Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 1

message: There may be three? I'm thinking of a scientific/medical foundation, for those that base their stance on the conception event as the start of a new unique human life, genetically and in terms of being a separate organism, as opposed to a tissue or organ of another organism. Of course, it still requires a moral or legal element in the end to demand rights for these lives, but for some this may be the stronger motivation or the starting point for the belief.
Darrowby 23:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Foundations

message: Discussions below about N/POV of "child" seem to have skipped over the definition(s) of that word. Fetus is explicitly listed as a meaning of child and the older form "cild." "With child" also traditionally meant pregnant. Another definition is a son or daughter (offspring) of any age. Child also means a derivative item--computer science uses the words child and parent, for example.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/child
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cild
So, in reality the word "child" includes fetus. If the word brings unwanted attributes or emotions to a person's mind, I'd say that's the responsibility of the person, not the word. According to the definition, using "unborn child" is not POV.
Darrowby 10:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct --Nerd42 23:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child 

message: This article is written entirely from a pro-choice point of view. Just compare the opening sentence with that of Pro-choice. Here 'pro-life' is a euphemism there 'pro-choice' is a "self-description". I would edit it now but I don't want to start a fight. Does anybody know if there has been any discussion anywhere that would have a bearing on producing a NPOV article on this topic? If not I guess I'll get cracking and let the reverts fall where they may. Stroika 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your point re: "euphemism" and "self-description" is a fair one.  I certainly wouldn't object to that sort of edit (though you're right to be concerned with starting a fight).  I'd be a little careful editing too stridently lest you disturb the sleeping pro-life and pro-choice dragons.  Of which, I suppose, I might be one (see below).  ;)  --Plumbago 16:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Stroika.  It's still a highly biased write-up in need of some actual, independent wikipedians to give it a NPOV and factual write-up that includes both the the positive and negative.--Pro-Lick 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been following this article for quite a while now, and I am not certain why it is still considered POV. Could those who feel that it is so please state which paragraphs are still disputed, please? --Jakob mark 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  If I look for POV, all I can come up with is this sentence: Just as murder is considered wrong by virtually all religions, it is also widely condemned by those with a secular outlook, since it equates murder and abortion, which the article states is one of the main controversies between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Anything else? --Jakob mark 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out.  1 step closer.--Pro-Lick 00:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: About the recent revert removing the life vs. choice information under term controversy:  Meelar's summary suggested that possibly the "fetus/unborn child" is not life.  Since quite obviously it is life, being made up of cells, which are life.  I don't see the basis for removal, as saying that a fetus/unborn child is life is hardly POV, but an unarguable scientific fact.  It's not a virus, which is the only "living" thing that science isn't sure is life.  Now I suppose that pro-choice individuals can decide to ignore science and claim that the fetus isn't alive, but rather than revert the statement, it could be modified to say that "some pro-choice individuals believe that the fetus is not life, directly contradicting accepted scientific definitions of life".  Unless there is a good explanation, I can't see why the removed content shouldn't be added again. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more precise; the phrasing in the article suggested that the fetus/child was alive; of course it is "life", but then, so is my kidney. Is there a better way to phrase this? Best, Meelar (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent "revert" 

message: I've included a number of religious views on the subject as well as a link to the main Religion and abortion article. However, looking back on the edits I've made, it seems I've been a bit abortion-centric on the subject, neglecting to cover euthanasia and the death penalty in greater detail. Oh, and I'm pro-choice, so it would be great if anyone could check my contribs for POV. Thanks! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  10:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious aspects 

message: Why is there no mention of the March for Life? Isn't that what it's called? Isn't it coming up soon? Isn't it encyclopaedic? --LV (Dark Mark) 16:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and wrote a tiny stub for March for Life. It could use expansion, but I don't know enough to write a full article. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  March for Life? 

message: The article's 2nd paragraph discusses terminology. Alienus has inserted his opinion that pro-life langauge is emotional and pro-abortion language is strictly medical.  It may be your opinion, but it is a fact that ob/gyns in practice and ob/gyn professional texts use the the same words (unborn, baby, mother). So it is wrong to label them non-medical. Likewise, pro-abortion rhetoric is not simply medical; using emotional terms for the mom but sterile terms for the fetus is worthy of note.  Its simply factual that both sides play with words to garner support.  To paint either side as emotional or scientific is POV given the facts.  I am not all that concerned how it is worded, but Alienus's version was terribly POV. Good 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alienus' POV Language in 2nd para

message: Susan B Anthony and her contemporary feminists regarded abortion as an evil perpetrated by men who wanted sex without worry. I can post plenty of quotes if anyone is dubious. I have edited the article accordingly to reflect this. Good 00:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classic feminists

