| Revision as of 05:51, 18 February 2011 editHuskyHuskie (talk | contribs)6,963 edits →arbitrary break: school choice gaining in usage← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:35, 20 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,269 edits Assessment: banner shell, Politics, Human rights (Mid) (Rater) |
| (438 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{WPAbortion|class=Start}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=|importance=|Social movements=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Abortion |importance=low}} |
|
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Mid |American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
{{Archive box |bot=MiszaBot I |age=365 | |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=mid |Social movements=yes}} |
|
# ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism |importance=High}} |
|
# ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Mid}} |
|
# ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|reproductive=Yes |reproductive-imp=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Sanctions-abortion}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
| counter = 5 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(100d) |
|
|
|
| algo = old(365d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Pro-choice/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
| archive = Talk:United States abortion-rights movement/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
== "forced" abortion == |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Someone removed the word "forced" from the lede where it said that the pro-choice movement works for "legal protection from forced abortion". The idea here is that one of the goals of the pro-choice movement is to prevent governments from mandating abortions, as for example may happen with the ]. Removing the word "forced" makes it mean that the pro-choice movement wishes to "protect" women from abortion itself. However, the word "forced" clearly should not have been linked to a physics article. ] (]) 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You may want to explain it better in the article itself. "Forced abortion" would not be a familiar term to most people. (] (]) 01:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)) |
|
|
::Is it really fair to say that is part of the movement? - ] (]) 03:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::(ec)We use the term compulsory abortion in another article. -] </sup>]] 03:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Picking up on Schrandit's point, though protecting women from "forced abortion" sounds "pro-choice," and a decent thing to do, is there any ''reliably sourced'' information indicating that the movement is devoting a significant amount of energy in this endeavor? ] (]) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The first sentence of the lead certainly implies that "pro-choice" would mean opposition to compulsory abortion, however, specifically listing "legal protection from forced abortion" as one of the basic tenets of the pro-choice movement is quite misleading because, practically speaking, the leading pro-choice organizations have done very little to oppose it. Their overwhelming emphasis has been on legalizing, or maintaining the legality of, abortion, not on preventing it in situations where it becomes coercive. If someone can produce ''reliable sources'' that demonstrate otherwise I stand corrected. ] (]) 19:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I guess this is long the lines of including cloning, stem cells, death penalty, and euthanasia in the lead of the pro-life article. I did find which says ''pro-choice people oppose forced abortion.'' I think this is a position that no only pro-choice individuals take, but most everyone (except, you know, Nazi Germany and Communist China). But I'll agree that I haven't found it in the core mission of any pro-choice organization, not that I have read every mission statement from every organization. It may be a position the pro-choice ''individuals'' hold, but maybe not the center of ''campaigns'' from pro-choice ''organizations''. -] </sup>]] 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
I agree that there is an issue here: I know some pro-choice individuals (and organizations?) are actively opposed to, say, the coercive policies in China. In the case of others, the issue is contentious at best . I believe the statement should therefore be qualified.--] (]) 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yeah, most pro-life organizations would support a "right" to abortion when a pregnant woman's life is seriously in danger, but we probably wouldn't make this stance a major tenet in the lead paragraph of the article on "Pro-life." Pretending that pro-choice organizations, on the whole, make opposition to compulsory abortion a significant part of their program would seem to be at least equally dubious. ] (]) 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::But the lead isn't describing pro-choice organization's activism, but the general ethical view "pro-choice". There is a difference. I am leaning towards deletion myself, don't get me wrong. -] </sup>]] 13:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::True, Andrew, but as I said, the first sentence in the lead basically denotes "pro-choice's" ''theoretical'' opposition to compulsory abortion. However, emphasizing that ''theoretical but often practically ignored'' opposition by specifically listing "legal protection from forced abortion" as a major part of this "general ethical view" seems pretty misleading to me. ] (]) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There