Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 4

Removed POV
I removed a ludicrous bit of unsourced POV from this article, I trust there are no real objections--71.82.138.47 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not Pro-life movement?
Given that this page is about the pro-life movement, why isn't this page called Pro-life movement? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not just about 'movements' some are just about views i guess and definitions. The movement surrounding it is a part of 'pro-life' not the other way around. I doubt i just made any sense. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.161.137 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It says at the top that it is about the movement(s). And most of the contents are about prolife movements.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It says that the article is about the movements and perspectives. I think that renaming without consensus is a rather radical move.Heqwm2 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is and should be about the movement and its perspectives. Adjective titles generally make for bad encyclopedia entries. Rd232 talk 17:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Should pro-life not be capitalised? Pro-Life or ProLife. googling for it (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pro-life&meta=&aq=f&oq=) seems to bring usages of it mainly with capitals. 194.116.198.179 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this has been discussed elsewhere but why isn't the article named 'Anti-abortion movement'? It seems to me that most "pro-life" people are in favor of the death penalty, especially people who object on religious grounds. I understand the societal connotations associated with it but it seems to me a misnomer. I understand that "pro-life" would redirect here and as I said I'm not sure if the consensus was to retain the name of "Pro-life" or what was decided.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's naming convention urges users to pick the "common name", and if that cannot be determined, normally defaults to how groups self-identify. See WP:NCCN. I believe "pro-life" is not only the common name, but also the name of self-identity. Furthermore, "anti-abortion movement" may be a bit imprecise, as the Terri Schiavo case demonstrated the movement is involved in other "right-to-life" issues. -Andrew c [talk] 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The name itself is of interest with bodies like this one and others like pro-family. They are clever and deliberate choices intended to suggest that those who disagree with them are anti-life, or anti-family. When the media and encyclopaedias run with these names without comment they are actually supporting the views of these bodies. HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Which then begs the point, shouldn't we be placing burden of proof on those potentially seeking to kill another human life? Why have we decided these are indeed not human lives, and arbitrarily placed the viability line in the sand where it is?  And why are we not erring on the side of caution when potentially killing another human being?  To go by your same logic, wouldn't the 'pro-choice' movement be another example of political framing?  Indeed, didn't the pro-choice movement begin using these political framing words first, such as 'pro-choice', 'right' to an abortion, etc.?  If so, the right to life movement would've been simply coming up with its own terms to counter what it saw as the false buzz words of the other side, and illustrate the fallacious nature of said words.  And then, its criticism of the pro-life movement for 'political framing' would be extremely hypocritical - it would know this to be political framing, since it was the one to originally come up with the strategy!  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Diversity of pro-life views
I removed a sentence from this section that listed Feminists for Life and Anarchists for Life as prominent supporters of the view that pro-lifers should not advocate for changes to existing law, but should instead find other ways to further the objective of reducing abortions and upholding the value of human life. This is a massive distortion of Feminists for Life's actual views; a review of their web site shows that they do promote and oppose legislation regarding these issues. As for Anarchists for Life, the link to their web site was dead, I was unable to find their web site, and I was unable to even verify that this organization exists -- let alone that it is "prominent."

SCBC (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The diversity section has a section on the life extension movement, but does not mention the alternate view that "God's will" should determine the end of life. I don't believe that the life extension movement is as common as the belief that although it is justifiable to give life support to the aged, it is not be the goal to seek extension of life beyond what is natural. Others oppose all medical intervention including abortion, life support, and in some cases anything beyond prayer and providing comfort. There should be an explanation with appropriate citations that describe more prevalent views and less common but well known views.

Hagrinas (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Like many people are against spanking of children, one of the main reasons that I am pro-life is because killing an embryo to me is a form of child abuse. No many references that I can see show this relationship. My views have nothing to do with teh involvement of God. I always hear about anti-abortion views being related to God or religion.

--84.65.8.104 (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the experts here check another article
Hi,

I'm not interested in taking positions on this issue (on Wikipedia only; in real life I might have an opinion), however I do appreciate Wikipedia's NPOV policies. To further that goal, I invite the people who edited this article to take a look at List of common misconceptions, which contains this assertion:


 * Even though many Christians have adopted abortion as a cornerstone principal to abolish as part of their religious principals, nowhere in the Bible is abortion indicated as being against God's will or prohibited. In fact, according to the Bible (specifically, the book of Leviticus, which contains many laws not accepted by most modern Christians), killing a fetus is considered a property crime.

While I believe that is POV and should just be removed, the item is sourced and I'm not willing to get into any debate on the issue. In hope there's someone here who's not so lazy or to whom this is more important :) (OTOH I think the entire article is silly, but that's somewhat beside the point.) --SLi (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Secular motivations
The following unsourced material is from the Secular motivations section. It should be sourced if it is to be replaced.


 * Many disciplines of philosophy may be implemented in the formation of a secular pro-life viewpoint. Some make use of natural law theory, which would emphasize the primacy of the right-to-life as the most fundamental human right guaranteed by law.


 * Biologically speaking, the zygote created at fertilization possesses a unique genome of human DNA, a unique blood type, and all other essential biological manifestations of a living organism. Pro-life advocates assert that this constitutes membership in the human species and personhood, and therefore conclude that the deliberate harming of human embryos and fetuses is morally objectionable. Other pro-life arguments may hold that destruction of human embryos and fetuses constitutes discrimination against them, based on their stage of development.

Thanks, Whatever404 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What about other factors? Natalism, or the idea that a nation, ethnic group, tribe, or "race" should experience population growth. Concern with the eugenic implications of abortion on poor people, minority groups, etc. ...though "Anti-Abortion" may be a better definition for non-religious opposition, especially that motivated by nationalism or racism. (Hitler was opposed to abortion among "Aryans," but could scarcely be termed "Pro-life" in any meaningful way.

69.171.160.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

Pro-Life Views in the First Centuries of Christianity
I think this site provides several quotes from great christian thinkers from the first centuries of Christianity, that can be used in the article, including the "Didaché" quotation. I will try to select some of them when I had more time to include them in the text and also Jesus quotations that can be interpreted as pro-life. 82.154.82.136 (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove fact tags without inserting a citation. I understand that you intend to add citations, but until that is done, the tags should remain.  Also, it will probably not be best for you to merely add "Jesus quotations" and call them "pro-life", as this alone would likely be original research.  You would also have to add citations of some prominent sources that interpret the quotations as pro-life.  Whatever404 (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Quotes That Can Be Interpreted as Pro-Life
I found this site with Jesus quotes :. I will select some of the best for the pro-life stance. Since Jesus also started as an embryo this quote can be interpreted as pro-life : 40 "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me." (Mathew, 25)85.240.20.90 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't. Not only does that cite not even mention "pro-life", it doesn't meet WP:RS. If we could find a reliable source that makes similar claims, then I think that would be appropriate, don't get me wrong.-Andrew c [talk] 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange sentence
"They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong." - Does this mean that they argue or imply that a righteous war is possible? - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes.-Andrew c [talk] 17:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a war of defense is justified. Its like killing someone to defend yourself or someone else. That is completely justified. Righteous is not a good term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneforanother2 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminology
What is the origin of the term "pro-life" (or can it not be determined?), and why (if not) isn't it in the article? Like You Never Did See (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought the term was inaccurate and propagandist. As far as I know, every living human is "pro-life." What the movement boils down to is the restriction of reproductive freedom. Why call the advocates "Pro life" and "Pro Choice?" On Wikipedia, which strives for objectivity, shouldn't the "Pro life" article be re-labeled "Anti Choice?" Speace (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Pro-life, like at least one of its counterparts, family values, is a manipulative marketing term chosen for its dramatic effect. It is very simplistic and does not convey what the movement is really about. Both names are effectively trademarks for a particular, conservative Christian interpretation of the words being used. Both are cleverly chosen so that the simplistic opposites, pro-death or anti-life, and anti-family values, sound ridiculously extreme. Wikipedia is probably obliged to use the terms to formally identify the respective movements, because they are the names claimed by those bodies, but must somehow identify what their particular meanings are in the dogma of those groups of people. I wonder if they have officially trademarked the names? HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The exact same could be said of the use of the term "pro-choice". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.222.28 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fetus or embryo?
A recent edit added some text, shown in bold.

"The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that fetuses (unborn babies), and some include embryos, are human beings, and therefore have a right to live"

The explanation given in the edit comment is that some people are pro-life but support embryonic stem cell research. This was interpreted to mean that they believe fetuses have a right to life but embryos do not.

While that is one plausible interpretation, I am not comfortable with it, especially in the complete absence of citations. In fact, I see some other problems with this article that I'm going to try to resolve. Spotfixer (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I made my changes. I think most of them are uncontroversial and even self-explanatory, but I recognize how sensitive this topic is so I encourage other editors to talk about my WP:BOLD changes instead of launching into an edit war. Spotfixer (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Motivations
I felt like this was a POV attempt to limit the reasons why people are pro-life. As I understand it, fetuses have their own unique human DNA, and to me, that affords them some rights. I know the sources are lame, but you can't tell me people aren't coming to the pro-life position based only because their religious. If so, find sources. In a while, I'll try to write reasons under secular. Thanks and I welcome any of your opinions 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Gangreneday (talk)

I removed the word "alleged" [benefits] in the sentence that describes the pro-life position. It implies that the benefits are not real. Many pro-choice advocates also reject abortion when there is no true benefit, but the movement has no firm position. The pro-life movement takes a stronger position than merely opposing abortions with perceived benefit; abortions with some true benefit are generally considered unjustified. Extreme pro-choice advocates accept abortion for any reason when a pregnant woman wants one, including stupidity. Extreme pro-life advocates reject abortion for all reasons, even if it considered necessary for the health or life of the pregnant woman. Rejection in cases with "alleged" benefits describes a middle ground, not the true position of either side.

Hagrinas (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What in the world does DNA have to do with rights? Do monozygotic twins have less rights than everyone else? Gamete cells have their own unique DNA. Do they have rights?Heqwm2 (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

to the person above this. Yes, as a race of beings, if we decide not to respect human life, no matter how small, we will destroy ourselves. The embryo has potential for a human breathing life. That should be respected. It shouldn't be an expirament, it shouldn't be used to grow stem cells then get destroyed. We can't start growing humans for our own betterment, and abortion can't be a form of birth control. I'm surprized more liberals don't support pro-life, it seems like it would be a position they might take. The only reasoning I ever hear is "back room abortions". How about all of the 49,000,000 american lifes lost to abortion? They wonder why social security is going under, they killed everyone that should be paying into it. Sorry to go on that rant, I wasn't intending to. Life, at any stage, seems to important to waste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneforanother2 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Science/Medicine
This section seems heavily biased, because it assumes that the majority of medical professionals think that fetuses are not alive. It's odd to me that bacteria are considered alive, even viruses, but not unborn human beings.

The choice to restrict the definition of "life" to exclude fetuses doesn't come from objective scientific standards, therefore I expect that this section is rewritten. Or, give a definition for life (which is widely supported) and explain how the growing fetus does not match the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.5.97 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hippocratic Oath is Pro-life
I think this also should be mencioned, which gives physicians the moral duty to be pro-life.81.193.220.211 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, it's called the Hippocratic Oath, not the "Hyppocrates" Oath. Second, I really think you need to research the oath a bit more. It is neither inherently pro-life nor pro-choice and it certainly does not give "physicians the moral duty to be pro-life." Third, this position is original research and biased and can't be included without an accompanying reliable source. Sorry. --132 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my native language it´s really called Hyppocrates Oath. Anyway, it´s still the same. I don´t know in what world do you live or if you´re obsessed with political correctness that you decide not to view the obvious. The original Hippocratic oath says : "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.". From the Wikipedia itself. All the physicians from what is known really have the moral duty to be pro-life.83.132.111.32 (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hippocratic Oath says "I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." It does not say "I will not give a woman an abortion" or "I will not allow a woman to get an abortion" or "I will try to dissuade or stop a woman from obtaining an abortion" or anything similar. The type of abortion mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath is a very, very, very specific type of abortion, despite the fact that there have, throughout all of history, been several ways of getting an abortion. If they meant abortion in general, it would have said it in more generalized terms. Doctors have no obligation to be pro-life on the abortion issue, period. Further, this is not a forum. If you can provide a reliable source that says that doctors have a duty to be pro-life based on the Hippocratic Oath (which you aren't going to find), then you need to drop it and discuss it on an outside forum. --132 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I find almost unbelievable the attempt of some pro-choice supporters to obliterate the clear condemnation of abortion made at the original Hippocratic Oath. If it was really pro-abortion and abortion was then legal, in any stage of pregnancy, like infanticide, until the first year of life, in Ancient Greece, it certainly would have been something like that : "I will not put any woman life in risk while performing an abortion." Anyway, the pro-life interpretation as been made through ages, like we can see by this article and Margaret Mead own opinion : .85.242.239.23 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Mead interpretation of the original Hippocratic Oath : "For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing. Throughout the primitive world, the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person. He with the power to kill had power to cure, including specially the undoing of his own killing activities. He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill...With the Greeks the distinction was made clear. One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age or intellect - the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child..."85.242.239.23 (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several different versions of the Oath, some prohibiting all forms of abortion, some prohibiting certain types, and some not saying anything on the subject. Regardless, I don't see how the fact that someone who lived thousands of years ago was opposed to abortion means that physicians have a moral duty to oppose it.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That happens simply because you don't understand the Hippocratic Oath meaning.


