Talk:United States abortion-rights movement/Archive 3

The Guideline of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
I checked the link associated with the fourth reference in this article and noticed a few errors.

1. The text is not a study but a guideline reviewing several studies.

2. It was written in 2004, not 2000.

3. The text doesn't take position to whether parents' lives are better off in general if the woman isn't denied an abortion, but it quotes a review that states many women experience feelings of resentment that may last for years after being denied an abortion. The guideline doesn't comment on how abortion affects the lives of children.

Thus, if no one objects to it, I'll replace the sentence "The latter claim [that both parents' and children's lives are better off when the woman is not denied abortion] is supported by a study conducted by the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists in 2000.[4]" with the sentence "According to a review by Dagg quoted in a guideline of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 2004, many women who have been denied an abortion "show ongoing resentment that may last for years". [4]" Mkaksone 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not reviewed the article in question, but, based on your description, no objection. --BCSWowbagger 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation about Catholic Church teachings?
I have a problem with this segment: "Many pro-choice campaigners also argue that pro-life policies would deny women access to comprehensive sex education and contraception, thus increasing, not decreasing, demand for abortion.

This argument is blatently false in many regards as the Catholic Church, one of the main proponents of the pro-life stance, has extremely in-depth sexual education classes, literature, and teachings. In Catholocism, individuals are taught to abstain from sex prior to marriage, as that is after all the only 100% effective means of birth control, which is even more effective than condoms."

The second paragraph is completely false. The Catholic Church doesn't have anything in the same universe has "in-depth sexual education." What they have is an in-depth education on why sex is bad and not of The Lord, and why anything other than missionary with your spouse is a sin against God. The implication that abstinence-only is in-depth, that it should somehow prove pro-choice fears of reduce sex ed and contraception access, is ridiculous, to be honest. The second paragraph is blatantly biased, a plug for Catholic teachings, and an attempt to paint pro-choice campaigners as baseless whiners.

I'd edit it myself, but I'm on a school computer right now, so I didn't want to change anything, lest I be banned for using a school IP.

While we're on the subject, the first sentence of that first paragraph I quoted seems... off. I don't have time to check the Wiki guides to good/bad articles, but it smells of weasel words to me. --Lady Voldything 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the text in question was included while evading notice and would not have editor consensus, therefore I went ahead and deleted it. As a side note, however, your portrayal of Catholic teaching regarding human sexuality on this talk page is simply inaccurate. LotR 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced abortion
I added, to the opening paragragh, the essential information that pro-choice advocates oppose forced abortion as well. Odd how that opening paragraph dances around, and does not address directly, the concept of bodily autonomy - the very notion on which the entire pro-choice movement is based.

The opening paragragh needs some work if it is to properly address the notions upon which the right to choice rests.

Berniece LaFever 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pro-choice is a term used to describe the political and ethical view which maintains that a woman should have total control over her fertility and pregnancy. I feel that that very directly addresses the issue of bodily autonomy, though perhaps a wikilink to a related article would be in order?  (Or does the link to reproductive rights do well enough?)  I would not be opposed to adding something about forced abortion, but I'll wait for further comment, 'specially seeing as I've been away for roughly three months and am more than a bit behind the times, so to speak.  (Speaking of which, a shoutout to Andrew C, Severa, Cindery & Co.  I might not be back here as often I was during summer, but it's good to post again!) --BCSWowbagger 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * EDIT: I see you went ahead with your opening-paragraph modifications, Berniece. While I don't disapprove of them (for the most part, pretty good changes), it's usually polite to give editors a chance to see and discuss opening-paragraph changes before making them.  That helps defuse potential edit wars, which are, historically, a big risk on WP:Abortion.  --BCSWowbagger 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The pro-choice movement quite vocally opposed and organized against forced abortions in China - that is historical reality. Pro-choice
 * literature addresses the notion that both equally repugnant. The point of all of that is
 * that the psychic, the emotional and the physical costs of both must be borne by the woman alone, and that the trauma of a forced abortion
 * is equally egregious to that of forced pregnancy.


 * My beef with the opening paragraph is that it only addresses a portion of the choice dilemma, and without the phrase "bodily autonomy", the ::universal principles that undergird women's right to choice are lacking. IOW, abortion rights are based on a principle that is larger than the
 * issue of women and abortions. It's based on the notion that the government should not be able to invade our bodies.


 * I'm glad you like the changes. I'm trying to keep it simple and informative.
 * Berniece LaFever 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't entirely agree, but it really doesn't seem to damage the flow of the paragraph, and I'm just splitting hairs on it, so I'm good. The real reason I'm commenting again is to ask (open question here) when we picked up the unbalanced template?  And why?  Seeing as there's no mention of it on the Talk page, I'm going to go ahead and remove it unless there's some reason not to. --BCSWowbagger 07:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag, but after some research I found out who tagged it and why. It was tagged by Pstanton (talk • contribs) because there is no section on pro-abortion violence (but the pro-life article has info on anti-abortion violence) see Talk:Violence in the abortion movement. I don't believe that is an unbalance because the amount of violence related to the respective movements is unbalanced.--Andrew c 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I agree with you; while it is important that there be some mention of pro-abortion violence in the Violence in the abortion movement article, it really isn't notable (or pyrotechnic) enough to warrant mention in the pro-choice article.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find an actual article to edit so I don't turn into one of those Talk page vegetables. :P --BCSWowbagger 06:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On a related note, shouldn't Pro-abortion be redirected to Forced abortion instead of here? 3Laws 05:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

history
Up above there was a question from a non-US native about the origin of the pro-choice movement. I'm off to the library in the morning, and will have time for reference searching. If I can find appropriate sources, how would everyone feel about a section devoted to the history of the pro-choice movement? I was thinking of including Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman, midwives as abortionists, and the movement for better birth control education of women back in, oh, mayeb the 1890s til the 1930s or 40s? If I can find relevant stuff after that, I'll try for that too. Resonanteye 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad Portuguese Translation?
That socialist poster probably says "legal and free" abortion, not "free and gratuitous". I don't speak Portuguese, but the root "livre" means book in other langauges, so it probably means "on the books" or "legal", and "gratuito" translates readily via babelfish, and other places, as "free" in the sense that it doesn't cost any money. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.94.5.100 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Pro-abortion section removal, needs sources
I removed the following:
 * Another example of political framing is when the term "pro-abortion" is used by some pro-life individuals to label pro-choice individuals, who never use that term to describe themselves. The term "pro-abortion" is actually used by supporters of "forced abortion".  The "forced" aspect is downplayed by pro-abortion individuals, who maintain that reducing population size to within the carrying capacity of the earth is socially more important than the individual liberty of women.  Pro-choice individuals actively struggle to protect women from forced abortion, and find the misuse of the "pro-abortion" label to be a gross mislabeling of their cause.  Pro-choice individuals may find that when the "pro-abortion" label is applied to them, that this interferes with their strong opposition to those who support forced abortion.