is a difference between holding an ethical position, and activism. Does Operation Rescue do sidewalk counseling outside of IVF clincis? Hold daily vigils outside research institutions and hospitals using stem cells? I'm not sure we need to require action based on belief in order to include content in the lead. I think it's important to emphasize "choice" here, in that forcing someone to give birth, and forcing to have an abortion is against the "pro-choice" ethos, even if there aren't organized campaigns against either. Should we remove the mention of the consistent life ethic from the pro-life article because it is just a moral position, not action? Hmmm... maybe I'm coming around again. -] </sup>]] 19:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::But again, the ''lead sentence already says that "pro-choice describes the . . . view that a woman should have control over . . . the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy," so the theoretical opposition to compulsory abortion is already stated.'' Why give readers the misimpression that opposition to forced abortion is an emphasized component of that ethos ''by adding more specific language'', when the opposite is true? In point of fact, a significant number of people who consider themselves "pro-choice" ''don't oppose'', even in theory, compulsory abortion in the parts of the world where it is an issue. A significant number of pro-choicers are also population control advocates who are sympathetic with the use of this tool in reversing population growth. ] (]) 21:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The map again == |
|
|
|
|
|
Germany should be light blue, see discussion section of the map. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archivetop|{{not done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not actually in favor of this move, I am making this suggestion as numerous opposition voters have stated that should that ] be renamed ] then they feel Pro-choice should be renamed in a similar manner, I am starting this discussion to allow them to support both, if they so choose. <sub>'']''</sub>]<sup>'']''</sup> 06:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose and close''' If you don't agree with it, it's purely a ]. I'd advise this be speedily closed. ] (]) 06:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:*I personally do not agree with it, but there are those that have clearly stated that they would support it at ], I am giving them an opportunity to do so and see where the community stands on it. (The argument is, if Pro-life is to be moved, so should Pro-choice, so let it be discussed then is my view) <sub>'']''</sub>]<sup>'']''</sup> 06:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose and speedy close'''. ] nomination being used to justify or excuse bad behavior at an equally bad move discussion of ]. Also, nobody at the other discussion has "expressed support" for a proposed title invented just a few minutes ago. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose and speedy close''' per clear ]. I suggest the nominating editor step away from the keyboard for a second and consider what he or she is actually trying to achieve with these discussions. Because whatever it is, it isn't working and you are doing your cause more harm than good. -- ] (]) 06:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archivebottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== move 2011 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutral Point of View == |
|
{{Requested move/dated|Abortion-rights movement}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed the article on the anti-abortion movement had a section on violent attacks by activists, but this article does not, even though violence has been committed by abortion rights activists as well. Would it make sense to include that for the sake of neutrality? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
] → ] — Relisted. Ongoing discussion. --] <small>(])</small> 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC) or maybe just ]. Regardless of the ongoing debate at ] → ] (one article should not be held hostage to the bad name of another), the name "pro-choice" violates several naming conventions: (a) it is not a noun, (b) in is not international in scope (it is only COMMONNAME for the U.S.), (c) it is ambiguous (there are movements for choice in many other areas), (d) it is not NPOV: 'abortion rights' cuts to the quick as to what it's about. (However, the phrase ''abortion rights'' alone would cover only the legal status of abortion, not the movement to support the right to abortion.) |
|
|
|
:No, per ]. See the recent discussion of this point at ]. ] (]) 08:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::So I understand that violence from anti-abortion activists has been common historically, and portraying it as equivalent would create a false balance, that being said, I feel it is still misleading to not mention violence from abortion rights activists at all. Obviously we should mention that it's been less common that from the other side, but would not it make sense to have even just a brief paragraph about it? ] (]) 14:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please see the discussion that just took place at ]. Among other things pointed out in that discussion, in order to include that material it would have to be something that's covered extensively (meaning not just news of the day) in reliable secondary sources. ] (]) 16:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing== |
|
