Talk:Pro-life activism

I think that: --    NERD42    [mailto:nerd42@gmail.com EMAIL ]  TALK  H2G2 UNCYC NEWS   18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) there is good reason for this article to exist
 * 2) it needs to indicate the popularity/scarcity of each tactic and their contraversal natures, both within and outside the Pro-Life movement.

Move/Merge proposal number 1
The "Anti-abortion movement" is a subset of "Pro-life activism", not the other way around, so the proposed merger of "Pro-life activism" to "Anti-abortion movement" would have it backwards, and result in relevant deleted content. The article name of "Pro-life activism" is the more encompassing term, and should therefore must be a name that survives, or you will have eliminated an entire legitimate topic, not just merged two similar ones. pat8722 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. This article predominantly describes methods utilized by anti-abortion advocates.  It does not discuss other concerns of 'pro-life' individuals.  I would suggest that either the article discuss more activism on behalf of a 'pro-life ethic' such as the abolishment of the death penalty, measures fighting poverty, or advocacy for healthcare rights unconcerned with abortion.  As is, this article appears to be merely anti-abortion, and should thus be merged. Kimathi 09:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-life activism" is the most widely accepted, commonly used term for "anti-abortion activism". It is not the purpose of wikipedia to seek to change what is the commonly accepted definition of a term, just because certain wikipedians "don't like the reality of it". Although opposition to euthanasia is also within the standard definition of the term, even if the article contained no mention of it, "pro-life activism" would still be the proper title of the article, as under the wiki rules the publicly accepted/commonly used name of a movement should be used, not the one that might seem preferable to some, based on their own personal biases. I agree that the article should contain more about the anti-euthansia aspect, but the pro-life movement generally hasn't seemed to have discovered wikipedia yet. As it does, the article will mature with more such information. It would not be appropriate to include discussions about "the abolishment of the death penalty, measures fighting poverty, or advocacy for healthcare rights unconcerned with abortion" as those items do not fall under the commonly accepted meaning of the well-established term "pro-life activism", but would fall under some other category such as "social activism" or "health care activism" or "poverty activism". pat8722 15:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. While I gave examples of how to expand what I would call pro-life activism, it was my attempt to illustrate that this pro-life activism page is essentially the same as the "anti-abortion movement" article.  As is, this article could easily be merged with the latter. If needed, the anti-abortion article could mention the term, pro-life activism, briefly describing your view of it as both anti-abortion and euthanasia. Just as the Associated Press has recognized the term "pro-life movement" as political framing so must an encyclopedia. I continue to support the merge of the two articles.  Kimathi 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is, is that the merge should be to "pro-life activism", as that is the name widely and commonly in use, by which the movement is known. It is not the purpose of wikipedia to try to rename a movement just because you, or some editors writing for the Associated Press, believe that the widely accepted and commnoly used name also serves the purpose of "political framing". At most, such an allegation of "political framing" might merit a one-sentence note in the article, but does not change the fact that the movement is known as the "pro-life movement". Of course, your proposed name change does not account for the anti-euthanasia aspect of the pro-life movement, which would also explain why your proposed name is not the actual name of the movement. It is the name by which the movement is actually known, "pro-life" that must be used in wikipedia. Objection to that can be stated in the article. pat8722 17:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I continue to disagree, I have edited the article to describe what you intend - anti-abortion activites as a subset of pro-life activism. The definition you assert (without sources) is the 'widely accepted and commonly used name' would be rejected in numerous circles, including those subscribing to Catholic teachings (differences between views held on capital punishment at the very least) and the philosophy of a consistent life ethic (capital punishment along with many other issues). Since there are no other supporting activities for "pro-life activism," I would encourage you to either add to this article (including sources) or support a merge.  Kimathi 04:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely you can't really be ignorant of the common usage and meaning of the term "pro-life" in the major media. Only the most dishonest abortion proponents try to misrepresent the reality of the usage of the term. But, since you are professing ignorance, here are just a few recent links that confirm the common usage of the term. I have referenced mostly the pro-abortionists use of the term.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/opinion/l09abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "pro-life" used to describe movement, by two pro-abortion advocates in two different letters to the editor.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EED91631F93BA15751C0A9609C8B63 "pro-life advocate uses the term to describe the movement in a letter to the editor

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E2DB1F3FF936A35751C0A9609C8B63 "pro-life" used to describe movement, by a pro-abortion advocate in a letter to the. editor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/science/24clone.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=aa61a3972b2144c2&ex=1142485200 article referencing the "director of pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops"

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=407315&date=3/11/2006 pro-abortionist Ellen Goodman, nationally syndicated uses "pro-life"

"http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum4mar04,1,1292686.column pro-abortionist refers to "pro-life" groups.