message: Today's NYT (April 3, 2006) notes that both sides of this debate invoke God (and always have).  Funny how some editors here think pro-life policy is simply religious but pro-abortion policy is wholly secular.  Such a view is clearly POV - and abortion-related wikipedia articles should not be written under the erroneous assumption that it is factual.  Even the pro-abortion NYT understands that such a view is balderdash. Good 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Since people seem to think that religious affiliations are relevant to Pro-life, it's only fair that be covered at the Pro-choice article. --Hyphen5 17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's NYTimes headline: ''The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God''

message: It seems that a lot of links have been added to this article fairly recently. That is something I have noticed on a lot of articles, and some of the links seem redundant or just not that important. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a repository of links.  Andrea Parton 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Editors of this page may want to comment at Talk:Anti-abortion_movement#RfC:__Merger_of_article_with_Pro-Choice_and_Pro-Life.. DonaNobisPacem 21:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Anti-Abortion 

message: Is there a source for this attempted change?  Can you cite a significant number of pro-life organizations that actually are trying to interfere with anyone's right to die that is not in a state that is effectively vegetative?  To me, it seems there's an attempt to respin vegetative states as mental conditions that inhibit or prevent communication or mental incapacities.  I'll accept the change if it can be verified.--Pro-Lick 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous examples of pro-life organizations protesting major cases of euthanizing those with mental/physical disabilities who were NOT in vegetative states - the Robert Latimar case in Alberta, Canada (where he murdered his daughter Terry, who had cerebral palsy) and the so-called "Baby Doe" case, involving an infant with Down's Syndrome (again, he required ongoing care, was mentally handicapped, but not vegetative).  I can amass a number of sources, plus others that particularly single out opposition to the euthanizing of physically/mentally handicapped individuals, but it will take a couple of days if you want them listed here.  As well, institutions such as REAL Woman of Canada, the Pro-Life medical associations in the US and Canada, the Catholic Church, many Christian churches, various Islamic and Jewish factions oppose euthanasia in ANY form - so that would include any level of mental handicap, and even those of sound mind who request it.  Again, I can list exhaustive sources if necessary, but there will be a time factr. DonaNobisPacem 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources for those 2 cases may be fine if they in fact turn out as described (assuming "murder" is just the term you selected and was in fact not the case) along with a couple larger pro-life organizations that use the language you use or something equivalent.--Pro-Lick 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetative or Mental 

message: Cookamunga left an inane comment and made harmful changes to the article.  I reverted them, but true to form, our buddy Evil has decided to help the vandal by launching an edit war.  Note that Evil has not explained why these changes by Cook should be kept, and neither has Cook.  This means that neither one is seeking a consensus.  I've reverted to a version prior to Cook's damage, and I expect Evil to leave it alone unless he can justify a change right here in Talk. Alienus 10:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change were made to a previous version without obtaining consensus - I simply reverted those changes (thereby removing POV that some had inserted). ____G_o_o_d____ 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree for the most part in that the current revision is better than the G&E/cookamunga version. I will go by point by point and explain why. "persons who cannot communicate their wishes" is completely vague and cryptic.  Why cannot a person communicate their wishes? because of "physical or mental incapacitation". If this isn't accurate, change the wording, but the clause needs to be clarified somehow. Remember, this current version was inserted, to an extent, by G&E after he deleted the bit about Terri Schivo and "vegetative states". Maybe we should go back to the older version? Next, I actually a that "believes it" should be removed. The pro-life movement does not rely solely on religion justifications. It isn't a matter of belief. Now whether the atheists are a minority or very few, does it really matter? Next, I believe this version is better " therefore morally object to the deliberate killing of human embryos and fetuses." but there is no need for 'deliberate'. However, the other version isn't POV or anything. Both may be able to fit in, but it also might be a matter of choosing which one serves the purpose better. Is it redundent to say "x qualifies as a person, so killing x equals killing a person"? Coz that is what the other version is saying. Once again, does it matter if it says "finally" or "another"? The word "finally" doesn't sit well with me because it reminds me of middle school generic essays that follow a strict structure. But that is just me. Next, "feminist positions on reproductive decision-making" vs. "positions on female reproductive rights". I believe the use of "feminist" is inaccurate, and reproductive rights is the term of the movement, so I am going to side with the current version. Next, " pro-lifers tend to hold positions on more than just abortion. However, this can be said of any activist for any position." This just reads poorly. And it isn't conveying the point in the current version. Pro-life and anti-abortion are related, however sometimes pro-life specifically refers to other issues besides anti-abortion (euthenasia for one). This isn't claiming that pro-life individuals aren't one issue people, it is claiming the term and movement "pro-life" doesn't always refer to abortion. Maybe the current version doesn't say this perfectly, but the edits completely change the meaning for the worse. Next, you have reverted a spelling error "woudl". Next, I changed the structure of the pro-choice sentence to fit with the structure of the pro-life sentence. your revert removed this edit (which I consider to be an improvement). Finally, "killing an innocent (the pro-life view of every abortion) is never a legitimate choice." Seriously, does anybody want that exact wording the in article? So all in all, I can see positive and negative in both edits. Maybe we can talk this out before reverting again. --Andrew c 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to explain some of the major reasons why the attempted text was of lower quality. Alienus 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for sharing your pro-abortion POV. ____G_o_o_d____ 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither Andrew nor I are pro-abortion.  You seem, uhm, confused.  Perhaps to people who are staunchly anti-choice, everyone who cares about women's rights looks "pro-abortion". Alienus 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might wish to look up the word "pro-abortion" in the dictionary.  You will then discover that according to Webster's, you are definitely "pro-abortion". It apparently bothers you to admit that you do in fact advocate abortion as a good thing. I can't imagine why that would bother you.____G_o_o_d____ 19:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at the dictionary, it does say "pro-abortion" means "in favor of legalization of abortion". However, despite what the dictionary says, "pro-abortion" has a definite flavor of "thinking abortion is a good thing", whereas almost everyone in favor of the legalization of abortion sees it as the lesser of two evils, far better than producing unwanted babies but worse than preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. DanielCristofani 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, I see why this happened: modern dictionaries describe the way words are in fact used by people, rather than how they "should" be used. Thus, if a word is used by one side only, the dictionary definition will reflect the way that side uses it. The word "pro-abortion" is used almost exclusively by pro-lifers, and they do use it to refer to everyone who is in favor of legalizing abortion. DanielCristofani 22:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I also am not "pro-abortion" but support legaization as women through the ages have sought abortions. If they cannot obtain one legally they get butchered by some quack.   I think to use this term is POV and allows the debate to take place on the terms of the pro-life groups (who do not dipsute this description of themselves). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits

