User:Eagle4000/Sandbox P

News media not neutral

 * Pro-choice
 * "The March for Women's Lives was a demonstration for reproductive rights and women's rights, held April 25, 2004 on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.. The National Park Service no longer makes official estimates of attendance after the Million Man March controversy in 1994, so official estimates are often speculation. March organizers estimated that 1.15 million people participated; others estimated no more than 800,000 marchers, with the Associated Press and the BBC putting the figure between 500,000 and 800,000, comparable to the Million Man March of 1995."
 * Described as "marchers"


 * Pro-life
 * Either no estimate, or "several thousand"
 * Described as "demonstrators" or "protesters"

Pro-choice & pro-life march estimates

 * Pro-choice
 * "Hundreds of thousands of people turned out on an overcast, cool day for the March for Women's Lives, an abortion rights rally whose message had been broadened to include other women's concerns about reproductive and child-bearing and nurturing rights. Organizers said they had more than a million marchers. Although police do not issue formal crowd counts, some officers familiar with past rallies suggested this event attracted more than half a million people. By 10 a.m. today, police said 800 buses had arrived at RFK Stadium; another 300 were parked at suburban lots and crowds on the Metro packed both usual trains and extra runs to bring crowds to the Mall. Police officials said their monitors showed that by mid-day the crowd filled the Mall from Third Street NW to 14th Street NW. Sponsors had received a permit for a crowd of up to 750,000 people. It is the first abortion rights rally on the Mall since 1992."
 * "Reports on the size of the crowd vary, but police sources informally estimated it at between 500,000 and 800,000 according to AP, while organisers put it at 1.15 million, AFP reports."


 * Pro-life


 * "The march has consistently drawn 250,000 people each year since 2003, ..."
 * "This year's protest, which drew up to 400,000 people, ...."

Terminology

 * User:Kevinkor2
 * User:Kevinkor2
 * Pro-life :
 * Chamberlain, Pam and Jean Hardisty. (2007) "The Importance of the Political 'Framing' of Abortion". The Public Eye Magazine Vol. 14, No. 1. Retrieved January 18, 2008.

Talk:Pro-life

 * Even the left-wing RationalWiki (created to be a liberal version of Conservapedia) calls it the Pro-life movement. Does Wikipedia really need to be to the left of RationalWiki? --B (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As soon as you use Liberal and left-wing as being equivalent your American view of the world is on display. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I used American political terms to refer to the political bent of RationalWiki, an American (New Mexico) organization that was created in response to Conservapedia (another American organization). Incidentally, wikia:Liberapedia (another liberal encyclopedia) uses Pro-life as their term of choice. --B (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose.
 * Article titles has a couple relevant principles (highlighted):
 * "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense (emphasis added). ...."
 * I agree with the following comment by a pro-choicer, under Talk:Pro-life : " *Oppose per WP:UCN. This is a pointless ideological dispute.  I'm a firm pro-Choicer in my own political life, but this clearly against WP:UCN.  We do not dissect the meaning of words that go into group labels here, and determine on our own that they are illogical, irrational, etc.  People should also be reminded that WP:BATTLEGROUND is part of the policy WP:N - [new para] "Wikipedia is not a place to ... carry on ideological battles."  Let's end this nonsense and carry on improving the encyclopedia.User:Griswaldo (User talk:Griswaldo) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC) "
 * As a Wiki editor, I think this time-consuming debate about titles is unneccessary, because the leads in both articles (Pro-choice and Pro-life) adequately explain the issues that have been raised in this debate. ....
 * As a pro-lifer, I would make the following points (in response to various pro-choice points made by other editors):
 * 1. Most members of the pro-life movement are also opposed to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) (which destroys living human embryos), euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Many, but not all, are also opposed to capital punishment.
 * 2. Time magazine's October 4, 2010, cover story shows that human life begins in the mother's womb.
 * 3. The Feticide article says: "In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-five (35) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development."
 * 4. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act article says the killing of a pregnant woman can be the basis for two counts of homicide. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"."
 * 5. "Anti-choice" is not a self-defining term. As human beings, each of us makes many choices every day. For pro-lifers, however, no one has the moral right to "choose" to kill a human embryo or fetus. Otherwise, a murderer could assert that he is pro-choice in that he has the right to choose to kill someone.
 * 6. Before and during the American Civil War, on the issue of slavery, the two opposing sides were not called "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". Those who supported each state's right to choose slavery were called "Pro-slavery" supporters; those in opposition were called "Abolitionists" (which re-directs to "Abolitionism"). Anti-slavery also re-directs to "Abolitionism".
 * 7. When you type "Pro-abortion", you are re-directed to "Abortion debate". When you type "Anti-abortion", however, you are re-directed to "Pro-life". Because typing "Pro-abortion" re-directs to "Abortion debate", typing "Anti-abortion" should likewise re-direct to "Abortion debate".
 * As a Wikipedian, this debate reminds me of the Talk:United States debate, wherein several Wikipedians asserted that the title of the article on the United States should be re-named "United States of America".

Eagle4000 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pro-life

 * Oppose. Some editors have cited the AP stylebook, which favors the use of the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion". The AP, however, is not a neutral source. Most U.S. journalists and editors are liberal and pro-choice. Because they are the majority, their view predominates on editorial pages, front-page articles, news coverage, and stylebooks. Two pollsters (Gallup Poll and Rasmussen Reports) instead use the self-identifying names: "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
 * Eagle4000 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eagle4000 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eagle4000 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eagle4000 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eagle4000 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Article titles