 * The original Hippocratic Oath contains several historical anacronisms besides the prohibition against abortion. These include, a pledge to train the sons of other physicians for free, and a pledge never to perform surgery on anyone.  (Back then, surgeries were done not by physicians, but by barbers, who knew how to maintain sharp instruments like razors in working condition.)  Also, the original Hippocratic Oath was taken in the name of Apollo and other gods.  Not God; gods.  No Christian should feel comfortable with that!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingingZombie (talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Embryos
How many pro-lifers say abortion is ok up through the 10th week? Because that is when the fetal stage starts. Pre-implantation embryos (used in stem cell research) are clearly different from a 9 week embryo, and perhaps we should revise the wording to account for these nuances. However, we should not make any major changes without going to sources first. Do we have any sources, what so ever, that suggest pro-lifers don't believe embryos are persons? We need to make sure we don't give the incorrect illusion that the pro-life positions supports early (pre-fetal) abortion procedures. -Andrew c [talk] 05:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

All pro-life supporters believe that life should be protected by law since conception. The debate of when the embryo should be considered a human being his from that sense useless because we all know it's gonna be one sooner or later.81.193.189.254 (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ACMA
How is the ACMA's blacklisting a form of activism? The content is extremely non-neutral, and off topic. Perhaps we could add a couple sentences saying that "truth displays" can take the form of websites, and that they have lead to the Australia blacklisting controversy? There is probably a way to work the general idea of this content into the article, but the specific content itself is highly problematic (and unsourced). The way the content was added and phrased, reminds me of the news headline I read recently Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator. -Andrew c [talk] 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian article - pro-choice view?
Please have a look at Russian "Prolayf" (Pro-life) article at google translate

It has:
 * Critical part in preamble about statistics
 * Statements about link of pro-life and killing of abortion doctors
 * Term "prolayfer" (pro-lifer) which is disrespectful to the Pro-life movement members

I think interwiki link to this article should be excluded from English Pro-life article. --Ourcastle (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The other alternative is that someone who can speaks russian to please make a cleanup of the article, giving it a more Neutral Point of View, according to Wikipedia policies.213.13.242.135 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Liberation Theologians and Christian Socialists Pro-Life Views
This article can't be too focused in the United States, where there isn't really a strong Christian Left. In Latin America, most Liberation theologians and Christian socialists are strongly pro-life. I can point the examples of Gustavo Gutierrez, Hélder Câmara, Leonardo Boff, Cláudio Hummes. Even in the United States there are some Christian socialists who are also pro-life, like Daniel Berrigan, Philip Berrigan and Dorothy Day. I will try to do a search of some notable pro-life statements from these left-wing Christians.213.13.242.135 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfair Removal of "Violence against pro-life activists"
I included a new section called "Violence against pro-life activists" which described, from a notable source, how a 40 year old man became enraged and tried to run over a 69 year old pro-life activist who was protesting, thankfully the man moved out of the way and was not injured. This is attempted murder, a 69 year old would die if hit by an SUV. 3 people have reverted my addition, the first saying the source is "minimally notable", the second saying keeping the section would make this article biased towards pro-life, and third saying this "doesn't explain the topic of "pro-life"", is "offtopic" and "trivial".

To address the first point: I don't know how something can be "minimally" notable, either it is notable or it isn't, or more importantly either the event described happened or it didn't, as this wasn't an opinion column but an objective reporting of a local event with witnesses and a police investigation, this is not something even a small local paper would lie about. Also because it happened in a small town it seems unlikely The New York Times would report on it, maybe if it happened in New York they would, naturally however only the local paper would cover this.

To address the second point: Adding this section would not make the article biased towards pro-life since given the large violence against abortion providers section the article already seems biased towards the pro-choice POV. Adding this section would show readers that there is aggression on both sides of the argument - as with all controversial arguments. Leaving this section out would imply that only the pro-life movement has violence towards to other side and that no pro-choice supporter has ever done, or attempted to do, something violent towards a pro-life supporter.

To address the third point: The section before is entitled "Violence against abortion providers" and described attempted and succesful attempts to kill abortion providers, my section described an attempt to kill an anti-abortion protestor. So either the "Violence against abortion providers" section also "doesn't explain the topic of "pro-life"", is "offtopic" and "trivial" or the section I added in indeed relevant and useful since it describes the same things as the previous section but the with victims switching sides (on the abortion argument).

Unless I get a thorough and logical explanation of why the section I added does not belong in this article, keeping in mind the "Violence against abortion providers" section and explaining why its inclusion is allowed, I will once again undo the reverts and if again it's reverted than I can only assume the editors of this article are biased towards abortion and would censor others to promote their views and I will have to take action. I may be openly biased towards pro-life however I would never censor someone who disagrees with me, every legitimate piece of relevant information deserves to be heard, and all information I include is from notable, objective, neutral sources. If I get no response within a reasonable amount of time I will undo the reverts. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Edit warring will not be tolerated. You clearly stated you intend to revert back, so I'm trying to nip that in the bud. Next, please see WP:NOT. I think that applies strongly in this case. Next, please see WP:NOR. You are attempting to string together a SINGLE news article from a couple weeks ago, with a larger, broader concept of "Violence against pro-life activists". The news article does not discuss that topic, nor does it associate the event to a larger set of violence against pro-life activists. But you are doing that here, and this constitutes original research. And that is bolstered with you saying you are trying to balance the violence against abortion providers section. This source by itself cannot be used in that manner without original synthesis.


 * With that said, I have been thinking of a compromise. Under the activism subsection, we have "The truth display". I think adding a sentence that members of the general public have been enraged over the graphic sight of such imagery to the point of "lost control of his emotions and tried to strike Canfield with his vehicle", as something similar happened in 2006 in Idaho, But with just 2 incidents on record (that I've found), we need to phrase it in a manner which makes that clear, instead of implying that seeing these signs causes regular folk to drive crazy or something like that. -Andrew c [talk] 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that clarification, I did not see it that way before and your explanation makes sense. Your compromise is reasonable and I'll try to implement it, unless you already have. Thank you for responding. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is laughably biased, exaggerated, and just plain inaccurate. I am editting out the term used, "suicide bombing," as there was absolutely no such aspect of David Robert McMenemy's arson attempt; the use of this buzz-term is obviously nothing more than an appeal to the emotions and an exploitation of peoples' fear surrounding the term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.250.92 (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Abortion Violence
Why is there no section on any abortion-related article on violence against pro-life demonstrators? Seems a little one-sided and misleading, especially with all the information on violence against pro-abortion demonstrators. Or would we not consider Planned Parenthood's pro-abortion video, in which an androgynous superhero shoots, kills and suffocates abortion protestors as violence? In addition -- not that it is a unique event in any way -- an abortion protestor was just shot this week.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html 216.185.250.92 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just discussing this very thing on the anti-abortion violence page. I have several sources and when I have the time will write in a section about violence against pro-life. If Wikipedia keeps removing it, it will show their censorship and liberal bias. BenW (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been a bit of discussion about this in the past (see below this post). That said, new, bold contributions are always welcome. However, I have issues with your edits due to sourcing. Have you read, and are you familiar with our sourcing policies and guidelines (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CS)? Most importantly, Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Out of your citations, the only one that clearly is acceptable is mlive.com, however, all it says is "And police now believe Pouillon's demonstrations made him the shooter's target." Not exactly the same thing as you wrote in the article. As for the other sources, they seem to fall into the unreliable categories: blogs, self-published, and questionable content (websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions). Outside of mlive, which doesn't even talk about the topic of violence against pro-lifers, none are independent, third party sources with reputations of fact checking or editorial oversight. I think we could have a decent section on this topic, but we need to get it right. We need solid, strong sourcing. We should be following Wikipedia policies. And we need to make sure we get the reliable sourcing in there. Without it, if the content isn't poor and/or biased, it at least gives the illusion of such (imagine the complaint: how can you be NPOV when you are only citing pro-life sources). Anyway, I hope you have several superior sources to contribute. I'd encourage you to keep searching and working on improving that section, because as it is, it very well may be deleted (and not for censorship or liberal bias, but due to poor sourcing and POV concerns, which are Wikipedia policies). Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity of euthanasia and personal choice
In the this article, we see statements like "others believe that individuals, especially adults, should have the right to choose to end their own lives if they become terminally ill or severely disabled." I believe I can appreciate the goal of this statement, but the statement itself raises several questions about the precise philosophic position of the pro-life constituency. I would make the following observations:

- There is no clear distinction made regarding a person killing themselves or having the right to obtain prescriptions or other assistance from medical professionals. I would assume that the issue is primarily about the actions of third parties or disaffected individuals.

- Extending this idea, what does it mean exactly for people to "have the right to choose to end their own lives?" Are they entitled to assistance? Is this concept of a "right" in fact almost entirely related to life-support scenarios? The concept has been introduced with the assumption of understanding, but I would argue that this notion is actually quite vague and may mean a handful of different things.

- In the psychology profession, a desire to commit suicide is generally seen as a sign of mental illness (you may correct me if I am wrong and I know some exceptions like the legal assisted suicide of minors exist, but the exception is so drastic we may question its relevance). Recall that the mentally ill may suffer keen mental and physical distress rivaling that of the terminally ill, yet they are prevented (even by means of physical restraint) from carrying out their wishes. Should this belief/behavior be identified as pro-life? If not, then a distinction should be made or the issue at least mentioned. Does the pro-choice constituency oppose this approach? Has some "common ground" been ignored here?

- There are many relatively "painless" methods for one to commit suicide without external assistance. On a related note, it is virtually impossible (in a practical sense) to prevent a "fit" person from committing suicide. Hence, for a capable individual, can the "choice" actually be taken away and what would the pro-life position say specifically about this "prevention of suicide"?

- Most of the euthanasia passages actually appear to focus on life-support for those incapable of carrying out suicide or turning off the machines that are keeping them alive. This is the only issue that is discussed with real clarity, at least in how it is defined, but the approach is somewhat oblique in that it mentions the issues as examples (e.g. what constitutes life-support). In this case, much of the existing material can be reworked for clarity.

- Suicide is defined as execution of oneself. Despite the common usage, the term physician assisted suicide is essentially a misnomer. We find that modern terms like this may actually involve merely a CHOICE (usually made in advance) on the part of the affected individual with the actual "termination" carried out by someone else. Some will argue that this constitutes the actuation of a desire which would be carried out by the person if it were possible, but this is often merely a hypothetical construct since no conscious decision about the present state is involved (e.g. Schiavo case). At any rate, the point here is to show that the issues involved are neither trivial nor immediately clear and one can see how these distinctions may relate fundamentally to the opinions people have on these issues.

I only have time right now to work through my thoughts and not to actually submit revisions. I hope that these comments will either prompt others to revise for clarity or at least list the thoughts behind the revisions I may attempt myself. In conclusion, at present, the pro-life stance on euthanasia may be misrepresented, unclear, or both. I understand that a detailed discussion is best left to a separate article, but the current passages are just not sufficiently clear even for a summary. BenMhWlk (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I might add that the passages also completely fail to address the concept of euthanasia as it is applied to animals; i.e. the killing of a disabled person in spite of something as "mild" as lack of prior conscious consent (in a comatose individual) or as drastic as killing in spite of wishes to the contrary. Again, we need to make these distinctions if you wish to be fair to the pro-life constituency as we can assume that they will also make these distinctions. Both sides must have a chance to make a compelling argument as lack of clarity and distinctions about the particulars of a scenario may make the proponents appear unreasonable or worse. BenMhWlk (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism
The anti-Defamation League has asserted that certain strands of the pro-life movement harbour anti-semitic views, presumably because of support for abortion among large sections of the American Jewish community. This should maybe be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia's entries about the abortion debate, along with appropriate sources of course. ADM (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

strange unsourced paragraph about legislative means vs. birth control/sex education
There is a paragraph that has had fact tags since October 2008, and has recently been expanded to included a snide swipe at the Catholic Church, and unsourced claims of facts regarding what means is superior in reducing abortions. There paragraph, in full, is copied below:


 * In contrast, there are yet others who find that the pro-life movement's focus on legislative means is heading down the wrong track, believing that working through means of sex education, birth control, and aid to single mothers will more realistically reduce abortions while also drawing others into the movement.[citation needed] Rather than causing a political divide by arguing what can and cannot legally be done and what laws should be passed about it, such non-legislative pro-life goals are sought in order to bridge the gap with those who may consider themselves against abortion but pro-choice, because they cannot agree with passing restrictive laws—whether concerning gestation or anything else.[citation needed] Many groups, such as the Catholic Church, that refer to themselves as "pro-life" oppose these methods, despite their efficacy in reducing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.