message: Your addition of "Pro-Life Activism" is not helpful. Maybe you would want to merge the existing content from pro-life activism here? However, in regards to what you added: "harrass" is a POV, you have to also explain that pro-lifers feel that they are not harrassing women, but "witnessing" or some other term. The extreme methods section reads very unencyclopedia. Your language, for one, is vernacular, and you lack sources. How many clinics have been 'blown up', how many employee's shot? Don't give this issue undue weight, and you need to balance the POV by referencing what the pro-life movement feels about these "extreme" actions. These isolated instances do not speak for the whole. And as I said above, it not a belief that "the pro-life movement does not rely solely on religious justification". Why have two entries on secular arguments if the existence of these arguments is based on belief, not the fact that they actually exist (the arguments themselves, not the accuracy of them). 
That said, I agree that some of G&E's edits should be reverted, but I am not going to get into a revert war over the matter. I am not sure what to do about the personhood vs. humanity section. If we remove it, as G&E did, we'd need to change the pro-choice sentence as well. G&E's suggested change doesn't sounds good to me. What about something like " This contrasts with the beliefs of many pro-choice activists who hold varying opinions on what constitutes personhood"? Next, as I said above, "feminist" is inaccurate. Finally, "have adopted the framing language of abortion supporters and" is redundent, read the two sentences before it. The user does not need it spelled out any more to them. --Andrew c 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew, I'd just like to see more comprehensive and historical coverage as opposed to a pro-life organization's standard press-release handout.  Consider this a step in that direction, crude as it may be viewed.  I agree it needs sources, as does much of the page anyway, so I think I'm not going beyond what's already standard practice in this article.  As for the activism article, yes, I do think it should be integrated into this one.  As it stands, it also reads almost entirely as a pro-life promotion handout on how to participate, shilling for various organizations.  In short, I see POV forking.  From what I can tell, there is no equivalent pro-choice article, nor am I suggesting that their should be.--Pro-Lick 17:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Pro-Lick|Pro-Lick]]'s edits, G&E as well 

message: Please stop re-inserting silly phrases that push your POV. Section headings should not editorialize (as yours do).  Pro-lifers reject current feminist views that abortion is a human right - that is NOT POV, it is fact.  Etc. etc. etc.  The comment about about atheists is POV, as well - the topic is secular - religious people can and do have secular motives.  The atheism line falsely insinuates that one must be atheist to hold secular views. You left out the necessary word "unjustly". Etc Etc. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been addressed elsewhere: there are feminists who do NOT see abortion as a human right.  In fact, we link to one such group.  Your proposed change is counterfactual, therefore unacceptable.  I will continue to revert it as necessary.  Thank you for understanding. Alienus 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You see, that's the difference between you and me: I'm not playing.  If you try to inject more POV, I'll remove it. Alienus 05:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Endless accusations do not substitute for facts, and are not conducive to good faith. Alienus 07:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the suggestion.  As it stands, I'm politely disregarding his empty claims, so as to avoid unnecessary conflict. Alienus 14:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alienus - stop the POV pushing

