This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abortion-rights movements article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Abortion-rights movements → Pro-abortion movements – This is a new article, discussing the abortion debate globally, rather just in the USA. The problem is what the title should be. The American article is United States pro-choice movement, but "pro-choice" seems to be an American euphemism. The most neutral and global title seems to be "pro-abortion". For example, see Pro-abortion activists rally in Argentina and Pro-abortion group fined in mainstream media outlets in Australia. Unfortunately, the article creator has already attacked me personally for even suggesting such a title. But the evidence suggests "pro-abortion" is both the most common and the most neutral designation. It also corresponds to the companion article also created recently, Anti-abortion movements (not "pro-life movements"). St Anselm ( talk) 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Abortion-rights movement | Abortion-rights | Pro-abortion movement | Pro-abortion | Sources | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Google Books | 11,000 | 233,000 | 2,540 | 50,900 | [1] [2] [3] [4] |
Google Scholar | 573 | 21,100 | 180 | 4,880 | [5] [6] [7] [8] |
Google News Archive | 7 | 10,900 | 6 | 2,100 | [9] [10] [11] [12] |
I've posted about this on that article's talk page, but now that United States pro-choice movement has been determined to have as its scope the United States and renamed accordingly, there is more general material there that should probably be moved or copied here. (Also from Abortion debate, although there's also less material there than there ought to be.) This should be the article where we discuss general philosophy behind the position, any forms of activism or historical facts that can be generalized across countries, ..., ... As well, I recommend removing unnecessary information about the legal status of abortion where it does not serve as context for the activities of pro-choice/abortion rights groups. There are other articles on the legality of abortion by country. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I see I've posted about this before, but we should be making an effort to keep this article focused on movements, not simply on the legal status of abortion in these various countries. How did it come about that abortion was legalized in Iran and Japan (to take the recently added material as an example, though similar issues exist in other sections) - through the efforts of pro-choice advocates? That is what's in the scope of the article, really. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what the answer to this question is, but calling this Abortion-rights movements, while we call the Pro-Life counterpart page 'Anti-Abortion movements' seems like we're breaking with NPOV and COMMONNAME, aren't we? Shouldn't they be 'Pro-Life Movements' and 'Pro-Choice' Movements? 72.224.172.14 ( talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this article was done very well. However, since several countries are brought up I am concerned why all countries aren't mentioned. I think the recent abortion rights movement in Poland should be referenced heavily due to the fact that there is so much going on over there right now with the protests. I also see a lack of religious reference. I think religion has a very big part on the abortion rights views. Because this has such a heavy influence on what people believe, this article should express the severity of that. Ttayloranne ( talk) 20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As my good faith has been called into question, I wish to address the misgivings head-on. Yes, I am pro-life, so I have a built-in bias for that side of the argument. No, I have not let my bias influence any of my editing behavior so as to contravene Wikipedia policies. On the contrary, I seek to balance Wikipedia and uphold its policies and guidelines to the best of my ability, and I always have, in my nearly-nine-year career here. I have never been sanctioned for POV-pushing, or any other distasteful behavior, and I intend quite earnestly to keep that record as clear as the day I started. I specialize in dispute resolution. When others are edit-warring and bickering over the correct way to do something, I will be the one seeking compromise, collegiality, and resolution to difficult situations. I believe in countering systemic bias, but I reject the idea that I am here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am only one man, so I do what I can in my corner of the universe, and if I fail, I retreat and regroup, having learned my lesson. I am a good-faith editor, and I would therefore ask everyone, especially my opponents in this long-standing and bitter debate, to put aside our biases for the sake of Wikipedia's goals, and evaluate our own actions in light of the letter and spirit of policy. Whatever the outcome of this RFC, I solemnly promise to obey the consensus established herein. Thank you for participating, and God bless. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Right to choose redirects here, but probably deserves its own article for Euthanasia, Abortion and other "choices" wrapped up together, similar to Right to life. Thoughts? L32007 ( talk) 08:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This doesn’t seem NPOV: “Abortion-rights supporters themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be available and to the circumstances, for example different periods in the pregnancy such as late term abortions, in which access may be restricted.”
