![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I was getting reverted on this one, so to the talk page I go. Under Types of advocacy -> Counseling -> Crisis pregnancy centers, a link is given to support the claim that CPCs give false medical information - citation number 93. This source, however, leads to an article in the Toronto Sun about a sting operation done by Canadian news staff at a Canadian CPC. How come this is used as a support in reference to United States CPCs on a United States pro-life movement page? -- immewnity 07:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States pro-life movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States pro-life movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor has been trying to rework the statement that the movement is linked to the spreading of false medical information, by editing the material to remove the indication of falsehood. However, the source at use is clearly indicating falsehood. Now that these changes have been undone by multiple editors, please explain your reason for thinking the change to be reasonable and find consensus for that change before reinserting. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 21:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are the sections for Demonstrations, counseling, etc. included as subsections under "Health risks claims"? This seems incongruous and doesn't make sense as the two topics are completely different. This also seems like a case of potential bias as placing pro-life demonstrations where they are directs the reader to a section on discredited pro-life medical arguments before reading about large, prominent demonstrations and counseling methods that are peaceful and benign activities of the pro-life movement. Demonstrations and counseling should be under their own section. Jgefd ( talk) 17:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It is noted under the section "History" that "Two anti-abortion U.S. Presidents – Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush – were elected." Should the statement be expanded to include George W. Bush and Donald Trump? Stomalia ( talk) 19:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The name of this article is "United States pro-life movement", yet according to the ol' Ctrl+F, the term "pro-life" appears only 40 times on this page while the term "anti-abortion", which the first sentence establishes as a synonym to "pro-life", appears 91 times. What is wrong with this picture? I think it would be appropriate, for consistency and fairness, to change instances of one to the other, except where there is a meaningful distinction. (The word "consistent" appears 18 times in the WP:MOS, in case you were wondering. ;D) What say you? Bobnorwal ( talk) 00:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to include this given that the murder was not politically motivated, and if so, what kind of text can we add to clarify? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on United States pro-life movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Returning to the issue raised by @ Bobnorwal: last December, there's a consistency issue in the use of the term "pro-life" in the title. The title should be United States anti-abortion movement. Please note that other similar articles use the term "anti-abortion," for example, Anti-abortion movements. The article's lede even explains why "anti-abortion" is the neutral term. NightHeron ( talk) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Can someone who understands how archiving works please adjust the settings so that there are links to the archives of this talk page? Thanks, JBL ( talk) 22:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anti-abortion movements which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Both moved. This has been open for 18 days, and there have been no comments in 2 days. There is a consensus to move the articles, and - as pointed out by a number of people - this makes the articles consistent with others. COMMONNAME has a number of exceptions, which have been brought up by the majority here. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Consistency. Similar articles such as Anti-abortion movements use "anti-abortion" not the promotional term "pro-life." HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As others have said, the need for this name change follows from the consistency criterion in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, along with WP:NPOVTITLE. NightHeron ( talk) 20:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light.
and
The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".
NightHeron ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I note the discussion at Talk:Anti-abortion movements#Requested move 1 June 2018 but decided to try to centralise discussion here. Happy to take it to another forum if others wish.
Let me try a little summary and analysis.
There are two opposing, recognizable factions on the issue of abortion morality and law, both deserving one or more articles.
One refers to themselves as pro choice and refers to the other as anti abortion. The other refers to themselves as pro life and the other by various names of which pro abortion is one. All four terms are in common use but highly politically charged.
Pro choice and pro life are both political slogans, and poorly describe the actual topics.
Anti abortion is accurate and NPOV. But a name for the opposing movement is problematical. Abortion rights still has a political flavour to it, and is not the preferred term used by either faction, both of them highly organised and well funded. So abortion rights is unlikely to be as common as pro choice or pro abortion. Can we do better? Andrewa ( talk) 18:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As stated above I think that pro-life, pro-choice and pro-abortion are all terms that we need to avoid in article titles on this and related topics. This isn't a poll, but I'd welcome any comments on whether that's reasonable. If it is, then we may be able to build consensus for some sort of move. Andrewa ( talk) 07:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It is dangerous for Wikipedia to affirm in our voice that someone "recognizes" a right to do something, because then that shall be taken by the reader as indicating that Wikipedia (1) affirms that the right is granted by God and (2) is correctly being upheld by laws and governments. Is it not preferable to document what the group says (in this case the Episcopal Church) per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and allow the reader to come to her own conclusion. This is following policy, and a pillar of Wikipedia. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 02:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
While the Episcopal Church recognizes a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, the church condones abortion only in cases of rape or incest, cases in which a mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, or cases involving fetal abnormalities. The church forbids “abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience.”
