Talk:Anti-abortion movements/Archive 4

Question
I will ask this, why is this extended protected? -104.151.242.85 (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This page has indefinite extended-confirmed access, see . It's pretty easy to find the request for protection over on WP:RFP. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Enlarging the topic
I don't want to resurrect the thread from February; which was poorly framed anyway. What do people think of changing the scope of this article to "Opposition to abortion"? This would be an alternative to my renaming proposal above.

This article currently covers movements. The February discussion proposed to add laws to this article, which don't belong. But why can't we have an article about "opposition to abortion" in general? As in, religious views on abortion, or philosophical debates against it, or societal taboos/norms? There's be a lot to write about, that wouldn't be redundant with Abortion law, and currently doesn't seem to fit into any article.

There's be a slight POV issue, since we couldn't make an equivalent "Support for abortion" article (support for abortion, and support for abortion rights are two different things). But there's certainly be a lot to talk about when it comes to "Opposition to abortion". No? DFlhb (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The article Abortion debate has an NPOV-compliant presentation of the two sides of the debate. Your proposal to give the arguments for only one side of the debate in the present article raises more than a "slight" POV issue. NPOV is a core policy, and your proposal would violate it. NightHeron (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reading of WP:NPOVFACT, I simply didn't know Abortion debate existed. That article is great, pretty much what I was looking for. DFlhb (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed rename to "Movements against abortion rights"
I agree with the previous RFC on the page title; the previous title was bad for many reasons.

But I feel the new one doesn't fully work either; these people aren't "against abortion", they're "against abortion rights". Practically everyone is technically "anti-abortion" (see the "safe, legal, and rare" slogan).

I rather like NPR's style guide:
 * On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights").

For this article, this would mean a move to "Movements against abortion rights", with this page turning into a redirect. This isn't an RFC yet; I'd just like to test the waters. DFlhb (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That is true, although I think 'right' is not neutral enough, as it suggests the interpretation that anti-abortion is against human rights. A better title could be 'movements against legalized abortion', and then you could solve the problem you mention about how people in favour of legalization are not really in favour of 'more abortions'. Reesorville (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * According to WP:MOS, an article title should be "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". The current title is all of these things. The proposed title is awkward and not "natural".
 * The present article title does not logically imply that the opposing movement wants to see more abortions or believes that abortion is always the best option. The basic viewpoint of the abortion rights movement is that abortion, like any other medical procedure, should be a decision of the woman and her physician.
 * I personally agree with the OP that access to abortion should be regarded as a human right, but per WP:NPOV the article title should reflect not our own POV, but rather what is indisputable. What's indisputable is that the anti-abortion movement is bitterly adamantly opposed to abortions. NightHeron (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would dispute your characterization of "bitterness", why did you have to poison it with that negative judgement? Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll replace "bitterly" if it offends you. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of individual offense, it's just that you proposed something as "indisputable" and then you're attaching value judgements and negative connotations to it. I'm not sure you've improved that very much. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
In the Europe: Ireland section, this is quoted:

"...which was a significant landmark for women in the UK" I think this conflicts with NPOV, as it implies that legalisation is a 'victory' for all women. I think this should be changed to language similar to

"...which was a significant landmark for abortion-seeking women in the UK"

...or something along these lines. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

✅ The references to Northern Ireland were proper to the UK section, not the Ireland section. I moved the relevant sentences there and did some copy-editing as the language in the whole section was quite poor. While I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the original, I've removed the sentence in question in the course of the copy-edit. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a list-class article
Correct me if i'm wrong, but this article looks nothing like a list. G'year         16:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and I don't understand why it is top importance within that project. Dajasj (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

anti-abortion naming
interesting how wiki decided to rename the article anti-abortion rather than how it was known - pro-life. obviously a political move. usually a group is referred to by the name they choose, not recast by those with opposite views to attempt to obfuscate the true underlying objections and rational.

as usual, wikipedia is simply a leftist propaganda media arm.