While there may be some valid points in there, it has the problem of being poorly worded in places (which gets into POV issues), and is completely unsoruced. I'd suggest that those who want to include the paragraph, find sources to back it up, and we can work together to tweak it. Otherwise, I'd be happy to see it go. What do others think of the paragraph? What can be done to improve it? Any ideas on how to source those claims? Also, is this paragraph appropriate for the "diversity of pro-life views" section?-Andrew c [talk] 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This article was recently under attack of a new user who tried in a very biased and tendencious way to give a more pro-choice tone in some of the most controversial topics. I changed the best I could some of the most controversial aspects of it. I would like to remind to the users that this article needs reliable sources and there are many who don´t deserve credit because they try to distort historical evidence, who points that people like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, whatever their belief in the appearence of the soul nevertheless comdemned abortion in any stage of pregnancy.Mistico (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Too Focused in the United States
This article needs a cleanup to not to appear too centered in the situation of the pro-life movement in the United States.Mistico (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Perhaps you can help by expanding the article, Mistico!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that, but according to the Wikipedia policies your article about History of early Christian thought on abortion seems to personal and not in the NPOV that is required for such a controversial subject. I think it should be more focused in the fact that the first Christians based is views on abortion in the Christian teachings from the Gospels, like the Church Fathers here quoted. Please read the Wikipedia policies on original research and reliable source. The article about History of early Christian thought on abortion is written like in a personal essay style and does show two unreliable sources. The amazon site is totally unaceptable and even more such a sectarian group like Catholics for a Free Choice. If Feminists for Life, according to Wikipedia, aren't a reliable source so aren't they.85.242.236.182 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Violence against pro-lifers
This section needs some major work, and is problematic in its current state. It would perhaps be comparable to an unannotated, uncontextualized list of pro-lifer who have been arrested. What is the purpose of the list? How is it notable? How does it relate to the topic of the article? Cherry picking 15+ year old local newspaper articles seems problematic. Shouldn't there be a substantial secondary or tertiary source analyzing these events? The problem with citing such news stories directly in this manner is that they lack "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" found in substantial, reliable secondary sources. I'd almost say that such a list would be original research. See where I'm going with this? Anyone agree? -Andrew c [talk] 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew - I'll be the first to agree that more work is needed on this section. But I'm sure you'd agree that we've got to start somewhere: gathering referenced material on these events that clearly relate to the pro-life movement is certainly a good place to start. I do not agree that it constitutes original research - it's "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research"". Perhaps if the section were to give birth to a separate article, the list-format could be moved away from the main article in favor of a more synthetic approach, but I don't know if such a creation would be warranted.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is there is no context to any of these events. It's as if someone did a basic news search and compiled the list themselves. What of the firebombing? Was it a targeted attack? politically motivated? a random act of violence? prankster teens? I see no reason what so ever to list the firebombing as there is nothing in the one cited source to relate it to the pro-life movement, outside of a building used by pro-lifers was involved. If a pro-lifer got in a violent car accident that made the news, would we post that? If a pro-lifer was violently mugged on vacation would we post that? Additionally, I feel like we really need an introduction to the list. Your quote above goes on to say Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. Further down the page we get Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. I believe that each cited news incident is A and B and that the C in this example would be that these acts of violence are somehow related to the "pro-life movement", and that the list being in this article without any further synthesis or analysis from sources is still drawing a conclusion C not found in any source (and is thus Original Research). We need to find a general source that makes claims along the lines of "pro-lifers have been the target of organized (or random or impulsive or reactionary?) violence over the years". We need something to draw this all together, otherwise this list by itself is original synthesis.-Andrew c [talk] 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any outside implication ("C") is being deduced from the events listed here. The only implication is that these events have one point in common: they relate to pro-life activists or organizations having been subjected to violent acts, a fact included in the articles; therefore these events seem to me quite relevant here. There is no other implication made, notably about the authors (the heading is not "abortion-rights violence", e.g.). Here, the only implication of A and B is... A+B, not C.
 * As for the questions you raise about including the Gainesville firebombing - I would suggest that if it is reasonable to think that an individual/building was targeted for reasons other than because of his/its affiliation with the pro-life movement, then the event has no place here. But if it is overwhelmingly probable that there is a link, it belongs here. In the same way, the anti-abortion violence article rightly includes a number of events as linked to the abortion issue, sometimes without certainty for lack of finding the culprits. Yes, the firebombing of a Right to Life building 'could' be unrelated, just as the firebombing of an abortion clinic 'could' be random/prank/provocation/etc - but it seems reasonable to me to assume that a firebombed abortion clinic was attacked 'qua' abortion clinic, and a pro-life building 'qua' pro-life building.
 * I agree that an introductory sentence is needed, if only to clarify that nothing is "implied" outside what is stated in the references for the events. I'm proposing a sentence on the main page, on the "A+B" model described above. Does it suit you?--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "firebombing", reasonable or not, such a conclusion would be original since it isn't in the source material. It appears we are at a standstill. The list by itself doesn't seem within policy to me, you disagree and seem to show no interest in finding any adequate sourcing that makes such a synthesis. I think we are in need of a third (or more) opinion. -Andrew c [talk] 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we basically read policy differently - basically on the question of "when does A+B become C". Other opinions would be very welcome.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked for more input, ORN. -Andrew c [talk] 14:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussions above and below, and the recent edit history of this article involving adding OR and poorly sourced content, I've gone ahead and boldly removed this section. There does not appear to be consensus to keep the section, and as it was (in parts clearly, and in other parts arguably) in violation of basic Wikipedia policies concerning sourcing and original research. I'd gladly discuss it further, and I welcome reworks and rewrites with better sourcing. -Andrew c [talk] 22:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree with your objections or your move, but will not reinstate the section as it was but rework it to try and answer your concerns. --Matthew Moorhead (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. See the discussion towards the bottom. Another user showed interest in rebuilding a section on violence against pro-lifers as well, and maybe you could work together. I'd also like to contribute, but I have been coming up short on sources (and my time is limited, given the time of year). Anyway, good luck, and be well! -Andrew c [talk] 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Violence targeting pro-life
There are currently three incidents put forth as "targeting pro-life activists", yet none of them qualify. The first is an incident of vandalism against a pro-life building, not activist, and there is no explicit statement of motive. The second is an incident at an abortion clinic. Clearly, if the incident happened at an abortion clinic, then it was the pro-life, not pro-choice, side that was seeking a confrontation. The third is an incident in which several people were murdered, one of which was a pro-life activist, and no established motive. Not exactly a "targeting" of pro-life activists. Since no valid instances have been presented, I am going to delete the section.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Heqwm2; I'm sorry, but I had to undo your last edit cancelling the whole heading concerning violence targeting pro-lifers. I don't believe your arguments invalidate the heading. On the building/activist question, you do have a (minor) point, which could be resolved through rewording rather than suppressing. 2nd event: I don't believe your criticism is valid - shots fired at a pro-choice counter-demonstrator at a March for Life would certainly count as anti-abortion violence. 3d event: that the accused's hostility towards Pouillon was rooted in the latter's pro-life activism is established by the source- and referred to in President Obama's reaction.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, "Suppressing" is a loaded term. On the second, how valid the term "anti-abortion violence" would be would depend on many factors, and I think that getting bogged down in what would be the best terminology in hypothetical situations would be more obfuscatory than helpful. The cite does not establish that the motivation was specifically due to the victim's political views, rather than merely a response to being harassed, and saying that he was "targeted" when he sought out the confrontation is Orwellian. On the third, you are engaging in synthesis, and synthesis based on anonymous police officers making comments with unclear bases at that. Your edit strongly suggests a motivation to "balance" out the article with whatever you can construe as anti-pro-life violence, and a failure to understand the asymmetry of the issue. The section that precedes yours is "Violence against abortion providers", not "Violence against pro-choice activists". Any attempt to "balance" a section on violence against abortion providers is doomed to failure, as there is no pro-life counterpart to "abortion providers". The pro-choice side does not regularly engage in the blockade of people's places of work or medical facilities. Heqwm2 (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't question my "motivation" - let's stick to the substance of the issue. I don't know why you put this in terms of symetry/asymetry with violence against abortion providers. The only legitimate concern regarding symetry is methodological: that, especially on an issue subject to contentious debate, the same criteria be used to judge, in this case, the relevance of given events - and that's what WP guidelines are for (As an aside: the tolerance on WP for non-neutral terms such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is a sign that symetry is important, and in that case trumped general guidelines). And of course, to answer your concern, there will be no symetry of result between this section and the one above it: the asymetry (quantitative and qualitative) will always appear clearly.
 * Here are what I believe to be the real issues: Is there such a thing as "violence against pro-lifers"? I think this is well established by the references - and reinforced by the presidential declaration that reads the Pouillon murder as being linked to the abortion debate. Is this concern relevant to the general article, the pro-life movement? I also answer yes, both thematically and on the question of importance (the mere fact that the President reacted publicly to the Pouillon murder certainly establishes that event as important). Is the section perfectible? Well, yes, of course! If you don't feel "targeting" is the right word, let's try to find a better one ("subjected to", "victims of"... ?)--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the mere fact that the President mentioned something make it notable? Once we start putting this is accurate terms, it becomes hard to maintain an argument of notability. There are pro-lifers that have been victims of crimes? So what? Is there any demographic group that has not been the victim of a crime? Is there violence against pro-lifers in the sense of a sustained effort to engage in violence against them? No, there is not. I don't see how there is much relevance to the article in these events. Heqwm2 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life prayer
there is a picture of some people from Bound4life, a prayer organization that I participate in and the caption reads "Pro-life protesters make a silent demonstration in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C." although I am probably considered biased to most people because I am part of the organization, I would like to point out that we are not protesters or demonstrators. when we go out with the life tape on we are participating in a prayer meeting. we are not there to protest demonstrate or to grab anybodies attention. all this can be found in the organizations website Bound4life and the wiki article Bound4lifewiki. therefor the statement that we are "silently demonstrating" is false. although i can see how somebody can come to the conclusion that we are protesting, this is not true which is why i suggest that it be changed to something along the lines of "people praying for the ending of abortion in front of the supreme court of the united states" I have changed it once but it was quickly changed back. instead of creating more confusion or starting an editing war I figured it would be more productive to state the intentions of Bound4life so that there would be no more confusion on the subject.