 * The attitude of pro-choice groups is reflected in their preferred label; this being that each woman must be free to make the decision, neither forced to carry or forced to abort.


 * To a similar extent, the term "pro-life" is also used by pro-abortion individuals to mislabel pro-choice individuals. Both pro-life and pro-choice individuals are opposed to the campaign of pro-abortion individuals, which promotes controlling population size through abortion.  The goal of pro-abortion individuals is to lump pro-choice individuals with pro-life individuals, to load "pro-life" with theological motivation, and to imply irrational ideology on the two groups as if they represent the same "side".  This method, employed by pro-abortion individuals, has the effect of completely avoiding the issue of liberty raised by the pro-choice individuals and focus on the pro-life individuals.


 * Each of the three groups accuses the other two of using a preferred set of loaded terms.

This section reaks of original research, and if anything needs wording changes and a lot of sources. Who uses the term "pro-abortion" like this? How prevelent is this view? etc etc.-Andrew c 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Blanked
This page was blanked and now has no information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.193.253.94 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Question definition of pro-choice
When you compare the definitions of pro-life and pro-choice, it is obvious that both were written by those who favour legal abortion. In order to remain balanced, as Wiki obviously acknowledges that these two positions are the opposing positions of the abortion debate, they both should be written fairly and accurately.

For example, this is what the term pro-life is defined as by Wiki

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

If we use this as the template, the pro-choice perspective should be defined as:

Pro-choice is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements. It can be used to indicate support for smoking rights and gun rights but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for abortion rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that reproductive rights for women include the right to choose to abort a pregnancy.

However, if we define the pro-life view the same way as define the pro-choice view (which is the following):

Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have total control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.

Then we should define the pro-life view as:

Pro-life describes the political and ethical view that unborn human beings should have the same right to life as born human beings. This entails that pro-lifers would be opposed to abortion and other practises which intentionally destroy human life in the womb. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-life movement.

Again, without these changes, these definitions are clearly biased. The pro-choice definition is what you'll generally read in most pro-choice literature and is written from that perspective. The pro-life page is obviously written by someone from outside the movement. Please be consistent and write both in the same way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canbuhay (talk • contribs).


 * The extreme definition of pro-choice as "total control over her fertility and pregnacy" is accepted by no one and harms the fight to preserve Roe v. Wade.  A healthy baby in the 8th or 9th month of pregnancy obviously has a right to live.  The woman has a right to have an early birth and give the baby up for adoption, but she has no more right to kill it than she would to kill a new born.   The great tragedy of the abortion issue is that a strong majority of Americans approve of Roe v. Wade as Blackburn wrote it, but the distortions on both sides have steadily weakened support for it.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.65.60.215 (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Abortion hasn't really been an election issue in the uk in at least the last 15 years (or so I belive) even when it was the terms pro-choice and pro-life were not used; so I don't think they should be applied. Is there any source stating the opinions of the respective political parties mentioned - all of whom have stateed 'pro-abortion' policies? Guest9999 11:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph in lead
I'm not sure what I think of the new addition to the lead. We have no source about the libertarian view, and it isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. While there is a "Term controversy" section, I do not believe "Being pro-choice does not entail being pro-abortion or anti-life." is exactly a neutral summary of the Term section. While the libertarian view about keeping government out of medicine is surely a valid POV (if sourced), I'm not sure the lead is the best place for it. I would propose removing the new paragraph and waiting for someone to get sources and perhaps placing it in the US section (unless the source is regarding views outside the states).-Andrew c 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an article, Libertarian perspectives on abortion, which touches upon some libertarian views of this subject. On the other hand, I do not know if any of these perspectives is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the intro of this article, over other views, so I wouldn't oppose removing the recently-added text for the time being. -Severa (!!!) 00:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Early on
Whats it called if you are only in favor of really early abortions?


 * What does this have to do with the Pro-choice article?


 * Sanity. My POV aside, please sign all your comments please. And it's totaly irrelavent to the article, by the way. HunterBlackLuna 03:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro-choice activism?
I notice that there is a section on activism in Pro-life, but no similar section here in Pro-choice. Obviously pro-choice activism exists, demonstrations for example. Shouldn't there be an Activism section here, to detail them? I understand that the pro-choice movement tends to be more quiet (for want of a better word) than the pro-life movement, but surely their activism is notable as well. Note I am not talking about a section on pro-choice violence, which appears to have been discussed already (and rejected) above. -kotra 23:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Parasite
First of all, calling the people who use the term "parasite" harsher, is a value judgment and violates NPOV. Next, the source does not use the word "parasite" as a dysphemism for "fetus". This section is saying one side prefers to use softer/humanizing terms, and the other side prefers to use clinical terms. While it may be true that some pro-choicers use dysphemisms (i.e. "blob of tissue" or even "parasite") I do not believe the current source supports this position. I think we could add something here, don't get me wrong. I just think the current version is too problematic to go in the article now. Hopefully we can work something out together on talk so we can reach a version we can all agree with.-Andrew c [talk] 14:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of map image
The map showing the legal status of abortion worldwide is certainly wrong with respect to the United States. The fact is that ROE V. WADE established the following parameters. First trimester: practically no restrictions; Second trimester: significant restrictions; Third trimester: abortions allowed only in exceptional cases. This is very far from the "abortion on demand" shown on the map.Alloco1 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree and have raised the issue on the talk page for the image, which appears on several Wikipedia articles. -- Sfmammamia 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The map legend terminology has been changed, from "On demand", to "On request". This terminology is in keeping with the most current information on abortion policies from the United Nations. See this chart and its definition of "on request". The United Nations includes the U.S. in this category. -- Sfmammamia 18:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Iran should probably be changed to the same coloring as Germany, as the country has a a significant and known number of medical (not back alley) abortions that are overlooked by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.110.164 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