message: This section heading is POV.  It blatantly couches the pro-life movement's diversity into a negative.  I will be changing it later today, so please make suggestions.  ____G_o_o_d____ 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to mention that "pro-life" activists prefer terms such as "unborn child", feel free.  However, if you want to use these terms in the article, that would be an endorsement of the POV, hence a violation of NPOV. See the difference?  Don't worry; even if you don't, someone else will revert it. Alienus 10:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that phrase was changed to "They feel this includes the fetus in utero" by Hyphen5. I do not know how it got changed back, and I supported hyphen5's reasons behind the change. However, there is NO reason what so ever to use POV language in an encyclopedia unless you are explaining the fact that a specific group uses specific language. And yes, this is already covered in the third paragraph. --Andrew c 13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I also have to wonder what "fetus in utero" means that is not covered by the first word on its own.  Fetuses are found in uteruses, so this is redundant at best, POV at worst. The POV would be that it's trying hard to medicalize a standard pro-life slogan term: "unborn baby". Alienus 14:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. What does everyone feel about just saying "fetuses" or maybe "embryos and fetuses" and leaving out the "in utero" and "in a pregnant woman" part?--Andrew c 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should simply use the term that pro-lifers use, and qualify the term parenthetically so that everyone knows it is not a neutral term: "The pro-life movement includes what they refer to as "unborn children" (embryos or fetuses)..."  No one would then get the idea that unborn child is a neutral term, but they would understand the view of the pro-life movement in context. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to stop being encyclopedic in favor of using POV language that favors the subject. Go to the Animal euthanasia article. It clearly says that "put to sleep" is a euphemism used by pet owners. However, the article does not continue to use that sort of terminology to favor the subject. It's one thing to mention a fact that involves pointing out POV language; it is another thing to adapt that language for otherwise encyclopedic parts of the article.--Andrew c 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I see nothing wrong with the current phrasing, but what if we changed controversial to "polarized" or "partisan" or "conflicting". And maybe one of these words could be used with either "terminology" or "language". "Terminology", by itself does not seem adequate because that suggest that we are going to present a lexicon, where we are talking about how both sides use language for biased framing. If we cannot come up with something better, and we cannot convince you that "Controversial terminology" isn't POV, then I wouldn't be opposed to just using "Terminology" as a header, but it seems inaccurate and I would prefer this as a very last compromise.--Andrew c 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with "Term Controversy" as a heading. But I was talking about the heading for this section ("Disagreement aomn pro-life individuals" - I changed it to something more neutral" "Diveristy of views within pro-life movement". ____G_o_o_d____ 21:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, geez. I apologize. I totally got side tracked and missed your point. I feel like I've done enough talking for one day. I personally think the structure of the article should be changed, and the content expanded, to have different sections on each pro-life issue, such as a section on abortion, on euthenasia, on capital punishment, on war/poverty/racism, etc. And in the section introduction to all the different issues, state that there is disagreement among these issues, and how there is a diversity of individual views within the bigger movement. And then we can also merge the 'tactics' from pro-life activism. But that is just me dreaming. Maybe one day.--Andrew c 22:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Heading: "Disagreement among pro-life individuals"