 * Almost seems like Orwellian doublespeak. When we have an independent third party source, such as CNN, and then a closely related partisan site like LifeSiteNews.com both describing the groups actions as "protest" and/or "demonstration", I think it is fine to characterize it as something that most people would recognize as such. If it isn't doublespeak, it seems like a euphemism, and it doesn't seem neutral to describe such events in biased terminology. On top of that, while it may be probable that this is a bound4life group, there isn't any evidence that it is. I don't believe, especially in 2005, that the group had a patient on the red "life" tape. The photographer did not note the name of the group, and I could not find any reference through a web search to any bound4life actions on that date. We should be cautious when we don't have sources. I feel the current wording is neutral and informative. I wouldn't mind changing the word "protesters" to "advocates" or "campaigners" or something else if you think that may help. -Andrew c [talk] 18:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see now, thanks for the insight. "sorry my formatting skills are lacking"

CarolineWH's edits
CarolineWH insists on using the term "pregnant woman" rather than the term "mother" in the Islam section despite the previous unabated use of the term "mother" in that section and the use of the term "mother" by the source. The user has also made the blanket statement "the medical community" sees the use of the term "Pro-life" as being "premature, emotional and biased" based on the opinion of a single author. I do not believe that either of these edits should stand but though it best to bring them to the talk page. Your thoughts? - Schrandit (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In English, on this topic, while it may seem overly careful on first glance, "mother" is probably a word to be avoided in order to remain NPOV. "Pregnant woman" is surely awkward however.  Perhaps "woman" instead of "pregnant woman"?  (No view on the other issue) BobKawanaka (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob, yes, that's also the consensus on the topic in Talk:Indirect_abortion, where Schrandit just tried to raise the issue and found a lack of support. He's just here shopping for a venue.
 * I agree that we should use "woman" when possible, since it's less awkward, and in fact, that's what I've done. We should also be careful to leave "mother" when quoting a source directly. CarolineWH (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Caroline, shopping for a venue? What are you talking about?  Not only is that a tad insulting it doesn't make much sense.  Reaffirming consensus on this article has no bearing on what happens on the other article you are trying to change.  Flip through this page's edit history and check the talk archives, consensus favors mother, what you must now do is present your reasoning for why this article should expunge the term mother in favor of a different term.  Defending your generalization regarding the medical community would be for the best as well. - Schrandit (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What in the talk archives? This? or Terms like "mother" and "baby" understandably have strong emotional connotations not found in more neutral scientific terminology. As for the history of this article, it was at the end of April of this year when an anonymous IP editor introduced the "the life and well-being of a mother" language. Before that, the article lacked the language back till 2006. I don't see a problem with the mother change CarolineWH made, and I don't see this "consensus" Schrandit discusses. It's just a couple stupid words. One is more controversial than the other, so why not avoid the controversy, and stop arguing over such petty junk on multiple articles. ;P-Andrew c [talk] 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it is small and I promise I won't be crushed if it goes the other way but I think it is important. This is controversial but to me the idea that when our language, our religions, our doctors, our schools and our legal systems all use the term "mother", and especially when our source uses the term, that we should be forced to excise it in favor of an unnatural and unused phrase, that we should be forced to censor ourselves is far more controversial that the word "mother".
 * The section we are arguing about was only added a week ago and its source, the BBC (who no one can accuse of being particularly pro-life) explicitly uses the term "mother".
 * Per Caroline's other edit I strongly feel it is inaccurate to make a blanket statement about the entire medical community based on a single source. - Schrandit (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have seen no arguments in support of the generalization regarding the medical community I plan on removing it. - Schrandit (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. -Andrew c [talk] 17:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that an published academic article is not sufficient to support the claim that all doctors recognize the bias in this terminology. Then again, that's not really the claim that's intended here.   I've therefore qualified the claim down so that it's supported by the citation.  In particular, I took care to restore the word "biased", which Schrandit removed with no explanation. CarolineWH (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say the medical community, there is really no other way to take that. I rememoved the word biased because it wasn't it your source. - Schrandit (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Bob, thanks for fixing the reference so that it didn't misleadingly read as if just one irrelevant doctor had this view. I do understand your concerns about the word "bias". However, contrary to what Schrandit claimed, I used it specifically because the cited publication did. Given this, would you feel comfortable with its re-insertion? CarolineWH (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Violence
So I figure if we're going to mention violence against abortion providers then we should mention violence against pro-lifers. Mind you, the section that Andrew C removed was poorly sourced but if I could find better citations would anyone object? - Schrandit (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not object, as long as it isn't simply a list of various local/minor news stories of incidents involving pro-lifers as victims (WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOT). We need good, independent secondary sources that describe the phenomenon. We have to acknowledge that the notability, whether warranted or not, is clearly skewed in favor of anti-abortion violence. And we shouldn't be attempting to right some wrong, or introduce balance, if our sources themselves (and the overall mainstream representation) are not balanced. I feel like having the section on anti-abortion violence has driven a number of editors to attempt to balance it, but by doing so, they use unreliable sources such as blogs and other self-published sources, or string together minor news articles to synthesis some said or unsaid original thesis. And I have a feeling part of the problem is that there isn't any good coverage of the topic, and this could be partial due to it's notability and relevance and lack thereof (and maybe partially due to some sort of liberal media bias perhaps?). I clearly do not oppose the section in theory, and would encourage any editor to dig through sources, and work on creating a new version, but to please keep in mind Wikipedia's guidelines on good sourcing. (and after saying this, I checked out the anti-abortion violence section, and deleted some content for similar reasons as stated above). -Andrew c [talk] 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern with the section that you just trimmed down is that it suffers from recentism. I'd much rather see statistics for a period of years than just the most recent crime at any given moment.  The former would be useful and accurate as time passes, while the latter ages too quickly. CarolineWH (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt, for whatever reason anti-abortion violence has been better covered that pro-abortion violence and that would be taken into account. I'm just saying as long as we are going to cover violence we ought cover it from both directions.  There have only really been a few high-profile instances of pro-abortion violence so there would still be a natural disparity in size between the two sections. - Schrandit (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't ascribe to coverage what can be explained by underlying popularity. There seems to be genuinely little pro-choice violence, in comparison to the "pro-life" violence.  This may well be due to the fact that a pro-choice person wants women to choose, so they would not be offended if a woman chose to become a mother.  On the other hand, a "pro-life" person believes that the choice to terminate a pregnancy is wrong, even akin to murder.  Add a Biblical eye-for-an-eye mentality, and it makes perfect sense. CarolineWH (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues
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)

Recent changes.
I hope you'll pardon my boldness in making a few changes. I recognize that some may be considered controversial, though most would not. 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) 05:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have already suggested elsewhere, it might be more helpful if you were to refrain from controversial edits until after consensus has been reached. I would, again, suggest that you institute a request for comments on this issue. As I have said before, I will be happy to second any such neutrally-worded request. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits here did not involve removing inappropriate uses of "mother" in Wikipedia, and there is also no RfC on that matter of content, so I believe my edits were entirely appropriate. CarolineWH (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The involve removing what you believe to be inappropriate uses of "mother" on Wikipedia. - Schrandit (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they involve removing a confusing and inaccurate phrase. Please see below before commentiong further. CarolineWH (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"in certain narrowly defined contexts"
Paul, you've tried to add the above phrase, but I removed it because I consider it vague and misleading. The reference to "some in the medical community" makes it clear that a medical context is specified, since that's the only one that doctors speak authoritatively about. Give this, "certain contexts" is just coy and "narrowly defined" is POV.

For these reasons, I feel that your suggested changes harm the article and violate Wikipedia rules. If you have what you believe to be a convincing counterargument, I encourage you to share it, but I want you to understand that it is quite possible that we will differ as to what is convincing. CarolineWH (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S.

I found that article and I have indeed read it through, so if there's something specific that you're alluding to, I would suggest you share it. CarolineWH (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to make this issue easier to follow, I've taken the liberty of copying the abstract here:

The best interests of our patients are served by using language that both supports patient autonomy and is neutral. While it remains a "tentative" pregnancy (ie, before the completion of normal prenatal tests), the term "fetus" should be used. After normal prenatal testing, only in rare situations will the pregnant woman request an abortion. In such cases, it is appropriate that the term "fetal patient" or the lay terms "child" or "baby" be used. To be a "mother," however, one must have borne a child. Our language should support the autonomous views of the pregnant woman. The language proposed is not intended to be rigidly adhered to in all situations but rather is an appropriate starting point after which one needs to be responsive to the position of the pregnant woman. It is important to individualize language to cater to the views of individual patients. It is, however, time for doctors to acknowledge that their language can influence reality, particularly because they are frequently considered experts not only in prenatal diagnosis but also in morality. Doctor's language has a powerful influence over the way patients think.

Note that it says that "mother" applies only after birth, and it's fine to use "baby" only when a woman is not expected to want an abortion. This is precisely the context that this article is about, so the version preferred by Schrandit and Paul is very misleading, to the point of contradicting the source.

A reading of the entire article supports the conclusions which may be derived from the abstract, and I would encourage you to go through the entire article if you are at all curious. The link is awkward to paste, so let me just say that it's what comes up from Google Books if you simply google for "Crespigny words matter perinatal". CarolineWH (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Caroline, in your source, does the author suggest a parameter inside which mother should not be used? - Schrandit (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the abstract, it says clearly that, to be a mother, "one must have borne a child". This is the suggested parameter for using mother; if you have not born a child, you are not a mother.  Maybe you should read this before commenting further. CarolineWH (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the abstract, several times, in your article, does the author suggest a parameter inside which mother should not be used? - Schrandit (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the question has been answered. What part do you fail to comprehend? CarolineWH (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain. Paul read the article you cited and says it only recomends mother be avoided in some settings.  You said that the abstract does not lay out such limitations.  I asked asked you what the article says.  You pointed me to the abstract.  I again asked you what the article says.  You said you already answered me and I am now again asking you what the article says. - Schrandit (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you want. If you still don't understand the answer, go read the article. CarolineWH (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so I went and found a copy of the full text of the article. I found the same quote Paul came across and it seems pretty obvious that the author is only recommending that the word "mother" not be used in initial diagnostic situations. - Schrandit (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes or no: did you read the article? CarolineWH (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. - Schrandit (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Did you read the part that said:
 * "'Mother' is appropriate when describing a woman who has borne a child and is inappropriate when describing a woman who has not borne a child."
 * ? CarolineWH (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. I also read the part that said: " "The language proposed is not intended to be rigidly adhered to in all situations" - Schrandit (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and what situations, in specific, do you think that's talking about? If you don't know, that's fine, but it also means you don't understand the article. CarolineWH (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was exceptionally insulting. The author was opining about diagnostic situations. - Schrandit (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is exceptionally mistaken. But I'm very sorry you took insult when none was intended.  Try not to take everything so personally in the future. CarolineWH (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, I guess I just wasn't smart enough to understand the article. It was hard for a simple man like myself to read a piece that was written addressing "Doctors practicing in prenatal diagnosis", that speaks of "Patients given a diagnosis", that opinions "Prenatal diagnosis is fraught with ethical dilemmas." that mentions diagnosis 16 times and whose principle chapter was entitled "Language in prenatal diagnosis" and see that the author (who holds a Diploma of Diagnostic Ultrasound and whose principle work is in diagnosis) writing in a journal about diagnosis was not actually writing about diagnostic situations.  Perhaps a brilliant person like yourself could take the time to correct my "exceptionally mistaken" views but please, use small words. - Schrandit (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your WP:OR, not a reasonable inference. All he talks about is what terminology doctors should use when talking to pregnant women.  There is no place in the article where he says "Of course, none of this applies outside of the context of diagnostics".  It's not there: you made it up.  It's your own interpretation, and you're not medically qualified to offer one. CarolineWH (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that is your opinion and it is balanced out by myself and paul and unless that changes... - Schrandit (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For all of the reasons that have been endlessly repeated, this is in not at all persuasive. You didn't read the article, you just grabbed the line out of the abstract that Paul found and took out of context. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As has all too often been the case, this attempt to communicate with Schrandit did not work out. Unfortunately, he has decided that the medical source had limited itself to "diagnostic situations", but this is unsupported in the text of the article. It is possible that he read and comprehended the article, but his comments do not support this. One hint is that he quoted only the sentence that Paul already quoted, which is from the abstract, not the article, and misinterpreted it in exactly the same way.