POV problem with image
I have tagged the Image:AbortionLawsMap.png image as requiring a clean up because I believe different colors should be chosen in order to avoid a POV problem. When I looked at the text for this image I noticed that the current color scheme was taken from Death Penalty World Map. This seems to me to be an obvious implication that abortion is somehow linked with the death penalty. Note that the light blue equates with countries where the death penalty is legal in the latter image and with countries where abortion is legal on the Image:AbortionLawsMap.png image. --S.dedalus 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See discussion here. --S.dedalus 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Father's rights?
From all i read, it's always about the mothers choice, wether she keeps or aborts her child. But in almost all states that have legal abortion, fathers do have the obligation to pay for the child (and the right to see it when born). So i'm quite surprised, that it is centered on women alone, and that there is no thought about a need to ask the father beforehand. So it is quite "ok" for the woman to have the single responsibility for the child, while the father is only an atm IN CASE the child is born? Thanks for clearance! --84.63.224.200 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are not places to talk about the topic of the article, but instead are placed to discuss changes and issues with the article. If we had a source that gave a pro-choice perspective on father's rights, then perhaps we could include it in the article. That's all I'll say on the manner. If you want to discuss this topic further, I suggest finding an online forum for debate. Sorry if this comes off sounding a bit blunt. No hard feelings or anything.-Andrew c [talk] 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

this page has been vandalized
The first section of the page has been changed to pro-murder instead of pro-choice. I am unable to find any other way of reporting this problem. Earchiel (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. KnightLago (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Choice Portal
What do you think of a pro-choice portal? I think its a good idea and a bad idea, but I want your opinions on this. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would be too divisive and too limiting. We have WikiProject Abortion. If anything, a portal on the general topic of abortion may be better, but I'd oppose limiting the scope by choosing just one side of the debate.-Andrew c [talk] 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a point, Andrew c. I think the abortion portal sounds like a good idea. Do you think others will agree? If you have any ideas for it, Stop by my talk page and let me know. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On Pro-choice article & Pro-life article
It has come to my attention that the pro-life article has content directly relating to pro-choice issues in the introduction. In this context, the pro-life article implies that the pro-life content is defined by the mutual exclusion of the content defined in the pro-choice article. In this regard, I tried to edit the pro-choice article to more clearly define what pro-choice entails in the introduction, but a user removed my text and marked it as vandalism. I would argue that this user may have felt that my contributions were biased, while from my POV, the text I added was simply an effort to make the two pages more consistent. (in terms of defining the concept of pro-choice & what pro-choice is not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.89.72 (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On potentially controversial articles, it is a better practice to seek consensus on the talk page before you make the edits - this will lessen the chance that your changes will look unconstructive to other editors. Also, I would suggest using the edit summary to explain your edits to others, and make sure that your changes are backed up by reliable sources  Dawn Bard (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are some good ideas. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.204.157 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fix pro-death redirect?
I searched for "pro-death", expecting to find an article about the phrase "pro-death", which is normally used for ironic intent, to point out that EVERYONE is pro-life, and it's just that some people don't consider cells with no brains to be "people" (early stages - blastocyst). However, it instead REDIRECTS HERE. I'm not sure how to change this, or where it should go, but this is almost definately a malicous redirect. 76.64.156.168 (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly malicious. I've redirected to Abortion debate for now. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming parents
The assumption that legal abortion "assures that a larger percentage of children born are wanted by their parents" has been contested by a number of thinkers, including Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof, who have claimed that it both promotes promiscuity (and thus unwanted conceptions) and alienates biological fathers from a sense of parental responsibility. Either assumption in this article, without a source to back it up, constitutes "original research." Badmintonhist (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I don't understand a claim that an increase in unwanted conceptions implies that fewer children born are wanted by their parents, if the cause of the increase in unwanted conceptions was the availability of a method to ensure that the conceptions didn't lead to children being born. However, the sentence you removed did not claim that "a larger percentage of children born are wanted by their parents"; it claimed that this was a common claim of the pro-choice movement, which it is.  Nevertheless, it needs citation (as does every other fact on Wikipedia); I'll try to look some out.  The Wednesday Island (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your second point about the distinction between "belief" and "fact" is fairly made Wednesday Island, but the issue is a bit murkier than you think. That's because the "belief" in this instance is predicated on what is presented as a "fact" that legal abortion "assures that a larger percentage of children born are wanted by their parents."

As to the actual effect of legal abortion on producing "wanted children" keep in mind that when something sounds too good to be true it often is. The second point that I made in my original comment, about legal abortion's tendency to alienate men from any sense of parental duty is key. Since the fetus is no longer viewed as a child, and the woman alone determines whether or not it becomes a child, men have a perfectly logical reason to believe that the woman alone is responsible for it; much as if they had merely contributed to a sperm bank. And when men tend to feel this way they tend to be pretty indiscriminate about impregnating women in the first place. Take the famous "pro-choice" slogan, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament", and expand on it. Suppose "men" were the ones who got pregnant and, like the slogan suggests, were commonly getting abortions when they got pregnant. How long would it take "women" in such a society (and particularly "feminist women" in such existed) to reject the notion that they should have to share responsibility each time a big strong fellow chose not to get an abortion. What you would have here, of course, would be both lots of abortions and lots of "half-wanted" children. If you think that is impossible just look at American "inner cities". Actually, just look at American society today and compare it with pre-Roe American society. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Our purpose here on this talk page is not to determine or discuss whether the pro-choice or pro-life position is correct: we cannot and must not do so. This is not what talk pages are for.  Instead, we are to discuss how best to document a phenomenon in the real world, namely the pro-choice position.  It is a fact that proponents of this position advance the claim that legal abortion means that a larger percentage of children born are wanted by their parents, and this should therefore be documented by the page we are building.  (The page should not, however, claim or imply that this stance is correct or incorrect, since to do so would be POV.)  However, if anyone such as Akerlof has notably disputed the claim, that is also worthy of a mention. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not trying to be contentious, Wednesday Isle, I would point out to you that you rather invited an explanation when you prefaced your initial response by saying "I must admit that I don't understand ... (one of the points that I was making)". Badmintonhist (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, and I probably shouldn't have said it. I was trying to say that it would be hard for me, as an editor, to judge the NPOVness of a contribution including an argument which appeared to me to be fallacious (rather than incorrect), but that's beside the point; all we need to do is find secondary sources saying that he believes this and we can report on it.  The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Psraborto.jpg
The image Image:Psraborto.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?
I don't know how to put this, but the people on the images in this article are a lot less attractive than those at pro-life.75.118.170.35 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? thats your own opinion, and really, not NPOV at all. What does the relative physical appearance of the people in the pictures have to do with the subject matter? Nothing. Pstanton 20:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Changes
I recently took a stab at cleaning up pro-life, though it's still something of a mess. In an effort to be consistent, I've made a few changes to this article as well, primarily in the last sentence of the opening. While I was at it, I changed a few words in an effort to improve the writing and removed a clump of text that served no purpose. As with my changes to pro-life, these were made in good faith and with the goal of maintaining WP:NPOV. Nonetheless, I recognize that this is a sensitive and controversial subject, so I leave myself open to feedback. Spotfixer (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to alter & elaborate on...
...first sentence of 'Overview', as a few important points are missed. I'd like to replace:


 * "Pro-choice advocates emphasize their beliefs that having a child is a personal choice, which affects a woman's body, personal health, and future."              and the later sentence:
 * "Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, or she feels unable to raise a child."

with:


 * " Pro-choice advocates argue that it is unethical for blanket legislation to make rulings that affect individual cases of pregnancy, which involve individual womens’ often complex health matters. Many advocates see abortion as a last resort, acknowledging that sex is not always consensual and that contraception is not always successful.