Why did someone flag the claims that state the positions of pro-life groups as being in need of non-primary sources? That's like saying "rather than quote Astronomy & Geophysics on their publication policy in order to find out what their publication policy is, we need to quote National Geographic discussing A&G's publication policy". If the article is stating the positions of pro-life organizations, those positions should be stated by pro-life organizations themselves. This is especially true given how unabashedly many media outlets misrepresent pro-life positions. This Vice article is a perfect example: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/nnm88x/the-uk-pro-life-movement-are-campaigning-non-stop-for-40-days
Despite the article's slanted title, subtitle, and completely unsupported assertion that the activists' positions are due to childhood trauma instead of the reasons they provide for their positions, the article is (despite my protestations) still used as a source for the "40 Days for Life" Wikipedia article. I understand that relying solely on primary sources can be problematic because there's no way to judge the relative notability of the various pro-life groups, and that creates issues in cases where they have conflicting positions. Still, is it really worse than secondary sources that don't even try to represent their opponents' arguments? Matthew V. Milone ( talk) 14:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I found a some information lacking in the “History” and “Legal and political aspects” sections and so have updated them to more thoroughly discuss the early development of the anti-abortion movement. Essentially, I added some context to the beginning of the “History” section about the liberalization of abortion laws and the emergence of primarily Catholic anti-abortion groups to mobilize against those laws. I also expanded discussion of the Republican Party’s platform against abortion to include the early development of that position (I do have a question here - would this information fit better within the “History” section, even though it’s specifically elaborating on a political position?). I also deleted a reference to the formation of the National Right to Life organization in Australia because this is a page about the anti-abortion movement in the United States; the article added no context to justify the inclusion of this seemingly irrelevant information, but if there’s a compelling reason to have it in I’m sure someone will replace it. Everything I've added has been cited with scholarly secondary sources and should follow Wikipedia guidelines.
Things I’ve noticed are still missing from this article, but that I haven’t had a chance to correct or expand myself, include: The first anti-abortion advocacy movement—that is, the mostly physician-led effort that succeeded in making abortion a crime in all states during the 19th century. Right now, this page treats the “United States anti-abortion movement” as the modern United States anti-abortion movement. Is this intentional, or just something no one has added yet? More information on the history and current status of the Democratic Party’s position on the anti-abortion movement.
I’m new to Wikipedia editing, so don’t know how to flag these in any official capacity (if there is a way to do so), so please let me know what I can do.
- Rouah162 ( talk) 02:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the recent edit which removed the article title from the text. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This page was unnecessarily re-titled.
I believe this to be a form of vandalism, and wish for it to be changed back and locked.
This page went from "United States pro-life movement" to the current title "United States anti-abortion movement". This title puts a non neutral slant on the article.
If this name is to remain, other pages, such as the "United States abortion-rights movement" should be changed to "United States anti-life movement" to give it an equal slant.
71.66.190.162 ( talk) 19:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to the health risks section of the page, it discusses groups that "peddle" in pseudo-science. The links do point to legitimate concerns, but shouldn't this be its own section? Just some cursory research on the scientific relationship between elective termination and negative health outcomes demonstrates that legitimate groups (at least the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists) have compiled real scientific research on the matter. More work needs to be done on this section.