Yes, people take a wide range of positions in the abortion-rights debate; and yes, if you exclude one rather narrow set of positions (those which involve being opposed to abortion rights under **all** circumstances), there are still a lot of positions left. Which means those remaining positions can be described as “divided”. But using that terminology makes abortion-rights supporters sound particularly fractious.
(One could as easily say, “Abortion-rights opponents themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be denied and to the circumstances, for example rape, in which access may be allowed.”)
So here’s my attempt at NPOV: “Non-absolute positions on abortion rights sometimes take the form of an absolute position with exceptions. For example, a person may support abortion rights in all circumstances except late term abortions, or oppose abortion rights in all circumstances except rape.” 97.115.71.30 ( talk) 02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
How about a whole new lead: "Abortion-rights movements, also referred to as pro-choice movements, advocate for legal access to induced abortion services. The right to have an abortion, or not, muddled with issues such as: how long in to the pregnancy, under what circumstances, the health of the fetus and the mother, the viability of the fetus out of the womb, and many more, are often complicated, personal, and many times religious issues for abortion-rights and anti-abortion individuals alike. [1] Worldwide, abortion-rights issues are historically controversial. In the US, many rights stem from the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing abortions in Roe v. Wade (1973)." StarHOG ( Talk) 14:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
In the United States section I added two different paragraphs the first one was “One of the largest protest marches on the nation’s capital and soon after, the high court refused to endorse Pennsylvania’s new restrictions and left the Roe v. Wade decision intact.” (History.com). Including this shows an actual movement that happened about abortions and pro choice and how it left a positive impact leading to the higher court not furthering abortion restrictions. Including more information about protests that have happened and have left a positive impact shows actual abortion rights movements rather than just laws to compare from each country shows how different countries respond to the topic. To the United States section I also added how "90 percent of abortions take place in free-standing clinics. And these clinics, their funding networks, and their legal support are typically run by non-profits that receive federal Title X funding" (Cicerchia, Lillian). This shows the reader why even when abortions are legal why it is so difficult to obain them. The last thing I added was in Irelands section and it was about how in Ireland a women was raped and even though she did not want to and tried to attempt suicide “She was eventually forced to give birth by C-section. At every step of the way, the Irish authorities’ concern for the protection of the fetus trumped any consideration of Ms Y’s mental and physical health.” (Newbery, Gher). Including this shows a real example of consequences women go through when they are denied their right. Seeing that it is from a different country help the reader understand the similaries/differences in each country of abortions restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devshreebhatt ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
First Paragraph Under Heading "United States":
The first known legalization of abortion in the United States was passed by the state of Connecticut in the year of 1821, where women barred abortions following quickening, usually performed by administering a poisoning to the mother up to four months into her pregnancy. Up to the year of 1856, women in their first trimester were legally allowed to have an abortion in most states, but not all. It (abortion) was considered a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure that was common enough to appear on medical records. This happened far before the official abortion laws appeared in the United States. No legal, social, or religious force stopped women who wanted an abortion in the New England part of America between the 17th and 18th centuries. There were people, such as Dr. Horatio Storer who pushed efforts to drive the legalization of abortion. Nearly a century later, Colorado was named the first state to liberalize abortion in 1970. Just a few short years after women had finally begun to see the hope within legal abortions, in 1973, Roe vs. Wade occurred, which ended all previously made laws that made abortion legal. Nearly forty years later, in 2009 polls were released that showed 51% of Americans advocate pro-life. However, Congress still passed a healthcare reformation that possibly will be tax-funded abortions. Abortion was an issue that was tossed and contemplated for years prior to its first legalizations, and it will continue to be an issue for years long after present day.
???
Full of claims, no citations. "Poisoning" without naming substances used, "women had finally begun to see the hope," entire last sentence all imply strong bias. Last sentence includes conjecture based on a political talking point. Refers to "the official abortion laws" without stating what those laws were. Unclear what "liberalize abortion" means, also what it means to be "named the first state" to do it. Etc.
I tried to edit it.