As such, I chose to undo his changes, which I believe were harmful. If you have a different view, I welcome you to share it. CarolineWH (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, he has decided that the medical source had limited itself to "diagnostic situations", but this is unsupported in the text of the article. It is possible that he read and comprehended the article, but his comments do not support this.  One hint is that he quoted only the sentence that Paul already quoted, which is from the abstract, not the article, and misinterpreted it in exactly the same way."CarolineWH (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From Words matter: Nomenclature and communication in perinatal medicine by Lachlan de Crespigny, March 2003 - Summary, line 4 - "The language proposed is not intended to be rigidly adhered to in all situations"
 * Caroline, two editors have taken the time to track down and read the opinion piece you have been pushing around and disagree with your conclusion. Is it possible that you were wrong? - Schrandit (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the quote that Schrandit bolded above is not from the article. Rather, you can see that it's from the abstract above, where it's taken out of context and misinterpreted.  Having read the entire article, I see no justification for Paul's claim about diagnostics being the sole applicable context.  In fact, I don't see how anyone could arrive at that conclusion, so I can't explain Schrandit's agreement as coincidence.  Furthermore, misrepresenting a medical article on patient protocol as an "opinion piece" is consistent with not having read it.
 * If you really want to understand just what the doctor ordered, I urge you to read the article and see for yourself. All of it, not just the abstract. CarolineWH (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be very clear, it is, it is in line 4 of the summary. That is, if you read it.  Paul and I have and it looks like we came to a different conclusion than you did.  The article is an opinion piece and it is one that was written by an Australian abortinist who dabbles in politics.  It cannot be held up as a representation of the global medical community. - Schrandit (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just not there, and anyone can see that. Likewise, your hostility towards this doctor only shows that you are biased.  I reject your unsupported conclusions. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit
Schrandit, your recent change was inappropriate, not only because of the content but also the edit message and the lack of participation here in Talk. The edit message was demeaning, as it suggested that an issue that both Paul and I find significant is not. Ignoring Talk is even worse, since this is a controversial article and even WP:BOLD has its limits. Finally, I do notice a worrying pattern of you and Paul working together to modify articles while avoiding discussions to build consensus. I'm sure this is not intentional, but the best thing you can do to dispell this apparent pattern is to join us in the section above. CarolineWH (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. My message noted my belief that you have taken your source out of context, nothing more.  I have participated on the talk pages as much as you have and I don't particularly like what you are inferring about myself and Paul. - Schrandit (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how it reads, and that's not how it looks. As has been recently made clear to me, perception matters. CarolineWH (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you have chosen to perceive it that way. - Schrandit (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't blame me for how you make things look. CarolineWH (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "As has been recently made clear to me, perception matters." CarolineWH (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC) - Schrandit (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pro tip: when you do something that looks bad, you don't get to blame others for noticing. CarolineWH (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel that I did something that looks bad. - Schrandit (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologizing for my feelings is rather pointless, since the issue here is your actions. CarolineWH (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I really hoped Schrandit would focus on content here. He claimed that there are actually some Jewish American pro-life organizations. As far as I can tell, this is not the case, and Schrandit did not offer any evidence. Likewise, no explanation was ever given for the changes which removed the details about which sort of Christian views were involved in the two cases. CarolineWH (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Caroline this edit was unacceptably childish. There are many liberal Christians who oppose abortion, don't try to put the pro-life movement in a box.  The "Any deliberate destruction" sentence is already phrased as an opinion, there is not need to further phrase it as an opinion.  There are pro-life Jewish organizations and importantly, the source did not say that there are no Jewish pro-life organizations but you didn't look at the source, you just reverted my work.  The language in the term controversy section is still disputed and being discussed here, there was no reason to change it.  Finally, George Tiller is not a member of his Church, he stopped being a member of his Church when he died but rather than read that sentence you just decided to blindly revert my work.  Your opinion of me or of the pro-life movement or of Christians or of whatever is driving edits that are harmful to this project and I'm tired of dealing with it. - Schrandit (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here. The main one is content.  The one that should be secondary is conduct, but your behavior is bringing it to the forefront.  It is just fine to disagree with my edit, but it is flatly unacceptable to call it "childish".  This is a blatent violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, to the extent that there is no point even attempting to discuss content with you.
 * I ask that you retract your insults and offer a genuine apology before we continue. CarolineWH (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't really care what you think of me or my religion or whatever but following me around and blindly reverting my edits is childish and when you do to the point where you are inserting categorically false material that damages the encyclopedia I'm not going to feel bad about saying so. - Schrandit (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You made this same claim on your talk page, where I refuted it. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, if anyone can name a Jewish pro-life organization, or even a credible mention that such things exist, I will immediately remove the sentence that claims there aren't any. This is a minor issue that's easily settled by reliance on sources.  CarolineWH (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I found one! Sort of, anyhow.  The web site for JewsForLife.org isn't loading, but I have an article from them in a Catholic source.  I'm going to remove the erroneous sentence now.
 * In hindsight, it would have been great if this minor content issue could have been resolved with references in the first place. CarolineWH (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was, by me, and then you just hit the revert button, twice. - Schrandit (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is demonstrably false, since your edit left the sentence fragmentary, while I did my research, found the reference, then made a correct change. You keep making statements which are false.  It can only hurt your credibility. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * After reading through, I have to agree with Schrandit. I can't believe that such changes would even be considered here for this page.  They are obviously seeking to influence the language to a liberal, feminist viewpoint, using as their sole source a single abstract 'recommending' on a shaky basis the use of the language.  Furthermore, that single source is Lachlan de Crespigny, a pro-abortion activist.  I would strongly hope this page does not change, en masse, all uses of the word mother to the word woman, particularly since in use of phrases like 'life of the mother' few would know what is being talked about.  Perhaps a middle ground that could suit all parties would be use of the term 'prospective mother'.  However, the sourcing provided so far does not appear adequate to override what appear legitimate concerns about the agenda such wording would bring.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

World-wide view
As noted above, this article clearly suffers from a US-centric view. It is not that easily resolved, since some topics are transverse, while others are country-sensitive. I have modified the section about the history of the pro-life movement (which, to be in a truly encyclopedic approach, should probably be more prominent than it is today), and will try to increment it with a more international perspective.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Free ultrasound
The part on free-ultrasounds absoultely MUST mention that because they charge no fee and do not operate under a professional licence, the free-ultrasound people have no legal obligation to tell the truth. If they show you a fake sonogram and lie about what it means, there is NOTHING you can do, legally. Failing to mention this is dangerously close to criminal negligence! SingingZombie (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the passage as needing citation. I believe a citation would have to attest not only that your claim is true, but that it has been raised as an issue.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if we could find a citation, I question the need to include that sentance. - Schrandit (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of whether it is an issue or not - if it has been raised prominently enough, it may be. But this is hypothetical, as there is currently no citation, and a quick search I made didn't give any result. I believe the citation is needed shortly, or else the passage would have to go.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source for the fact that if you don't operate under licence or charge a fee, then you can say whatever you want, is the First Amendment to the Constitution. Sure it doesn't mention abortion but it DOES mention freedom of speech. SingingZombie (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a novel synthesis. You can't go around publishing your own theories here on Wikipedia. Even if we are to assume CPCs are free in the US to say what they want, including lie, it seems off topic without cited evidence that this is a practice that actually occurs, not some hypothetical that some Wikipedian dreamt up.-Andrew c [talk] 03:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, fixed. My contribution to the "free-ultrasound section" now reads: "Because the providers of these ultrasounds do not charge a fee nor work under a professional license, they are not bound by any legal, professional, or ethical requirements, and not subject to the professional oversight which prevents doctors from lying to patients. Dissemination of false information by pro-life counselling centers has been well-documented. [Ref to Congressman Waxman's report]"  Hope that's ok with wiki!
 * A quick control-F on that didn't bring up anything on ultrasounds, is there anything in there about ultrasounds? - Schrandit (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to second Schrandit on this: the issue is not mentioned in the executive summary, and I haven't found it in a quick read-through of the rest. For the record, if it were mentioned it would in my mind make the issue relevant enough to be included in the paragraph, but not under your current wording ("well documented" e.g. certainly cannot be supported by a partisan report alone).--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, did you say a "partisan report"? How about a CONGRESSIONAL report?  How much better-documented can something be, than under a long-standing, trusted Congressman's sworn testimony summarizing a federal investigation???   Are you suggesting Rep. Waxman lied in his report, that his investigators DIDN'T get told abortion causes breast-cancer?  Well, please advise what you WOULD consider well-documented.   And no, Waxman doesn't mention fake ultrasound explicitly.  My entry does not say that the free-ultrasound people ARE showing fakes, only that if they were to do so, there would be no law nor professional licensing board nor licensing REQUIREMENT to stop them, and, that they have been caught spreading lies.  Both of which are true--the former too obvious to source; the other, sourced.  Well, I've fixed it in the article, specifying that so far no fake-sonogram cases have emerged, but that they COULD emerge.


 * The reason this seems so important to me is: if you don't warn the reader that free ultrasounds come with no medical or legal backing, a reader might see your article, decide to get the nice free ultrasound, get lied to, make a misinformed decision based on the lie, and die in consequence of the bad decision. Then you, oh Editors of Wiki, would have her blood on your hands!  SingingZombie (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stay within WP guidelines, both in your tone and in the substance of your contributions. The Waxman report is apparently a partisan - vs non-partisan or bi-partisan - report, it is in no way derogatory to state that: it is simply evaluating the nature of the source. From what I understand, it was drafted by the then-minority staff for congressman Waxman. The paragraph certainly cannot stand as it is based on this source - which, by the way, doesn't mention ultrasounds.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As the CPC article states, it is well documented that some centers have given out false or misleading information to women. The Waxman report is just part of that, as other news sources have covered that topic, so I have some sympathy for SingingZombie's position. However, it isn't clear to me that the reason why CPCs can lie is because of the 1st amendment that somehow paid doctors are exempt from. That part seems like a stretch. Furthermore, this section in this article isn't about CPCs in general, but about the use of ultrasounds. While I may think it is possible that some centers don't have well trained employees using the machines, or possibly purposely giving false information out during an ultrasound, we have no cited evidence to support that. Here are two articles about the use of ultrasound and . Maybe we could say that the centers offering ultrasounds have been criticized for possibly being deceptive or offering false/misleading information. Though, I am a little concerned that is a bit off topic. -Andrew c [talk] 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * RE: "However, it isn't clear to me that the reason why CPCs can lie is because of the 1st amendment that somehow paid doctors are exempt from."


 * The reason the doctors are not protected by the First Amendment is, they collect a fee for practicing good medicine, which means that lying would be FRAUD. The First Amendment does not give you the right to claim you own land you do not own, and then sell it to someone, either!


 * Also, doctors operate under a professional license, which restricts what they are allowed to say. Sure, they have a First-Amendment right to lie if they want, but then the licensing board has a right, and an obligation, to yank their licenses if they do!  Hope this clears things up for you.  SingingZombie (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated to: "Although no cases of fake sonograms have been reported, dissemination of false information by pro-life counselling centers has been reported and documented in a Congressional investigation.[44]"


 * SingingZombie, I appreciate your efforts to amend this passage, but I simply don't believe you've made the case for inclusion of your amendments in this part of the article (let alone in their current length and wording). The Waxman report is prominently mentioned in the article on Crisis pregnancy centers, and rightly so since there is a controversy, but if it doesn't mention ultrasounds it just doesn't seem to belong here.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, pro-lifers don't just show up outside abortion clinics with gory signs and ultrasound machines. Their ultrasound tactic it used in conjunction with these pregnancy centers. I'm starting to feel it may not hurt to state that a) the ultrasound tactic is used in the context of CPCs, which have generally been criticized for giving misleading information. I don't think we are there yet in the wording, though. -Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well isn't there a wiki policy against advertising in articles? And if you say that cpcs do free ultrasounds, without warning the reader that they come with no professional backing, isn't that advertising for the cpcs?  FALSE advertising.


 * As far as the Waxman report goes, I put that in because someone demanded a source. It's a silly demand--how can you source the fact that charities which charge no fee and work under no professional licence, are not subject to professional oversight and to laws against malpractice which govern licenced medical professionals???  That would be like trying to source the fact that the sky is blue, or the fact that "up" means away from the ground, towards the sky.


 * Well, you all will do what you like, but I repeat: if you fail to warn the reader, and someone reads your article and decides to go to cpc for a nice free ultrasound, and gets lied to, and makes a misinformed decision based on the lie, and dies because of the bad decision, then her blood will be on your hands. You can squirm and complain about my tone, but when you finish squirming and complaining, your hands will still be bloody.  Sorry, but facts are facts, boss.  SingingZombie (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At this juncture, I fail to see any solid case for the inclusion of this sentence and reasons to take it out. We have no evidence that this is ever happened or will ever happen and we are floating a unsourced legal opinion.  Unless something can be brought up on the talk page this needs to go. - Schrandit (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be nasty, but I need to suggest to wiki editors that maybe Schrandit should not be editing wiki, because he/she does not know how to read. Go look at his comments on the TALK page for the entry Jill Stanek, the section on Stanek's MANIFEST AND EXPLICIT support for domestic violence, and you will see what I mean.

removal
I've removed the section. If we are going to go on and on about how SingingZombie's text is unsourced, we have to realize that the entire section was unsourced. Neither of the links included said a lick about ultrasounds. One of the links was dead (and presumably was to the Waxman report.) The second link is about federal funding of CPCs in general. Not about ultrasounds. So we have no evidence in the article that pro-life groups use ultrasounds as a form of activism. Here is my proposal: instead of focusing on ultrasounds, which IMO, is not a major form of pro-life activism in the first place, we should instead create a section about CPCs in general. Say that one form of activism is in the form of crisis pregnancy centers that provide services such as x, y, and z, and some have been criticized for being deceptive. I think we can easily take sources and text from the lead of CPC to create the section here. We can probably even mention that ultrasonography is offered at some centers as well, without giving so much weight to that one service. Anyway, I'll work something up and see what other can do to help. -Andrew c [talk] 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

removed text
"*Free ultrasound: One type of pro-life activism is giving free ultrasound scans to pregnant women who are considering an abortion. These usually take place at a crisis pregnancy center. The theory behind this practice is the belief that the pregnant woman will decide to carry to term once she views images of the fetus. In the US, under the Bush administration, federal funding was provided for many crisis pregnancy centers. Because the providers of these ultrasounds do not charge a fee nor work under a professional license, they are not bound by any legal, professional, or ethical requirements, and not subject to the professional oversight."