message: This sentence ("However, very few pro-life activists are atheist or agnostic") gives unnecessary weight to speculation about how many atheist pro-lifers there are in the world - and falsely insinuates that religious people cannot hold or promote secular ideas or policies (and also that only atheists can hold or promote secular ideas or policies). Human rights is for many a view that comports with their religion, but is not necessarily religious. I will be removing this line.   ____G_o_o_d____ 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you denying that "pro-life" activists are overwhelmingly religious?  Because if you are, you need to support your claim, and if you're not, then your edit is unjustified (and will, of course, be reverted). Alienus 10:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about me. Its about article content. The current version will need a cite - right now its POV statement. Its funny that you demand cites for everything but your POV assertions. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we can take this sentence out. An editor a while back decided they wanted to point out that there were some atheists in the pro-life movement. One of the original wordings they inserted was "Many pro-life individuals hold no religious beliefs or consider themselves agnostic or atheist." Not only is this weasely, it is clearly false, as I demonstrated above with the GSS statistics. There are proportionately less atheists in the pro-life movement than in the general population (around 5 times lower). The wording that is in the article now reflects the clearly minority position of atheist in regards to pro-life. That said, I see no reason to single out atheists, unless editors believe it is important to say "hey look, there is a very small group of atheist in the pro-life movement, so we aren't all religious" (as the original editor who mentioned this probably thought). Remove it, or keep it in as long as it is qualified.--Andrew c 13:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should not leave the reader with the false notions that only religious people are pro-life or that the pro-life view is simply a religious view.  The article should mention atheists - I simply don't think the mention ought to be where it is now. The point of the "secular" section is not that atheists can be pro-life - rather it is that the pro-life view can be (and is) reached or defended with no reliance upon religion. In other words, there public policy arguments against abortion, for instance, that can be defended without ever talking about God or souls etc.  The atheists reference is simply misplaced right now.  ____G_o_o_d____ 13:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you can find points to agree with in my assessment. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As Andrew pointed out, it is an incontrovertible fact that the pro-life position is strongly correlated with religiosity.   It would be false to say that all pro-lifers are religious, but it would be false to pretend that religion has no significant bearing on this position.  I say we stick to the facts.  Let's change it so that it gives the statistics, properly cited.  The truth is not POV. Alienus 14:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... this is a tough situation. I wouldn't mind removing the part about atheists completely. I wouldn't mind keeping it in exactly where it is (because atheists aren't going to use religious motivations or term controversy to explain their beliefs). I was trying to think of a place to move it, but couldn't come up with anything. I believe the sentence: "The pro-life movement does not rely solely on religious justification." explains that someone can reach a pro-life view through secular means. But maybe there needs to be a second sentence to cover G&E's rather it is that the pro-life view can be (and is) reached or defended with no reliance upon religion. I know you guys don't want to hear this, but maybe a citation would help. Hyphen5 I believe linked to organizations he claimed only used secular arguments: NRLC and AUL. However, a google site search for "god" in the former has ~350 hits (while the latter only 3).--Andrew c 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are there good stats on the precise question of how many atheists or agnostics are pro-life?  Especially when pro-life is so hard to pin down since it can mean everything from exclusively anti-abortion to total pacificst. The only verifiable truth on this point is that there are some atheists who are pro-life.  To say more is to include unverifiable information. Of course the article should also mention that many pro-lifers are religious - that is verifiable. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some" is weasely. Please go here and scroll down to the part that starts unindented "Quickly". Read through the conversation. There is not one simple statistic that says X number of atheist individuals are pro-life. But we can examine the statistics and clearly see the proportional trend that not only is "Pro-life" a minority view in people who do not believe in God, but that the percentage of atheists within the pro-life view is 5 times less proportionately than the percentage of atheists in the general population. --Andrew c 15:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV sentence in "Secular" section

message: Again, this heading focuses on the negative, rather simply noting that various terms and relevant information about them (which might include amny controversy). Terminiology (not Controversy) is the main point of the section - unless one is trying to push a POV. I will be changing the title to "Terminology" unless someone has a better suggestion. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have no idea what POV you think is being pushed because the exact same header is used in the pro-choice article. I do not see the current header to be problematic, but if we decide to change one article, we need to change the other as well.--Andrew c 13:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not understand the POV though. Are you saying that it is only a POV that there is controversy over the terms? That people, in actuality, don't argue about, or misuse terms like "anti-choice" "pro-death" etc? --Andrew c 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My view: The section is about the terminology. Primarily, it should explain the terms. In addition it ought to address facts about those terms (such as controversy). The general topic of the section is terminology. One part of it is the controversies elated to the terms. ____G_o_o_d____ 13:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Andrew, I appreciate your input. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You have not addressed Andrew's point.  To remind you, this is the same header that is used in a parallel article, so we'd want to keep the parallel.  Therefore, you have to justify changing both, and you have made no attempt to do so. As it stands, there is no POV involved in making it clear that the terminology is the the subject of controversy. Alienus 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Heading: "Term controversy"

message: Regarding KillerChihuahua's edit removing the following line:  
:However, very few pro-life activists are atheist or agnostic. 
with the following justification:
:Rm uncited statement; feel free to re-add once a source meeting WP:RS is located
I don't think that sentence should be re-added even if cited.  It doesn't provide any statistically-useful information, because there are almost no activist movements of which more than a very small minority of its members are atheist or agnostic. Atheists and agnostics simply make up only a tiny part of the population.  (See Adherents.com for statistics on worldwide numbers of various religions, including atheism and agnosticism. (unsigned comment made by MamaGeek)
:I agree that there is no need for this statement. The sole purpose of it is to say "hey, not every single pro-lifer is religious, we've got some atheists as well". And I believe saying that there are secular arguments in addition to religious arguments does this without bothering with weasel words, possible irrelevent data, or dealing with undue weight issues. --Andrew c 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MamaGeek and Andrew c both make excellent points; consider my summary to "feel free to re-add once a source meeting RS is located" rejected. Concur that unless someone makes a valid argument for including and persuades consensus otherwise, this statement should simply be left out as falling under the level for NPOV's "significant minority" level. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Andrea, thanks for joining the discussion.  I don't think anyone is disputing that there are atheists and agnostics in the pro-life movement, and if they do have an organisation, you should add a link to it in the external links section.  The question here is whether it needs to be mentioned in the secular section of the article.  My contention is that it is not necessary, since this section is not dealing with religion, or lack thereof, but rather the non-religious arguments against abortion. MamaGeek Joy 11:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular 