 * The pro-choice position argues that the choice to continue with a pregnancy involves highly complex, private and potentially sensitive health issues as well as an inviolable personal choice, as it affects the woman's body, personal health, and future, as well as that of the fetus. Pro-choice advocates believe that these matters should be protected from interference by legislation and the anti-abortion positions of others. They argue that the complexities of each case of unwanted pregnancy make anti-abortion laws, which would amount to enforcing pregnancies against the wills of the women concerned, and regardless of whatever personal health issues they might have, both inhumane and morally wrong. "

--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to change:
 * "Some who argue from a philosophical viewpoint believe that an embryo has no rights as it is only a potential and not an actual being and that it should not have rights that override those of the pregnant woman until it is born."

to:
 * "Some, arguing from a philosophical viewpoint, believe that the rights, health and well-being of the pregnant woman should not be overridden by any rights that the embryo (which is only a potential and not an actual being) may be held to have, at least until it is born."

as the majority of pro-choicers may not agree with the statement that "an embryo has no rights", and the main point/belief/argument is that the woman's rights/health/life should come first.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

large off topic section moved here for discussion
I removed the following as I feel it is off topic, and deals with public opinion related to the abortion debate, not with the pro-choice movement. I think we should try to find the content a home in another article, or continue a discussion on its relevance here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew c (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues
Please note, this is a canvas message copied from Talk:Pro-life:
 * If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 16:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes.
I hope you'll pardon my boldness in making a few changes which I hope are largely uncontroversial. While you can always revert these changes, I ask that you consider discussing your objections here instead so that we can come to a consensus. CarolineWH (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The map should not label China as being pro-choice.
In China, abortion is often forced by the government. That is not pro-choice. It is anti-choice. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I amended your edit: I'm fine with mentioning that the previous wording was imperfect in describing CHina (but also North Korea, eg?), but I believe your wording ran close to editorializing.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pro-choicer terminology preferences
Do pro-choicers prefer to use words like "embryo" and "fetus"? The cited sources only talk about the terms we already quote: "unborn child" and such. We should not give the reader the impression that these sources also talk about other things. If there are other sources to be cited in regards to pro-choice terminology preference, then please cite them. Otherwise, we cannot add unsourced content to the article (especially if it's placed in front of a footnote that doesn't reference that content). I hope this explains my last revert. Please feel free to discuss further if there are any more issues.-Andrew c [talk] 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to learn more about how reliable sources work so I was wondering what you think of the the link to http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v14n1/ReproPatriarch-07.html in reference to "baby". Does it count as a reliable source? Alec Fischer (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks a fairly solid source: informed articles, written in academic style, by named individuals. However, it is openly articulated from a specific ideological viewpoint (that of 'progressive changemakers') and doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, meaning that it may be difficult to separate fact from opinion. Use with care as a source for anything controversial. --Nick Boalch \ talk 09:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does a source need to be peer-reviewed to be reliable? I can understand how this might be a reasonable requirement for scientific articles, but this just about the political use of words.  I also wonder if we distinguish between genuinely controversial issues and sources intended to support what we all pretty much know.  As much as I appreciate your answer, I was hoping Andrew would chime in, since he's the one who made the change, and he's an administrator. Alec Fischer (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be, but publication after a peer review process is a very good way to help establish reliability. For academic writing, citation of a particular source by other authors (as recorded, for instance, in the Web of Science which despite the name indexes arts, humanities and social sciences citations too) is another useful criterion. We also don't draw any distinctions between scientific research and other kinds of research: we must maintain an expectation for sources to be reliable, even if they are 'just about the political use of words'.
 * In my original reply I missed the specific case you were asking about, sorry. This source looks like an adequate one for the specific claim made by our article, namely that 'pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby," "unborn child," or "pre-born child"'. The source makes that specific claim and it provides a reference to support it (to a document that uses the term 'unborn baby', although it doesn't back up its claim regarding any of the other terms). So there are lots of ways this source could be more reliable (it could be published in a peer reviewed journal, it could be extensively cited by other writers, it could back up its own claims more fully), and I would be more comfortable if we had a more reliable source, but for now it seems ok.
 * Things that we genuinely 'all pretty much know' don't need sources. We don't need to provide a source, for instance, for our article's opening claim that 'pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy'. --Nick Boalch \ talk 08:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Nick, and not sure what else I can contribute to the conversation. Is there something specific you want to ask me, Ale x c?-Andrew c [talk] 14:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Alec, and yes. I think the easiest way to explain is by example, so please bear with me.
 * If an article says "over 2,000 people were killed", we'd expect a reliable source for this number, so we know it wasn't just made up.
 * If an article says "where he was seen with a hooker", we'd demand a reliable source for this potentially libelous claim about criminal activity.
 * If an article says "and he is the one who actually shot JFK!", we'd raise the bar so high that it's unlikely anyone could meet it unless it first became generally accepted. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 * If an article says "and Southerners say y'all, while Northerners typically do not", we'd still want a reliable source, but it's not as if it's saying anything that anyone vaguely informed about the the topic wouldn't already know. The source is there to document it, but I would think it would effectively be held to a lower standard, since ordinary claims require only ordinary evidence.
 * Based on this logic, how high a bar should we set for "an pro-lifers talk about innocent unborn babies while pro-choicers use medical terms such as fetus".
 * Thanks for your patience. Alec Fischer (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So your concern is with my deletion of the unsourced material, more than the source we have currently for the pro-life side of things? The article used to list a set of terms that both sides leaned towards. Some of the pro-life terms (such as "mother") have been removed because neither source mentioned that term. All of the pro-choice terms were removed likewise for not having a source. I think the issue is two fold. How do we not know that the ardent pro-choicers don't prefer terms like "blob of tissue" or "tumor"? Furthermore, are doctors being pro-choice when they write about fetal development instead of unborn child development? My final issue is one of original research. If we don't have a published source already going into detail discussing the preferred terminology, we should not be the first place to publish such information. Perhaps this is just common knowledge, or maybe it's an incorrect preconceived notion, but having a source that we can attribute the claim to would help. I hope this explains why I removed the unsourced content (and I hope I answered the question you seemed to be trying to get at without saying as much). -Andrew c [talk] 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've now provided a source - an example, not a peer-reviewed article on the topic. As a naive contributor, I'd welcome help with formatting and placement, if these are objected to. I shall be interested to see if this is now considered acceptable. Frankly I'm amazed that (source or not) you couldn't see that the original content was unbalanced. Twr57 (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Ha! I see it didn't last two minutes! Do I get the courtesy of an explanation? Twr57 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't made any edits to this article since the 18th. I'm not sure what edit you are referring to that provided a source and then was reverted two minutes later. Perhaps there was an error and the server didn't save, or maybe you forgot to hit save? Check the "history" tab on the article or check your contributions to verify that you haven't edited this article. Perhaps you could try making your edit again, or if you are worried it may be reverted or isn't properly formatted, you could post it here to the talk page and let other editors review it and help you out. -Andrew c [talk] 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think you must be right - I may have forgotten to hit "Save". Apologies (somewhat belated, I fear) for an intemperate reaction. I don't think you've taken my point that the requirement for a reference distorts the balance of the article. Surely it's better to maintain balance than to require a reference for something completely obvious?Twr57 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to pro-choice movement?