Other titles, such as ''support for legalized abortion'', etc., are also worth considering. — ] (]) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California_San_Diego/Gender,_Race_and_Computing_(Fall_2023) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2023-09-25 | end_date = 2023-12-15 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)</span> |
|
* '''Support''' nominator made some excellent points, only those of us who are pro-choice call ourselves this, it should be renamed to take a more neutral and precise title. <sub>]</sub>]<sup>]</sup> 23:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I presume that the phrase 'pro-choice' would remain in the lede of the article as an alternate name. — ] (]) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Suggest closing''' without prejudice to the proposal or the editor who made the nomination. As both editors above know - both being involved in the matter - there is presently a contentious move request for ] that is still open and attracting debate. There have been several alternate proposals advanced in that discussion that aren't getting any traction due to the size of the debate, and some of those move proposals would affect both that page and this one. I'd suggest waiting for the other move request to close (it won't close with any consensus to move at this point) and then opening a general request on the other proposals, not only on one of them. Having this move request open will only get in the way of a more general debate. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Move discussion in progress == |
|
::It may very well move with consensus. Consensus is not a vote, but considers the quality of the arguments and whether a move is supported by wiki policies in general. Also, one of the repeated arguments (though one that an admin would probably ignore as irrelevant) is that this article is not up for renaming. If that RfM closes w/o a move, we might want to close this early and open a joint request, preferably with a better proposal for 'pro-life'. However, even if it does succeed, we will probably want to reopen it as 'anti-abortion' is also an unencyclopedic title. |
|
|
::We could also close both prematurely and open a joint RfM in their place. |
|
|
::Another possibility would be to merge both into ]. — ] (]) 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yeah, I think a centralized discussion would be best. I think it's important to avoid bias, and to be consistent. It would not be neutral if we created a situation out of a popular vote where we don't allow one movement to use their own terms, but we permit another to. -] </sup>]] 01:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But RfMs are not popular votes. WP is not a democracy. If one article is at an encyclopedic title and the other is not, that would only put pressure on the nonconforming article. Regardless, one article at a bad name is better than two. |
|
|
::::We could suggest at ] that the RfMs be combined. But if the wording of the destinations is modified, it will be much more difficult to do them together. — ] (]) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If you think there is a problem with both article titles, and especially if you think there is the same problem with both article titles, then they would almost certainly be best discussed together. This can't be done while the previous request at ] is still open, nor can it be done if that separate request closes and another separate request is open and halfway through discussion here. It is really best to wait and discuss the whole issue as one piece. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Why don't we leave it open to see if there are any good suggestions for improvement; when the other RfM closes, if it is still not at an encyclopedic title, why don't we plan on closing this early in order to combine the two, using the best title proposed here as the basis. — ] (]) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' -- Seems like a logical renaming of the article. I had suggested something similar(except "Pro-Abortion Rights') on the "]" talk page. This is a much better suggestion, and seems like more neutral wording. ] (]) 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' -- Nominator's reasons make sense. ] (]) 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' and move the pro-life (and more egregious title) as well (this title is just vague, the other title is misleading) ] (]) 04:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Skeptical''' — while this suggestion is definitely better thought-out, it would stir the pot even more with respect to the "pro-life" title; what I'd hate to see is to have this one at the accurate title and the other one left where it is. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:*A move towards accuracy for one is a move towards accuracy for all, provided the other article doesn't get moved to "Super-Moral Awesome Squad". Whether or not the other is moved is not really germane to this discussion- if we can make this article more neutral, we should (and that goes for the other as well). The complaints from either side that the moves must BOTH happen, or NEITHER can, are very telling, and not at all representative of any reasonable interpretation of ]. Oh, also, '''Total Support'''. --] 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support in principle''' - I am not a fan of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life". However, I'm not sure about the suggested target: "Abortion-rights" could refer to the rights of the mother or the rights of the unborn child. Incidentally has anyone considered merging the two articles into one, given that they're basically two sides of the same coin? Forgive me if this is a ridiculous suggestion, I've not really followed the history of these articles in detail. Thanks — ] (]) 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Does anyone actually use 'abortion rights' to refer to the fetus? (Fetuses don't have abortions.) |
