Talk:United States abortion-rights movement/Archive 2

To Alienus
Alienus, Everyone else, I'd be glad to help fix any "highly POV changes" I made to the Pro-choice violence section however it should be noted that my version added a lot that Alienus took away instantly in a out of hand revert. I also re-added information about the type of injuries recieved which Alienus got rid of in his attempt to "shorten" the section even though every other section is several paragraphs. For this reason I will restore my version and await comment on how to make it better. Chooserr 06:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also what do you think about Alienus' removal of information concerning the types of views and use of weaselly words "not at all common" and then his attempt to be neutral "reportedly by pro-choice activists". The first has no source to back it up and is obviously weaselly while the second is false because of the report. Chooserr [[Image:Flag_of_the_Vatican_City.svg|25px| ]] 07:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your original version was very POV, so I fixed it. The article speaks of a reported attack that is under investigation, but there is no confirmation of the details.  Allegedly, the attackers were pro-choice activists, but we have no support for this yet.  We can repeat the allegation, and we do, but we can't state it as fact.  Likewise, you went on and on without saying much of anything, so I cut out the fat and added some meat.  For example, I mention where this event occurred, which is actually a relevant point.  In short, your version just wasn't very good reporting. Al 07:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it wasn't but what happens is that you make it seem like a singular event, and add POV terms such as "Not at all common" without actual statistics. Also my version didn't have all that much fat because the comment about the type of attacks is important. Chooserr [[Image:Flag_of_the_Vatican_City.svg|25px| ]] 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, it's not at all common, so I said as much. If you do have these statistics -- from a reliable source, of course -- then please share them.  If you have any other examples of violence against pro-lifers (as opposed to the much more common violence by them), feel free to briefly refer to them.  As for the type of attacks, that was pure filler.  Then again, at least pro-choicers don't make hit lists and assassinate. Al 07:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If Pro-choice gets a violence section, Pro-life gets one too. At least I've ever heard of violence from pro-life groups before today. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because "pro-life" extremists have shot and killed doctors! There have also been web sites with hit lists of targetted medical practitioners.  Nothing like this exists on the "pro-choice" side. Al 07:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, why isn't that in the pro-life article now? You got a source? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but it's easy to google some, like http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=139. Al 07:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I ain't taking that on at this hour. Maybe mañana. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what time zone you're in, but I do know it's late in the USA, which is where you presumably are. Before you do take this on, consider that there are articles other than pro-life where this information might fit in, such as Pro-life activism or even Anti-abortion movement. Al 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm west coast US - and wondering why those three topics are three separate articles... -GTBacchus(talk) 07:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a fine question, worthy of further investigation. I know that Pro-life activism is a war-torn battlefield and Anti-abortion movement is specifically about abortion while Pro-life is ostensibly about other stuff as well.  You'll see. Al 07:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would fit in best here. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that some sort of stealth article that's not linked to by any other? :-) Al 08:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fair because there are already references to it on a few articles - however the policy of removing information with a source is unacceptable. I have yet to hear back from catamorphism concerning his edits. Chooserr 07:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What source? http://www.prolifeaction.org/news/2005v24n2/history2.htm?  Prolifeaction.org?  That's hardly a neutral source. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * GTBacchus, there is a difference between neutral and false. I completely agree that they aren't neutral - look at their name - but they'd be the ones to know if their headquarters were vandalised would they not? I think I'd know if my house was vandalised. Chooserr 07:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also a difference between neutral and reliable, but this source is neither. Al 07:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me spell this out: who says they were telling the truth? Anyone can claim to have been vandalized by a group they hate, but not all such claims are honest and correct. Al 07:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Chooserr - have you never heard of insurance fraud? Sophia  07:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the violence section in this article? Isolated incidents of violence may be newsworthy, but, unless they are systemic, including them gives them undue weight, IMO. Fights break out in nursing homes over the last bowl of Jello, but you don't see a Violence section in Nursing home. --Elliskev 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Isolated incidents" doesn't really apply when there are whole organizations (who self-identify as pro-life) who base their work on clinic violence, creating black lists of doctors who they want murdered, mailing anthrax-filled letters, etc. Sorry, but this is significant, even if the majority of pro-lifers don't agree with their actions. Maybe I'm way out on a limb here, but killing doctors is kinda different from fighting over jello in a nursing home, you know? rom a rin [talk ] 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'm sorry. I thought the violence you were referring to here was violence by pro-lifers; I then went and actually read the section, which I should have done first, and found that it is fairly weak-sounding, and I somewhat agree with you. I would hesitate to remove it though, as that would probably upset a lot of people. As it stands now, however, it is poorly written and needs work. And more concrete evidence. rom a rin [talk ] 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rom, I looked at it again and it really is lame. All we have is a single, highly isolated and poorly reported incident.  There is no pattern of violence on the pro-choice side, which is quite different from the systematic threats, vandalism and murder that has been the hallmark of anti-choice extremists. As much as some people might be upset, the section didn't deserve to exist, so I killed it. If people disagree, they can explain here.  Al  23:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. However, I disagree that there is any difference on the Pro-Life side.  Murdering doctors goes against everthing pro-lifers stand for. Extremists, by definition, don't represent the mainstream. I guess that's an argument for the pro-life article, if a violence section gets added there. Let's be fair and stick to reality.  --Elliskev 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As you said, extremists do not represent the mainstream. However, the notable existence of extremist does color the entire issue.  Extremism has grown far past isolated incidents into a constant threat of terrorism that forces abortion providers to waste their limited resources on security, and has created a climate of fear intended to scare doctors away from doing their jobs.  It's big and it's real, so it belongs in the pro-life article.  If there were anything comparable on the pro-choice side, then I would support its inclusion, but that's just not the case at this time.  Al  23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)q


 * Tread lightly. Extremism and violence are unarguably (and unfortunately) a reality in many, many movements, religions, etc. In the US (all that I know about) there have been isolated incidents of violence (horrific violence, at that) on the part of anti-abortion extremists. I won't call these people pro-life, because they're not and they don't deserve to use that label.  However, the vast majority and mainstream pro-life movement codemns these acts at the same level as abortion.
 * Go ahead and put it in, but expect every sentence that you write to be scrutinized for NPOV and qualified with perspective. --Elliskev 00:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The current problem with pro-life is that it's not being used as a parent article to all the related links. There's already an article on pro-life violence and it's already linked to, but there's no summary. Al 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree completely as to the deletion of this section. I guess I am just not as bold as you, Al! But maybe that's a good thing ;-). And, Elliskev, I have to agree with Al that there is a big difference between violence by pro-choicers and violence by pro-lifers. Just the bare statistics, the number of incidents and extent to which they were violent, demonstrate this. I think most people are aware, though, that those who have killed abortion doctors are extremists and do not represent the mainstream pro-life position. Still, they self-identify as pro-life, so that's got to count for something. rom a rin [talk ] 00:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a risk of commiting the "no true Scotsman" fallacy here, which is why we have to stick to self-identification rather than ad hoc criteria. Al 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I grant that the pro-life side is more likely to be identified by the general public with violent extremists, just as Islam is (perhaps, to CMA) more likely to be identified with violent extremists than, say Tibetan Buddhism. The reality is that both pro-lifers and Muslims are decidedly non-violent. Self-identification is irrelevant. I can say that I'm a Martian robot centurion all I want. It doesn't make it true.
 * Go back to your first day as a Wikipedian when you read all the guidelines. Imagine you're a Martian or Venusian or Jupiterian tapping into the internet to learn about Earth. Does a section on violence in either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life really tell you about the reality of the terms? No. Neither side is in reality defined by any role in violence (except againt the unborn, but that's POV here).  Both sides codemn violence as a rule.  That's the reality. --Elliskev 00:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though, by your standards, these people failed to qualify as pro-life, they were a genuine part of the pro-life movement. Moreover, they did their crimes with the stated goal of stopping abortion, which is consistent with the goal of the pro-life movement. Yes, their methods seem to conflict with the notion that life is sacred, but hypocrisy is common.

As for the Martians, let's remember that there was an infamous web site that contained a hit list of doctors who perform abortions, updated whenever one got killed or wounded. There is nothing like that on the pro-choice side, so there really is a qualitative and quantitative difference. Al 01:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not just my standards, but the standards of the mainstream pro-life organizations. Believe it or not, there are mainstream pro-life organizations.  Extremist anti-abortionist, anti-gay hate-mongering, Nazi-esque zealots are as much a part of the pro-life movement as Stalin was a part of the liberal movement. A stated goal-in-common does not make a comrade.