Sources contradicted the claims. Dr. "legalization of abortion" Horatio Storer: [1] was an anti-abortion advocate. Colorado, the "liberalize abortion in 1970" state: [2] decriminalized abortion in 1967 (nothing in 1970) and only in cases of rape, incest, or health issues. Etc.
The bias made editing to an NPOV impossible. First sentence became: "In 1821, Connecticut codified a pre-existing common law prohibiting the sale of drugs to those intending to induce abortion with those drugs, becoming the first state to pass a statute criminalizing participation in abortion." That sentence, while informative, doesn't belong in "Abortion-rights movement" category. Other edits follow a similar vein.
This paragraph doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'm deleting it.
P.S.: This edit will be my first on Wikipedia. I tried to follow all the applicable policies and procedures. If I made any mistakes, or you have any advice for future edits, please let me know.
--
24.217.32.13 (
talk) 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
References
I think the article’s focus is on the “Pro-Choice movement”, when it should be multiple movements, or at least the most prominent two: Pro- Choice movement and Pro-Life movement. I would like to make this article more unbiased and neutral. This would mean changing some word choice. I am hoping to add data that is more up to date and include the most common arguments of both movements. Therefore, I would create two sections: one for each movement. Zen916 ( talk) 23:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Added a new section to the page titled "Legal Rights" as an overview of recent legislation to change abortion-related healthcare access. I feel it's important to more distinctly document how recent pro-life initiatives have changed the lives of people seeking abortions, especially in America. The goal for this section is to highlight research by Caitlin Gerdts, PhD, MHS, which evaluates the often unseen burdens for Texas abortion patients who were affected by closures of facilities that closed after House Bill 2 was introduced in 2013. Gerdts, Caitlin, et al. “Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 106, no. 5, 2016, pp. 857–64. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyche-D40 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey the anti-abortion movement article is called anti abortion so shouldnt this be opposite of that? 86.114.249.202 ( talk) 10:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe this comes from a belief that consistency is important. I think that the other article should be called the Unborn-rights movement. However a solution that supports consistency is a good idea. Cookiegator ( talk) 14:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Closed early per snowball clause . ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works (contribs) 00:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Abortion-rights movements → Pro-abortion movements – This new title maintains a consistency with Anti-abortion movements. Also maintains neutral point of view. What are your thoughts on this? Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Why does Anti-abortion movements have the blue lock but this doesn't? Both are controversial, no? G'year — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
As seen in these sources: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684239?journalCode=signs
https://academic.oup.com/sp/article-abstract/14/1/126/2259045?redirectedFrom=PDF
Should it be mentioned in the article?
Pancho507 (
talk) 04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed that there have been attempts to change the article's title to be titled as "Pro-abortion movements," yet it appears there is already a consensus against doing that. This is not a request to change the title of an article, but rather to amend the lead sentence to:
Abortion-rights movements, also self-styled as pro-choice or pro-abortion movements, advocate for the right to have legal access to induced abortion services including elective abortion.
The claim that the only use of the phrase "pro-abortion" is by anti-abortion advocates is false. Pro-abortion does not mean people love abortion, it literally means that you favor its legalization and availability. Just like pro-capital-punishment doesn't mean you love the death penalty, but rather that you support it in certain circumstances as a punishment.
"Pro-abortion" is becoming increasingly common in the abortion debate, as it is a neutral descriptor that is equal in tone to the "anti-abortion" descriptor. Whether you like the phrase or not doesn't change the fact that it is one of the self-styled terms that people within the abortion-rights movement use or are starting to use.
Pro-abortion is widely defined by reliable dictionaries in the following ways:
Nowhere do these dictionaries say that it is a derogatory or hurtful term that only anti-abortion activists use.
Here are numerous examples of the use and promotion of the term "pro-abortion" by numerous organizations within the abortion-rights movement:
Finally, in reference to the anti-abortion movements article... If we are going to include the abolitionist movements descriptor, a quite rare and minority stance and term within the anti-abortion movement, then why not be consistent for the abortion-rights movements article and include pro-abortion as one of the self-styled descriptors as well?