|
|
::Yes, merger into ] is another possibility. — ] (]) 10:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', the OP's 4 points all fail. Point a) if it isn't a noun, the solution is not to rename the whole thing, but perhaps go "pro-choice movement". b) there is no evidence presented outside of the sheer claim (which I guess we should believe without evidence) that the name is not international. www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org www.prochoicemajority.org.uk prochoicevic.com/ et. al. and if we are to go by interwiki links, it seems like some variation on Pro-choice is used in non-English languages. The point is, the term IS known internationally, and we'd need more specific evidence or statistical analysis to show that it is used less often. But I am not buying any claim that it is not international in scope based on NO evidence. c) name one other "pro-choice movement" and that alone is not reason enough to change. we have ] which is clearly ambiguous. It seems really dense to claim that someone would be confused and have no idea what the article title is referring to based on ambiguity of title. We have ] and ]. We don't disambiguate the most common title. We don't even have a disambiguation hatnote in the article, so I am really clueless what articles the OP thinks someone might confuse this one with. finally d) this is not a valid reason to change an article name. ], ], etc are given as examples of cases where we should go with the common name over neutrality. I think this is the case. It is offensive to think we need to change what organizations call themselves because it offends some users. That's like saying we can't call certain sects "Christian" because it offends our definition of Christianity. Or that the ] should be renamed because we don't think they are fighting for real liberation. There are clearly cases where we allow self identity in light of some objections, and I think this is the case with ]. But perhaps that is the most subjective aspect of the above. I would still like to see specific evidence of common name, disambigutation, and international worldview violations.-] </sup>]] 16:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::This isn't a proposal to change what organizations call themselves. If they use "Pro-Choice" in their name, so be it. But this article is about a movement which has many names, not a single organization. — ] (]) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Undecided'''. The proposal raises some interesting issues, however I share ]'s view that most of those issues are not typically important in deciding article names. The one issue that I think would sway my opinion one way or the other is whether or not "Pro-choice" is the most common term world-wide or only in the US/Europe. Is there any evidence that "Pro-choice" is not the most commonly used term in other parts of the world? ] (]) 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think those googgle ngrams speak by themselves: . <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::(I fixed the link for the 3rd) — ] (]) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Strangely, the and disagree on this. Interesting that books and news sources tend to go with "abortion rights", while the general public uses "pro choice". ] (]) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(edit conflict)Thanks kwami, I messed and mixed all the links together. I think they should be all right as of now. Like this: , , , . <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::According to "pro choice" and "abortion rights movement" are currently in equal use in published English. Strangely, if you limit it to American English, "abortion rights movement" is clearly dominate, which would seem to contradict the original argument that it is an Americanism (as does the Google trends graph). ] (]) 00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There are no large scale abortion rights movements outside the US, naturally enough since abortion is legal in most Western countries. You don't have to campaign for what you already have. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Good point. In that case I would say the international issue is largely irrelevant then. ] (]) 01:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Plenty of western countries have contentious debate on abortion, such as Ireland and Poland. But we're not just Western WP either: we're supposed to have global coverage. — ] (]) 02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Yes, I forgot Poland. Sorry for using "Western" when meaning to say "English-speaking countries". I blame the British. ]. As to the (english-speaking) third world, as far as I know, there are no strong movements, whether for or against. For instance, in India abortion is encouraged by the government, and it doesn't seem to be a big issue (the fact that girls are aborted much more frequently however is). <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Weak opposition''' - Because of other ongoing debate and not sure if there's some hidden agenda. On the other hand I think "abortion rights movement" terminology that's now the last sentence should be in lead right now. Nothing wrong with saying it's all about abortion and of course "pro-choice" will still link to this article. ] (]) 01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per proposer. ] (]) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' because the article name presupposes that abortion is a right. If you don't want to have the articles named "pro-choice movement" and "pro-life movement", which are overwhelmingly the more common names, then "support for legalized abortion" and "opposition to legalized abortion" make far more sense as neutral names. --] (]) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**Have you heard of ]? <sub>]</sub>]<sup>]</sup> <sub><span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;"><small>Please leave me a wb if you reply</small></span></sub> 02:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