```` Anonymous (5-25-2019)
I found this quote from this 2018 literature review on abortion and mental health. I think it is relevant to the discussion at hand. "Evidence-based medicine is centered on the idea that there must be real evidence of benefits that outweigh the risks associated with a medical intervention. But there are no statistically validated medical studies showing that women facing any specific disease or fetal anomaly fare better if they have an abortion compared to similar women who allow the pregnancy to continue to a natural outcome. Nor is there evidence of any mental health benefits. As a result, in approaching a risk–benefits assessment, there are literally no studies to place in the benefits column of an evidence-based risk–benefits analysis. Conversely, there are literally hundreds of studies with statistically significant risks (both physical and mental) associated with abortion which must be considered in weighing abortion’s potential risks against the patient’s hoped for benefits... In this regard, induced abortion is an anomaly. It is the only medical treatment for which the principles of evidence-based medicine are routinely ignored, not for medical reasons, but by appeals to abortion being a fundamental civil right or a public policy tool for population control. From these vantage points, there has arisen an a priori premise that abortion should presumed to be safe and beneficial. Therefore, according to defenders of abortion, the burden of proving the safety and efficacy of abortion is no longer on them. Instead, abortion skeptics must prove that abortion is the sole and direct cause of harm to women—and not just a few unfortunate women, but a large proportion of women." I've removed the reference numbers for readability. 184.166.34.46 ( talk) 05:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Cited source says that it was founded (as an independent organization from the Family Life Bureau) in 1973 as part of the post-Roe wave, not in 1968. I would suggest rephrasing the text if you feel that it's inappropriate, rather than citing information to a source that doesn't contain it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit5001: It's much better to discuss an edit on a contentious article here before inserting it into the article (except for minor edits).
Your rewording of the sentence about the 2019 Gallup poll makes it very confusing and imprecise. A 1-digit percentage difference could mean that they're not close at all (such as 12% vs 21%). Your wording gives no information at all about what the percentages were. The earlier wording is a direct quote from the source, and gives precise, unbiased summary information. Please restore the earlier wording (that is, self-revert). Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 01:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Avatar317 Is a claim "false", even when it's based on sound scientific research, simply because leading medical organizations have disagreed with it? Even in recent studies that look for increased breast cancer risk among abortion recipients, such as this one [1] they acknowledge; "Different epidemiological studies have indicated conflicting information about the association of induced abortion (IA) with breast cancer risk." They even go as far as to say; "After subgroup analysis, our study showed that IA might increase the risk of breast cancer in parous women, but in the nulliparous..."
In other words, they don't simply dismiss one side as "false", but acknowledge there has been conflicting research. Would it not be a better and more honest way to phrase the breast cancer-related claims as "conflicting with research done by international medical organizations", rather than simply saying they're "false"? I'm not going to push hard on this, but it's something to think about. Edit5001 ( talk) 06:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, I think an extremely partisan political opinion piece from the Rolling Stone written by an open pro-abortion feminist is an absolutely spurious source to cite on crisis pregnancy centers. Obvious NPOV problems with using that article for important statements. Edit5001 ( talk) 06:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
A reminder here that Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM WP:NOTFORUM for discussion of the topic's merits. Stick to what proof you have for improvements to the article. Let's stay on topic here.
There are plenty of references in multiple articles here (CPC, this article, and others) that have more than sufficient references to prove that CPC's lie to women and provide known misinformation. As an example, no one is talking about the possibility that vaping can cause brain/pancreatic/liver/breast/testicular/skin cancers, because no causal links have yet been found. That is why it is false/misleading/lying to talk about the abortion/breast cancer non-link. And that's what the sources characterize it as: misinformation and lying. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
References
See: Medicine.net "An unborn offspring". Therefor it's not a matter of disputing "medical" terms or definitions. Edit5001 ( talk) 00:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
First, I changed "embryo" to "zygote" (which is the correct term) and removed the POV phraseology about "starving." Second, I changed "widespread scientific consensus" to "view" because the source from the NY Times does not say that there's a widespread scientific consensus but only that "emerging data suggest," which is much weaker. There is definitely a scientific consensus that, in the words of the article's title, contraceptives are not "abortion-inducing." That's because the scientific view is that pregnancy is not established until implantation has occurred, and so an action that prevents pregnancy before implantation is not an abortion. The anti-abortion movement disputes this. NightHeron ( talk) 15:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The last sentence under "Abortion health risk claims" is somewhat misleading in its wording--"Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks...are contradicted by mainstream organizations of mental-health professionals such as the American Psychological Association," but the citations here seem to disagree. The APA and USA Today sources mainly discuss mental health effects after a single abortion, while this part of the sentence reads as more general, like these sources contradict the idea that any abortion, not just a first, can trigger mental health issues.
