "anti-abortion". In my revision, such uses are still mentioned, but I think it should be emphasized that anti-abortion is by far the most common understanding of the term. Vadskye (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, just because they are less common does NOT mean that they are not part of whatever the topic is. Here in the United States and Canada, we see pro-life as dealing MAINLY with abortion. In most other parts of the world - they don't, they see it for what it is. Again, the article already covers anti-abortion for the use of the term more, so no, you do not ahve to add it in. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 23:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember: Just because YOU commonly see the term to mean anti-abortion in the United States DOES NOT mean the rest of the world sees it as such. It also says "Most Commonly," so there is no reason to change it. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the pro-life movement in the USA is also every bit as concerned about euthanasia/assisted suicide. One need not go any further than the Terri Schiavo case to confirm this. Abortion receives more attention only because it is committed with far, far greater (as in orders of magnitude) frequency than euthanasia. LotR (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I live in Texas and when I travel, I usually see it meaning all of them (with pro-life being elaborated), however, my friends, from other countries, see it as being for all them and not just pro/anti-abortion, so I thought that was what the article was aiming. Overthinking I guess. But still, same outcome. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, same outcome, which is the point I'm trying to make -- it is inaccurate to define "pro-life" simply as "anti-abortion." LotR (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Death

The opposite of pro-life is, logically, pro-death. That makes the term pro-life the anti-pejorative of pro-death. Nobody uses the term pro-death, despite the fact that the term's existence is implied. And who or what would do the dying? Why it is an embryo or fetus. In practice, the term pro-life does not extend beyond birth. Clearly, the term pro-life is not neutral point of view. Many people oppose abortion on the stated ground that it violates God's injunction against killing and the unstated ground that the woman who was impregnated must be punished by the child that she carries. Others believe abortion is permitted in cases of rape and incest. Further others believe abortion is permitted when the embryo or fetus is scientifically determined in utero to exhibit a congential defect. Few people advocate casual or uninformed abortion as a matter of convenience.--72.75.109.178 (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You would have to provide some reliable sources which demonstrate that this term is in common use, otherwise this is just original research. Whatever404 (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Belief that Jesus was Pro-life

I think this also should be mencioned. Many christians believe the Gospels express a pro-life mentality, even if Jesus view of this issue isn´t explicitly stated, not even in the New Testament. The idea that Jesus was pro-life is mostly based in the Christian moral and ethics, stating that Jesus also started as an embryo, that the 10 Commamdments also comdemn abortion. Several of Jesus sentences like "whatever you´ve done to the lesser of you, you done it to me", and "Don´t do to other what you don´t want them to do to you", can also be interpreted as pro-life statements. These aren´t the exact sentences, I´m quoting them from memory.81.193.222.153 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said to the contributor above, if you want to include the above ideas in the article, you need reliable sources which substantiate your points. Whatever404 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I will search some websites with the right quotations and interpretations that corroborate that Jesus was pro-life, like all the Christian tradition is, so it could be added to the article. I know it's not a politically correct thing to say nowdays but I doubt that most people who ever read the Gospels couldn't believe that Jesus was other thing then pro-life.81.193.215.120 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8