There are numerous people in the abortion-rights movement who not only think and advocate that pro-abortion is the proper and best term for this movement, but also say that the term pro-choice "demonizes women who have abortions." So no, it isn't a term solely used by anti-abortion activists. Just as anti-abortion isn't a term solely used by pro-abortion (aka abortion rights) activists.
Feel free to respond with your thoughts about this proposal. I am very open to compromise and civil discussion so long as the other person demonstrates both respect and civility as well. DocZach ( talk) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The way to settle disputes like this (which has strayed WAY off subject) is to follow Wikipedia policy: we say what Reliable Sources say. (This makes discussions easier and to the point.)
The sources DocZach has found seem to show (in my opinion) no more than that RECENTLY (2020 and newer), SOME in the Abortion-rights movement support using the term "pro-abortion". This does NOT mean that the MAJORITY of the sources talking about the movement use that term.
It would be ok to use those sources for a statement somewhere in the article like: "Since 2020, some in the movement have been advocating for calling themselves "pro-abortion" as a way to de-stigmatize abortion." But this unless you can find "pro-abortion" being used INTERCHANGEABLY with "anti-abortion" in a large majority of mainstream sources which refer to the movement, (which we DEFINITELY do not have) than we don't call it that in Wikivoice in the lead.--- Avatar317 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we can conclude this discussion. NightHeron ( talk) 06:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Seems very inconsistent and biased to me. The pro-abortion movement uses "pro-choice" as their phrase, and the anti-abortion movement uses "pro-life" as their phrase. So if we are going to re-direct based on the opposite of their preferred phrases (as it seems people have already done with "anti-choice movements" re-directing to the anti-abortion article), then wouldn't it make sense to add an "anti-life movements" re-direct here as well? DocZach ( talk) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
very much in favor of protecting the life and wellbeing of the woman, and believe that her life should have priority over that of a zygote, embryo, or fetus" is a fair statement of what the entire abortion-rights movement believes, and that's why I used the word anyone. Your outrageous claim that "some" in the abortion-rights movement "fetishize" or "celebrate the killing of a child" mirrors the rhetoric of the extremists in the anti-abortion movement. You're really losing credibility at this point. NightHeron ( talk) 21:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abortion-rights movements article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Abortion-rights movements → Pro-abortion movements – This is a new article, discussing the abortion debate globally, rather just in the USA. The problem is what the title should be. The American article is United States pro-choice movement, but "pro-choice" seems to be an American euphemism. The most neutral and global title seems to be "pro-abortion". For example, see Pro-abortion activists rally in Argentina and Pro-abortion group fined in mainstream media outlets in Australia. Unfortunately, the article creator has already attacked me personally for even suggesting such a title. But the evidence suggests "pro-abortion" is both the most common and the most neutral designation. It also corresponds to the companion article also created recently, Anti-abortion movements (not "pro-life movements"). St Anselm ( talk) 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Abortion-rights movement | Abortion-rights | Pro-abortion movement | Pro-abortion | Sources | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Google Books | 11,000 | 233,000 | 2,540 | 50,900 | [1] [2] [3] [4] |
Google Scholar | 573 | 21,100 | 180 | 4,880 | [5] [6] [7] [8] |
Google News Archive | 7 | 10,900 | 6 | 2,100 | [9] [10] [11] [12] |
I've posted about this on that article's talk page, but now that United States pro-choice movement has been determined to have as its scope the United States and renamed accordingly, there is more general material there that should probably be moved or copied here. (Also from Abortion debate, although there's also less material there than there ought to be.) This should be the article where we discuss general philosophy behind the position, any forms of activism or historical facts that can be generalized across countries, ..., ... As well, I recommend removing unnecessary information about the legal status of abortion where it does not serve as context for the activities of pro-choice/abortion rights groups. There are other articles on the legality of abortion by country. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I see I've posted about this before, but we should be making an effort to keep this article focused on movements, not simply on the legal status of abortion in these various countries. How did it come about that abortion was legalized in Iran and Japan (to take the recently added material as an example, though similar issues exist in other sections) - through the efforts of pro-choice advocates? That is what's in the scope of the article, really. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what the answer to this question is, but calling this Abortion-rights movements, while we call the Pro-Life counterpart page 'Anti-Abortion movements' seems like we're breaking with NPOV and COMMONNAME, aren't we? Shouldn't they be 'Pro-Life Movements' and 'Pro-Choice' Movements? 