 * I grant that the pro-choice side isn't stained with the likes of that infamous web-site. You have your Kennedys to answer for, however. ;) --Elliskev 01:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The day I vote for one, you'll be right. Until then, no.

Not everyone who opposed the reproductive rights is an "anti-gay hate-mongering, Nazi-esque zealot". However, not many "anti-gay hate-mongering, Nazi-esque zealots" support reproductive rights. And that's something you have to answer for. Al 02:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Me? Something I have to answer for? That's kinda a weird slant on it. --Elliskev 02:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Ever heard of a Venn diagram? Kinda looks like a MasterCard. Draw one and tell me what you see. Hint: A big piece of pie without Nazis. --Elliskev 02:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that, while not all anti-choicers are conservative bigots, a whole lot of them are. In contrast, conservative bigots are rather under-represented among the pro-choicers. I consider this significant. Al 05:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a rather superficial comment. Both sides has bigots and zealots. Conservative bigots may be underrepresented among pro-choicers and primarily associated with pro-lifers. Liberal bigots however are very common in the pro-choice side. Liberal bigots aire the ones who talk about pluralism but then insist that anyone who isn't on their side of the debate be silenced, or denied judicial appointments, or denied co-equal public funding, etc. In Ireland, for example, liberal bigots demanded that the state deny public funding to a Catholic run pregnancy agency that would not arrange appointments in British abortion clinics for people, while regarding it as acceptable for pro-choice agencies, who were also receiving public funding, to block information from sources critical of abortion. The same rule should apply to both sides (either they must both provide information for both sides of the argument, or both must be allowed to focus on their side of the argument) but insisting that pro-choice agencies can pick and choose on information they give out, but pro-life agencies cannot, is illogical but all to typical of the mindset of liberal bigots. Both sides have their bigotry. To suggest that only one side has it simply factually wrong. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True dat. The first step in achieving neutrality is recognizing that both sides have unreasonable people on them, and that both sides have very reasonable people on them. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I must be a bigot, because I sure wouldn't want some like Roberts appointed to the Supreme Court. I know he's written a brief on how to take down Roe v. Wade and is an avowed enemy of repoructive rights. Want to hear something worse? I won't vote for anti-choice candidates because they'll support anti-choice policies. If that doesn't make me a bigot, I don't know what does! Al 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * May I point out that Al never said anything about there being no bigots on the pro-choice side? He said, and I quote, "In contrast, conservative bigots are rather under-represented among the pro-choicers." Now, it was Jtdirl who misinterpreted this statement and ran with it. There is no point in trying to deny that Al is right: there are very few conservative bigots on the pro-choice side. rom a rin [talk ] 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not what I said. I said, and it is a fact, that there are bigots on both sides. Pro-lifers have conservative bigots. Pro-choicers have liberal bigots. They are both bigots. Some pro-choice campaigners seem to live in a clichéd world where everyone who is pro-choice is honourable, decent and tolerant and a large chunk of pro-lifers are conservative bigots. That is, quite frankly, crap. Both sides have their bigots. Unfortunately some who contribute to this and the pro-life page seem to misunderstand that their point of view may be coloured by their opinions on abortion. GT was perfectly correct above: 'The first step in achieving neutrality is recognizing that both sides have unreasonable people on them, and that both sides have very reasonable people on them.' FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 16:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All I said is that neither Alienus nor anyone else for that matter ever claimed that there were no bigots on the pro-choice side. Of course both sides have reasonable and unreasonable people on them. No one is saying the opposite here, so I'm not sure what the problem is. And I'm just going to leave it at that; this has gone far enough. rom a rin [talk ] 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fact: Both "sides" have bigots. A bigot is a bigot, regardless of his/her political leanings.LotR 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To romarin: I read it the w ay you read it. I agree that conservative bigots are under-represented in the pro-choice camp. As a pro-lifer, I'd be happy if the pro-choicers took them in.  Unfiortunately, the whole idea is completely ridiculous. Prol-life is a pretty much conservative thing.  It's kind of defining.  Al's statement makes as much sense as saying that vegans are under-represented in the beef industry. It's true, but not very enlightening. --Elliskev 22:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I said I was going to leave it at my last post, but, Elliskev, it appears as though you misunderstood me as well. I do not think that conservative bigots are under-represented in the pro-choice camp. Being pro-choice is generally considered progressive or liberal. Sure, there are people who in other areas of politics, such as the economy, identify as conservative and yet are still pro-choice. But over-all, the majority of pro-choicers identify as moderate to liberal. What I said, again, is that this does not mean that there are no bigots at all in the pro-choice side. Look carefully, I said "bigots" not "conservative bigots".


 * Then on the other side, you get the pro-lifers, who, as you say, generally identify as conservative overall. There are exceptions, just like I mentioned in my previous paragraph. Still, it is more likely for so-called "bigots" on the pro-life side to be "conservative bigots". Thus, the whole conversation about conservative bigots.


 * I hope that this time it is all clear, and that we can leave it behind us. rom a rin [talk ] 00:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. I misread you.  Mark it as a misread on my part, and not misreadable on yours.  I aree with your statements 100%.  I question, however, why you ask to "leave it behind us."  Isn't the talk page for hashing things out and clarifying misunderstandings? --Elliskev 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see where this all broke down. There are two different ways to read "under-represented": one being that they exist but are not noticed, and the other being that very few of them exist. I took Al's comment to mean that very few of them exist, and that is the part I agreed with (we're still talking about conservative bigots here, not just bigots in general). However, Elliskev, I believe that you interpreted this as saying that they exist but are not noticed enough. My previous post describes why I believe this view point is incorrect. Ok, there, I hope that solves the misunderstanding. rom a rin [talk ] 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (my previous post was written before Elliskev's response)


 * The reason for why I think we should move on is because this one has been going on long enough and is just full of misunderstandings. Besides, we're talking about conservative bigots and whether or not they exist on both sides. Not directly relevent to the topic at hand. I just think we could use our time better actually working on the article. I don't even remember how this whole conversation started! Hope that's a good enough reason... rom a rin [talk ] 00:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly some people are prejudiced against the pro-life movement. You make me sick. Both sides have commited acts of violence and murder. I am Pro-Life, but I do not let my opinions show when I edit this site. I know for a fact that the Pro-Choice people have commited acts of violence. Both sides are guilty of crimes. Accept it. I do not let your opinions show when editing an article. This site is about FACTS, not OPINIONS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.55.222 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Report
Alienus, I am sorry to say that the translation I provided wasn't really a translation (found out after giving the text to bablefish), so this is the exact translation I got from bablefish:

Saturdays April 22, in margin of a gathering pro-life in front of the hospital of the Hotel God, two Christian demonstrators were attacked by about fifteen people come "to break of Fachos". The two pro-lives were violently struck with blows of iron bar, causing important wounds. The police force however presents in a number did not intervene to challenge the attackers, the two victims await one week after the facts the projection of the investigation and the actions pursuant legal which will be taken.