 * I agree with your move: the focus on ultrasounds was probably a mistake. Not entirely convinced by all the current wording in the paragraph, but I don't have time to look into it right now. All in all, I believe it improves the article, so kudos.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you get the time, feel free to improve it. Thanks for the kind words. I was basically just copying and pasting from the CPC article and it's history (looks like it has gone downhill since last I looked). The list of services is unsourced, and we could probably combine the criticism into one sentence, instead of two.-Andrew c [talk] 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I took some time following up. My issues with the passage (which mostly, by the way, relate to wording that predates your recent changes): Beyond that (sorry to go off-topic!), I believe other changes are called for in the article, some as a consequence of the change in the name of the article from "pro-life" to "pro-life movement" this summer: the sections should be refocused on their relation to the movement, not only to pro-life views: the section on religions comes to mind; likewise, the section on violence should be about the relation of the pro-life movement to violence (rejection of, accusations of collusion with...). Any thoughts?--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the section itself - would one really describe CPCs as forms of "activism"? Perhaps renaming the section "types/forms of advocacy" would enable it to mention forms of action that don't quite qualify as activism.
 * The wording on CPCs themselves may benefit from being qualified in places: the overall tone seems harsh. Also, to be in an encyclopedic perspective, a greater emphasis may be put on quantifiable information (number of centers), etc. I'll put forward some new wording this week-end, please tell me what you think about it.


 * Yeah, since everyone was arguing over the ultrasounds/activism part, I stood back and said "wait, ultrasounds as activism isn't even sourced, we should remove it". But since people seemed attached to that section, I thought replacing it with the related topic of CPCs would satisfy those who seemed to be defending the section. In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better to simply delete and not replace with anything, and maybe discuss CPCs in another section. But then again, part of me feels like CPCs belong in that section more than any other, even if we do have to make it a bit broader than "activism". Anyway, your suggestions sound good. Numbers and facts and figures definitely would help. -Andrew c [talk] 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited the CPC section, open of course to your (and others') review.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

George Tiller
Is it really worth mentioning a single American in a global article? - Schrandit (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be arguable. The pro-life movement is to a considerable extent an American phenomenon - the term "pro-life" is most often used in the US, as I understand it. So it probably is worth mentioning Tiller. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes to activism/advocacy section
I've made some changes along the following lines:
 * I've generally replaced "Activism" with "advocacy" (a point I raised above): advocacy is both more neutral and wider in what it emcompasses (CPCs are arguably advocacy, but hardly activism).
 * I've added a mention of traditional mass demonstrations, as opposed to smaller-scale picketing, life chains, etc.
 * For clarity, I've tried to reorganize in subsections (demonstrations & counseling). Perhaps this can be refined further?
 * I stopped short of deleting the sections on "prominent pro-life activists" - but I don't believe it brings much added value in its current form, and do suggest it be deleted for the time being (it could reappear somewhere else, but I don't believe the current list is very helpful - no offense !) Any thoughts?--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the content of the "prominent pro-life activists" section is important, it should be added to other sections. A separate section is not needed. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll proceed with deleting the sub-section. I'll try to re-use some material, perhaps also reviving some content from "diversity of pro-life views" that existed in previous versions of the article.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported Statement
"Furthermore, polls conducted by the Guttmacher Institute have shown that women from religious denominations that are pro-life are as likely to have abortions as women who are not" is not supported by the source it is attached to. In fact, the source that is attributed to it states that "single women who live with their partner or have no religious affiliation are about four times as likely as other women their age to have an abortion"

Changing statement to reflect this. --82.37.90.70 (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On closer evaluation, the situation is complex, and the cited source makes no such claim (either supporting the old wording or new wording). Both are original synthesis of the source. You are interpreting the facts in a way not clearly supported or published by the source. Since the study is over 15 years old, I'd suggest cutting it entirely from the article. We can all agree that the Catholic church is a religious denominations that is pro-life. The citation says "Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women". Thus, from using that one statistic, we could say that "Women from pro-life denominations are MORE likely to have abortions", right? Just as your are doing by focusing on a different point (that says nothing about pro-life denominations, just religious affiliation in general). Again, neither the old wording or your new wording are supported by the text, and I'm going to remove for now. -Andrew c [talk] 14:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No we couldn't, since depending on how you'd carry the argument, either protestantism is not in itself a denomination, or speaking in general, protestantism is broadly pro-life. It certainly is not honest to call protestantism pro-choice.  What is true, from the source, is that women who have no religious affiliation at all are four times as likely as women who hold religious convictions, so my statement holds.  --82.37.90.70 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this statement should not belong in this article. It is an outdated study and original analysis. Boromir123 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not trying to argue with you anon, or drag this out longer than necessary. Are you OK with cutting the text, even your new text? If so, we can consider this issue closed.-Andrew c [talk] 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminding 82.37.90.70 that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. While what you say may be true, it is not supported by the cite offered. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, Boromir123. I'm a little concerned with your recent edits. Seems like the majority of them have been along the lines of Undid revision ... by IronAngelAlice. It appears that you could be Wikistalking or otherwise bullying IAA. Why are you seemingly not letting another user contribute to this article, and why have you not brought up your concerns here on the talk page (and similarly, I'd ask IAA why they'd re-instate edits during a dispute). Perhaps you two should both stop reverting each other and start talking here. -Andrew c [talk] 20:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I support deleting the Guttmacher statement. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment Andrew c. I will try using the talk page more:) I have had this and related pages on my watch list for some time. I am not wikistalking! I will stay clear of this article for a while as I don't want to surpass the three revert rule. Boromir123 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A sentence needing qualification
We are having a little disagreement about the sentence "Pro-life leaders and groups condemned the killing" in the Violence against abortion providers section. It's a form of language frequently used by politicians, in forms like "Americans believe in.....".

Both quoted pieces above would be true if two people did it, or ten, or 100, or 1,000, or half, or most, or all but one, or all of them. When politicians use that form of expression, it's deliberately vague so that when challenged they can say they meant somehting different from what the challenger is alleging.

We should avoid such vague expressions in Wikipedia. If "ALL Pro-life leaders and groups" did condemn the kiling, we should say so, but I doubt if we can demonstrate that. Obviously plenty of them did, so we should say something better than a statement that would be true if only two of them did. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The main article on the assassination has a section on reactions to the murder. We have quotes from people on both sides of the debate condemning the killing, and we have some less condemning quotes as well... I agree that the sentence needs qualification, and restored your version based on this. I'd hope if there is still disagreement, we can continue discussion here. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 15:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think requiring qualification of the statement in question is a bit of a joke.
 * What a compelling argument.... :P-Andrew c [talk] 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what I'm saying. Every leader of a national organization condemned Tillers death and some crank with a bullhorn made an ambiguous statement.  It is a stretch to call him a leader and undue to give his opinion the same weight as the rest of the American movement. - Schrandit (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I, in fact, didn't know what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying. Without looking further into this, we cite at least 2 individuals, and 1 organization which do not condemn the attack in the main article on the assassination. Are you saying we are giving them undue weight by even mentioning them in the main article on the topic? Or that saying "A large number of..." isn't worded properly enough to convey the weight? We are by no means at all trying to make equal weight to the views. In fact, such a qualification, as was previously introduced, does more to help the weight than hurt it. What is wrong with phrasing it in a manner which makes it clear that 1) the majority of pro-life organizations came out against this and 2) this wasn't the only view of those in the pro-life movement (even if those views are minority or even fringe... they clearly aren't fringe enough to not include them entirely, which appears to be your stance). I'd say, a well worded qualification is entirely there to bolster the weight of the views, not mislead the reader. A phrase without some sort of qualification, however, would be misleading, as it ignores a notable, although less held, view. -Andrew c [talk] 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand further on what I said above, when a politician says "Americans are thinking voters", with any qualification at the beginning, we know he doesn't mean ALL voters. In fact, he is trying to get more voters to think the way he does. He may well think that not enough Americans are thinking voters because they DON'T think the way he does, yet. It's a deliberately manipulative use of language, something we don't want in Wikipedia. We need to qualify the sentence here to emphasis that it was "most" in this case, and not just a few (or whatever it was). HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence didn't say all. We exclude fringe opinions from other group statements, I see this as no different.  If a qualification must be added it would have to be something bulky and contentious on the order of "all pro-life groups except for this one fringe group that has been repeatedly denounced condemned the killings.". - Schrandit (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the opinion of Michael Medved relevant?
Medved is a political pundit and not necessarily a reliable source for what Jewish law says on Abortions. Should it be included or should it be removed? I lean towards removal, however if anyone has any arguments contrary to my own I welcome them. DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Violence against Pro-lifers
Why does Andrew feel the need to censor this section as part of the pro-life page? Why do you even have a section that talks about killing abortion doctors and not have a balance? As well, nothing was copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.223.52 (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would appear that you have cut and paste wholesale from the websites you reference. I'd say that this was probably copyright violation.  Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The material sourced to the life news site clearly had a copyright and licensing disclaimer. The material sourced to HLI is presumed copyright, because under US law it is, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Do you have any evidence that this material is out of copyright? Furthermore, those articles are not encyclopedia articles. You'll need to make some significant revisions in order to bring that content in line with an encyclopedic tone and our style guidelines. Material taken verbatim from other sources often isn't acceptable without editing because of this. Please consider writing this content in your own words, following an encyclopedic tone, within our style guidelines. I'd be glad to assist you if you have questions. -Andrew c [talk] 15:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Until this information was added in, I myself was surprised info about violence against pro-abortionists was provided but not the well-known info provided by that site. I would also, like Andrew, be willing to help with rephrasing it to make it fit guidelines.  I think it key to the page, and can provide some edits to aid in conciseness.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just title one section "Violence" and include as many prevalent acts of violence makes sense.? - Schrandit (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Polling
The polling section seems way too long for this article. Seeing as the polling is neither pro-life, nor pro-choice, it seems like we'd need to duplicate the entire section in both articles. Instead, I'd propose a short summary in both article, pointing to a more detailed section in Abortion_in_the_United_States or possibly creating a new article like Abortion polling in the United States or Public opinion of abortion in the United States. I don't want to loose any good information, and I'd rather see it in a central location, as the polling isn't specifically a pro-life issue. -Andrew c [talk] 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New Polling Section
I tried to merge in the pre-existing polling info from the Debate section and added some MUCH more detailed info from Gallup's main abortion polling article. I tried to use tables to keep it concise, but let me know if anyone has any problems with the length. Also, I have no particular preference for its location on the page, though I think it pertinent enough in comparison to merit a spot more towards the center. This can be achieved via consensus. I think this section very useful, however, for illustrating the public's stand on abortion overall, and displaying the complexity of public beliefs. Again, I'd like to keep this concise, but felt all information provided was relevant. I'd love to hear feedback on this new section. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the edit conflict, I was writing about this as you were as well. I think it is too detailed for this article. We don't need charts with all the questions and percentages here. We could summarize the findings in a sentence or two. We should keep the polling info in a central location, instead of going into that much detail in the pro-life and pro-choice articles. My two cents. :) -Andrew c [talk] 17:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you may be right, it does seem lengthy. It might be best to create a separate article for it so it can be sourced to different articles relating to abortion, which I'm sure could use mention of it as well.  However, I disagree with referencing it in just a few sentences.


 * I am thinking more along the lines of creating a new page for this and leaving in the following, let me know what you think:




 * For more detailed info on public views on abortion, see Abortion Polling.


 * Two polls were released in May 2007 asking Americans "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?", May 4-6. A CNN poll found 45% claiming themselves Pro-Choice to 50% Pro-life. The Right to Life movement initially hailed this poll as evidence that the American majority had become Pro-Life for the first time in several decades; however, the following week, a Gallup poll found 49% responding Pro-Choice and 45% Pro-Life. A May 2009 Gallup poll titled 'More Americans Pro-Life Than Pro-Choice' has confirmed the initial results, revealing a 51% to 42% majority for those calling themselves Pro-Life, a Pro-Life majority for the first time since 1995 when Gallup began polling this question.