The APA article also quotes Dr. Brenda Major as saying "'the evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain'", along with its task force in saying that "'global statements about the psychological impact of abortion can be misleading'".
Could the part of the article I quoted be reworded to better reflect its citations? I would do it, but I'm new and wanted to discuss it first.
Gessit (
talk)
20:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead currently states:
Before the Supreme Court 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, anti-abortion views predominated and found expression...
There's nothing in the body of the article that justifies this assertion in the lead, and in any case, there is no source for it. If this is meant to be about laws, they didn't "predominate", they were universal (in the U.S.) before 1973. If this assertion is really about "views", i.e., public opinion, there's no source for this, and it's not clear if it even can be sourced, because it might not be true.
Minor point: that should be "1973 S.C. decisions", not the other way round. Mathglot ( talk) 02:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The legal and political talks about Republican and democratic parties. How about the minor parties like libertarian, American constitutional, Solodaeity party, etc? 69.47.47.12 ( talk) 03:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Movement prefers to be called pro-life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.54 ( talk) 02:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The common usage term is "pro-life". I'm surprised that Wikipedia is allowing naming to be decided by politically driven motives. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that provides npov information and doesn't attempt to enter the argument. I'm pro-choice but this is disappointing. 8.45.132.4 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd further add that changing the name to "Anti-abortion" will not somehow change which side of the issue people will fall on anyways. 8.45.132.4 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Anti-abortion is a politically fabricated title. People pertaining to pro-life or right to life movement do not refer to themselves as anti-abortionists. If I tell someone my name is Bob, I expect to be called bob, not frank. 2600:100C:B225:5E95:6DF8:E090:B16D:29AD ( talk) 20:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article should be updated to accurately present the Jesua freaks' movement as pro-forced-birth, as if women were cattle. They believe women should be treated as cattle. 2600:8804:202:2F00:417E:4236:4BF5:9FDB ( talk) 08:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I was getting reverted on this one, so to the talk page I go. Under Types of advocacy -> Counseling -> Crisis pregnancy centers, a link is given to support the claim that CPCs give false medical information - citation number 93. This source, however, leads to an article in the Toronto Sun about a sting operation done by Canadian news staff at a Canadian CPC. How come this is used as a support in reference to United States CPCs on a United States pro-life movement page? -- immewnity 07:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States pro-life movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States pro-life movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor has been trying to rework the statement that the movement is linked to the spreading of false medical information, by editing the material to remove the indication of falsehood. However, the source at use is clearly indicating falsehood. Now that these changes have been undone by multiple editors, please explain your reason for thinking the change to be reasonable and find consensus for that change before reinserting. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 21:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are the sections for Demonstrations, counseling, etc. included as subsections under "Health risks claims"? This seems incongruous and doesn't make sense as the two topics are completely different. This also seems like a case of potential bias as placing pro-life demonstrations where they are directs the reader to a section on discredited pro-life medical arguments before reading about large, prominent demonstrations and counseling methods that are peaceful and benign activities of the pro-life movement. Demonstrations and counseling should be under their own section. Jgefd ( talk) 17:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It is noted under the section "History" that "Two anti-abortion U.S. Presidents – Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush – were elected." Should the statement be expanded to include George W. Bush and Donald Trump? Stomalia ( talk) 19:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The name of this article is "United States pro-life movement", yet according to the ol' Ctrl+F, the term "pro-life" appears only 40 times on this page while the term "anti-abortion", which the first sentence establishes as a synonym to "pro-life", appears 91 times. What is wrong with this picture? I think it would be appropriate, for consistency and fairness, to change instances of one to the other, except where there is a meaningful distinction. (The word "consistent" appears 18 times in the WP:MOS, in case you were wondering. ;D) What say you? Bobnorwal ( talk) 00:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to include this given that the murder was not politically motivated, and if so, what kind of text can we add to clarify? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on United States pro-life movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Returning to the issue raised by @ Bobnorwal: last December, there's a consistency issue in the use of the term "pro-life" in the title. The title should be United States anti-abortion movement. Please note that other similar articles use the term "anti-abortion," for example, Anti-abortion movements. The article's lede even explains why "anti-abortion" is the neutral term. NightHeron ( talk) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Can someone who understands how archiving works please adjust the settings so that there are links to the archives of this talk page? Thanks, JBL ( talk) 22:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anti-abortion movements which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Both moved. This has been open for 18 days, and there have been no comments in 2 days. There is a consensus to move the articles, and - as pointed out by a number of people - this makes the articles consistent with others. COMMONNAME has a number of exceptions, which have been brought up by the majority here. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Consistency. Similar articles such as Anti-abortion movements use "anti-abortion" not the promotional term "pro-life." HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As others have said, the need for this name change follows from the consistency criterion in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, along with WP:NPOVTITLE. NightHeron ( talk) 20:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light.