As you can see the group has been identified and the number of people as well. So if you'd please edit the article to reflect the facts it would be most appreciate. Chooserr 07:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hospital of the Hotel God"? Do you trust that fish?  Where's the original; I know some French -GTBacchus(talk) 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

question from F.O.E. (that's me name)
how is it that this so called "choice" that people who are pro-abortion keep talking about, doesn't come into play before these women choose to create a new life??? hum... --F.O.E. 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a page for discussing how to make the Pro-choice better, rather than debating abortion. If you would like to debate people about abortion, please find an appropriate Web forum. Thanks. Catamorphism 19:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Groups disagreeing with pro-choice groups
Well, I got reverted on this, so clearly it's more controversial than I thought. I deleted the section in external links for "Groups disagreeing with pro-choice groups," because it seems rather redundant, given that the article already links to pro-life, and all the groups listed there are pro-life, whereas the article for pro-life has no external links for pro-choice groups. It's not symmetrical, and it seems somewhat senseless. To me. It doesn't seem to appear on the page except in the somewhat odd set of external links sitting in the middle of the commentary, but that doesn't mean I didn't read over a relevant discussion and not realize it. Thoughts? --BCSWowbagger 02:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It does seem rather redundant, since the disagreeing position has its own article. Al  06:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But:  the same logic holds for the article on "Pro-life", so pro-choice groups and their links would need to be removed from there.  Which means you're essentially going to become mired in a revert war against dozens of partisans on both sides.  Are you up for that, Wowbagger?  ;)  Kasreyn 07:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than making changes then getting into a revert war, a more prudent course might be to build consensus in advance on the talk pages. You have my support. Al 08:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a question: what happens if Wowbagger achieves a consensus to do this on one page, but not on the other?  For balance reasons, would he have to give up this idea entirely?  It seems like the best solution would be to establish some sort of joint consensus of the editors of both articles, perhaps with a meta page.  Kasreyn 08:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but here's the beauty: there is no corresponding set of links on the pro-life page to remove. I can survive a one-front edit war, I think. ;) But I'll wait a little longer for consensus.--BCSWowbagger 14:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with removing, not only the pro-life links, but any of those other links that have nothing to do with the pro-choice movement. Abortion law has its own article. There are a number of other articles that those links could go to, if they are even relevent in the first place.--Andrew c 16:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would favor adding, in place of the removed info on the groups, a link to Pro-life saying "For information on groups opposed to the Pro-choice movement, see Pro-life". Sound good?  Kasreyn 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It is perfectly standard in articles here and elsewhere to include links critical as well as supportive. If links to Pro-Choice and Pro-Life organisations go in to their articles, under NPOV links critical of that analysis must go in. That is how links are constructed. Simply putting in links favourable to any article topic breaks NPOV and turns an article to a propaganda piece for the topic. That is not allowable under how WP articles are constructed. It is a case of either no links, or all links. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have eliminated the Pro-life groups from the list, along with several other items not particularly relevant to the article, per Andrew's suggestion. Per Kasreyn's suggestion and FearEIREANN's objection, I then added a See Also section so that readers would get the *entire* range of views on abortion, choice, and life.   I hope this more or less satisfies everyone.  Thanks!  --BCSWowbagger 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. It is quite normal in articles here and elsewhere to give specific analytical links from opponents offering a theoretical analysis of the topic, whether republican links on a monarchy page, or a Seventh-day Adventist link on relevant papal topics, etc. Including links to pro-life articles and off Wikipedia topics is what one expects of a properly sourced article, just as one expects in a pro-life article to have links to pro-choice topics, articles and external links. It is also standard in controversial articles to offer links to the topic that underpins the analysis of the topic of the article. As one of the central issues at the heart of both pro-life and pro-choice campaigners is abortion, then it is normal to include some context. Wikipedia does not, and cannot, simply say, jump between articles to understand the topic. It includes broad information on the topic in articles that associate with the topic. Your edits are neither acceptable nor standard practice.  FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, wouldn't this lead to bloating and duplication? Al  21:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see how bloat advances NPOV. I don't see that NPOV has anything to do with this. What am I missing? --Elliskev 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. And it looks like there are now six editors in favor of removing this section, to only one. Please stop reverting; you are not going along with concensus here. I agree with Kasreyn's idea, above, about adding the statement: "For information on groups opposed to the Pro-choice movement, see Pro-life". All this information is redundant and unnecessary. rom a rin [talk ] 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I don't necessarily favor removal. I was agreeing that the idea of requiring counter-links to every set of links leads to bloat and duplication. I was also expressing my opinion that links are rarely, if ever, related to any POV of an article content. I just don't see it. To clarify further, I have no opinion regarding this particular case. --Elliskev 23:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, I'll be delighted to vote to keep the links in if someone applies your standard to Pro-life. For such a controversial issue, parity is important -- if you want to restore the links, please put your money where your mouth is. --Rocketfairy 21:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is now parity; I have added a sentence onto each article under External links directing readers to the other page. Hope we can all agree with this. rom a rin [talk ] 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, no. That is not how links are done on professional pages. And yes, pro-choice links are a must on the pro-life page, Rocket. That is how links are done. Simply adding in supportive links on a page with no critical links breaches NPOV and so is not an option on Wikipedia. So either all links are removed or a balanced set are installed. The current list fails NPOV and is not an option under Wikipedia rules and precedent. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, got to be quick, but I'll refer to this: WP:The Neutral Point Of View. Specifically, "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted."  Now, Jtdirll, if this were an article about a general topic, like overpopulation, global warming, or even abortion itself, I'd agree with you.  But this is not about a general topic.  This article is about one side of a debate.  We have a responsibility to link to the other side of the debate, but, within the pro-choice world, there's never been a "conflicting point of view" that can be represented by pro-life linkage.  We, in listing pro-choice links only, are representing the topic of the article without bias.  This is my reading of the NPOV policy.  --BCSWowbagger 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have edited thousands of articles on WP over four years and that is absolutely not how it is applied anywhere. On every topic I have come across the standard has been to include links supportive and hostile to a topic. Limiting limits to those that support the topic of the article is not an option and never is, anywhere. I've written on topics where the opposite viewpoint has been one that disgusted me (for example, as a gay man and a gay rights campaigner many of the views of anti-gay rights campaigners are IMHO repulsive.) But they still have to be mentioned on topics relating to gay issues, whether gay marriage or whatever, with external links provided. A debate article has no option but to include the other opinion. The choice is simple. Either under NPOV both sides have external links, or neither has. The same rule goes for Pro-life and all other debate topics. Under NPOV the articles have to have links supportive of the topic, and critical of it, or can have no links at all. Links to one side alone are an absolute non-starter. Since you don't seem to want NPOV links, I'm deleting all the links (which BTW I was the one who wrote, so don't start accusing me of "censoring" pro-choice links. I was the one responsible for them). FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 02:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, if you think this is/should be the standard why aren't you adding links to Pro-life?? If you're right, parity should be even more of a consideration. --Rocketfairy 13:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because (a) I have been working on other articles and have been too busy editing other topics to take on another one tight now; (b) I have been ill for a couple of days &mdash; a a recurring back injury &mdash; and so rarely on WP; (c) I have been dealing with vandalism and admin duties. There are thousands of contributors on WP. It isn't my job to spend all my time NPOVing every article. It is enough of a nightmare trying to stop extremists highjacking terrorism articles, royalty pages, religion articles and sports articles, while dealing with newbie vandalism and AOL vandalism, as well as recent POV battles between users from the Balkans who have been trying to POV each other's country's articles with offensive edits, without also having to ensure every article about abortion is also NPOVed constantly. Maybe instead of constantly sniping you might like to apply NPOV rules to other articles once and a while. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind what article you are editing. This article is the Pro-Choice article. It isn't abortion or abortion debate or Ethical aspects of abortion or abortion law. This is the pro-choice article. So if there are links about the pro-choice movement on pro-life pages, fine. If there are criticisms of the pro-choice movement, link to them. But linking to a different topic that has its own article (namely Pro-life) is not NPOV. We do not need to link to every pro-choice and pro-life article on both pages. Because we have forked the content into two different articles, we also need to fork the links. Keep in mind, if we have links critical of the movements, as long as they are about the respective movements, that is fine. But being a pro-life organization is not relevent to the pro-choice article (and vice versa). If we want to merge the articles to avoid this forking, fine, but until we reach that point, I see no reason to link to off topic sites.--Andrew c 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is standard throughout Wikipedia in over a million articles to include links supportive or, and critical of, a viewpoint. That means in the pro-life and pro-choice articles there must be links to the alternative viewpoint. Simply including links supportive of the topic of the article is not an option. Under NPOV either a range of links, but supportive and critical of the viewpoint are included, or no links are included. Including one set of links supportive of a topic and no links disagreeing breaches NPOV and turns the article into a promotional site for one viewpoint. Since users (as seems part of the course with the pro-life and pro-choice articles) seem to want to make these articles a special case in which critical links are excluded, and that breaks NPOV, the only option then is no links. Neither the pro-life nor pro-choice articles can be used to promote a one-sided viewpoint. It is both, or neither. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 14:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok... so now this is going to be the only WP article with no external links... yeah... I think we have a problem here. Well, let's see how other pages do it. For example, take the US Democratic party page. Their external links section is all Democrat-related organizations and information. Likewise, the Republican party article is the same. Oh look, so is the Green party article.