72.224.172.14 ( talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this article was done very well. However, since several countries are brought up I am concerned why all countries aren't mentioned. I think the recent abortion rights movement in Poland should be referenced heavily due to the fact that there is so much going on over there right now with the protests. I also see a lack of religious reference. I think religion has a very big part on the abortion rights views. Because this has such a heavy influence on what people believe, this article should express the severity of that. Ttayloranne ( talk) 20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As my good faith has been called into question, I wish to address the misgivings head-on. Yes, I am pro-life, so I have a built-in bias for that side of the argument. No, I have not let my bias influence any of my editing behavior so as to contravene Wikipedia policies. On the contrary, I seek to balance Wikipedia and uphold its policies and guidelines to the best of my ability, and I always have, in my nearly-nine-year career here. I have never been sanctioned for POV-pushing, or any other distasteful behavior, and I intend quite earnestly to keep that record as clear as the day I started. I specialize in dispute resolution. When others are edit-warring and bickering over the correct way to do something, I will be the one seeking compromise, collegiality, and resolution to difficult situations. I believe in countering systemic bias, but I reject the idea that I am here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am only one man, so I do what I can in my corner of the universe, and if I fail, I retreat and regroup, having learned my lesson. I am a good-faith editor, and I would therefore ask everyone, especially my opponents in this long-standing and bitter debate, to put aside our biases for the sake of Wikipedia's goals, and evaluate our own actions in light of the letter and spirit of policy. Whatever the outcome of this RFC, I solemnly promise to obey the consensus established herein. Thank you for participating, and God bless. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Right to choose redirects here, but probably deserves its own article for Euthanasia, Abortion and other "choices" wrapped up together, similar to Right to life. Thoughts? L32007 ( talk) 08:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This doesn’t seem NPOV: “Abortion-rights supporters themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be available and to the circumstances, for example different periods in the pregnancy such as late term abortions, in which access may be restricted.”
Yes, people take a wide range of positions in the abortion-rights debate; and yes, if you exclude one rather narrow set of positions (those which involve being opposed to abortion rights under **all** circumstances), there are still a lot of positions left. Which means those remaining positions can be described as “divided”. But using that terminology makes abortion-rights supporters sound particularly fractious.
(One could as easily say, “Abortion-rights opponents themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be denied and to the circumstances, for example rape, in which access may be allowed.”)
So here’s my attempt at NPOV: “Non-absolute positions on abortion rights sometimes take the form of an absolute position with exceptions. For example, a person may support abortion rights in all circumstances except late term abortions, or oppose abortion rights in all circumstances except rape.” 97.115.71.30 ( talk) 02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
How about a whole new lead: "Abortion-rights movements, also referred to as pro-choice movements, advocate for legal access to induced abortion services. The right to have an abortion, or not, muddled with issues such as: how long in to the pregnancy, under what circumstances, the health of the fetus and the mother, the viability of the fetus out of the womb, and many more, are often complicated, personal, and many times religious issues for abortion-rights and anti-abortion individuals alike. [1] Worldwide, abortion-rights issues are historically controversial. In the US, many rights stem from the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing abortions in Roe v. Wade (1973)." StarHOG ( Talk) 14:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
In the United States section I added two different paragraphs the first one was “One of the largest protest marches on the nation’s capital and soon after, the high court refused to endorse Pennsylvania’s new restrictions and left the Roe v. Wade decision intact.” (History.com). Including this shows an actual movement that happened about abortions and pro choice and how it left a positive impact leading to the higher court not furthering abortion restrictions. Including more information about protests that have happened and have left a positive impact shows actual abortion rights movements rather than just laws to compare from each country shows how different countries respond to the topic. To the United States section I also added how "90 percent of abortions take place in free-standing clinics. And these clinics, their funding networks, and their legal support are typically run by non-profits that receive federal Title X funding" (Cicerchia, Lillian). This shows the reader why even when abortions are legal why it is so difficult to obain them. The last thing I added was in Irelands section and it was about how in Ireland a women was raped and even though she did not want to and tried to attempt suicide “She was eventually forced to give birth by C-section. At every step of the way, the Irish authorities’ concern for the protection of the fetus trumped any consideration of Ms Y’s mental and physical health.” (Newbery, Gher). Including this shows a real example of consequences women go through when they are denied their right. Seeing that it is from a different country help the reader understand the similaries/differences in each country of abortions restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devshreebhatt ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