The "pro-life" article was renamed pro-life movement this summer, for reasons stated here, principally: Adjective titles generally make for bad encyclopedia entries. It makes sense to me, as it seems easier to delimitate what the article is really about with "pro-choice movement" as the title. Any opinions?--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to move pro-life back. :D -Andrew c [talk] 20:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just posted on that topic on the pro-life movement talk page: moving it one way or the other is no small deal, as it does shift the focus of the whole article (I wasn't party to the change this summer, btw). I believe that "pro-xxx movement" is more encyclopedic, since it tends to incite to a more delimited, measurable approach. I don't think any one the two pro-life/choice articles is too great right now (no offense to anyone, of course) in part because of this problem in focus.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirects are cheap. I'll get that out of the way. But it seems unlikely that someone searching will type in "pro-choice movement". Simply "pro-choice" seems to me to be the most common search phrase, but I don't have facts and figures to back that up off hand (ha). So if people are really searching for "pro-choice", and it is the most common term, why not name it as such? I guess the flip side is "pro-choice" is just a position someone may hold. You can be "pro-choice" and not involved at all in the "movement". Could there be two different articles on these topics? Possibly, though I'd personally argue against that. Anyway, just my thoughts. I agree completely (and mentioned it way back when) that the articles pro-life/choice should have consistent naming schemes, which they currently do not. I'd much rather prefer changing this to pro-choice movement, than keeping them unequal. -Andrew c [talk] 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This has gone too long. The lack of parity is upsetting to me. What is the consensus? move this, or move pro-life back? -Andrew c [talk] 03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we should move it to a noun. Searches for the adjectives "Pro-choice" or "prochoice" or "pro choice" should all find redirects to it (after the double redirects are repaired). I was rather startled to find this pair of articles exists, though I suppose it is fundamentally similar to the pair for Democratic Party and Republican Party.LeadSongDog come howl!  15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"forced" abortion
Someone removed the word "forced" from the lede where it said that the pro-choice movement works for "legal protection from forced abortion". The idea here is that one of the goals of the pro-choice movement is to prevent governments from mandating abortions, as for example may happen with the one-child policy. Removing the word "forced" makes it mean that the pro-choice movement wishes to "protect" women from abortion itself. However, the word "forced" clearly should not have been linked to a physics article. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to explain it better in the article itself. "Forced abortion" would not be a familiar term to most people. (Huey45 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Is it really fair to say that is part of the movement? - Schrandit (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)We use the term compulsory abortion in another article. -Andrew c [talk] 03:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Picking up on Schrandit's point, though protecting women from "forced abortion" sounds "pro-choice," and a decent thing to do, is there any reliably sourced information indicating that the movement is devoting a significant amount of energy in this endeavor? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the lead certainly implies that "pro-choice" would mean opposition to compulsory abortion, however, specifically listing "legal protection from forced abortion" as one of the basic tenets of the pro-choice movement is quite misleading because, practically speaking, the leading pro-choice organizations have done very little to oppose it. Their overwhelming emphasis has been on legalizing, or maintaining the legality of, abortion, not on preventing it in situations where it becomes coercive. If someone can produce reliable sources that demonstrate otherwise I stand corrected. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess this is long the lines of including cloning, stem cells, death penalty, and euthanasia in the lead of the pro-life article. I did find this source which says pro-choice people oppose forced abortion. I think this is a position that no only pro-choice individuals take, but most everyone (except, you know, Nazi Germany and Communist China). But I'll agree that I haven't found it in the core mission of any pro-choice organization, not that I have read every mission statement from every organization. It may be a position the pro-choice individuals hold, but maybe not the center of campaigns from pro-choice organizations. -Andrew c [talk] 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is an issue here: I know some pro-choice individuals (and organizations?) are actively opposed to, say, the coercive policies in China. In the case of others, the issue is contentious at best. I believe the statement should therefore be qualified.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, most pro-life organizations would support a "right" to abortion when a pregnant woman's life is seriously in danger, but we probably wouldn't make this stance a major tenet in the lead paragraph of the article on "Pro-life." Pretending that pro-choice organizations, on the whole, make opposition to compulsory abortion a significant part of their program would seem to be at least equally dubious. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But the lead isn't describing pro-choice organization's activism, but the general ethical view "pro-choice". There is a difference. I am leaning towards deletion myself, don't get me wrong. -Andrew c [talk] 13:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, Andrew, but as I said, the first sentence in the lead basically denotes "pro-choice's" theoretical opposition to compulsory abortion. However, emphasizing that theoretical but often practically ignored opposition by specifically listing "legal protection from forced abortion" as a major part of this "general ethical view" seems pretty misleading to me. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between holding an ethical position, and activism. Does Operation Rescue do sidewalk counseling outside of IVF clincis? Hold daily vigils outside research institutions and hospitals using stem cells? I'm not sure we need to require action based on belief in order to include content in the lead. I think it's important to emphasize "choice" here, in that forcing someone to give birth, and forcing to have an abortion is against the "pro-choice" ethos, even if there aren't organized campaigns against either. Should we remove the mention of the consistent life ethic from the pro-life article because it is just a moral position, not action? Hmmm... maybe I'm coming around again. -Andrew c [talk] 19:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But again, the lead sentence already says that "pro-choice describes the . . . view that a woman should have control over . . . the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy," so the theoretical opposition to compulsory abortion is already stated. Why give readers the misimpression that opposition to forced abortion is an emphasized component of that ethos by adding more specific language, when the opposite is true? In point of fact, a significant number of people who consider themselves "pro-choice" don't oppose, even in theory, compulsory abortion in the parts of the world where it is an issue. A significant number of pro-choicers are also population control advocates who are sympathetic with the use of this tool in reversing population growth. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The map again
Germany should be light blue, see discussion section of the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.95.223 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
I am not actually in favor of this move, I am making this suggestion as numerous opposition voters have stated that should that Pro-life be renamed Anti-abortion then they feel Pro-choice should be renamed in a similar manner, I am starting this discussion to allow them to support both, if they so choose. WikiManOne 06:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close If you don't agree with it, it's purely a pointy nomination. I'd advise this be speedily closed. Dayewalker (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally do not agree with it, but there are those that have clearly stated that they would support it at Talk:Pro-life, I am giving them an opportunity to do so and see where the community stands on it. (The argument is, if Pro-life is to be moved, so should Pro-choice, so let it be discussed then is my view) WikiManOne 06:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close. WP:POINT nomination being used to justify or excuse bad behavior at an equally bad move discussion of Pro-life. Also, nobody at the other discussion has "expressed support" for a proposed title invented just a few minutes ago. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close per clear WP:POINT. I suggest the nominating editor step away from the keyboard for a second and consider what he or she is actually trying to achieve with these discussions. Because whatever it is, it isn't working and you are doing your cause more harm than good. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