message: IIRC, the TotallyDisputed tag was added when hyphen5's overhaul was reverted by Alienus. However, the majority of hyphen5's changes were eventually added, and most of the disputes have quieted down. Can we remove the TD tag? If users still have a problem with parts of this article, they can NPOV tag sections, and fact tag specific claims. I do not believe the whole article as it stands now deserves the TD tag. What do you say?--Andrew c 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removal of the tag. MamaGeek Joy 17:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, removal of the tag during what amounts to an edit war may be precipitous. I suggest waiting for a bit and working towards a stronger consensus. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK how about now? What is totally disputed about the article? Edit warring has died down, in fact, editing in general has died down over the last week (besides two anon vandals).--Andrew c 02:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank goodness. I'll look it over; you look it over, and if neither of us finds anything which seems to warrant the tag (and if no one else states an objection) we'll take it off. Sound good? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TotallyDisputed? 

message: I appreciate G&E coming to the talk page with a number of issues, as seen above. However, I believe it is premature to impliment every single one of these changes as seen here. I do not believe a decision has been made in regards to "disagreement" vs. "diversity". Multiple users have specifically said there is NO justification for using "unborn child". That word is already used in the article in the right place. How did the atheists slip back into the article. I thought we were taking them out. And the changes to the father's rights section are fairly controversial. I'd urge G&E to be patient and talk things out a little longer before making all these changes that may very well be reverted. --Andrew c 04:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G&E's slow edit war 

message: I believe under the Secular Motivations section, we should state some of reasons why people are pro-life for economic reasons, and for health reasons. Both of which truly do effect peoples choice on wether or not to be for, pro-choice, or for pro-life.
What are your thoughts on this, should we explain more secular motivations for being pro-life? I believe we should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biglonstud (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 April 2006  (UTC)
:IMHO Religious needs trimming; Secular could use some expansion, and both badly need sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was also my impression when I first stumbled upon these pages, so I would tend to agree with this. LotR 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular Motivations 

message: Why is there a Links section, shouldn't that be merged with External links? I can see they are overview links, but a seperate section isn't required IMO. - RoyBoy 800 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, good catch!--Andrew c 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Here it is:
:The first appeals to "revealed truth," or the shared religious values of a society. By this account, every human individual, from conception to natural death, is held to possess an equal value, accorded to him or her by their God.
I have no idea what this means or what it is trying to say. I do not believe it is actually saying anything that contributes to the overall Pro-life article, so I would move to remove it. If others feel that it needs to be included, could they please revise it so it makes more sense.--Andrew c 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and have removed the statement. I have also re-organized the section slightly. There is still a strong Christian bias, with no Hindu or Buddhist views given. We may be able to get some information from the main article, Religion and abortion, although that article has its issues as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove first paragraph in religion section? 

message: The intro was significantly changed without discussion by Jtdirl two days ago. I felt that a number of changes were not improvements, so I reverted a large part. Jtdirl has since reverted my edit back to the newer version. I will explain why I feel the new edit is poor.
*This is en.wikipedia. There is no reason to say Pro-Life "is a term used in English-speaking countries".
*the primary use of "pro-life" does not refer to all these other issues
*stem-cell research is not a page, but a redirect
*going along with point 2, it isn't just the media that focuses on pro-life's stance on abortion. Because of these two points, I feel the original version thats says pro-life generally refers to abortion opposition, and has grown to encompass the other issues is better
*conception vs. fertilisation first of all, look where the former redirects to, second of all, the latter IS technically more accurate since the ACOG defines conception as implantation
*it is wordy to explain the other viewpoints "rather thanb at birth or at some point in-between..."
*"In that viewpoint" is poor English
*" any action that destroys an embryo kills a human being, making it ethically wrong," it is already stated that pro-lifers feel life begins at "conception", so this is redundent. Furthermore, introducing "embryo" is confusing, and doesn't cover every situation that pro-lifers oppose.
*It's wordy to say "even if that death benefits others through science" and seems to be POV pushing
*"etc." is unencyclopedic
*The paragraph on the pro-choice POV is, well, POV pushing. There is NO reason to have this section in the opening of an article on the opposite topic. Would we want a similar paragraph in the opening of the pro-choice article? If we are going to combine the two articles into one, why don't we do that instead? If not, we need to keep things seperate, and simply wikilink to the other.
*I feel that the origin and Roe v. Wade info needs to be in the first pargraph.
*"Attachment to a pro-life or pro-choice set of beliefs is often impacted by gender, age and/or religious belief." probably needs a citation, and doesn't seem that helpful. I understand that Catholics are more likely to be pro-life. Are you saying women and younger people are more likely to be pro-choice? What is the source of these statements?
--Andrew c 00:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!    Al 02:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you didn't mean to be uncivil, so of course I accept your apology. I'm going to sit back and let others get involved, rather than get stuck in an edit war with you over this. Al 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and revert 