 * So far, not seeing this "all or nothing" thing you're talking about. Most other articles about controversial issues have both sides on the same page, so as can be expected in this case, they have links to both sides. However, there is not one page that encompasses all US political parties; they are treated as forks, and thus have external links that are exclusively theirs. I see the pro-choice/pro-life pages as a similar deal, and it looks to me like that is the way they are supposed to be treated, with external links to organizations and information about their own topic/side. Please, though, by all means, show us some examples of how this is not correct. In the mean time, however, I think it is important to have the external links section in place, and I still think that the majority of editors here do as well, so I am going to revert. Please, Jtdirl, before you revert back again, show us some evidence to support your claims. Thanks, rom a rin [talk ] 14:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No external links? Hmmm.... That's not a bad idea. Why not try it for a while? After all, references are important. Links to references are great. Why does every article need to be a repository of links? --Elliskev 17:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is a bad idea. For one, Wikipedia articles generally have external links. For two, people reading articles might want to know where to go to get more information. If there were 50 links, that would definitely be a stretch, but how many are here? 10 or something? I really don't think that's too much, at least not enough to make it "a repository of links". rom a rin [talk ] 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I went and counted and there are 9. If anyone has issues with external links, maybe they should go check out Pro-life, which has over twice that many. rom a rin [talk ] 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * True enough. My point is that Wikipedia's purpose is that of an an encyclopedia. I have nothing against a list of external links as a value-added bonus to article content, but when those external links get in the way....... They are of negligible value compared to a well-written, neutral, informative article.
 * Just a thought. --Elliskev 17:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you're definitely right. They do add value, but they are not the point. That's why I think that having a few is a good idea. rom a rin [talk ] 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we're in agreement in principle. What would you say to eliminating all for a while? From here and from Pro-life? Long-term, I think it's not such a good idea, having no links. Short-term, I think it may help alleviate the peripheral and secondary discussions. I'm not thoroughly convinced by my own ideas, so any reasoned argument against will suffice.  --Elliskev 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just don't see the point... maybe you could explain why you think this would be a good idea. If we take them out temporarily, that means we are going to put them back eventually. Who's to say that we won't have the same problems then? I'd really like to understand your reasoning, but I'm not quite seeing it at this point. rom a rin [talk ] 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Point is only that this is peripheral and subordinate to article content. If it detracts from bettering the article, scrap it altogether and deal with it after the more important work is complete. Bear in mind that I haven't really contributued much to this article.  I'm speaking in principle.  I'm just trying to put forth my feelings about priorities. I've observed many edit wars over external links when the focus should have been article content and sourcing. Again, I'm not married to any solution. I'm just throwing my thoughts into the brew. --Elliskev 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes a bit more sense. But I also think that we could just as easily leave them there and move on to other things. In the interest of including information rather than deleting it, I think that is the best way to go. But that's just my opinion. rom a rin [talk ] 19:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, hello? Jtdirl? Would you mind posting your reasons for reverting again, as I kindly asked you to do? As I said before, please do not keep deleting this section until you have proven that it is standard procedure. I would really appreciate knowing what is wrong with my above statement, as it seems perfectly logical to me to have the external links section there. And please, would you mind actually giving an edit summary? rom a rin [talk ] 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl, I tried to assume good faith by giving you plenty of time to respond to my comments and to give a reason for your changes, but there is still nothing here. Why the neutrality tag? Are you going to put one on Pro-life as well? How about on all the pages of political parties, since they don't give links to their opponents' organizations? Having a special link to the Pro-life article (something that other articles apparently don't even do) seems good enough. I'm not going to remove your tag just yet, because I still really want to imagine that you have good intentions. All I'm asking is that you let us know why you're doing what you're doing. Do we have to have a vote about this issue? I'd rather it not come to that, but this is starting to turn into an edit war. Please respond when you get a chance. Thanks. rom a rin [talk ] 19:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Democratic Party (United States) doesn't have a list of links to all the other political parties. It actually only has links that talk about the actual topic at hand. I'm not saying we cut out critical links by any means. But simply being a pro-life organization is not enough reason to be included in a different topic. This is not the abotion debate article. This is the pro-choice article. Links critical of the pro-choice position are fine, but links about the pro-life movement are not. There is a difference.--Andrew c 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I already pointed out above, several political parties do it this way :). Glad to have some back-up on this. Do you think we can remove the template now? rom a rin [talk ] 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rocketfairy revert
A recent edit by Rocketfairy was reverted on the basis that it was POV, but I don't see anything POV about it? Would someone please explain? Al 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wondered the same thing as Al. Rocketfairy's edits didn't strike me as POV, and if anything, I thought they explained the issue a bit more clearly.  If it's the "lesser of two evils" bit that's the main POV concern, that could be re-worded.  -Sasha Kopf 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, and I have restored the edits by Rocketfairy. I found them to be less POV than the version Jtdirl reverted to, as well as being better written. Perhaps Jtdirl could specify what they found to be POV about the changes? That would help a lot. rom a rin [talk ] 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There were a series of changes which used non neutral language minus qualifiers that cannot be used in an NPOV article. I tried to save an explanation here but I am on a shit internet link right now that went down. I am only just back up again. The lesser of two evils, though badly worded, was one of the least POV bits of the edit. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl, when you're able (flaky internet connections - my favorite!), could you go into a bit more detail? I guess I'm still not seeing what you're seeing in that particular paragraph.  -Sasha Kopf 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Sasha (sometimes Ireland doesn't so much have broadband as crapband!) Among the problems was a deliberate removal of qualifiers (inverted commas, etc) around certain terminology. The problem with the abortion debate is that each side uses terminology to push an agenda, with terminology carrying with it presumptions (eg, "reproductive rights" and "right to life of the unborn", two favourite loaded terms used, one by each side, deliberately uses the word "right" because society presumes that rights are automatically A Good Thing. &mdash; Note how Bush talks about the "Right to freedom", how the Pope talks about the "rights of the Family", how Northern Ireland unionists and nationalists talk about the "rights" of their community. (And of course we have "human rights".) It is all deliberate. In reality rights are two-pronged and not always seen as a good thing. No-one says there is a "right to murder", a "right of a husband to have sex with his wife", etc etc. But rights carry with it an implicit "good thing" tone). The problem with using either side's terminology, unqualified, is that it then sounds as though you are accepting their presumptions. Writing about the right to life of the unborn presumes such a right exists, which we cannot do under NPOV. Similarly, writing about reproductive rights again presumes such rights exist. Under NPOV we cannot say that. All we can say under NPOV is that 'X believes in what they define as "reproductive rights/right to life of the unborn/whatever". The edits removed neutralising qualifiers and turned sentences from statements which mentioned the language of one or other side, to one which used that language. That is dangerous in the extreme.


 * There were other areas. Actually, looking at the article, some rather sloppish language usage has cropped in of late again which undermines its neutrality by accepting certain presumptions as fact. While we may indeed share those presumptions personally, we cannot imply such presumptions as fact under NPOV, anymore than we could write "Richard Nixon was a crook". Instead under NPOV we'd have to say "Nixon's many opponents argued that he was a crook". FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jtdirl. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to report (neutrally) on notable viewpoints, but care must be taken to avoid implicitly endorsing the assumptions and rhetorical frames of the disputants.  All such propaganda terminology - from both sides - must be qualified to ensure NPOV.  Kasreyn 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Nixon isn't a really good example, because it's not that subjective... plenty of evidence linked him to the Watergate deal, and we could cite the evidence.  You're right of course in that we can't just say "Nixon was a crook", but "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" is far more subjective, with both sides' arguments based largely on belief systems with little reasoning or logical analysis being applied.  For instance, we have laws, so we can compare the evidence to those laws to determine whether Nixon is a crook.  To the question, "Was Nixon a crook?" we can give a yes or no answer.  But we have no widely-accepted social definition of precisely what a human being is, or when a human's independant existence specifically begins.  Without such a definition, the argument is utterly insoluble by rational means, and is currently based mostly on appeals to emotion (by both sides) and the employment of various other logical fallacies, such as strawman arguments.  The question has become "is a woman's (presumed) right to control her reproductive tract superior to a fetus's (presumed) right to live?", which admits to no answer because the question is nonsensical and assumes too many givens.  By comparison, figuring out whether Nixon was a crook is downright straightforward!!  :P  Kasreyn 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jtdirl, thanks for the response! It looks like the section about which I had questions has been changed now, so anything more I could say on that particular paragraph would be moot - suffice it to say, I think people are doing a good job with the new edits.  -Sasha Kopf 01:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, I have no problem with much of what you just changed. However, use of the wording "Other pro-choice campaigners..." in the beginning of that last paragraph is inaccurate, as "other" creates a division between those that believe what preceded, and those that believe what follows. Not only do most pro-choice campaigners (as well as many pro-life campaigners) believe that the pro-life movement tries to restrict contraception and sex education availablilty, but in terms of the pro-choicers these are often the same people who would agree to the preceding characteristic.