Why not rename pro-abortion to pro-death? We know you would never do that. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You'll note that the opposing viewpoint is named the abortion-rights movement, and not the pro-choice movement as they preferred to be called. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're correct. 'abortion rights movement' is a preferred name. 'abortion rights' is a frequently used term by those fighting in favour of legalized abortion, alongside similar phrases like 'reproductive rights'. I don't think it is NPOV either, because it suggests that we are accepting it as a fact that abortion is a human right. Something like 'Pro-legalized abortion movement' would be more neutral. Reesorville (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'abortion-rights movement' is probably more acceptable to its members than 'anti-abortion movement' is to its members, but still the most preferred names are 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'. I also agree there are issues with 'abortion-rights movement' but at least it's concise and not euphemistic so you immediately know what it means. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The article name is accurate. Many people are "pro-life" - they oppose the death penalty, famine caused by climate change, the absence of universal healthcare, the lack of gun control in some states, and promote access to healthcare, including planned parenthood. etc. Many others who proclaim themselves to be "pro-life" champion the death penalty, deny climate change, oppose gun control, favour laissez-faire capitalism, and wish to restrict access to healthcare, including planned parenthood and contraception. It is therefore much simpler and entirely accurate to describe abortion movements as either "anti-abortion movements" or "abortion-rights movements". Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons why I argue it is not accurate:
 * 1) 'anti-abortion' in our time and in past times also includes natalism, anti-contraception and anti-promiscuity. This may not be the way that the debate is framed in countries like the US, but looking at this from a global perspective, the countries in Africa or Asia that ban or limit abortion may be doing it for reasons that are totally separate from a belief system that the fetus is a child. China, for example, is currently trying to restrict abortion to boost their birth rate. Many Islamic countries restrict abortion from conception because of social taboos that think women who have abortions are promiscuous, even though Islamic teaching says that the fetus only becomes a person later in the pregnancy. Calling the 'pro-life movement' as the 'anti-abortion movement' is basically conflating all anti-abortion activities worldwide with this particular religious-ideological movement that is focused on activities against abortion for one particular reason.
 * 2) the 'pro-life movement' while primarily directed against abortion, also has been  involved in notable levels of activities against euthanasia and assisted suicide. Look at Frank Pavone's campaigning regarding Terri Shiavo for example. I'd also argue that this movement is often tied together with campaigning for traditional families, anti-lgbt stuff, and other right wing issues. But those characteristics are definitely not shared by all the different movements worldwide that oppose legalize abortion.
 * in summary:
 * 'pro-life' = a particular ideological movement in some parts of the world that is heavily focused on abortion but also tied to other political issues
 * anti-abortion = all activities worldwide against legalized abortion
 * I know that many people don't want to use 'pro-life' because they personally disagree with it and don't like the label, but I think it is still preferable for reasons of accuracy. A better solution for NPOV would be if it was just put the name in italics or 'quotes' to make it clear that usage of the name isn't an endorsement for what it stands for. Reesorville (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument. You're saying 'anti-abortion' is misleading because it implies things beyond the plain words, but 'pro-life' is preferable even though it has the same issues? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * anti-abortion and pro-life are not the same things. That is essentially my argument.
 * We can use 'pro-life' to refer to this movement without meaning that we endorse the correctness of the label in the same way that we use names for other movements without endorsing the correctness.Reesorville (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Like CWenger, I’m unable to see any logic in your argument 1) against using “anti-abortion” in the title. You point out that in other parts of the world opposition to abortion is often voiced for other reasons besides those implied by the “pro-life” self-designation. But the article is not just about the US; per WP:GLOBAL, it includes the movements in many countries. So your argument is actually a good additional reason (besides the reasons explained in the FAQ at the top of this page) not to use “pro-life” in the title. Even if we look only at the US, some historically important leaders of anti-abortion campaigns (such as Anthony Comstock in the late 19th century) saw it as part of an “anti-vice’’ (anti-prostitution, anti-promiscuity, etc.) campaign, not as “pro life.” NightHeron (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1） if the article is only about the 'pro-life movement' then it should be called the 'pro-life movement' rather than 'anti-abortion movements', because opposition to abortion globally is not the same thing as 'pro-life'.
 * 2） if the article, as you said, is not about just the pro-life movement, but it is about opposition to abortion from a global (and historical) perspective, then 'pro-life' is notable enough that it deserves its own article separate from this. Furthermore this article should also include coverage on opposition to abortion from all those places where the opposition is not related to the pro-life movement. Reesorville (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestions in point #2 are good. If those changes happen, then it might merit revisiting the title. But currently, this article is not really about the entire pro-life movement (euthanasia is only mentioned once, for example), so even though it lacks a comprehensive global perspective, "anti-abortion" is more fitting. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Look, you have an opinion, but it's in the minority. This subject has been discussed ad nauseam, and the consensus is to use "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights", for - well, quite obvious reasons. Please see the FAQ, at the top of the page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This guy is going around spewing this kind of crap in a few places. Can we please do something about this? His hypocritical oxymornoic bs doesn't convey anything constructive to the pages he is lampblasting with complaints about "bias" while clearly being extremely bias himself. He isn't looking for consensus, nor NPOV, nor he is contributing anything constructive. He is using talk pages to push an agenda of his own while whining that Wiki is propaganda. I'd go to an admin but I'm short on time atm. @ScottishFinnishRadish maybe? Help? This kind of trolling is ridiculous and has no place on Wiki. At all. So if any of the admins could do something about this, that'd be helpful. Thank you. SageSolomon (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * aaand I f***ed up by not noticing I was on a previous diff of the talk page. (insert facepalm here). Apologies. Still, this IP address is going around just trying to start drama. Go look at their edits. They don't care about any of the pillars or anything. It's moot. I'm just trying to get a troll off the talk pages. Apologies if I've over stepped or anything. And bravo for you guys at least attempting to make it a constructive discussion. 5 stars. SageSolomon (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)