message: That is proved. If zilions of people believe, that there is a higher meaning to numbers and that 1+1 is actually 3,5, which is the anwer to life, universe and everything, it will still not be true. Can we please change the article so that it doesn't reflect religious beliefs and describe the pro-life movement correctly as religious quackery?
Religious POVs should not be reflected anywhere in Wikipedia. God doesn't need anyones help. \
ackoz  20:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree here. Perhaps ackoz could be more specific in their concerns over what exactly is problematic about the article. However, painting a POV in a negative light is clearly not neutral.--Andrew c 04:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1+1 is 2 

message: Since a handful of users seem intent on keeping glaring factual inaccuracies in the article, such as the rubbish about pro-lifers regarding a foetus as being the "moral equivalent" of an infant (a laughable misunderstanding of their position that would earn an automatic fail if written by a student in an exam paper on the abortion issue) then the article has to be tagged with the ad and  tags as per WP rules. It doesn't say much for the standard of knowledge about the topic when an elementary clanger like that is added in. The whole point of the pro-life position is not about moral equivalence but human equality: that a pre-birth entity from fertilisation to birth has the same right to life as a born child. That is why they oppose spem cell research — the believe it is taking place on a human being in its pre-birth stage. That is why they oppose abortion, because they believe that it has exactly the same human rights, including the right to life, possessed by the born. They don't suggest a biological equivalence, or a moral equivalence, but a human equality. How hard is that to grasp? Anyone know has ever read their position papers on the topic knows that it their argument. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't that pro-lifers think a embryo is a baby, it's that they believe both are 100% human. We have to watch how we phrase this part. We might end up saying something like "a tadpole is the same "thing as a frog" when obviously they are not the same thing (even if we believe they both are part of a bigger, more general classification). I'd say leave in the "moral equivolent" or just say "Pro-lifers believe fetus/embryos are fully human, with all the rights of personhood". Saying "pro-lifers believe zygotes are toddlers" seems to imply they do not understand basic biology (yes, hypoerbole illustrates the point... where a late-term fetus and a neonate, esp. premature ones, are much closer). It's sticky, but I think we can find a solution without getting hostile. Hopefully.--Andrew c 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well stated. LotR 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording is one thing--that could be resolved in various ways, if needed. But as for the question of whether pro-lifers think an embryo is a baby, I bet many do. (Fetus was originally the question, BTW, but I think they would probably respond the same for embryo.) If you asked some pro-lifers, I think you might be surprised. Dictionaries tend to list a definition of baby for unborn/fetus also. The word simply isn't as narrow as some would maybe like it to be. Well, the word has been around for a while. Darrowby 00:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the point of my "high school education" comment -- assuming school curricula still teach basic biology/human reproduction, most of us, including the "pro-lifers," have been taught the distinction between "infant" and "fetus" (although I will grant that there are always exceptions).  That the pro-life camp calls the fetus an "unborn baby" is primarily for emotional appeal (indeed, as previous editions of this article has explicity stated), not because they all flunked high school. LotR 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word baby is simply not limited in that way. Wishing or even asserting otherwise would not change the history and meanings of the word. It's a fact that the word baby can be, has been, is, and will be used to refer to either born or unborn. It's that simple--if people go around saying the word 'baby' does not include fetuses, it won't be any credit to their schools. Seeing one meaning of a word used in a certain context doesn't mean that particular definition can be imposed on the word--that isn't the way language works. Before you were a baby (infant or even embryo) the word already had meaning. If you want to limit the meaning to those who are born, you'd probably have better results with 'infant.' Darrowby 02:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Darrowby.  When a woman talks about the fetus she is carrying in her womb, you don't often hear her say "fetus" or "preneonate" or "unborn child".  She typically says "my baby" or "my child".  "Stop cursing, the baby can hear it."  "Don't smoke, it's bad for the baby."  "She's carrying a new baby."  "But what will happen to my baby?"  And so on.  If you need more examples, try the Lifetime network.  Kasreyn 03:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. You do have a point there. LotR 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Having dated a woman for five years who *only* ever referred to her fetuses as, well, "fetuses" (she was a Master's Molecular Biologist then, she's a Phd. working in in bioethics at the CDC now), I think the linguistics question is largely a matter of the emotional intentions involved in a *desired* outcome of a pregnancy, rather than an conscious, verbal choice being made to have an accurate description. That being said, I have also heard "this fucking thing", "this cancer", "this damned curse", "my rape baggage", "my trial from god", and "my husband's damn fault" being applied to a fetus. (Somehow, I don't expect these terms to show up on the feel-good Lifetime channel). Once a pregnant woman decides to keep a potential child, she may project into the future and refer to it as a "baby", and people who think that all potential children should be kept often refer to all forms of potential life as "babies"... i.e. Bush's "snowflake babies" (referring to roughly 400,000 frozen blastocysts kept in US fertility labs). Anyways, my point is that not all pro-lifers, or even pro-choicers, refer to a fetus (even their own) as a "baby" until they decide they *want* it to be a "baby" in the future. Ronabop 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't doubt you.  I just feel - and this is just my opinion - that from what I've observed of colloquial English, it's very common to refer to an unborn child as a (usually gender-neutral) "baby".  Kasreyn 05:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Andrew c, I understand where you're coming from.  The entire debate is being founded on an assumption that all people uniformly agree that the prohibition against killing should apply to all "humans".  The problem is, we as a society still do not have a concrete and consensus definition of exactly what an individual, specific human being is.  When do we become human, and when does the baby become a separate person from the mother, and what is human anyway?  If we go by having certain limbs, organs, etc., then certain crippled people might no longer be "human".  If we go by genetics, then identical twins are the same "human".  Religious people claim it's because we are ensouled, but some skeptics disbelieve in the soul, so back we go to square one.  There isn't a consensus yet on these questions, which is why the abortion issue cannot be resolved.  I like your optimism and I, too, am hopeful for a resolution, but as long as people continue to mistakenly focus on the procedure without first defining their terms, I don't see it happening.  Kasreyn 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not true. In fact, based on what you just wrote, it seems we are in agreement. What Andrew wrote above perfectly expresses the point I was trying address. The new rewording of the article from the pro-choice page is superior to what was there previously, including my attempt at improving it. I have no attachment to the word "equivalent." LotR 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. LotR 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: accuracy disputed