Another thing, "abortion on demand" is a bit POV, wouldn't you think? I've never heard anyone besides extreme pro-lifers use that term. rom a rin [talk ] 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, do de facto and i.e. really need to be wikified? I kinda thing that's a stretch... rom a rin [talk ] 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is used by both sides. Pro-choice campaigners in the UK have been looking for "abortion-on-demand" (i.e., an automatic right to abortion) since the 1970s. In reality that is what the UK has, in so far as it simply requires two doctors to certify and an abortion can be done, so David Steel's "safeguard", as he himself admits, is about as effective a "control" (his word) as a cotton-wool chastity belt. In fact if I remember correctly from the late 1970s campaign (the pro-choice slogan was "make every child a wanted child", to which their opponents replied "so you mean, kill the unwanted" &mdash; it was that sort of debate) the phrase "abortion-on-demand" was coined by the pro-choice movement, with it saying it wanted "abortion-on-demand" (literally, if a woman demands an abortion she can have one, without the need for a doctor's approval, as required under the 1967 Act).

Re i.e. and de facto, unfortunately yes. While most people worldwide understand their meaning, someone &mdash; largely in the US, I regret to say, don't. So much for the American education system &mdash; so in discussions on the issue on WP it was suggested that to help what one critic called the "uneducated" it was better to wikify terms that though used widely internationally might not be immediately understood by some young users and older ones who were less than well educated! lol The idea was that they could hit the links and find out what such terms meant. You and I may well know their meaning. It is unfortunately the case that a lot of people don't. (Believe it or not, some users don't how what etc means. They should sue their English teachers for incompetence!) FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation on i.e. and de facto; I didn't realize there had actually been conversation about this! Yes, it in unfortunate, but I suppose necessary.


 * I'm surprised about the "abortion on demand" origins. In my experience, I have only ever heard extreme pro-lifers use this term, as I mentioned earlier, as an attempt to qualify the "pro-abortion" label ("these pro-abortion women, they all want abortions on demand!" and so forth), which I think we all agree is not accurate. Perhaps its useage has changed throughout the decades, or perhaps it is simply that useage is different in North America than in the UK. I am happy with Kasreyn's changes to this sentence, however, and I hope that you accept them as well. rom a rin [talk ] 00:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with them. But it is important to note that abortion-on-demand is a standard term used for at least 30 years. Indeed it is one of those rare terms in the abortion that is used by both sides and interpreted the same way by both sides. (Irish and British users will get this line &mdash; "it does exactly what it says on the tin" &mdash; that's a brilliantly successful slogan from a varnish manufacturer that has caught on so much everyone says it, even Blair. It means 'exactly what it appears it to mean') A-o-D (It was written sometimes that way on pro-choice leaflets in the early 1980s) quite simply means: abortion on demand, i.e., a right to abortion whenever a woman wants one. Maybe it should be used with a link to explain its genesis, and that it is not a pro-life slogan used to bash pro-choicers, but actually a pro-choice slogan now used by both sides (though it has fallen out of fashion a bit. It was thought of as being a bit too blunt and 'in your face'. Both sides are now more skilled at appealing to the middle ground, though the extremists still hype up the language). FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Romarin, I think perhaps in North America, as opposed to other regions, pro-life groups may have had more success giving a negative spin to the term "abortion-on-demand." As a mainstream pro-choice slogan, it rings funny in my ears too (me being a young Yankee, to clarify), even though I'm aware of the origins and earlier uses pointed out by Jtdirl above.  (However, all that should be taken with a grain of salt since I don't have any references for it - it's merely my impression.)  -Sasha Kopf 01:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing I meant to explain as context: in the 1970s and early 1980s making 'demands' in a rather agressive way was all in vogue. Unions "demanded" pay increases. Employers "demanded" cutbacks in state expenditure. The US demanded that the USSR withdraw from Afghanistan. The USSR demanded that the UN condemn the US, etc. The use of "demand" in the term must be understood in that context. To 2000s ears it seems unduly in-your-face, but it was normal discourse in the 1970s. The term 'abortion-on-demand' was simply part of that language usage. It was initially at least a pro-choice creation meaning "we demand the right to abortion". (Feminist slogans at the time include "demand your rights" and "demand equality".) The agressive nature of 1970s and early 1980s feminism created a backlash which led the movement, and indeed the pro-choice campaign, to use moderate tones. "Demanding" anything was seen as too agressive. It also caused problems for many pro-choicers who were not pro-abortion and who saw abortion not as necessarily a good thing, but merely as the lesser of two evils. Certainly by the 1990s a more politically conscious feminist movement and pro-choice movement had, except on its fringes, moved away from more extreme language. "Abortion-on-demand" also proved a communications disaster. It played into the pro-life argument that pro-choicers wanted a free-for-all on abortion, quite literally abortion-on-demand (when demanded, without restriction). That may be why the term is now shied away from by most (though not all) mainstream pro-choicers, even though they were its original originators, and why pro-lifers use it. It was a typical 1970s term: over-the-top, in-your-face, agressive and tactless. It is however a term that has been, and is still, with a meaning that both sides agree on: it means, quite literally, a free-for-all on abortion, with no restrictions such as the approval of doctors (the legal requirement in the UK).


 * Its abandonment may also be linked to the psychological impact of the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. Those of us who remember pre-AIDS remember an attitude where restrictions on behaviour were regarded as old fashioned and the contemporary idea was 'actions without consequences'. The term 'Abortion-on-demand' epitomises that concept; the idea of an action without consequences, just a case of 'I want, therefore give it to me'. Post AIDS perspectives on responsibility and consequence were different. Whereas sex was seen by us at the time as consequence-free (we could take a pill, wear a rubber and hey presto no pregnancy, and if one resulted, use an abortion to clean up the 'mess') post AIDS suddenly the idea of consequence-free sexual actions took a knocking, with everyone thinking for the first time in a generation about consequences. That led to more conservative attitudes to sex in general (it is no accident that that era produced films like Fatal Attraction, playing on the idea of consequences of "irresponsible" sex). That whole change in attitudes led to the toning down of pro-choice rhetoric, or perhaps with the more moderate voices that previously been drowned out getting a chance to be heard. So out went the agressive "abortion-on-demand" language and in came more moderate language on the "lesser of two evils" etc. The pro-life side underwent its own linguistic swings between its fundamentalists and its moderates . . . but that's maybe an argument for a different page. lol  FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the details, it sounds like we agree that "abortion on demand" is no longer a mainstream pro-choice slogan, and is instead more closely associated with their political opposition. Al 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so, Al. You miss the point. That term is used by many in the pro-choice side to describe their goal, just as it is used by pro-lifers to describe their fears. It is a perfectly standard term used worldwide. Just because the US (as usual lol) seems to be different to the rest of the planet doesn't mean that US language use gets priority. AOD (pro-choicers used to even use triangular badges with AOD on them) is a widely used term. It started with pro-choicers. It is now used by both sides. Moderates in the pro-choice campaign simply now avoid it as being too controversial. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, not exactly. In North America (we're not just talking about the US) it is currently used primarily by the pro-life side. As there is a lot more activism on both sides over here than in Europe, I'd say that pro-choicers using AOD is a minority, though there's not much point now because the sentence has already been changed and I think we're all happy with that. It is important to realize, however, the effects of language usage on a topic, and how that usage can change chronologically and geographically. And, as abortion is not the same kind of issue in many other countries as it is in Western countries, I would hesitate to say that it is "a perfectly standard term worldwide". rom a rin [talk ] 21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't it "safe and free access" or something like that now? --Elliskev 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "Safe, free and rare". Al 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it's more like "safe, legal and rare". rom a rin [talk ] 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The change pretty much shows the change in perspectives. In the 1970s and 1980s sex was viewed from a left wing, frequently anarchist perspective, based on rights with no concept of responsibilities. The AOD term symbolised that: I demand something. Therefore I must have it. Instead by the 1990s it was middle of the road conformism, post AIDS. Think of the three words: safe -> ie, responsible, like safe sex. Legal -> conformist and organised, not radical and anarchist. rare -> minimal consequences for responsible actions. It was a far cry from the radical 'lets bring down the system' attitudes of the 1970s in Europe and further afield that produced the AOD slogan. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the history. This makes sense, and i have seen various kinds of media from the 70s that demonstrate how different the concepts were then from how they are now. I just think, as I mentioned earlier, that it is important to take those differences into consideration, and not use language that is out-dated, at least from the majority perspective. rom a rin [talk ] 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Abortion on demand" is a strawman argument.  Few abortion supporters (in America, at least) go so far as to say there should be no limitations or restrictions on abortion.  Therefore their goal can hardly be called "abortion on demand".  The fact that their opponents still call it such indicates that their opponents are attempting a strawman argument, which Wikipedia shouldn't be structurally complicit in.  Kasreyn 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's a strawman... But, I think that kind of misses the point of the original question regarding the reversions. Characterizations of terms have no place here. Just the facts... It's important to realize that pro-choicers have rejected "AOD," but only to the extent that it should not be used without qualifying that it has been rejected (providing a source, of course). --Elliskev 13:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mother/woman
I noticed this sentence a few months ago, but forgot to say anything about it. It has just jumped out at me again:
 * Pro-life people tend to use terms such as "mother", "unborn child", "unborn baby", or "pre-born infant". Pro-choice people tend to use terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus".