Ok, now it's your turn. Find some non-editorial usage decribing the pro-life movement as the anti-abortion movement. Cite some by those who are not pro-abortion. Then tell me which is the most common word used to describe the movement in the major media. I have reverted your edit, as is it is not merely a "self-described" term, it is the term commonly and widely used by all the major media. pat8722 05:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for thoroughness. While I don't really feel like reading your links, I refuse to argue about something we essentially agree upon.  You have said that the 'anti-abortion movement' article should be merged into the 'pro-life activism' page.  Yet when I changed the page to reflect this, you reverted my entire efforts. I am encouraging you to expand the page to make "pro-life activism" include more than just anti-abortion tactics (I assume we agree that the page only discusses methods promoting anti-abortion).  As is, this page could easily be merged into the "anti-abortion movement" article without losing any substance. Or you could work to improve the article and I would support the merge in the other direction.  Kimathi 10:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? All you did was change the text to say "pro-life" was a "self-described" term, whereas, as I have shown, and as you know you can't refute, it is the term widely and commonly used throughout the major media to describe the movement. It matters not whether the anti-euthanasia aspect is expanded upon in an article about what is still called the "pro-life" movement in all the major media. As the fact of the "real-life" name of the movement does not change, I feel no compulsion to expand upon the antt-euthanansia aspect at this time in order to avoid it's incorrect naming. And, yes, in it's present state it WOULD lose substance were it to be merged to, rather than from, the article titled "ant-abortion", as the defnition of the pro-life movement stated in the article expressly states it includes efforts "in opposition to euthansia". So, then, are we now in agreement that both articles, in their present state, should be merged to "pro-life movement"? pat8722 14:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, pro-life is a term used to mean those who are against abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research. --Joey 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

abortion clinic bombings
I have removed the the term "groups" as having setting clinics on fire or killing abortionists, as I have seen references only to individuals acting on their own. I am not an expert on the topic. A single newspaper reference would be enough to insert the word "groups", which I would think would be readily available if you want to re-add the word the "groups". pat8722 14:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing any credible evidence that groups were involved in this sort of thing, unless by "groups" you mean "a few people acting together." But that's simple criminal conspiracy.

Violence, from what I've seen, has been the purview of loose cannons and a few cheerleaders for them, rather than as part of any organization. ChristinaDunigan 14:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