First Paragraph Under Heading "United States":
The first known legalization of abortion in the United States was passed by the state of Connecticut in the year of 1821, where women barred abortions following quickening, usually performed by administering a poisoning to the mother up to four months into her pregnancy. Up to the year of 1856, women in their first trimester were legally allowed to have an abortion in most states, but not all. It (abortion) was considered a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure that was common enough to appear on medical records. This happened far before the official abortion laws appeared in the United States. No legal, social, or religious force stopped women who wanted an abortion in the New England part of America between the 17th and 18th centuries. There were people, such as Dr. Horatio Storer who pushed efforts to drive the legalization of abortion. Nearly a century later, Colorado was named the first state to liberalize abortion in 1970. Just a few short years after women had finally begun to see the hope within legal abortions, in 1973, Roe vs. Wade occurred, which ended all previously made laws that made abortion legal. Nearly forty years later, in 2009 polls were released that showed 51% of Americans advocate pro-life. However, Congress still passed a healthcare reformation that possibly will be tax-funded abortions. Abortion was an issue that was tossed and contemplated for years prior to its first legalizations, and it will continue to be an issue for years long after present day.
???
Full of claims, no citations. "Poisoning" without naming substances used, "women had finally begun to see the hope," entire last sentence all imply strong bias. Last sentence includes conjecture based on a political talking point. Refers to "the official abortion laws" without stating what those laws were. Unclear what "liberalize abortion" means, also what it means to be "named the first state" to do it. Etc.
I tried to edit it.
Sources contradicted the claims. Dr. "legalization of abortion" Horatio Storer: [1] was an anti-abortion advocate. Colorado, the "liberalize abortion in 1970" state: [2] decriminalized abortion in 1967 (nothing in 1970) and only in cases of rape, incest, or health issues. Etc.
The bias made editing to an NPOV impossible. First sentence became: "In 1821, Connecticut codified a pre-existing common law prohibiting the sale of drugs to those intending to induce abortion with those drugs, becoming the first state to pass a statute criminalizing participation in abortion." That sentence, while informative, doesn't belong in "Abortion-rights movement" category. Other edits follow a similar vein.
This paragraph doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'm deleting it.
P.S.: This edit will be my first on Wikipedia. I tried to follow all the applicable policies and procedures. If I made any mistakes, or you have any advice for future edits, please let me know.
--
24.217.32.13 (
talk) 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
References
I think the article’s focus is on the “Pro-Choice movement”, when it should be multiple movements, or at least the most prominent two: Pro- Choice movement and Pro-Life movement. I would like to make this article more unbiased and neutral. This would mean changing some word choice. I am hoping to add data that is more up to date and include the most common arguments of both movements. Therefore, I would create two sections: one for each movement. Zen916 ( talk) 23:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Added a new section to the page titled "Legal Rights" as an overview of recent legislation to change abortion-related healthcare access. I feel it's important to more distinctly document how recent pro-life initiatives have changed the lives of people seeking abortions, especially in America. The goal for this section is to highlight research by Caitlin Gerdts, PhD, MHS, which evaluates the often unseen burdens for Texas abortion patients who were affected by closures of facilities that closed after House Bill 2 was introduced in 2013. Gerdts, Caitlin, et al. “Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 106, no. 5, 2016, pp. 857–64. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyche-D40 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey the anti-abortion movement article is called anti abortion so shouldnt this be opposite of that? 86.114.249.202 ( talk) 10:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe this comes from a belief that consistency is important. I think that the other article should be called the Unborn-rights movement. However a solution that supports consistency is a good idea. Cookiegator ( talk) 14:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Closed early per snowball clause . ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works (contribs) 00:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Abortion-rights movements → Pro-abortion movements – This new title maintains a consistency with Anti-abortion movements. Also maintains neutral point of view. What are your thoughts on this? Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Why does Anti-abortion movements have the blue lock but this doesn't? Both are controversial, no? G'year — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
As seen in these sources: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684239?journalCode=signs
https://academic.oup.com/sp/article-abstract/14/1/126/2259045?redirectedFrom=PDF
Should it be mentioned in the article?