It seems as though these two statements should be a bit more parallel, either by removing "mother" from the first part, or by adding "woman" to the second. What do you all think of this? rom a rin [talk ] 01:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The direct parallel to "mother" is "pregnant woman" or even "woman". Al  01:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So... which do you think should be changed then? rom a rin [talk ] 01:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree. Why do the two sentences have to have a parallel forced on them?  In real life, the two sides pick different concepts to frame.  I'm not aware of pro-choice people using "woman" preferentially; they focus on the medical terminology for the unborn.  The two lists of terminology aren't parallel in real life.  It would be misrepresentational to present them as parallel here.  Kasreyn 02:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Abortion involves pregnant women. Since they're aborting their pregnancy, unless they were mothers to begin with, they don't end up as mothers. For this reason, the word "mother" is not accurate when applied to women who abort their pregnancies. Moreover, it is an example of a typical emotive word of the sort favored by the anti-choice crowd. The more neutral alternative, favored by pro-choice advocates, is "pregnant woman" or, more simply, "woman". I hope this clarifies matters. Al 05:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have actually heard and read of pro-choicers using "mother", which I found rather odd and self-contradictory. On the whole, though, in my experience, the word most often used is "woman," as in "the woman's right to choose", "March For Womens' Lives," etc.  However, rarely, if ever, is the focus of the pro-choicer's sentence on the woman; rather, it is on her "rights," her "health," her "choice," or something along those lines.  Pro-lifers, on the other hand, tend to actually focus their sentences on the mother.


 * If I were forced to impose exact parallel structure, I'd add "woman" rather than add "mother," although it makes the sentence sound weird. But keeping it as-is seems fine to me.  I don't see grounds for an NPOV complaint, at any rate.  --BCSWowbagger 08:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be a parallel structure. I added "woman" as the corresponding term. --Elliskev 12:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think that works. I agree with Al; the pro-life side often uses the word "mother" to refer to a pregnant woman--who is not yet a mother at all--as an emotive tactic. Maybe some pro-choicers use it as well, but it is much less common. And, BCSWowbagger, the question was whether to remove "mother" from the first part or add "woman" to the second, not whether to add "mother" to the second as well. And the reason I did see it as unparallel (and slightly POV) in the first place was that the pro-choice side spends a lot of time talking about the woman; these terms don't address that. To answer Kasreyn, yes the two sides pick up different concepts of the frame, and that is just it. According to these words, it would appear as though the pro-life side talked about both the "mother" and "unborn child" while the pro-choice side only has words for the fetus, etc. I think it is important that terminology be kept on a relatively parallel basis. rom a rin [talk ] 14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That was a typo on my part. I meant to say eliminate "mother".  In any case, it reads better than I expected.  Nice. --BCSWowbagger 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we find critical links?
I'm not talking about finding pro-life links, but links critical of the pro-choice movement? I googled the phrase '"pro-choice" criticism', and here are some results: Not many of these seem relevent for this article, the factcheck one is probably the best. Anyone have more links?--Andrew c 04:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quotes pro-choices in an attempt to show how bad they are. It isn't really a reliable source because it is just a blog entry commenting on other bloggers...
 * fact check page about false claims by NARAL regarding Justice Roberts
 * an article about Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes' comments equating abortion to terrorism (however the article isn't that critical of the pro-choice movement)
 * an article about a Catholic University having issues with the NAACP due to their pro-choice position.
 * an article about the media's use of terms from a Catholic POV


 * Wait, why do we need these now? Is this just to try to balance out the external links section? rom a rin [talk ] 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and to balance it in a way that makes sense. Pro-life includes references (though not yet links) critical of the movement -- not arbitrary pro-choice groups, but pieces critically focusing on the pro-life movement itself (e.g., on its use of terrorism). We could no doubt find links that make sense rather than just "groups disagreeing with ...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketfairy (talk • contribs)


 * References are not the same as external links. References are relevant to article content in that they provide a citation for a specific claim within the article. External links are nice and all, as long as they make sense as stand-alone external links. For example, a link to NARAL makes sense here.  A link to National Right to Life makes sense at Pro-life.  I don't see how either makes sense the other way around.  --Elliskev 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, right -- the point of the links above is that they *aren't* just links to National Right to Life. We're trying to find critical links specifically about the pro-choice movement (as opposed to about abortion in general), such that they will (1) make sense standing alone, (2) be appropriate to the article (not "organizations disagreeing with ..."), and (3) provide sufficient balance such that no one thinks we need the neutrality disclaimer. While I don't think the neutrality disclaimer is necessary now, it would be nice to achieve a 100% consensus. --Rocketfairy 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get it. That does make sense. Since these two articles are essentially POV forks, I don't see why we really need them either, but if enough people are unhappy with how the articles are now, then I guess it would be necessary. However, as far as I can tell, the only thing we really have to compare these articles to is the articles on political parties, and they don't have criticism sections or links to critical websites, as far as I can tell. Shouldn't we follow their example here? rom a rin [talk ] 17:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that if you're not going to have links that are just links to organizations, why have them as links? Make it fit into the article content. What's the point of it, otherwise. It's like a reference to nothing. --Elliskev 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That's not true of all parties; often, party pages will link articles alleging ties to violent organizations. See Africa Muslim Party, Front National (France), etc. In any case, I think the links sections of major party pages might be in the wrong on this, and editors should seek out critical, relevant links (so, don't link the DNC from the page on the Republican Party, but link speeches by Jim Jeffords and other ex-Republicans disatisfied with the party's direction, or articles on Watergate, etc.). Many anti-abortion organizations allege, e.g., that the pro-choice movement is motivated by broader sexual liberalism and that it aims to erode many traditional norms around gender and sexuality; an article claiming this is relevant to Pro-choice, imho. --Rocketfairy 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An article like that would make a great source for article content. --Elliskev 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. It could warrant a full new section: "Criticism of the Pro-choice movement."  Of course, the same would have to be applied to Pro-life. But, without some sort of article content to back it up, I think we can't just add critical links to the external link list. --BCSWowbagger 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm all for expanding content in the article, I thought the purpose of EL was to point to more indepth coverage of the topic, especially topics not fully discussed in the article--Andrew c 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is what needs to be explored. What is the purpose of external links? I always thought it was to point to 'officialish' sites dealing with the article title. For example, the article on the pigs would have an external link to to the Pig Rancher's Assoc. or to the Pigs as Pets Conservancy. --Elliskev 01:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:EL is the policy page. --Andrew c 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's where I base my opinion on what's appropriate. Maybe it's a matter of interpretation. I interpret it to say links should be few. --Elliskev 18:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd References
Can somebody clarify how these are references? They are more like uncited statements. Why are they here? --Elliskev 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ^ In liberal democracies, a right is seen as something the state and civil society must defend, whether human rights, victims' rights, childrens' rights, etc. Many states use the word rights in fundamental laws and constitutions to define basic civil principles; both the United Kingdom and the United States possess a Bill of Rights.
 * ^ The statistics on the Irish abortion rate in the United Kingdom remain disputed. A lack of an independent methodology for verification of origins means that estimations as to whether the number of Irish people getting British abortions is higher (i.e., not all those getting abortions are declaring their nationality, with some passing themselves off as British) or lower (with some British women or British women of Irish descent claiming to have travelled from Ireland as a way to ensure that hospitals cannot seek medical information from their doctors, so preserving their complete anonymity). The rival campaigning groups on abortion each use selective interpretations and presumptions to bolster their analysis, in part because the lack of independent methodology makes each other's claims impossible to disprove.
 * ^ The Republic of Ireland introduced a "pro-life amendment" to its constitution to prevent abortion by protecting "the right to life of the unborn, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" (wording of the 8th Amendment). In two legal cases, the X Case and C Case the amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court as containing a right to abortion in specific circumstances. Though a legal right to abortion now exists in Ireland, no provisions have yet been made to enable the right to be exercised.