move 2011

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved: this discussion has run 40 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-choice → Abortion-rights movement — Relisted. Ongoing discussion. --rgpk (comment) 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC) or maybe just Abortion rights. Regardless of the ongoing debate at pro-life → anti-abortion (one article should not be held hostage to the bad name of another), the name "pro-choice" violates several naming conventions: (a) it is not a noun, (b) in is not international in scope (it is only COMMONNAME for the U.S.), (c) it is ambiguous (there are movements for choice in many other areas), (d) it is not NPOV: 'abortion rights' cuts to the quick as to what it's about. (However, the phrase abortion rights alone would cover only the legal status of abortion, not the movement to support the right to abortion.) Other titles, such as support for legalized abortion, etc., are also worth considering. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support nominator made some excellent points, only those of us who are pro-choice call ourselves this, it should be renamed to take a more neutral and precise title. WMO 23:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I presume that the phrase 'pro-choice' would remain in the lede of the article as an alternate name. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest closing without prejudice to the proposal or the editor who made the nomination. As both editors above know - both being involved in the matter - there is presently a contentious move request for Pro-life that is still open and attracting debate. There have been several alternate proposals advanced in that discussion that aren't getting any traction due to the size of the debate, and some of those move proposals would affect both that page and this one. I'd suggest waiting for the other move request to close (it won't close with any consensus to move at this point) and then opening a general request on the other proposals, not only on one of them. Having this move request open will only get in the way of a more general debate. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It may very well move with consensus. Consensus is not a vote, but considers the quality of the arguments and whether a move is supported by wiki policies in general. Also, one of the repeated arguments (though one that an admin would probably ignore as irrelevant) is that this article is not up for renaming. If that RfM closes w/o a move, we might want to close this early and open a joint request, preferably with a better proposal for 'pro-life'. However, even if it does succeed, we will probably want to reopen it as 'anti-abortion' is also an unencyclopedic title.
 * We could also close both prematurely and open a joint RfM in their place.
 * Another possibility would be to merge both into abortion debate. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think a centralized discussion would be best. I think it's important to avoid bias, and to be consistent. It would not be neutral if we created a situation out of a popular vote where we don't allow one movement to use their own terms, but we permit another to. -Andrew c [talk] 01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But RfMs are not popular votes. WP is not a democracy. If one article is at an encyclopedic title and the other is not, that would only put pressure on the nonconforming article. Regardless, one article at a bad name is better than two.


 * We could suggest at talk:pro-life that the RfMs be combined. But if the wording of the destinations is modified, it will be much more difficult to do them together. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think there is a problem with both article titles, and especially if you think there is the same problem with both article titles, then they would almost certainly be best discussed together. This can't be done while the previous request at Talk:Pro-life is still open, nor can it be done if that separate request closes and another separate request is open and halfway through discussion here. It is really best to wait and discuss the whole issue as one piece. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't we leave it open to see if there are any good suggestions for improvement; when the other RfM closes, if it is still not at an encyclopedic title, why don't we plan on closing this early in order to combine the two, using the best title proposed here as the basis. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- Seems like a logical renaming of the article. I had suggested something similar(except "Pro-Abortion Rights') on the "Pro-life" talk page. This is a much better suggestion, and seems like more neutral wording. Dave Dial (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- Nominator's reasons make sense. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support and move the pro-life (and more egregious title) as well (this title is just vague, the other title is misleading) 184.144.161.207 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Skeptical &mdash; while this suggestion is definitely better thought-out, it would stir the pot even more with respect to the "pro-life" title; what I'd hate to see is to have this one at the accurate title and the other one left where it is. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A move towards accuracy for one is a move towards accuracy for all, provided the other article doesn't get moved to "Super-Moral Awesome Squad". Whether or not the other is moved is not really germane to this discussion- if we can make this article more neutral, we should (and that goes for the other as well). The complaints from either side that the moves must BOTH happen, or NEITHER can, are very telling, and not at all representative of any reasonable interpretation of WP:NPOV. Oh, also, Total Support. -- King Öomie  15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support in principle - I am not a fan of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life". However, I'm not sure about the suggested target: "Abortion-rights" could refer to the rights of the mother or the rights of the unborn child. Incidentally has anyone considered merging the two articles into one, given that they're basically two sides of the same coin? Forgive me if this is a ridiculous suggestion, I've not really followed the history of these articles in detail. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone actually use 'abortion rights' to refer to the fetus? (Fetuses don't have abortions.)