Pancho507 (
talk) 04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed that there have been attempts to change the article's title to be titled as "Pro-abortion movements," yet it appears there is already a consensus against doing that. This is not a request to change the title of an article, but rather to amend the lead sentence to:
Abortion-rights movements, also self-styled as pro-choice or pro-abortion movements, advocate for the right to have legal access to induced abortion services including elective abortion.
The claim that the only use of the phrase "pro-abortion" is by anti-abortion advocates is false. Pro-abortion does not mean people love abortion, it literally means that you favor its legalization and availability. Just like pro-capital-punishment doesn't mean you love the death penalty, but rather that you support it in certain circumstances as a punishment.
"Pro-abortion" is becoming increasingly common in the abortion debate, as it is a neutral descriptor that is equal in tone to the "anti-abortion" descriptor. Whether you like the phrase or not doesn't change the fact that it is one of the self-styled terms that people within the abortion-rights movement use or are starting to use.
Pro-abortion is widely defined by reliable dictionaries in the following ways:
Nowhere do these dictionaries say that it is a derogatory or hurtful term that only anti-abortion activists use.
Here are numerous examples of the use and promotion of the term "pro-abortion" by numerous organizations within the abortion-rights movement:
Finally, in reference to the anti-abortion movements article... If we are going to include the abolitionist movements descriptor, a quite rare and minority stance and term within the anti-abortion movement, then why not be consistent for the abortion-rights movements article and include pro-abortion as one of the self-styled descriptors as well?
There are numerous people in the abortion-rights movement who not only think and advocate that pro-abortion is the proper and best term for this movement, but also say that the term pro-choice "demonizes women who have abortions." So no, it isn't a term solely used by anti-abortion activists. Just as anti-abortion isn't a term solely used by pro-abortion (aka abortion rights) activists.
Feel free to respond with your thoughts about this proposal. I am very open to compromise and civil discussion so long as the other person demonstrates both respect and civility as well. DocZach ( talk) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The way to settle disputes like this (which has strayed WAY off subject) is to follow Wikipedia policy: we say what Reliable Sources say. (This makes discussions easier and to the point.)
The sources DocZach has found seem to show (in my opinion) no more than that RECENTLY (2020 and newer), SOME in the Abortion-rights movement support using the term "pro-abortion". This does NOT mean that the MAJORITY of the sources talking about the movement use that term.
It would be ok to use those sources for a statement somewhere in the article like: "Since 2020, some in the movement have been advocating for calling themselves "pro-abortion" as a way to de-stigmatize abortion." But this unless you can find "pro-abortion" being used INTERCHANGEABLY with "anti-abortion" in a large majority of mainstream sources which refer to the movement, (which we DEFINITELY do not have) than we don't call it that in Wikivoice in the lead.--- Avatar317 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we can conclude this discussion. NightHeron ( talk) 06:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Seems very inconsistent and biased to me. The pro-abortion movement uses "pro-choice" as their phrase, and the anti-abortion movement uses "pro-life" as their phrase. So if we are going to re-direct based on the opposite of their preferred phrases (as it seems people have already done with "anti-choice movements" re-directing to the anti-abortion article), then wouldn't it make sense to add an "anti-life movements" re-direct here as well? DocZach ( talk) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
very much in favor of protecting the life and wellbeing of the woman, and believe that her life should have priority over that of a zygote, embryo, or fetus" is a fair statement of what the entire abortion-rights movement believes, and that's why I used the word anyone. Your outrageous claim that "some" in the abortion-rights movement "fetishize" or "celebrate the killing of a child" mirrors the rhetoric of the extremists in the anti-abortion movement. You're really losing credibility at this point. NightHeron ( talk) 21:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)