This link is dead. This leaves three entries in the reference section. One is an About.com article, one is somebody's AOL essay, and the third is a BBC article. I'm not going to do anything right away, but I really think that the three should stay and the rest get fact-tagged. --Elliskev 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ^ Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. (2000). The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion. Retrieved May 28, 2006.

Question
How do you get one of those User Pro-choice boxes on your user page?

Thanks for any help! Alakey2010 04:58 pm, 07 July 2006.


 * It's really not a very good idea to get one of those boxes for your user page. Do you consider yourself to be editing here as a "pro-choice Wikipedian"?  A lot of us think it's better to refrain from visibly picking sides and declaring membership in factions, but rather to emphasize that we're all here striving for neutrality, and not for advocacy.  Those boxes push Wikipedia away from an academic atmosphere and towards a political one - are you sure that's a good bandwagon to get on?  Won't Wikipedia be better if we resist the urge to politicize it? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, it is difficult, if not impossible, for many users to eliminate their biases and truly write neutrally. This is no excuse for violating NPOV, of course, but it can help other users if there is a declaration of that bias on the user's page.  It's an interesting question.  --BCSWowbagger 04:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a User: feminist box on my page. As a feminist, naturally I'm pro-choice; but I leave that for others to deduce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonmei (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, my P.O.I.M. (Poor Old Irish Mother) considers herself a pro-life feminist, as do the women of Feminists For Life. But the real reason I'm posting is to add the unsigned template.  No worries. --BCSWowbagger 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus is right. There's nothing wrong with being who you are, but there are many editors here who will treat you unfairly when you state your beliefs/values upfront with a userbox.  They will look at your tag and say, "Oh, your opinion shouldn't be counted in this debate, you're clearly biased in favor of pro-choice".  Of course, that's against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, but it still happens quite commonly.  It's one of the main reasons I don't use any userboxes - all they do is give people the opportunity to categorize and stereotype you.  It's much better to allow others to remain ignorant of your personal beliefs; that way, they have to treat you as an unknown quantity.  Besides, the userboxes do have a bandwagon effect, which is very distasteful.  If I were king, they'd be gone already.  ;)  Kasreyn 05:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In light of the recent events related to User:75.3.50.41's vandalism and flagrant violations of WP:NPA, I'm more inclined to agree with you than I used to be, Kaseryn. But I still tend to  think that a clear declaration of bias--while making you an easiler target for the flamers--also makes it easier for other, mature editors to understand the perceptions and intent of the person he or she is dealing with, kind of like how the Federalist Papers can help us understand the original intent of the Constitution.  It's an interesting discussion, though, to be sure.  Is there anyplace in WikiProj: Abortion where we could discuss it without taking up space on an article Talk page? --BCSWowbagger 22:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fertility??
A woman having control over her "fertility" doesn't comprise abortion. The current wording (with fertility) isn't only uncorrect, but somehow shocking when you first read it: "uhm, this people must be the abortionists", "oh, not really, it's something about fertility... strange...", "aaah yes, they were".--euyyn 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I should point out that the "Pro-choice" movement concerns itself with more than abortion alone. Access to reproductive health care, family planning, fertility treatment, and contraceptive measures are all issues the "Pro-choice" movement concerns itself with.  Therefore a more general overall description must be found, rather than the overly simplistic "abortionists" you propose.  Is it more clear now?  Kasreyn 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't intend to mean we should plainly put they are abortionists, period. I just didn't propose anything; only stated that abortion has nothing to do with fertility control, so the wording is incorrect. Anyway, aren't just Pro-choice and Pro-life the two sides of a single debate? For example: an imaginary political party which seeks a republic in Spain may well have other political objectives, but... they would be the "republicans" =). I think it's even embedded in the name "pro-choice": defend the woman's right to choose whether to have the child or not. Isn't that the origin of the name? And hey, I don't try to offend... Using simpler words, while WP:AGF, makes communication easier! --euyyn 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about describing pro-choice as an organization in favor of women's reproductive rights? This might be general enough to include all the aspects I mentioned while still satisfying your concern over the use of the "control of fertility" verbiage.  Kasreyn 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK for me --euyyn 04:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pro-choice indicates a belief in the right to bodily autonomy. That is the foundation upon which all of this rests. The extension of this is
 * governments shouldn't have the right to demand that you subordinate the resources of your body to anyone else. Meaning that if the kid :::::down the street is sick, the government can't force you to give the child your blood, or your kidney or a piece liver. In terms of how the law
 * abortion, it's all the same thing. Likewise, the government should not be able to force women to have abortions.
 * Berniece LaFever 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been watching your recent edits to the article, and thus far have no objections. However, I do wish to clarify that pro-choice is foremost concerned with the right to legal abortions for women, not just a vague "bodily autonomy." No one on the "other side" would dispute the right to "bodily autonomy," in the sense of forced abortions/sterilization/rape/euthanasia/blood transfusions/etc., but they would dispute certain interpretations of "automomy." LotR 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the fundamental definition of pro-choice. Pro-choice people in most western countries are primarily concerned with protecting
 * access to abortion because that's what's at issue here, but in countries like China in the 80s and 90s, their primary interest was in   ::::::::preventing forced abortions. That is the essence of the movement. The woman, either way, should make the choice. One concern with ::::::::overturning Roe is that it will open the door to other bodily plunder. If women can be forced to turn over the resources of their body to ::::::::benefit the unborn, why shouldn't men be available as a resources as well? And if the unborn have the legal right to the resources of ::::::::someone else's body for survival, why does a child not have the same rights? Why do the unborn have more right to life than the born? ::::::::Why should one's Constitutional rights diminish upon birth? Why can women's right to bodily autonomy be infringed upon more than ::::::::men's? Why would fetuses have more rights than children? While anti-choice advocates may well agree that the guy down the street   ::::::::shouldn't be made to sacrifice bone marrow for someone else's child, the Constitution may make other demands on us. The Constitution ::::::::may say that with the advent of modern medical technology that men can be forced to sustain life as well. The Constition may say that ::::::::children have as many rights as the unborn. We don't know the answer to that yet, because Roe hasn't been overturned. But if it is, that's ::::::::where this discussion will necessarily go.


 * Before you respond understand that this is the debate Constitutional scholars are already talking about (and have been for decades). And ::::::::the answers are not obvious or easy. If Roe is overturned, welcome to the brave, new world. It's mystifying to me why this isn't debated
 * more.
 * Berniece LaFever 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the forum for debating such issues, but presenting facts in an NPOV fashion. The fact is that the pro-choice movement (note I use the preferred, non-inflammatory terminology -- I kindly ask you do the same -- no one on the "other side" is "anti-choice") is foremost concerned with legal access to abortions for women. The idea of forced abortions/sterilization/rape/blood-transfusions/etc. is equally repugnant to pro-life activists -- such issues are not exclusive to pro-choice. Legal access to abortions should remain the focus of the article -- at this point it still is. And for the record, were the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision overturned, it would merely return the debate to the public arena, allowing state representatives in the U.S. to legislate laws in accordance with the will of their constituents. There was no "brave new world" in all the thousands of years leading up to 1973. LotR 13:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not proposing debating such issues. I am simply pointing out that the article is fundamentally misleading as to what pro-choice
 * means. The fact is that if forced abortions became the order of the day in some new nation, then the pro-choice movement would find
 * that equally repellant. The point of the entire philosophy is that the woman decides - not the government, not the husband. Either way -
 * the woman decides. Husbands, boyfriends and parents shouldn't be hammering young women either way.