 * Another set of recent polls asking this question by Gallup (Abortion article link provided in next section) has resulted as follows:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Date of Poll !! Pro-Life !! Pro-Choice
 * 2010, March 26-28 || 46% || 45%
 * 2009, November 20-22 || 45% || 48%
 * 2008, September 5-7 || 43% || 51%
 * }
 * 2008, September 5-7 || 43% || 51%
 * }
 * }


 * According to Gallup's long-time polling on abortion, the majority of Americans are neither strictly Pro-Life or Pro-Choice; it depends upon circumstances. Gallup polling from 1996 to 2009 consistently reveals that when asked the question, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?", Americans consistently say legal only under certain circumstances.  According to the poll, in any given year 48-57% say legal only under certain circumstances (for 2009, 57%), 21-34% say legal under any circumstances (for 2009, 21%), and 13-19% illegal in all circumstances (for 2009, 18%), with 1-7% having no opinion (for 2009, 4%).


 * It appears clear that Americans overwhelmingly support abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, or when rape and incest has occurred, but do not support it when the woman does not want the child for any reason, or can not afford to have the child (perhaps given that adoption is the preferred alternative). They furthermore support abortion by a large margin in the 1st trimester, but only a small minority support it after the 3rd month of pregnancy.  Polling by Gallup also reveals substantial support for many of the Pro-Life community's legislative initiatives.




 * This would eliminate most of the more detailed polling data for the primary page, and stick to a more summarized version. Perhaps the big 1st paragraph could be trimmed as well to summarize the point.  However, I do think it necessary to summarize this to show the complexity of the issue, again.  Additionally, what remains consists primarily of the key sources so that rather than being information-heavy, it would be sourcing-heavy.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to create a new page on 'Abortion Polling' for Wikipedia to contain this info, but found that it's already somewhat addressed, though from a global standpoint, on Societal attitudes towards abortion. Some additional data can be seen on Abortion_in_the_United_States.  Do you think this merits a new page, or should I try to reform the Societal attitudes one?  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrew, I have brought this up for discussion here, on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abortion page. I also gave you credit for recommending this be stored in a central location.  Perhaps the Abortion Project team could provide feedback on where the information should be stored?  I think this data could really add to the quality of abortion-related pages across Wikipedia.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Abortion Wikiproject is fairly inactive. I'd say the best location would be Abortion_in_the_United_States, as the Societal attitudes isn't about the US only, and expanding the US section in that article with all the polling info would seem a bit overwhelming for that article. Therefore I'd suggest expanding Abortion_in_the_United_States, and if we reach a point where we are saying "jeez, this sure is a lot of information. probably too much for this one article", then we should spin it out to another article. But I think expanding that section first is the best course to take at this venture, and consider starting a new article only when the content gets so heavy it is required. -Andrew c [talk] 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does look pretty inactive. I was thinking the same thing about the societal attitudes, it would be tough to identify the information there.  I will take your recommendation for now and expand the section in that article, and begin work on summarizing here.  Thanks!  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

Alright, the merge has just been completed! I mentioned it on Talk:Abortion_in_the_United_States to let them know this had been discussed first here, and hopefully they can work out any more details about how the info will be presented there. I also did a complete rewrite of the info here in the new section so it's much more concise. However, that 2nd table in the Polling section may still be a bit much, and the section would look a lot shorter if it was removed. I'm willing to remove it if anyone thinks that would be a good idea. Otherwise though, I don't think the section can be trimmed much more without detracting from vital details. Thoughts? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing Last Few Lines
This is notification that I will be removing the following lines from the section, Violence against abortion providers:

"Other organizations, such as Operation Rescue do not commit but controversially publish private information and pray for abortion doctors to be "executed".64 The article states that the founder stated that he hoped that Dr. Hern, a late-term abortionist, would be tried for crimes against humanity and executed. In the article, they specifically say that they do not want to murder him or propose anything violent to him."

This information relies solely on a very shaky source. The source link, when visited, quickly flashes over to a page error listing, though it is possible to 'select all' and copy before it does so. Furthermore, it's for an independent publication of dubious quality, and the article is a clear attack-piece against the pro-life movement. Furthermore, it is citing Media Matters, who in turn provides no link when saying that CBS's 60 Minutes show in 1992 showed Randall Terry praying "But pray that this family will either be converted to God or that calamity will strike him."

The other source provided for Terry's statement is this New York Times article, which provided more perspective on Terry's comments, suggesting it was a reference to a coming judgment, and not that anyone should harm Hern.

Given the outdated nature of this comment, its reliance on a single, heavily biased, and no longer existent source, which was not even cited properly (it's messing up the format of the whole page), and its omission of perspective from the New York Times article that would've hurt its agenda, I am removing this comment until it can be proven worthy of inclusion. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence about operation rescue seems a bit contrived for sure. Don't see how that info came from that cited source. As for the source itself, I am not experiencing and issue viewing it over here. I haven't done research into how reliable the source is either. It seems like there may be some OK information about how Hern feels threatened, but that is probably too specific for this article anyway. I'm fine with your removal. -Andrew c [talk] 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's odd, it kept repeatedly closing the page before and giving a DisqUS no page found error. Oh well. Still, in agreement, I am not sure it's relevant given how long ago this happened (1992) and given the poorly established nature of what was actually said (plus the information which wasn't getting mentioned by the New York Times that provided perspective).  I would hope if such claims are to be made in the future by whoever the original author was, that they'll rely on more recent events.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Violence Against Pro-Life Movement
Alright, I started up a section on this as promised, building off the site previously mentioned. I even had a good find with some quick research of a video called 'A Superhero For Choice' I'm sure Planned Parenthood would prefer people not know about. Anyway, I think this should give the section a start anyway. As you can see, I'm keeping it precise for now, and not overloading on detail to make sure only the absolutely necessary stuff gets mentioned at first. It can be enlarged upon later. This is just some quick (emphasis on quick) research to get the section started. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Debate
This section seems to be more opinionated attempts at summarizing. The use of the term 'pro-choicers' doesn't sound that professional (maybe pro-choice supporters, instead), nor does that use of an in-page citation ("(See, e.g., Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion," Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971), p. 47.)") at the end.

I would recommend as an alternative, posting of famous viewpoints on the issue, most notably that of famous Judge Henry Friendly. The recently revealed draft by the Honorable Judge Friendly, which was actually written in a decision before Roe v. Wade, yet as fate would have it not published as the defining case on abortion in place of Roe due to its being settled before a decision could be reached, can be seen here in the Harvard Law Archives, as an appendix to an analyzing speech by another federal Judge, A. Raymond Randolph. Some interesting points by Judge Friendly:


 * A holding that the privacy of sexual intercourse is protected against governmental intrusion scarcely carries as a corollary that when this has resulted in conception, government may not forbid destruction of the fetus. The type of abortion the plaintiffs particularly wish to protect against governmental sanction is the antithesis of privacy. The woman consents to intervention in the uterus by a physician, with the usual retinue of assistants, nurses, and other paramedical personnel, indeed the condition calling for such intervention may very likely have been established by clinical tests. While Griswold may well mean that the state cannot compel a woman to submit to an abortion, but see Buck v. Bell ___U.S. ___ (___), it is exceedingly hard to read it as supporting a conclusion that the state may not prohibit other persons from committing one or even her doing so herself.


 * Plaintiffs say that to confine Griswold to the protection of marital privacy is to read the case too narrowly. They regard it as having established a principle that a person has a constitutionally protected right to do as he pleases with his—in this instance, her—own body so long as no harm is done to others. Apart from our inability to find all this in Griswold, the principle would have a disturbing sweep. Seemingly it would invalidate a great variety of criminal statutes which existed generally when the 14th Amendment was adopted and the validity of which has long been assumed, whatever debate there has been about their wisdom. Examples are statutes against attempted suicide, homosexual conduct (at least when this is between consenting unmarried adults), bestiality, and drunkenness unaccompanied by threatened breach of the peace. Much legislation against the use of drugs might also come under the ban.




 * One would have to be insensitive indeed not to be deeply moved by the evidence the plaintiffs have presented. Testimony is scarcely needed to understand the hardship to a woman who is carrying and ultimately bearing an unwanted child under the best of circumstances. The evidence shows how far circumstances often are from the best. It stressed the plight of the unmarried mother, the problems of poverty, fear of abnormality of the child, the horror of conception resulting from incest or rape. These and other factors may transform a hardship into austere tragedy. Yet, even if we were to take plaintiffs’ legal position that the legislature cannot constitutionally interfere with a woman’s right to do as she will with her own body so long as no harm is done to others, the argument does not support the conclusion plaintiffs would have us draw from it. For we cannot say the New York legislature lacked a rational basis for considering that abortion causes such harm. Even if we should put aside the interests of the father, negligible indeed in the many cases when he has abandoned the prospective mother but not in all, the legislature could permissibly consider the fetus itself to deserve protection. Historically such concern may have rested on theological grounds, and there was much discussion concerning when “animation” occurred. We shall not take part in that debate or attempt to determine just when a fetus becomes a “human being”. It is enough that the legislature was not required to accept plaintiffs’ demeaning characterizations of it. Modern biology instructs that the genetic code that will dictate the entire future of the fetus is formed as early as the ___ day after conception; the fetus is thus something more than inert matter. The rules of property and of tort have come increasingly to recognize its rights. While we are a long way from saying that such decisions compel the legislature to extend to the fetus the same protection against destruction that it does after birth, it would be incongruous in their face for us to hold that a legislature went beyond constitutional bounds in protecting the fetus, as New York has done, save when its continued existence endangered the life of the mother.


 * We would not wish our refusal to declare New York’s abortion law unconstitutional as in any way approving or “legitimating” it. The arguments for repeal are strong; those for substantial modification are stronger still. Apart from the humanitarian considerations to the prospective mother that we have outlined, the state’s interest with respect to abortion would seem very much less in an era when the birth rate constitutes perhaps the most serious single danger to society than when a young nation needed people for its development. '''But the decision what to do about abortion is for the elected representatives of the people, not for three, or even nine, appointed judges.

'''
 * Policy choices with respect to abortion are not limited to drastic prohibition like New York’s on the one hand or complete freedom on the other. One variant is a liberalization of grounds. Here there are subvariants. The proposal in the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, which includes danger not only to the life but to the health of the mother, conception as a result of incest or rape, and probable abnormality of the child, is the best-known example. A legislature might decide to enlarge upon this list. It might permit abortions whenever the mother was below (or above) a certain age, whenever she was unmarried, when the parents could establish inability to care for the child, when there were already more than a certain number of children in the household, etc. There is room also for considerable differences in procedures—how far to leave the decision to the physician performing the abortion, how far to require concurrence by other physicians or, where appropriate, psychologists or social workers. One can also envision a more liberal regime in the early months of pregnancy and a more severe one in later months. There is also opportunity for debate, both on ethical and on physiological grounds, as to what is early and what is late. The legislature can make choices among these variants, observe the results, and act again as observation may dictate. Experience in one state may benefit others; this is conspicuously an area for application of Mr. Justice Brandeis’ view that the Fourteenth Amendment should not be so utilized as to prevent experimentation in the laboratories of the several states. In contrast a court can only strike down a law, leaving a vacuum in its place. To be sure, when it does this, it may sometimes be able to indicate how the legislature may remodel the statute to conform it to constitutional requirements. [Cite instances, e.g., FELA, obscenity, wiretapping]. But if we were to accept plaintiffs’ argument based on Griswold, we would have to condemn any control of abortion, at least up to the uncertain point where the fetus is viable outside the womb. We find no basis for holding that by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment the states placed at risk of judicial condemnation statutes then so generally in effect and still not without a rational basis, however one may regard them from a policy standpoint.


 * An undertone of plaintiffs’ argument is that legislative reform is hopeless, because of the determined opposition of one of the country’s great religious faiths. Experience elsewhere, notably Hawaii’s recent repeal of its abortion law, would argue otherwise.


 * But even if plaintiffs’ premise were correct, the conclusion would not follow. The contest on this, as on other issues where there is determined opposition, must be fought out through the democratic process, not by utilizing the courts as a way of overcoming the opposition of what plaintiffs assume but we cannot know to be a minority and thus clearing the decks, thereby enable legislators to evade their proper responsibilities. Judicial assumption of any such role, however popular at the moment with many highminded people, would ultimately bring the courts into the deserved disfavor to which they came dangerously near in the 1920's and 1930's. However we might feel as legislators, we simply cannot find in the vague contours of the Fourteenth Amendment anything to prohibit New York from doing what it has done here.