***As has been pointed out so precious many times during the other discussion, Misplaced Pages is not just about America. There are plenty of parts of the world where abortion is not considered a legal "right", nor does, according to , around half of our country think it should be a right. --] (]) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
***Roe v. Wade is not written in stone; in fact, it's hanging by a thread with a 5-4 pro-choice majority on the Supreme Court. ] anyone? That abortion is a right is very much in dispute. ] (]) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**B, it doesn't presuppose that at all: it's a movement ''for'' the right to an abortion. That is, support of legalized abortion. (And M, it could be called this with or without RvW.) That said, your suggested paraphrases are also good names. — ] (]) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
***Hmm ... that is not how I interpret the phrase. When you refer to "abortion rights", I don't think you're hoping it's a right - you're saying it is. --] (]) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If it's a right, you don't need a movement for it. How about the ]? The movement exists because people ''don't'' have those rights, but activists feel that they should. Or the ]. — ] (]) 02:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah, I don't follow B's reasoning. I can see the name presupposing that abortion can be CONSIDERED a right (contemplatively), but who can argue that? "It's not possible for that to be a right under any circumstances"... no. It's not like a hypothetical "Theft Rights Movement" would mean that theft is presently a right. The movement WANTS it to be. --] 03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Abortion-rights movements#Requested move 13 August 2024 crosspost --> —] 14:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
=== arbitrary break === |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' because the title presumes that abortion is a right. The U.S. Supreme Court may (currently) say so, but that doesn't mean that the world recognizes it as a right. Millions, perhaps billions, would beg to differ that it's a right. ] (]) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**According to ] in the article, the only countries where there is no right to abortion is Chile, Uruguay, Dominica, and Nicaragua. That to me is an overwhelming global consensus that there should be ''some'' rights, the question is just whether more or less. Anyway, as has been argued above, there would still be such a thing a movement for abortion rights even if no country granted them, just like there was a movement for human rights in the XVIIIth century. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 04:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**Explain how it presumes it's a right. Just because I want something that I can call "my house" does not mean that I already have a house. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
***Same sentiment here. I think it's presumed that "rights" movements are fighting for whatever it is to be recognized as a right against people who do not believe it is a right - ], ], ], ], ] are all article titles. ] (] ⋅ ]) 03:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom, and particularly reject any arugments on the lines that "the title presumes abortion is a right" - of course it doesn't, an "X rights movement" is clearly understandable as meaning a movement which believes that there should be (or are) X rights; it doesn't imply that the person using the phrase believes there are such rights, any more than someone using the phrase "pictures of unicorns" believes that there are unicorns. (Though that said, I'd be willing to consider alternative titles as long as they're equally clear.)--] (]) 09:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. Twenty years ago, I would have opposed, as "Choice" was understood (even among those who opposed the use of the term) to refer in the US exclusively to the issue of abortion. However, in American politics, while it is still not used nearly as much as the abortion-related meaning, the term ''']''' has gained sufficient currency to warrant a look at this issue. Those who argue that term "pro-choice" is illogical (since there are many choices we make besides whether or not to have abortions) are missing the point: Here on Misplaced Pages, what is important is ''usage''. And I think "school choice" has gained enough usage that the abortion rights movement cannot lay sole claim to the use of "choice". ] (]) 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
I noticed the article on the anti-abortion movement had a section on violent attacks by activists, but this article does not, even though violence has been committed by abortion rights activists as well. Would it make sense to include that for the sake of neutrality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimasterclmaster (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peinini (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Znabulsi.