This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-abortion movements article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit Frequently asked questions (FAQ) Q: Should this article's title be pro-life movement? A: No. Wikipedia does not use euphemisms. The term "pro-life" is a branding or marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion. The fact that the two sides officially call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is not a reason for Wikipedia to prefer those terms, since neither is neutral, nor accurately describes their positions. This was discussed at length in June 2018, when the titles of both articles were changed to neutral titles: pro-life movement --> anti-abortion movement and pro-choice movement --> abortion-rights movement. The former group of people is unambiguously opposed to abortion, so there's nothing misleading about the name. It's a neutral name, which should not offend anyone who truly believes that abortion is wrong. Additionally, the term pro-life is a political spin term that does not necessarily reflect reality. The philosophy which opposes both abortion and the death penalty, and which supports access to healthcare and other life-sustaining measures, is termed consistent life ethic. Similarly, pro-choice is a political spin, because it disguises the fact that people are talking about abortion. They are not talking about your right to vote in an election. The most neutral term (according to consensus in 2018) is the abortion-rights movement, because its advocates unambiguously believe that a woman has a right to have an abortion, subject only to the usual restrictions based on trimester. It would be wrong to call it a pro-abortion movement, since typically the spokespeople for the movement primarily advocate for female bodily autonomy and a hierarchy of measures beginning with widely available contraception and high quality sex education, with abortion as a final option in the case of unwanted pregnancy.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Abortion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's Health Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Lists Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Moves
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Discussions: No consensus, 27 December 2014, from Anti-abortion movements to Pro-life movement, see discussion. Not moved, 1 June 2018, from Anti-abortion movements to Pro-life movement, see discussion. Moved, 11 December 2020, from Anti-abortion movement to Anti-abortion movements, see discussion.

I agree with the previous RFC on the page title; the previous title was bad for many reasons.

But I feel the new one doesn't fully work either; these people aren't "against abortion", they're "against abortion rights". Practically everyone is technically "anti-abortion" (see the "safe, legal, and rare" slogan).

I rather like NPR's style guide:

On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights").

For this article, this would mean a move to "Movements against abortion rights", with this page turning into a redirect. This isn't an RFC yet; I'd just like to test the waters. DFlhb (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is true, although I think 'right' is not neutral enough, as it suggests the interpretation that anti-abortion is against human rights. A better title could be 'movements against legalized abortion', and then you could solve the problem you mention about how people in favour of legalization are not really in favour of 'more abortions'. Reesorville (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to WP:MOS, an article title should be "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". The current title is all of these things. The proposed title is awkward and not "natural".

The present article title does not logically imply that the opposing movement wants to see more abortions or believes that abortion is always the best option. The basic viewpoint of the abortion rights movement is that abortion, like any other medical procedure, should be a decision of the woman and her physician.

I personally agree with the OP that access to abortion should be regarded as a human right, but per WP:NPOV the article title should reflect not our own POV, but rather what is indisputable. What's indisputable is that the anti-abortion movement is bitterlyadamantly opposed to abortions. NightHeron (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would dispute your characterization of "bitterness", why did you have to poison it with that negative judgement? Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll replace "bitterly" if it offends you. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a question of individual offense, it's just that you proposed something as "indisputable" and then you're attaching value judgements and negative connotations to it. I'm not sure you've improved that very much. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

In the Europe: Ireland section, this is quoted:

"...which was a significant landmark for women in the UK"

I think this conflicts with

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcut WP:NPOV

NPOV, as it implies that legalisation is a 'victory' for all women. I think this should be changed to language similar to

"...which was a significant landmark for abortion-seeking women in the UK"

...or something along these lines. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done The references to Northern Ireland were proper to the UK section, not the Ireland section. I moved the relevant sentences there and did some copy-editing as the language in the whole section was quite poor. While I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the original, I've removed the sentence in question in the course of the copy-edit. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

interesting how wiki decided to rename the article anti-abortion rather than how it was known - pro-life. obviously a political move. usually a group is referred to by the name they choose, not recast by those with opposite views to attempt to obfuscate the true underlying objections and rational.

as usual, wikipedia is simply a leftist propaganda media arm.

Why not rename pro-abortion to pro-death? We know you would never do that. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll note that the opposing viewpoint is named the abortion-rights movement, and not the pro-choice movement as they preferred to be called. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you're correct. 'abortion rights movement' is a preferred name. 'abortion rights' is a frequently used term by those fighting in favour of legalized abortion, alongside similar phrases like 'reproductive rights'. I don't think it is NPOV either, because it suggests that we are accepting it as a fact that abortion is a human right. Something like 'Pro-legalized abortion movement' would be more neutral. Reesorville (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that 'abortion-rights movement' is probably more acceptable to its members than 'anti-abortion movement' is to its members, but still the most preferred names are 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'. I also agree there are issues with 'abortion-rights movement' but at least it's concise and not euphemistic so you immediately know what it means. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article name is accurate. Many people are "pro-life" - they oppose the death penalty, famine caused by climate change, the absence of universal healthcare, the lack of gun control in some states, and promote access to healthcare, including planned parenthood. etc. Many others who proclaim themselves to be "pro-life" champion the death penalty, deny climate change, oppose gun control, favour laissez-faire capitalism, and wish to restrict access to healthcare, including planned parenthood and contraception. It is therefore much simpler and entirely accurate to describe abortion movements as either "anti-abortion movements" or "abortion-rights movements". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two reasons why I argue it is not accurate:

1) 'anti-abortion' in our time and in past times also includes natalism, anti-contraception and anti-promiscuity. This may not be the way that the debate is framed in countries like the US, but looking at this from a global perspective, the countries in Africa or Asia that ban or limit abortion may be doing it for reasons that are totally separate from a belief system that the fetus is a child. China, for example, is currently trying to restrict abortion to boost their birth rate. Many Islamic countries restrict abortion from conception because of social taboos that think women who have abortions are promiscuous, even though Islamic teaching says that the fetus only becomes a person later in the pregnancy. Calling the 'pro-life movement' as the 'anti-abortion movement' is basically conflating all anti-abortion activities worldwide with this particular religious-ideological movement that is focused on activities against abortion for one particular reason.

