Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:26, 26 January 2007

Abortion Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Criticisms

This page doesn't really cover any major criticisms of the cocept and movement of pro life. The debate section also seems very softballed. I'd highly recommend adding a criticism piece, most other major contraversial topics have them, such as atheism. One of the major criticisms I have is that the pro life movement makes little to no effort or involvement in promoting life once it has been born through healthcare, better education, and sexual education. I would have figured by now that such glaring inconsistencies would have made it on the page. I would do so, but I know there is little chance I can be NPOV and it would probably just be reverted.--Kugamazog 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think the pro-choice article already covers what would normally be under the "criticism" section of this article, and it says at the very top of this article that the rebutals of the pro-life movement can be found at the pro-choice article, and vice versa. 69.165.59.231 08:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, especially given that the debate section is currently viewed--at least by some; see above--as being too critical of the topic, rather than too soft on it. Moreover, one of the difficulties in editing in the Abortion WikiProject is that everything has to be done equally. If we add a criticism section to pro-life, even assuming for a moment that it would be a valid change, we would have to do the same to pro-choice. That said, never forget to Be Bold.

Having discussed that, I would rather strongly disagree that pro-lifers' laser focus on abortion--which, remember, they believe is cold-blooded murder on the same order as the Holocaust--is a "glaring inconsistency." Pro-lifers are just picking their battles, and the first one has got to be about abortion. (After all, what do you care about better education if you're dead?) Your point has been brought up by other, prominent members of the pro-choice lobby, though, so it would be a valid addition to the page (if balanced by adding criticism to the pro-choice page). My two cents. --BCSWowbagger 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Newcomer to this page. I suspect that the criticism you mentioned is more one for the Religious Right pro-life movement, as leftist pro-lifers would certainly and actively care about those issues you mentioned. I believe the article already mentions Democrats for Life of America. That doesn't necessarily mean your criticism doesn't belong on the page, if such a section were made; but we would want to specify, I'm sure. Chadbald 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't they against masterbation?

Question about the "Motivation" section

I wonder if the order of secular and religious motivations ought to be reversed. The involvement of religious beliefs in opposing abortion is relatively recent. It is my understanding that the abortion laws before Roe v. Wade were not the product of religion, but of the efforts of the American Medical Association as doctors began to study embryology in the 19th century. It seems more logical to me to progress historically. The anti-abortion banner has only been taken up religiously in recent decades. This article may be too polemic to cite, but I'm sure better documentation could be found. The language of the relevent sections might need to be finessed in order to accomodate the change, though I doubt this would mean anything substantive. Thoughts? Chadbald 07:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Hippocratic Oath forbade abortions as medically unethical well before the Christian religion. LotR 12:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)#

The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids only "give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion" (which could well be, given the context "give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" because until the 20th century, a herbal or chemical abortifacient was likely to be lethal to the woman. (In the next paragraph, the physician also swears not to "cut persons labouring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work".) Until 20th century medical advances made it possible to perform abortions with no risk to the woman, ethical opposition to abortion was largely grounded in the fact that abortions were extremely dangerous to a woman's health and future fertility. Further, it was not until relatively recently - again, a 20th-century phenomenon - that a fetus was regarded as being really alive until it "quickened" - until there was perceptible movement within the uterus, either by the woman herself or by others. The pro-life movement, which this page describes, was begun in the 20th century, when the availability of safe abortions made it possible for women to choose to end a pregnancy without risk, and which then created a political opposition to that choice. (People who produce isolated quotes from 19th century feminists with regard to abortion in general are not looking at the context from which those quotes were taken.) It would be historically inaccurate to frame the pro-life movement as beginning any earlier than the 20th century: there was no need for such a movement until abortion became safe for women. Yonmei 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it wouldn't be right to closely compare all organized pro-life and anti-abortion groups of today with people and groups of the past which held similar beliefs. It would be untruthful (a fallacy) to deny the existence of, or reconstrue the motives behind those people or groups with such like-minded views. One needs only to look to people like Susan B Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton to see that. - James xeno 08:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were opposed to men making women abort - a dangerous/unsafe procedure in those days, as well as illegal - for their own convenience, just as today's feminists oppose men making women abort for their own convenience. Both were also publicly and firmly for women being able to plan how many children they had and control their own fertility - just as today's feminists are. So we can connect Anthony and Stanton with today's feminists/pro-choice movement, but I don't see much of a connection between 19th-century feminism and today's pro-life movement, which - unlike Anthony and Stanton - in general opposes women having control over their own fertility and the absolute right to decide how many children to have and when. But, as I said downpage earlier, given scientific/technical advances, the position a person would take on abortion in the days when it was unsafe to the woman and when early detection of pregnancy was really impossible, could be a world away from the position a person might take today, when abortion (especially early abortion) is effectively absolutely safe, and when pregnancy can be detected within a few days of the fertilised egg implanting. Yonmei 09:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I don't fault you though, it's an all too common misconception. But the facts quite clearly contradict these unfounded conjectures which claim that the sole motivation behind their opposition to abortion is the unsafe and unsanitary nature of the procedure. (as would be any such procedure of the time. Yet they didn't seem to oppose those as well.) Yes it was more then likely a concern for them. But history definitively shows that the chief reasoning behind their opposition, originated in their strong belief that abortion was a form of infanticide, at the very least a form of violence and completely hypocritical and contradictory to the concepts and ideals of feminism.