and
The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".
NightHeron ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I note the discussion at Talk:Anti-abortion movements#Requested move 1 June 2018 but decided to try to centralise discussion here. Happy to take it to another forum if others wish.
Let me try a little summary and analysis.
There are two opposing, recognizable factions on the issue of abortion morality and law, both deserving one or more articles.
One refers to themselves as pro choice and refers to the other as anti abortion. The other refers to themselves as pro life and the other by various names of which pro abortion is one. All four terms are in common use but highly politically charged.
Pro choice and pro life are both political slogans, and poorly describe the actual topics.
Anti abortion is accurate and NPOV. But a name for the opposing movement is problematical. Abortion rights still has a political flavour to it, and is not the preferred term used by either faction, both of them highly organised and well funded. So abortion rights is unlikely to be as common as pro choice or pro abortion. Can we do better? Andrewa ( talk) 18:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As stated above I think that pro-life, pro-choice and pro-abortion are all terms that we need to avoid in article titles on this and related topics. This isn't a poll, but I'd welcome any comments on whether that's reasonable. If it is, then we may be able to build consensus for some sort of move. Andrewa ( talk) 07:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It is dangerous for Wikipedia to affirm in our voice that someone "recognizes" a right to do something, because then that shall be taken by the reader as indicating that Wikipedia (1) affirms that the right is granted by God and (2) is correctly being upheld by laws and governments. Is it not preferable to document what the group says (in this case the Episcopal Church) per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and allow the reader to come to her own conclusion. This is following policy, and a pillar of Wikipedia. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 02:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
While the Episcopal Church recognizes a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, the church condones abortion only in cases of rape or incest, cases in which a mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, or cases involving fetal abnormalities. The church forbids “abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience.”
Why did someone flag the claims that state the positions of pro-life groups as being in need of non-primary sources? That's like saying "rather than quote Astronomy & Geophysics on their publication policy in order to find out what their publication policy is, we need to quote National Geographic discussing A&G's publication policy". If the article is stating the positions of pro-life organizations, those positions should be stated by pro-life organizations themselves. This is especially true given how unabashedly many media outlets misrepresent pro-life positions. This Vice article is a perfect example: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/nnm88x/the-uk-pro-life-movement-are-campaigning-non-stop-for-40-days
Despite the article's slanted title, subtitle, and completely unsupported assertion that the activists' positions are due to childhood trauma instead of the reasons they provide for their positions, the article is (despite my protestations) still used as a source for the "40 Days for Life" Wikipedia article. I understand that relying solely on primary sources can be problematic because there's no way to judge the relative notability of the various pro-life groups, and that creates issues in cases where they have conflicting positions. Still, is it really worse than secondary sources that don't even try to represent their opponents' arguments? Matthew V. Milone ( talk) 14:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I found a some information lacking in the “History” and “Legal and political aspects” sections and so have updated them to more thoroughly discuss the early development of the anti-abortion movement. Essentially, I added some context to the beginning of the “History” section about the liberalization of abortion laws and the emergence of primarily Catholic anti-abortion groups to mobilize against those laws. I also expanded discussion of the Republican Party’s platform against abortion to include the early development of that position (I do have a question here - would this information fit better within the “History” section, even though it’s specifically elaborating on a political position?). I also deleted a reference to the formation of the National Right to Life organization in Australia because this is a page about the anti-abortion movement in the United States; the article added no context to justify the inclusion of this seemingly irrelevant information, but if there’s a compelling reason to have it in I’m sure someone will replace it. Everything I've added has been cited with scholarly secondary sources and should follow Wikipedia guidelines.