 * Yes, merger into abortion debate is another possibility. — kwami (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the OP's 4 points all fail. Point a) if it isn't a noun, the solution is not to rename the whole thing, but perhaps go "pro-choice movement". b) there is no evidence presented outside of the sheer claim (which I guess we should believe without evidence) that the name is not international. www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org www.prochoicemajority.org.uk prochoicevic.com/ et. al. and if we are to go by interwiki links, it seems like some variation on Pro-choice is used in non-English languages. The point is, the term IS known internationally, and we'd need more specific evidence or statistical analysis to show that it is used less often. But I am not buying any claim that it is not international in scope based on NO evidence. c) name one other "pro-choice movement" and that alone is not reason enough to change. we have Catholic Church which is clearly ambiguous. It seems really dense to claim that someone would be confused and have no idea what the article title is referring to based on ambiguity of title. We have John Lennon and John Lennon (captain). We don't disambiguate the most common title. We don't even have a disambiguation hatnote in the article, so I am really clueless what articles the OP thinks someone might confuse this one with. finally d) this is not a valid reason to change an article name. Boston Massacre, Jack the Ripper, etc are given as examples of cases where we should go with the common name over neutrality. I think this is the case. It is offensive to think we need to change what organizations call themselves because it offends some users. That's like saying we can't call certain sects "Christian" because it offends our definition of Christianity. Or that the Palestine Liberation Organization should be renamed because we don't think they are fighting for real liberation. There are clearly cases where we allow self identity in light of some objections, and I think this is the case with pro-choice. But perhaps that is the most subjective aspect of the above. I would still like to see specific evidence of common name, disambigutation, and international worldview violations.-Andrew c [talk] 16:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a proposal to change what organizations call themselves. If they use "Pro-Choice" in their name, so be it. But this article is about a movement which has many names, not a single organization. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Undecided. The proposal raises some interesting issues, however I share Andrew c's view that most of those issues are not typically important in deciding article names. The one issue that I think would sway my opinion one way or the other is whether or not "Pro-choice" is the most common term world-wide or only in the US/Europe. Is there any evidence that "Pro-choice" is not the most commonly used term in other parts of the world? Kaldari (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think those googgle ngrams speak by themselves: [edit: see below]. walk victor falktalk 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (I fixed the link for the 3rd) — kwami (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strangely, the Google trends graph and Google Ngram graph disagree on this. Interesting that books and news sources tend to go with "abortion rights", while the general public uses "pro choice". Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Readers don't Google the phrase 'abortion rights' because its meaning is self-explanatory, which is an additional reason to use it. I see no scholarly vs general public issue here. Kauffner (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Thanks kwami, I messed and mixed all the links together. I think they should be all right as of now. Like this: pro choice,abortion rights movement, British pro choice,abortion rights movement, American abortion rights, British abortion right. walk  victor falktalk 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this graph "pro choice" and "abortion rights movement" are currently in equal use in published English. Strangely, if you limit it to American English, "abortion rights movement" is clearly dominate, which would seem to contradict the original argument that it is an Americanism (as does the Google trends graph). Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are no large scale abortion rights movements outside the US, naturally enough since abortion is legal in most Western countries. You don't have to campaign for what you already have. walk victor falk<i style="color:green;">talk</i> 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. In that case I would say the international issue is largely irrelevant then. Kaldari (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Plenty of western countries have contentious debate on abortion, such as Ireland and Poland. But we're not just Western WP either: we're supposed to have global coverage. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I forgot Poland. Sorry for using "Western" when meaning to say "English-speaking countries". I blame the British. Remember Orléans. As to the (english-speaking) third world, as far as I know, there are no strong movements, whether for or against. For instance, in India abortion is encouraged by the government, and it doesn't seem to be a big issue (the fact that girls are aborted much more frequently however is). <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak opposition - Because of other ongoing debate and not sure if there's some hidden agenda. On the other hand I think "abortion rights movement" terminology that's now the last sentence should be in lead right now. Nothing wrong with saying it's all about abortion and of course "pro-choice" will still link to this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per proposer. Lionel (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose because the article name presupposes that abortion is a right. If you don't want to have the articles named "pro-choice movement" and "pro-life movement", which are overwhelmingly the more common names, then "support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion" make far more sense as neutral names. --B (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of Roe v. Wade? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out so precious many times during the other discussion, Wikipedia is not just about America. There are plenty of parts of the world where abortion is not considered a legal "right", nor does, according to Gallup, around half of our country think it should be a right. --B (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Roe v. Wade is not written in stone; in fact, it's hanging by a thread with a 5-4 pro-choice majority on the Supreme Court. Dred Scott anyone? That abortion is a right is very much in dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * B, it doesn't presuppose that at all: it's a movement for the right to an abortion. That is, support of legalized abortion. (And M, it could be called this with or without RvW.) That said, your suggested paraphrases are also good names. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... that is not how I interpret the phrase. When you refer to "abortion rights", I don't think you're hoping it's a right - you're saying it is. --B (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's a right, you don't need a movement for it. How about the human-rights movement? The movement exists because people don't have those rights, but activists feel that they should. Or the animal-rights movement. — kwami (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't follow B's reasoning. I can see the name presupposing that abortion can be CONSIDERED a right (contemplatively), but who can argue that? "It's not possible for that to be a right under any circumstances"... no. It's not like a hypothetical "Theft Rights Movement" would mean that theft is presently a right. The movement WANTS it to be. -- King Öomie  03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Oppose because the title presumes that abortion is a right. The U.S. Supreme Court may (currently) say so, but that doesn't mean that the world recognizes it as a right. Millions, perhaps billions, would beg to differ that it's a right. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the map in the article, the only countries where there is no right to abortion is Chile, Uruguay, Dominica, and Nicaragua. That to me is an overwhelming global consensus that there should be some rights, the question is just whether more or less. Anyway, as has been argued above, there would still be such a thing a movement for abortion rights even if no country granted them, just like there was a movement for human rights in the XVIIIth century. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 04:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain how it presumes it's a right. Just because I want something that I can call "my house" does not mean that I already have a house. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same sentiment here. I think it's presumed that "rights" movements are fighting for whatever it is to be recognized as a right against people who do not believe it is a right - civil and political rights, human rights, right to die, right to keep and bear arms, right to life are all article titles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, and particularly reject any arugments on the lines that "the title presumes abortion is a right" - of course it doesn't, an "X rights movement" is clearly understandable as meaning a movement which believes that there should be (or are) X rights; it doesn't imply that the person using the phrase believes there are such rights, any more than someone using the phrase "pictures of unicorns" believes that there are unicorns. (Though that said, I'd be willing to consider alternative titles as long as they're equally clear.