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." - Elizabeth B. Stanton (1873)

"No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" - Susan B. Anthony (The Revolution, 1869)

- James xeno 11:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

James, I don't fault you for never having read the article you quote from (Marriage and Maternity") - I understand that the Susan B. Anthony quote you cite is never given its full context on pro-life sites. The article is actually a very strong defense of a woman's right to choose - that a woman herself, no one else, certainly not her husband, should decide when and who with she will have children. The paragraph immediately before the one usually quoted is:

It is clear to my mind that this evil wholly arises from the false position which woman occupies in civilized society. We know that in the brute creation, the female chooses her own time, and we are told that among Indians the woman does not permit the approach of the man during pregnancy or lactation; yet what Christian woman, wife of a Christian husband, is free to consult her own feelings, even in these most delicate situations?

The series of articles and letters from which the two quotes you cite come is a series published in The Revolution discussing the crime of infanticide. Abortion is rarely directly mentioned by the writers of The Revolution: but a woman's right to make decisions for herself alone, putting her her health first, is an important concern for them, as of course it is for modern feminists. The moral stance that so many pro-lifers take, that women should not be allowed to decide to use contraception or to terminate a pregnancy, would clearly be anathema to these early feminists. These articles are recognisably the forerunners of the pro-choice movement: only by taking single quotes out of context can they be pretended to be pro-life.Yonmei 15:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read those quotes and some of the articles they're from. Even if you read those in the best and most bias (pro-abortion/choice) possible way, their stance becomes only mildly questionable. I'm not sure where you read a strong pro-abortion view from an article in which abortion is referred to as "infanticide" and called child murder? A grasp at straws really, maybe even an attempt at an apology for the past.

Please don't misquote me: I never said they were pro-abortion. I said they were pro-choice. I know of no one (except perhaps, now as then, men who don't want to pay child support) who is "pro-abortion". Only someone determined to read the essays/letters as anti-choice could possibly interpret them to think that the early feminists believed women should be forced by legislation to continue an unwanted pregnancy when a safe means of terminating it early exists. Pro-choice means women must have the legal right to decide for themselves about pregnancy: it does not mean pro-abortion. Yonmei 05:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"woman herself, no one else, certainly not her husband, should decide when and who with she will have children."

It always puzzles me that pro-choicers are so afraid of being called "pro-abortion." If someone is truly OK with the ethical issues abortion raises, they should have no problem calling themselves "pro-abortion." But according to what you've said, most pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion," so they must actually have some ethical problem with abortion (some have called it a necessary evil). But if it's evil at all, why aren't pro-choicers ever willing to elaborate on exactly what part of abortion they find to be evil? If they would be honest about that, it would facilitate a much more honest debate.

Pianoman123 18:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to remind everyone that talk pages are for discussing article content, not debating. You may want to take this up on user talk, or go to a chat room, or forum cite away from wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the context of that particular argument. It was a response to the idea that a women should marry whom ever her family wished and that it was her duty to bear as many children as she could, as often as she possibly could. (I.E. Forced pregnancy through force or coercion.)

Which is the modern pro-life position, isn't it? Not, obviously, women forced into unwanted/unwelcome marriage: but that women must be legally prohibited from access to contraception and abortion (and pro-life tends to correlate with the enforced ignorance of "abstinence-only" education, too). The pro-life goal is the legal situation of 19th-century women.Yonmei 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true -- only Roman Catholic teaching, not the pro-life movement at large, makes any statement concerning contraception. It well-understood by the pro-life movement that contraception does not deliberately kill a human embryo/fetus. Furthermore, even stringent Catholic doctrine has no issue with regulating births using natural methods based on a woman's natural cycle of fertility (e.g., the modern sympto-thermal method, ecological breastfeeding, etc.). LotR 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know of no pro-life organisation - certainly none in the US - that promotes use of contraception, and there appears to be a high correlation between people who work to prevent women having access to abortion and people who work to prevent women having access to contraception. Even without the apparent correlation, though, the fact that no pro-life organisation is willing to work for reducing abortions by making contraception widely and freely available says a lot about their priorities.