Things I’ve noticed are still missing from this article, but that I haven’t had a chance to correct or expand myself, include: The first anti-abortion advocacy movement—that is, the mostly physician-led effort that succeeded in making abortion a crime in all states during the 19th century. Right now, this page treats the “United States anti-abortion movement” as the modern United States anti-abortion movement. Is this intentional, or just something no one has added yet? More information on the history and current status of the Democratic Party’s position on the anti-abortion movement.
I’m new to Wikipedia editing, so don’t know how to flag these in any official capacity (if there is a way to do so), so please let me know what I can do.
- Rouah162 ( talk) 02:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the recent edit which removed the article title from the text. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This page was unnecessarily re-titled.
I believe this to be a form of vandalism, and wish for it to be changed back and locked.
This page went from "United States pro-life movement" to the current title "United States anti-abortion movement". This title puts a non neutral slant on the article.
If this name is to remain, other pages, such as the "United States abortion-rights movement" should be changed to "United States anti-life movement" to give it an equal slant.
71.66.190.162 ( talk) 19:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to the health risks section of the page, it discusses groups that "peddle" in pseudo-science. The links do point to legitimate concerns, but shouldn't this be its own section? Just some cursory research on the scientific relationship between elective termination and negative health outcomes demonstrates that legitimate groups (at least the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists) have compiled real scientific research on the matter. More work needs to be done on this section.
```` Anonymous (5-25-2019)
I found this quote from this 2018 literature review on abortion and mental health. I think it is relevant to the discussion at hand. "Evidence-based medicine is centered on the idea that there must be real evidence of benefits that outweigh the risks associated with a medical intervention. But there are no statistically validated medical studies showing that women facing any specific disease or fetal anomaly fare better if they have an abortion compared to similar women who allow the pregnancy to continue to a natural outcome. Nor is there evidence of any mental health benefits. As a result, in approaching a risk–benefits assessment, there are literally no studies to place in the benefits column of an evidence-based risk–benefits analysis. Conversely, there are literally hundreds of studies with statistically significant risks (both physical and mental) associated with abortion which must be considered in weighing abortion’s potential risks against the patient’s hoped for benefits... In this regard, induced abortion is an anomaly. It is the only medical treatment for which the principles of evidence-based medicine are routinely ignored, not for medical reasons, but by appeals to abortion being a fundamental civil right or a public policy tool for population control. From these vantage points, there has arisen an a priori premise that abortion should presumed to be safe and beneficial. Therefore, according to defenders of abortion, the burden of proving the safety and efficacy of abortion is no longer on them. Instead, abortion skeptics must prove that abortion is the sole and direct cause of harm to women—and not just a few unfortunate women, but a large proportion of women." I've removed the reference numbers for readability. 184.166.34.46 ( talk) 05:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Cited source says that it was founded (as an independent organization from the Family Life Bureau) in 1973 as part of the post-Roe wave, not in 1968. I would suggest rephrasing the text if you feel that it's inappropriate, rather than citing information to a source that doesn't contain it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit5001: It's much better to discuss an edit on a contentious article here before inserting it into the article (except for minor edits).
Your rewording of the sentence about the 2019 Gallup poll makes it very confusing and imprecise. A 1-digit percentage difference could mean that they're not close at all (such as 12% vs 21%). Your wording gives no information at all about what the percentages were. The earlier wording is a direct quote from the source, and gives precise, unbiased summary information. Please restore the earlier wording (that is, self-revert). Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 01:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Avatar317 Is a claim "false", even when it's based on sound scientific research, simply because leading medical organizations have disagreed with it? Even in recent studies that look for increased breast cancer risk among abortion recipients, such as this one [1] they acknowledge; "Different epidemiological studies have indicated conflicting information about the association of induced abortion (IA) with breast cancer risk." They even go as far as to say; "After subgroup analysis, our study showed that IA might increase the risk of breast cancer in parous women, but in the nulliparous..."
