To sum up my position as laid out on my talk page We accept pro life and pro choice as descriptors for people because they are self identifications unlike other editors in this discussion I do not go about editing descriptions of people to put in buzzwords I like However laws are not people and can not self identify so we have to treat them as we d treat anything else and describe them in non biased language This can take the form of using a neutral descriptor X supports anti abortion legislation attributing the biased descriptor X supports legislation he describes as pro life or suppressing the descriptor entirely X supports laws which would define a fertilized egg as a legal person However the latter two aren t really appropriate for a heading so I think in this particular case we re obliged to use the neutral text Dictionary usage moreover is against applying pro life to non people groups Interestingly the OED accepts pro choice as a word one can use to describe a law but I think it s best to keep the policy equal I used OED Merriam Webster and American Heritage I ve been changing these because WP NPOV is the standard we should be striving for The self identification rule allows for balance if not real neutrality and while one might disagree it s at least consensus X is pro life sort of implies X describes himself as pro life If on the other hand you start letting biased text through in non SI cases NPOV is gutted This law is pro life well it certainly doesn t believe that abortion is wrong itself because it hasn t a brain Who has described it as pro life And why are we only listening to them instead of people who have described the law as anti choice Better to go with neutral text