 * As for Roe being overturned simply returning it to the states - that would only be ONE possible outcome. The courts could make orders :::::::or put their own restrictions in place. No one has any idea what would happen on a federal level if Roe was overturned. And to be clear, I :::::::don't think Roe will be overturned, but a majority of judges who viewed abortion as murder would have a whole host of tools at their
 * fingertips to use the federal system to stop abortions even in states such as my own beloved California. Again, I fully recognize that's
 * irrelevent to the article at this point in time, and have no intention of including it but am responding to your assumption of fact. No
 * honest attorney or judge with an understanding of the federal court system will tell you that is the only, or even most likely, outcome.


 * The fact is that forced abortions/sterlizations is an obvious corrollary to their philosophy. If you are opposed to women having the right :::::::abortion, then you are almost certainly opposed to governments forcing abortion. However, the alignment of pro-choice forces against :::::::forced abortion is not immediately obvious to anyone without an understanding of the underpinnings of the choice movement. In order :::::::for someone accessing the article to understand the pro-choice movement, the philosophy underneath, from which all of the logic arises, :::::::must be made obvious. If it isn't made obvious, then the article turns the pro-choice movement into the pro-abortion movement, and the :::::::sheer volumn of work and writing done by pro-choice feminists on behalf on Chinese women belies that conceit.


 * And of course, this is good news - common ground between the two sides.


 * Berniece LaFever 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your point about "bodily autonomy" being the premise from which pro-choice gets its rationale. My point is that this is not the defining factor for pro-choice because the other side agrees with this premise. It is one specific conclusion drawn from this premise, that being either legal access to, or conversely, prohibition of, abortion, that is the point of contention that defines being pro-choice versus pro-life. I have no problems with clarifying the rationale, such as you have done, in the article, provided the outcome remains NPOV, and the defining differences between the two "movements" remains clear. LotR 18:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I, honestity, believe this isn't but a way to cleanwash the image given by the wording "pro-abortion". Like "we are in favour of abortion, but it sounds evil" so "hey, no, we don't eat kittens, look, we send money to the poor; not commenting it is misleading!". Well, each side took names which sounded good: It's obvious pro-choice wouldn't call themselves pro-death, nor pro-life call themselves anti-choice. But the very wording pro-X implies there's an anti-X. Putting "against forced abortion" at the same level as "in favour of abortion" misleads into thinking the other side is against the choice of not aborting. The same would happen if pro-life introduced themselves as "in favour of the unborns' right to live and of animals' right to live": it would sound as if pro-choice was against animals' right to live.

I can be wrong, but it's what I believe. --euyyn 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scope needed in the introduction
Where's the term used? You know, abortion debates aren't held everywhere in the world. In Spain we have no such organizations (neither side, since there's no debate) yelling in the streets. Is the term used all over the English-speaking world? Or is it only used in the USA? When did those organizations appear? When did they become noticeable? Since when is the term used for them? --euyyn 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice violence
I re-added the pro-choice violence bit with a new sentence. Anyways I did a google search for "pro-choice violence and found 870 results. That is compared to "pro-life violence" which has 1,070 google results. 200 more pages and it has its own wikipedia article (along with foot notes on several articles concerning the pro-life cause) the least we can do to be fair is put one measelly paragraph on the pro-choice page. Chooserr 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your Google methodology is bad—the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" very often appear on the same page and are not easily differentiated (many of the pages in a search for "'pro-choice' violence" are about incidences of violence by pro-lifers. Your addition was not worded in a neutral way at all (it began by implicitly dismissing the idea that pro-choice violence was rare), and your own two examples were a reported attack by an obscure French independent news service (and a blog translating it into English), and the other was an incidence of a university professor pulling up some tiny crosses that pro-lifers had put into the ground as a demonstration (whatever one thinks of the vandalism, to put an incident like this under the heading of "violence" is ridiculous, especially in comparison to the sorts of violence and harrassment which people have engaged in for pro-life causes). If you can find a reputable source on pro-choice violence, one which describes it incidence and forms and a few well-established examples, by all means, we should have something on it here. But if it involves us fabricating an phenomena out of nothing, then that isn't acceptable. "Fairness" does not mean an equal amount of mud slung on one side or another, it means getting things right. --Fastfission 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um unless you have a source showing every single case of pro-choice violence (I haven't unfortunately) you can't say that it is rare. That is an opinion. So I put "some may consider". Anyways I don't see how my google methology is bad, and if as you say "pro-choice violence" sometime can magically refer to cases in which the pro-lifers are the aggressors than it can also work vise versa so you'll need to find a better excuse for its removal. Chooserr 02:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I cannot think of a simple way of speaking of violende by a pro-lifer in which I put the words "pro-choice violence" together. But anyway I did the test, with <"pro-life violence" -"pro-choice"> versus <"pro-choice violence" -"pro-life">. The result: 130 hits versus 250 hits respectively. The lesson: thinking the same about this topic as a bunch of violent radicals doesn't steal reason from you. "We are the good ones, you are the bad ones" is simply childish. --euyyn 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course my argument is independet of whether side had the more hits. --euyyn 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Foremost, Anti-abortion violence is titled "anti-abortion violence" for a reason. It would be inappropriate to describe such individuals as "pro-life," for obvious reasons, and also it would be insensitive, if not libelous, to associate such people with the mainstream, non-violent pro-life movement. If we're going to cover this topic, we should create Pro-abortion vandalism, or otherwise expand Anti-abortion violence and retitle it Abortion-related violence (or Violence in the abortion movement). We'd certainly need better supporting sources than a blog, because, I dare say, that is not a reliable source. Also, Fastfission is right, we cannot present things disproportionately — that is counter to WP:NPOV. -Severa (!!!) 03:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about this site: http://www.abortionviolence.org. It is a pretty well documented site. It is clearly pov, but so are almost all the references for the Anti-abortion violence article. In fact, it seems like there should be a pro-abortion violence article similar to the Anti-abortion violence one since the amount of illegal activity seems to be on the same level. Thoughts? J8427 03:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey! I just found my mother in the abortionviolence database!  I never knew about that incident...
 * Anyhow, it seems to *mostly* be pretty loose stuff--vandalism, stalking, death threats. No bombs, but worth a mention somewhere.  Probably Severa's idea of re-orienting the focus of anti-abortion violence to abortion-related violence... with most of the weight obviously on the anti-abortion side, since they are responsible for bombings and murders, and not some of this serious but more petty stuff. Definitely doesn't belong in this article, though.--BCSWowbagger 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply because the pro-choice movement isn't as violent is no reason not to mention it. Mentioning violence in the pro-life movement while ignoring the violence in pro-choice is pretty questionable and doesn't show an impartial viewpoint. If we are going to mention extremism for one group, we should mention the extremism in the other, however irrellevent it may seem. Pstanton 02:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't any pro-choice violence out there. It's all anti-choice violence. People who may or may not perform abortion murdering or
 * beating someone up is not pro-choice violence. It's thuggery. Unless violence happens with the intent to silence anti-choice activists, it is
 * not pro-choice violence. On the other hand, there are several documented cases of people bombing abortion clinics, and killing physicians
 * and staff with the intent of denying women access to abortion. That is abortion related violence, not some physician beating his wife up.
 * Berniece LaFever 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia must be verifiable, and we get that way by citing reliable sources. If you have a way of including information about pro-choice violence that meets these guidelines, then go right ahead. Also, you said it yourself that the pro-choice movement isn't as violent as the pro-life movement. This is important in regards to the NPOV policy. We must not represent minority views with undue weight, and all controversial statements must be contextualized and qualified. A sentence or two written well may be able to cover this issue, but I do not see it being important enough an issue to tag the whole article as unbalanced. Balance is not reporting pro-life violence equally with pro-choice violence if one occurs much more often, and more severly than the other. Balance would be reporting each with due weight. And that is the crux of the NPOV.--Andrew c 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)