It's amazing to think that before Roe v. Wade, a prominent federal Judge had already decided against abortion with such incredible reasoning, and hit on so many of the arguments both sides would make even years later. I hold this man in great respect. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, for providing perspective from the other side, I have a source that will surprise many, many people. Barack Obama.  Obama, when speaking against the Illinois version of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in the Illinois Senate, defended the now-illegal practice of partial birth abortion (outlawed by yet another bill, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and even the more controversial practice of allowing children who survived those abortions of being left to die unattended under current law (thus why the BAIPA was passed in 2002).  At any rate, here are Obama's exact words on the bill, along with his words concerning another bill, the Induced Birth Infants Liability Act, which sought to place new requirements on abortions so that in case of live births, another physician would have to verify the child was not alive/viable.  Sourcing is directly from Illinois senate transcripts themselves:


 * TRANSCRIPT, BORN ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT, pp. 84-90


 * "Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living.  Is that correct?"


 * "Well, it turned out - that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.  Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny."


 * "Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.  I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.  For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.  The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it.  Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place.  And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as - as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.  Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference.  I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here.  I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit.  It was.  I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I - I won't, as I said, belabor the point.  I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and - and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a - a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital.  We decided not to do that.  We're going much further than that in this bill.  As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue.  And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present."


 * TRANSCRIPT, INDUCED BIRTH INFANTS LIABILITY ACT, pp. 29-35


 * "Thank you Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield for a question?"


 * "Yes, just along the same lines. Obviously this is an issue that we've debated extensively both in committee and on the Floor, so I -- you know, I don't want to belabor it.  But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation.  So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what's going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements that you've set forth?"


 * "So -- and again, I'm -- I'm not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.  Is that correct?"


 * "Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think, as -- as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let's say for the purposes of the mother's health, is being -- that -- that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.  Now, if -- if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I -- I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a -- an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.  Now, if that's the case - and -- and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue - that's fine, but I think it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.  Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after.  Thank you, Mr. President."


 * As seen in the transcripts, Obama's primary arguments were that since newborn children surviving abortions weren't born to a full 9-month term, they weren't yet human, that we should not burden abortion doctors and trust them to make proper judgements about whether babies are 'born alive', and that we should essentially be placing concern for whether the Equal Protection Clause in such a case would be violating Roe v. Wade, as opposed to ensuring children aren't born alive and killed. It is interesting though to see the other side, although debatable whether his views are representative of the entire Pro-Choice movement.


 * Nevertheless, Obama was indeed a figurehead for the Illinois abortion movement. Pam Sutherland, in defending him from Clinton's accusations during the 2008 primaries, pointed out that he voted 'Present' on many of these controversial 'born alive' bills as a planned strategy to cover other politicians in doing so, by keeping Illinoisans from realizing their representatives were voting against them, since as she put it,


 * "We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes. We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats...  He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women, a 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted.  What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so... A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."


 * Sources:
 * ABC News
 * Washington Post Fact Checker
 * Time Magazine's Swampland Blog
 * PolitiFact
 * Chicago Tribune
 * Huffington Post
 * Chicago Sun-Times


 * --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At any rate, I'm just going to leave this one alone for now, and if anyone thinks an idea like this, of quoting famous viewpoints, would be a good alternative to the current Debate section, this can be brought up again. If nothing else, I'm sure it will be interesting for those on this discussion page to have more insight into where both sides are coming from.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

James Pouillon
Andrew, I noticed your comment questioning whether the murderer of James Pouillon, who did say he killed Pouillon over the signs, was truly a case of pro-choice murder. However, to take that route would be to call into question whether any of the alleged pro-life violence is truly pro-life either, as you'd have an equally tough time showing the murderer of George Tiller, for example, to be substantively affiliated with the pro-life movement. I picked Pouillon primarily because of his prominence in the news and in having national impact, as some of my more recent revisions should bear out. I'd be happy to discuss the matter further, but be aware that closer examination of whether Pouillon's killer is affiliated with the Pro-Choice movement should also mean closer examination of whether alleged Pro-Life violence is associated in actuality with the Pro-Life movement. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mainly I'm just concerned that if such a standard be held, it be held to both sides equally, and that whatever requirements for affiliation be placed on one, also be placed on the other - that's all I'm saying. For example, Westboro Baptist Church is commonly held up as an example of Christian extremism despite the fact that it's a church full of lawyers walled up in a military compound that provokes others into negative reaction, sues them for gain, and has zero ties to organized Christianity; and while I have yet to look entirely into the murderer of Tiller, it appears his affiliation with the Pro-Life movement will appear equally weak.  I just want to make sure if such a standard is held, it's held also to other sides as well.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You sure have written a lot over the past few hours! I'd like to get into this further, as I have issues with some of your edits, but I'm hoping other editors are watching (and agree with me) and can take up the slack :) I agree with your statement in your first paragraph above. This is why the article is titles Anti-abortion violence, not pro-life violence. Also, there was a disparity in the titles, "Pro-choice violence against pro-life movement" vs. "Violence against abortion providers". I think that comparison makes it clear that the title fits better without the word "pro-choice", without getting into the issue that none of the sources call the violence "pro-choice". Maybe I am missing something, and specifically talking about Pouillon, but where does any source we cite mention the killer was pro-choice? As for Tiller, I think that paragraph suffers a bit from recentism. It is the latest news, so people at the time of the events were adding that content, when in the long run, it may not be appropriate for that much detail in this article. I agree with you sentiment of avoiding double standards, which is why we really need to examine some of your sources (given you removed coloradoindependent as "it's for an independent publication of dubious quality, and the article is a clear attack-piece against the pro-life movement.") Could you write your section without citing specifically pro-life and/or partisan websites, but instead major media outlets, or unaffiliated, respectable news serves? Looking forward with working with you, but I may not be around much as I'm busy doing other things. Take care! -Andrew c [talk] 02:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I didn't make that distinction. Would a better title than be 'pro-abortion violence'?  I'm just curious what the title should be changed to, but I think you're right, there is a disconnect between the titles that should be changed.  I will change the title now and trust discussion to make clear if there's a better alternative instead.
 * EDIT - Saw you already made the change, looks good!


 * Concerning Pouillon, the CNN source states, "Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week." Of course, this does not mean he was pro-choice, and indeed could have been offended by the graphic nature of Pouillon's signs (which several articles suggest).  And if so, then additional sourcing would be needed, which will prove difficult since this has not been covered on the same scale that Tiller's death was.  This was also repeated by NBC25.  What's more, it's also disturbing that some of the papers are less interested in calling this a tragedy than in attacking the character of Pouillon (one even brought up his criminal record!).  I wonder what the reaction would've been if this had happened following Tiller's death.  Much of the media appears to already be trying to explain away the death of a pro-life activist, or underemphasize it, and there is currently more examination of Pouillon's background than his killer's.  However, at this point there does not appear to be solid proof that Harlan Drake, the killer, was involved with the pro-choice movement, even if his anger at the pro-life signs implies he was pro-choice.


 * However, in the same way, Tiller's killer, Scott Roeder, does not appear well linked to pro-life groups. As seen here on the Assassination_of_George_Tiller page, his strongest link appears to be to a terrorist group called the Army of God, with the only other one to Operation Rescue, which in turn occurred only because he wanted to attend their trials of Tiller.


 * Also, in Pouillon's case, I already earlier provided sources for FOX News and CNN. Unfortunately, I am not sure I can find anything but pro-life websites for the Planned Parenthood video, as the mainstream media utterly overlooked it.  However, while partisan, World Net Daily, CWFA, Jill Stanek, and Christianity Today should be prominent enough to provide sourcing.  Additionally, I found another source here mentioning the video by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which provides some additional historical perspective on what occurred.  NewsBusters mentioned it.  It's also mentioned on Spike TV's website as "The Pro-Choice Superhero who ruffled conservatives' feathers."  It also references an article by the American Life League's STOPP International condemning the video.  I think the ACLJ example would be a good supporting link, and will include that, along with the STOPP link.  However, I'm not sure I can find much more besides links like this, this, and this from pro-life groups.  I also found references to another previously mentioned news article here and here.  Also noteworthy, a search of '"superhero for choice" planned parenthood' turns up Planned Parenthood's Golden Gate page still, so the video may still be there, just blocked from view.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. The section title, 'Violence against abortion providers' implies it's the Pro-Life movement committing the crimes.  But again, I question whether the evidence supporting Tiller's inclusion is all that much stronger than that supporting Drake's inclusion for the above section.  So if Drake/Pouillon mention is removed, I'd like to see the Tiller one go as well (or else remain only with qualifiers stating Roeder had no affiliation to Pro-Life groups apart from Operation Rescue, which occurred because he wanted info from them about Tiller's trials).  And perhaps the section titles should be changed to something like 'Pro-Life violence against Pro-Choice movement' and 'Pro-Choice violence against Pro-Life movement' instead to ensure it fits the page.  Then, both sections would be required to prove substantial links by the offenders to the other side's movement.  While alternatively, it could use titles of 'Violence against abortion providers' and 'Violence against Pro-Life movement', with very low requirements for showing intention, I'm not sure the style would best fit this page.  I will begin providing a few more links for the Planned Parenthood video like the ACLJ and STOPP ones to improve sourcing.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose another possibility would be a template like this:

--Pro-Choice Violence Against Pro-Life Movement--

(Mention only certain examples of Pro-Choice violence against Pro-Lifers, like Pro-Choice candidate Byron Looper's murder of his political opponent Tommy Burks.)

--Pro-Life Violence Against Pro-Choice Movement--

(Mention only certain examples of Pro-Life violence against Pro-Choicers, and if mentioning Tiller, mention qualifiers showing the questionable affiliation.)

--Other Violence Against Pro-Life Movement--

(Mention the murder of Pouillon due to killer's dislike of his graphic abortion signs and other instances not definitively linked to Pro-Choice movement.)

--Other Violence By Pro-Choice Movement--

(Mention acts of violence by Pro-Choice movement not specifically against Pro-Life movement, like one of the largest medical scandals in history, Ivan Namihas' abuse of his abortion patients, as mentioned in the Abortion Crime Report, or Joseph Mengele's abortion practice in Argentina.)

If the Pro-Choice movement page were to adopt such a format/style, it would of course want to substitute those last 2 categories instead for 'Other Violence Against Pro-Choice Movement' and 'Other Violence By Pro-Life Movement' to make it page-applicable. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New Paragraph
I'm not sure this paragraph is best included in the 'Violence against pro-life movement' section as it's applicable to the section below, also, but think it helps provide perspective on both sides. What do you think?

Both sides have cast aspersions on the other side's statistics. AbortionViolence.com points out that of the NAF's statistics on violence and disruption, of the 147,867 reported cases by 2008, 128,690 were for picketing, 12,268 were for hate mail/harassing calls, and 1,817 were for trespassing. On the other side, Canada's Pro-Choice Action Network has criticized the reports of Pro-Choice violence, suggesting confrontational Pro-Life tactics are to blame, and that statistics in some cases consist merely of abortion complications and/or aren't sourced well enough.

I tried to be fair in giving both viewpoints, and succinctly stating key objections from each side with a single source. Admittedly, I preferred the sourcing of this article's "Skewed Statistics and Misrepresentations" section over the AbortionViolence one, but when looking into the group's background, I wasn't sure they'd come off as the best source.

At any rate, I think a paragraph like this could help present the claims of both sides more objectively. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead section
I've recently begun expanding the lead section to better represent the most important points in the article. More work is needed. Any objections or suggestions should be made here. Thanks.Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is supposed to represent the world wide pro-life movement. The violent actions of a few on the fringe of the movement in the United States have been denounced by every major pro-life organization. I prefer the old lead as it is more succinct but welcome other comments.Boromir123 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually they have not. There are a few that refused to comment on the murders of late term abortion providers.Bill Heller (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying to tweak the lead paragraph. Please let me know if this is acceptable.Boromir123 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good first start. Let's keep the ball rolling.  Can you try expanding the lead section to incorporate the main points of the article?  It's still too short. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Boromir123: The reference to violent activism does not strike me as appropriate to the lead, as it would not be appropriate to define any political movement or ideology or group of any kind by its fringe violent extremists. I would object if the lead to the article on Liberalism said that violent socialist revolution has "been associated" with Liberalism, or if the lead to the article on Conservatism said that violent fascist regimes have "been associated" with Conservatism, of if the lead to the article on Islam said that terrorism has "been associated" with the Muslim faith, or if the Crusades were mentioned in the lead to the article on Christianity--even if those leads went on to say that "mainstream" Liberals, Conservatives, Muslims, and Christians "have condemned and rejected" such practices. Any and all of those things might be given mention in the article, but placing such information in the lead is counter-productive. One might misunderstand and think that article is ideologically driven. Chadbald (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)