message: I tagged a couple of statements with fact tags.  Namely:
:In the United States in particular, the religious motivation of many pro-lifers is often used to discredit the pro-life movement as being almost theocratic in its aims and philosophy, and
:This is certainly true of some elements on the Christian Right which have a much broader political agenda.
Firstly, I think the language needs some work.  It sounds a little like My opinion is....  Secondly, if these views are held by someone notable and relevant, it should be noted.
My first instinct was to remove as POV, but this being a hot topic, I want to start with discussion.    --Elliskev 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: This article has a pretty long intro. What do you think about breaking some of it up into sections, e.g. Abortion, Euthanasia, Death penalty, etc.? --Elliskev 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose this in principle, but would it really be beneficial in practice? Al 23:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be helpful to avoid redundancy, to shorten to too-long intro, and to lessen the need for endless qualifiers. I don't think that there is any hurry, though.  I'd like some more feedback before proceding. --Elliskev 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be helpful to add sections that deal with aspects other than the anti-choice v. anti-life debate.  This article could use some more emphasis on the other aspects. --Elliskev 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning proposal

message: Can we put together a list of what needs to be done to remove this tag? --Elliskev 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'll take that as a no. I'm removing the banner. --Elliskev 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy tag

message: those three photos are wonderfully easy on the eyes.  Those must be the kinder, gentler Pro-Lifers.  Where I used to live, their signs had hugely magnified photos of aborted fetuses, which they waved around in public for children to see.  When I first loaded this article, I braced myself for such a thing.  Nice to see that not all pro-lifers are like that.  Kasreyn 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I must say 

message: I am very strongly something: either pro-life or pro-choice. I'm not going to say which, because I want say that from my perspective (which could be either of the two of the two perspectives), I think that everyone who has worked so hard on this article has done a terrific job. I came to this page expecting to see a lot of watered-down statements and/or vandalism revealing an inability of people from different perspectives to talk about this view point calmly and objectively. I appreciate that what you have produced isn't just pretty good--it also reflects an ability for people to talk with one another that is much more important than this single Wikipedia post.66.171.197.20 00:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations and Thanks