move/merge proposal number 2
First of all, I was bold and moved this article to pro-life tactics, however pat8722 has reverted this move. This page is not about pro-life activism. It is a list of different tactics that some pro-lifers use. I do not know if this actually warrants its own article. I, personally, would like to see the content merged into the main pro-life article. However, if other editors feel that the list of tactics is long enough and important enough to make its own article, I would suggest moving the page to pro-life tactics to more accurately reflect what this article is current covering. Look where these terms redirect environmental activism and animal rights activism.--Andrew c 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Alienus 22:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agreed that this article should be moved/merged "somewhere". See "move/merge proposal number 1" above. The only question has been to "where". Your comments are welcome after reading "move/merge proposal number 1" above.pat8722 22:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I understood the ongoing debate from 2 months ago before I moved the article. Right now there is a proposal to merge anti-abortion movement with pro-life. Until that issue is resolved, I am not sure if we can act on where to merge this article. So for the time being, I was bold and decided to move this article to a title that more accurately represented its content. I would still move to rename this article and then perhaps merge this article with a larger topic further down the road. Anyway, what is the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-life movement" and "pro-life activism" (assuming we are getting rid of the anti-abortion labeled articles).--Andrew c 23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Tactics" is a loaded term, which is to be avoided in wiki, and which no one in the major media uses to describe "pro-life activism". I think the merge to "pro-life movement" is just waiting for someone to get around to doing it. "Pro-life movement" is the name used by all the major media, so that it why it is used in wikipedia. As you seem you may have spare time on your hands, perhaps you could use that time to presently perform the merge of the two articles to "pro-life movement". It will be necessary to do it in such a way as to retain the discussion history of both pages.pat8722 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that tactics does not connate the same to me that it does to you. I clearly do not see it as a loaded term, but I will compromise. What about the word "methods"? I fail to see how a list of methods/tactics is synonymous with "activism". Do you not agree that the title of this article should reflect its content until the day that someone has the time to merge this article? Finally, I'll ask again, what is the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-life movement"? I would also disagree that "pro-life movement" is the name used by all the media. Do a news.google search for "pro-life movement" vs. "anti-abortion movement". It's close, 138 vs. 143. Finally, just to stir the pot. I don't think "anti-abortion movement" is problematic because of the name. If the purpose of the article is to focus on the anti-abortion part of the greater pro-life issue (that also includes anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty), or if the purpose is to cover not only pro-lifers who are against abortion, but other people who do not identify as pro-life, but are also against abortion. That said, I do not feel that this specific issue warrants its own article. There is the abortion debate article where both sides are presented. Then there are individual articles for pro-choice and pro-life.--Andrew c 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We aren't looking for "hits" in naming the article, we're looking for the term commonly used by the MAJOR media to describe the movement (not just news hits on the two different words). Please review the links above in the "Move/Merge proposal number 1" section, and then locate specific relevant major media links to the contrary, if you can. You will find that the movement is termed the pro-life movement by all major media outlets and major media figures. You may wish to start with major media articles describing the recent legislation issues in either North or South Dakota (I forget which), as such articles should be easy to find. Methods and tactics are what "activism" consists of, so there is nothing at all wrong with the current title in a literal sense. I do see a trend in wikipedia to use the "ism" to describe movements (as you allude to above), so an argument could be made that the anti-abortion movement article should simply be merged into this one, without a rename to "pro-life movement". I probably would not object too heartily. Its really the merging issue, that commands attention. As you seem to have the time to do it, I would encourage you to do so.pat8722 21:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep saying I seem to have the time to do it? Why don't YOU do it yourself :P And why do you keep ignoring my question what is the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-life movement" because I see no reason for both articles to exist. And do any search of the Associated Press. They specifically use the term "anti-abortion". (and don't get me wrong, I do not want there to be an anti-abortion movement article unless other editors feel that focusing on that one issue warrants its own article more than having sections on anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-death pentalty, within the bigger pro-life article).--Andrew c 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference between "pro-life" and "pro-life activism" is that one is an adjective, and the other is a noun with a modifier. The "pro-life" article should also be merged into either "pro-life movment" or "pro-life activism", as nouns are what are used as article titles in an encyclopedia. If you want to support a move to "anti-abortion", please list specific links here, and we will see how the term is actually being used in the articles, i.e. how it compares to the links I have listed above (but I'm thinking you probably don't want to support a move to "anti-abortion', so we can probably just drop that.)pat8722 12:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Seperating Violence from an activism page
I really dont understand why "Violence as a form of activism" is here. Violence isn't activism, it is terrorism (or insurgency, and what not). Perhaps anti-abortion violence shoudl have it's ownn page (with information on different bombings, shootings, or whatever), or be moved to another page. Staggering234


 * Go to activism. Violence (and yes, terrorism) is covered by both. You also might want to go to Anti-abortion violence as well. I think having a minor paragraph about these incedents, and redirecting to the main article is the best course of action. Removing this information would seem to be white-washing pro-life activism, because there is nothing in the word "activism" itself that connotes peacful, non-violence etc.--Andrew c 20:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the anti-abortion violence article should redirect here. If there's too much content, we can fork it out. Al 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And I think that this article is a fork from either anti-abortion movement or pro-life in general, which is why there is a merge tag on this page. I thought we were getting progress when it was merged, but then pat protested and we are still where we were months ago. (and also, this article isn't about "activism" per se, it is more about methods or tactics). --Andrew c 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is about activism, and the different ways it is accomplished. There are so many ways to do pro-life activism that it should have a page, and in fact, I am aadding an section now on "band wagon marches." It is just like the veitnam war, there were an extensive list of things people did to protest the war, and I doubt anyone would object to that. user:Staggering234

weasel
There are a lot of weasel words in this article. Some vs. many, etc. I tagged the article to make up for some commentary that wasx added to make a WP:POINT that I removed. Look at the diff for a couple examples--Andrew c 02:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, perfectly agreed but you seem to be bull dozing my edits. The article as I found it, and still find in certain places, seems very biased and I wanted to fix it. That is what I am trying to do...you can help but please don't rvt me every five seconds. Chooserr 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)