2) the 'pro-life movement' while primarily directed against abortion, also has been involved in notable levels of activities against euthanasia and assisted suicide. Look at Frank Pavone's campaigning regarding Terri Shiavo for example. I'd also argue that this movement is often tied together with campaigning for traditional families, anti-lgbt stuff, and other right wing issues. But those characteristics are definitely not shared by all the different movements worldwide that oppose legalize abortion.

in summary:

'pro-life' = a particular ideological movement in some parts of the world that is heavily focused on abortion but also tied to other political issues

anti-abortion = all activities worldwide against legalized abortion

I know that many people don't want to use 'pro-life' because they personally disagree with it and don't like the label, but I think it is still preferable for reasons of accuracy. A better solution for NPOV would be if it was just put the name in italics or 'quotes' to make it clear that usage of the name isn't an endorsement for what it stands for. Reesorville (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand your argument. You're saying 'anti-abortion' is misleading because it implies things beyond the plain words, but 'pro-life' is preferable even though it has the same issues? –CWenger (^ • @) 21:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anti-abortion and pro-life are not the same things. That is essentially my argument.

We can use 'pro-life' to refer to this movement without meaning that we endorse the correctness of the label in the same way that we use names for other movements without endorsing the correctness.Reesorville (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like CWenger, I’m unable to see any logic in your argument 1) against using “anti-abortion” in the title. You point out that in other parts of the world opposition to abortion is often voiced for other reasons besides those implied by the “pro-life” self-designation. But the article is not just about the US; per WP:GLOBAL, it includes the movements in many countries. So your argument is actually a good additional reason (besides the reasons explained in the FAQ at the top of this page) not to use “pro-life” in the title. Even if we look only at the US, some historically important leaders of anti-abortion campaigns (such as Anthony Comstock in the late 19th century) saw it as part of an “anti-vice’’ (anti-prostitution, anti-promiscuity, etc.) campaign, not as “pro life.” NightHeron (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1） if the article is only about the 'pro-life movement' then it should be called the 'pro-life movement' rather than 'anti-abortion movements', because opposition to abortion globally is not the same thing as 'pro-life'.

2） if the article, as you said, is not about just the pro-life movement, but it is about opposition to abortion from a global (and historical) perspective, then 'pro-life' is notable enough that it deserves its own article separate from this. Furthermore this article should also include coverage on opposition to abortion from all those places where the opposition is not related to the pro-life movement. Reesorville (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your suggestions in point #2 are good. If those changes happen, then it might merit revisiting the title. But currently, this article is not really about the entire pro-life movement (euthanasia is only mentioned once, for example), so even though it lacks a comprehensive global perspective, "anti-abortion" is more fitting. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, you have an opinion, but it's in the minority. This subject has been discussed ad nauseam, and the consensus is to use "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights", for - well, quite obvious reasons. Please see the FAQ, at the top of the page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This guy is going around spewing this kind of crap in a few places. Can we please do something about this? His hypocritical oxymornoic bs doesn't convey anything constructive to the pages he is lampblasting with complaints about "bias" while clearly being extremely bias himself. He isn't looking for consensus, nor NPOV, nor he is contributing anything constructive. He is using talk pages to push an agenda of his own while whining that Wiki is propaganda. I'd go to an admin but I'm short on time atm. @ScottishFinnishRadish maybe? Help? This kind of trolling is ridiculous and has no place on Wiki. At all. So if any of the admins could do something about this, that'd be helpful. Thank you. SageSolomon (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

aaand I f***ed up by not noticing I was on a previous diff of the talk page. (insert facepalm here). Apologies. Still, this IP address is going around just trying to start drama. Go look at their edits. They don't care about any of the pillars or anything. It's moot. I'm just trying to get a troll off the talk pages. Apologies if I've over stepped or anything. And bravo for you guys at least attempting to make it a constructive discussion. 5 stars. SageSolomon (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bizarre and inappropriate to rename the article from Pro-Life to whatever "Anti-Abortion" is. LordofChaos55 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The opposing article is named abortion-rights movements and not pro-choice movements. It's not perfect but at least both articles have 'abortion' in the title instead of euphemisms. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very much pro-life, reflected in my sincere belief that nobody should be able to purchase high-powered rifles or handguns, even with delays and mandatory background checks, and that there should not be a death penalty. Oh, I also believe in the right to procure an abortion. So yeah, let's avoid euphemisms? Anti-abortion and abortion rights are clear, unequivocal and neutral. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, you’re not pro-life. LordofChaos55 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both promotional terms. Scholarly, neutral terms are "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights". That's what is going on here. Nothing to get worried about. You characterized this neutral wording as "leftist" which is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I cannot see how abortion is a left vs right issue. I would also point out that this is a global encyclopedia. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not universally used as the names for the relevant movements outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LordofChaos leftist and socially liberal are only the same thing in the US and not even there all of the time either, Batsun we all know your politics by now. 2 other points; one I thought abortion rights are only what the pro-choice side calls them and if the terms Wikipedia is going with are anti-abortion and abortion rights then surely the Abortion in the Republic of Ireland box should say abortion rights and anti-abortion (not anti-abortion rights)? 2001:BB6:7A87:E658:4052:37B6:74F3:8253 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but this article looks nothing like a list. G'year         16:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, and I don't understand why it is top importance within that project. Dajasj (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]