In other words, they don't simply dismiss one side as "false", but acknowledge there has been conflicting research. Would it not be a better and more honest way to phrase the breast cancer-related claims as "conflicting with research done by international medical organizations", rather than simply saying they're "false"? I'm not going to push hard on this, but it's something to think about. Edit5001 ( talk) 06:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, I think an extremely partisan political opinion piece from the Rolling Stone written by an open pro-abortion feminist is an absolutely spurious source to cite on crisis pregnancy centers. Obvious NPOV problems with using that article for important statements. Edit5001 ( talk) 06:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
A reminder here that Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM WP:NOTFORUM for discussion of the topic's merits. Stick to what proof you have for improvements to the article. Let's stay on topic here.
There are plenty of references in multiple articles here (CPC, this article, and others) that have more than sufficient references to prove that CPC's lie to women and provide known misinformation. As an example, no one is talking about the possibility that vaping can cause brain/pancreatic/liver/breast/testicular/skin cancers, because no causal links have yet been found. That is why it is false/misleading/lying to talk about the abortion/breast cancer non-link. And that's what the sources characterize it as: misinformation and lying. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
References
See: Medicine.net "An unborn offspring". Therefor it's not a matter of disputing "medical" terms or definitions. Edit5001 ( talk) 00:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
First, I changed "embryo" to "zygote" (which is the correct term) and removed the POV phraseology about "starving." Second, I changed "widespread scientific consensus" to "view" because the source from the NY Times does not say that there's a widespread scientific consensus but only that "emerging data suggest," which is much weaker. There is definitely a scientific consensus that, in the words of the article's title, contraceptives are not "abortion-inducing." That's because the scientific view is that pregnancy is not established until implantation has occurred, and so an action that prevents pregnancy before implantation is not an abortion. The anti-abortion movement disputes this. NightHeron ( talk) 15:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The last sentence under "Abortion health risk claims" is somewhat misleading in its wording--"Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks...are contradicted by mainstream organizations of mental-health professionals such as the American Psychological Association," but the citations here seem to disagree. The APA and USA Today sources mainly discuss mental health effects after a single abortion, while this part of the sentence reads as more general, like these sources contradict the idea that any abortion, not just a first, can trigger mental health issues.
The APA article also quotes Dr. Brenda Major as saying "'the evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain'", along with its task force in saying that "'global statements about the psychological impact of abortion can be misleading'".
Could the part of the article I quoted be reworded to better reflect its citations? I would do it, but I'm new and wanted to discuss it first.
Gessit (
talk)
20:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead currently states:
Before the Supreme Court 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, anti-abortion views predominated and found expression...
There's nothing in the body of the article that justifies this assertion in the lead, and in any case, there is no source for it. If this is meant to be about laws, they didn't "predominate", they were universal (in the U.S.) before 1973. If this assertion is really about "views", i.e., public opinion, there's no source for this, and it's not clear if it even can be sourced, because it might not be true.
Minor point: that should be "1973 S.C. decisions", not the other way round. Mathglot ( talk) 02:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The legal and political talks about Republican and democratic parties. How about the minor parties like libertarian, American constitutional, Solodaeity party, etc? 69.47.47.12 ( talk) 03:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Movement prefers to be called pro-life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.54 ( talk) 02:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The common usage term is "pro-life". I'm surprised that Wikipedia is allowing naming to be decided by politically driven motives. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that provides npov information and doesn't attempt to enter the argument. I'm pro-choice but this is disappointing. 8.45.132.4 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd further add that changing the name to "Anti-abortion" will not somehow change which side of the issue people will fall on anyways. 8.45.132.4 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Anti-abortion is a politically fabricated title. People pertaining to pro-life or right to life movement do not refer to themselves as anti-abortionists. If I tell someone my name is Bob, I expect to be called bob, not frank. 2600:100C:B225:5E95:6DF8:E090:B16D:29AD ( talk) 20:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article should be updated to accurately present the Jesua freaks' movement as pro-forced-birth, as if women were cattle. They believe women should be treated as cattle. 2600:8804:202:2F00:417E:4236:4BF5:9FDB ( talk) 08:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)