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Twenty years ago, I would have opposed, as "Choice" was understood (even among those who opposed the use of the term) to refer in the US exclusively to the issue of abortion.  However, in American politics, while it is still not used nearly as much as the abortion-related meaning, the term school choice has gained sufficient currency to warrant a look at this issue.  Those who argue that term "pro-choice" is illogical (since there are many choices we make besides whether or not to have abortions) are missing the point: Here on Wikipedia, what is important is usage.  And I think "school choice" has gained enough usage that the abortion rights movement cannot lay sole claim to the use of "choice". HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support unreservedly per all the above. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't understand the some of the argument and supports above. They argue that one line or reasoning is incorrect, that the name "abortion rights" doesn't necessarily presuppose that abortion in fact IS a right. But just because one argument that some fellow Wikipedian's bring up is weak, does not mean that negating it is a good enough reason to move the article. It doesn't mean the proposed title is the BEST title, nor does it mean the proposed title is MOST in line with Wikipedia naming conventions. I think the discussion has gotten a bit off topic, and would suggest that even if B and NYyankees51's arguments fail or are weak, does not mean that by itself is a good enough reason to support the name change. I'd defer to my counterarguments above (attempting to) refute the 4 points raised in the original proposal. Also, HuskyHuskie, do you feel that this article needs a hatnote that says something like "pro-choice may also refer to school choice" for disambiguation purposes? I'm not convinced the school choice movement has adopted the "pro-choice" language, and would argue that "pro-choice" is NOT vague and there is simply no need for disambiguation or alternative names. -Andrew c [talk] 19:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many wordings that would be accurate; however, "abortion rights" is the one I hear most frequently. If you can demonstrate that another wording is more common, fine, but you haven't done that. Also, besides "pro-choice" being ambiguous when taken out of context, it is regional. WP:WORLDVIEW. — kwami (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Not to use the word "abortion" in the article title is euphemistic. Someone who uses the word "pro-choice" is self-identifying as a supporter of this movement. As several editors have already noted, the suggested title means only that abortion is, or should be, a right from the POV of people involved in this movement, not that Wiki is taking a stand on the issue one way or the other. Kauffner (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I disagree with the nominator's comment about not holding one article hostage to another. I think naming one article according to the inaccurate propaganda term it has chosen to describe itself and the other article with neutral language is an extremely poor choice. The discussion should be closed and the two articles nominated together. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for symmetry with Pro-life; although I think both should have "movement" appended to their titles. Pro-choice is an adjective as far as I know, and thus is not a suitable article title. –CWenger (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support . "Pro choice" is just a euphemism that avoids mentioning what the "choice" in question is. ("Pro-life" is equally silly.) Barsoomian (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * comment the arguments that make use of the policy Article titles should be used. There seems to be no subsidiary guidelines that apply. Therefore arguments about euphemism, whether or not something is a right, or "I like it" will be of lesser importance. Commonality overrides neutrality. A relevant part is the use of a descriptive phrase. The proposed title is more neutral than the existing one.  By common name, we have books using proposed title more, but newspapers and general web hits greatly prefer pro-choice, and as a search term slightly prefer pro-choice. Pro-life remained unchanged, but no consensus to combine the discussion of the moves ensued. A hat note can accommodate school choice, as pro-choice would remain as redirect or article title. Wikipedia requests for pro-choice exceed the alternative by about 500 to 1.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Pro-choice" is an actual article whereas "abortion rights" is just a redirect. So of course "pro-choice" currently gets more traffic. Web hits mean nothing when the numbers are very high like this. Google doesn't actually count millions of pages before it posts results. Besides, partisans are the ones motivated to put up Web sites. The term "abortion rights" is self-explanatory, so there is less need to look it up. I think the ngram is pretty convincing, so I will give it again here. Kauffner (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to "Comment": I and others said "euphemisms" were undesirable--if you want a hook in WP:Article titles, these go against "precision" and being "unambiguous" in the first section of that policy. "Pro-choice" is imprecise and ambiguous. Barsoomian (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Or "pro-choice" could mean "professional choice, what professionals use" or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments
Would the closing admin please explain a bit more the decision? It is helpful to understand the reasoning behind controversial moves where there isn't a clear consensus. What arguments were most persuasive, how did you weigh comments, how did you arrive at a clear consensus vs. no consensus? Having been open 40 days is not a good enough reason to take a side on the matter. And the closing admin appears to have also participated in the debate and taken a position, so there are questions of an impartial judge (or lack there of). But of course, I 'voted' as well, so I'm not speaking in my capacity as an admin.-Andrew c [talk] 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The close was 12 days after the last vote.
 * Much of the opposition was based on wanting to move pro-life as well. Maybe he didn't buy that as a valid objection for not doing anything here? In any case, the fact that this has been moved means that it's name is no longer a possible objection at that article (in case it was ever given any credence there). — kwami (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTAVOTE. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The close should've been executed by an uninvolved editor. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was. I've reviewed the article and talk-page history back to 2004, and "Anthony Appleyard" had never edited either. Unless you suspect sockpuppetry? The only other thing was a comment on the discussion before closing it, well after the debate had ceased.
 * Looking through the discussion, there are only three reasons for opposition: the first, where Andrew c said that my arguments were not adequate to justify the move, but which no other opposer supported; the objection that the title presupposes that abortion is a right, which is demonstrably false; and the argument that the two articles should be considered together, which is a bureaucratic point and not a vote against the name itself. So there was only one 'oppose' argument of any substance, that of Andrew. Not hard to see why Anthony would conclude there was consensus. — kwami (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus was not clear enough to make such a drastic move, especially considering the implications it has on the pro-life article. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, this move should probably be reviewed. Maybe re-open the discussion and request comment from more users? - Haymaker (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI this uninvolved editor is the same editor who has re-opened the discussion to move Pro-life to Anti-abortion movement. Seems involved to me. Lionel (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly. A lot of people have said they should be moved or discussed together. "Involvement" does not come after the fact, but before. That was the logical next step, since the name here was used as an argument there. Acting on the logical consequence of a move does not make the admin "involved", though of course he cannot close the second RfM, because in that case he is involved. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Pro-Life and Abortion-rights movement articles into into Abortion debate article
There's a discussion on this at this thread at Talk:Pro-Life, with the aim of resolving the interminable naming disputes but also improving the quality of the article (neither Pro-Life nor Abortion-rights movement are very good articles. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've created User:Eraserhead1/Abortion-rights movement and User:Eraserhead1/Pro-life_movement because it would be useful to see what the unique content in both these articles actually is = and by userfying people can do what they like to them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge anyone with an interest in the future of this article, as well as other abortion-related articles, to come read the (currently brief) discussion here. This new approach, which has been suggested by User:DeCausa, offers hope of settling these conflicts over the article names. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)