Yonmei 05:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't aware that only women were responsible for using contraception.

Nor am I aware of any effort to prevent men from getting or using contraception.Yonmei 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)\

That's because there isn't any; nor is there any effort against women, who have the same access as men. LotR 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor was I aware that there was any possible way to bar them from access to it -- contraception is, in fact, widely and freely available (in free-market economies, anyway).

You weren't aware of a recent and rather horrifying campaign to prevent women from getting access to the regular contraceptive pill and to Plan B? Plan B isn't even yet available over the counter in the US, though the FDA concluded it was safe for such sale in 2005, and many pharmacists have refused to honour prescriptions for contraceptive pills - and some doctors have actually refused to prescribe contraceptive pills or Plan B. There's a recent horrible account by a woman with three children, whose health won't permit her to have any more: she and her partner were making love, the condom broke, and she ended up having to get an abortion because no doctor in the area she lived in would prescribe Plan B until it was too late. Contraception, provided in time, would have prevented an abortion: she lives in the US, it was legal for her to get it, and she couldn't. No pro-lifer appears to have been at all interested in preventing that abortion.Yonmei 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "Plan B", a high-dose, artificial chemical female hormone, is but one of a plethora of birth-control devices. To my knowledge, the jury is still out on whether this artificial hormone actually prevents fertilization 100% of the time (the definition of contra-ception), or whether it "inhibits implantation" some of the time. I've seen debates on this on Misplaced Pages, and I am not convinced either way. It is for this reason (the "inhibition of implantation"), along with its questionable safety to a woman's health, that it met any opposition. However, even given the opposition to this one form of birth control, it does not follow that the pro-life movement seeks to prohibit contraception, not only because it is but one form of birth control, but also because of the belief by its opponents that it is a form of abortion. LotR 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is nonsensical to say that pro-life organizations work to "prevent women from access to contraception." It is true that Catholic pro-life organizations discourage contraception (regardless of the person's sex, mind you), but this most definitely is not true for the pro-life movement at large, which has a substantial number of non-Catholic adherents. Furthermore, there is a big difference between "not promoting" something, and actively seeking its prohibition (which is the pro-life political agenda). No pro-life organization (or person that I know of) seeks the prohibition of contraception, even if they are against it. This is emotional hyperbole, plain and simple. LotR 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you maintain that no pro-life organizations were seeking the prohibition of Plan B, and no pro-life organizations were supporting pharmacists or doctors who refused to prescribe oral contraceptives, regular or emergency? I'm fairly sure that's not so, in fact.Yonmei 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See above. "Prohibition of levonorgestrel" is not the equivalent of "prohibition of contraception." LotR 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to contribute to a debate that has nothing to do with the article content, but I just wanted to say that I believe User:LotR is ignoring the Beginning of pregnancy controversy. Was there not opposition to Plan B (when it was first approved, and when it was up for OtC status)? Is it not just a Catholic position that hormonal contraceptions can cause an 'early' abortion?--Andrew c 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See above postings. I was not "ignoring" anything -- I thought we were speaking about "contraception." I did not know that "contraception" was being taken to mean "levonorgestrel." LotR 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of "forced pregnancy" was not used as a weasel term back then, as it is today when referring to the abortion debate. They blamed men and society for the situation. They believed the remedy would be giving women the freedom to choose "when and who with she will have children." This is where you and others make two biggest mistakes. 1) The view that each women should be able decide when to have children, clearly did not mean the freedom to decide if they want to be pregnant or not once already so. But freedom to choose when or if they want to get pregnant to begin with.

Well, we don't know that. The original discussion arose because prior to modern, safe abortion, a person might have a moral objection to abortion as being very unsafe for the woman - as the Hippocratic objection to "deadly medicine" would imply, since an abortifacient pessary would tend work only on a pregnancy too early on for the ancients to regard a fetus as really alive. The modern pro-life movement is strongly against women having free access to contraception, as well as strongly against women being able to abort a pregnancy at will, despite the fact that both are absolutely safe and proven to be life-saving for women. The arguments of 19th-century feminists are strongly for women being able to control their own lives and their own fertility - arguments which modern pro-lifers as strongly oppose.Yonmei 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

2) The incorrect (modern) assumption that giving birth, not being pregnant = having children. (basically; born = child, unborn = nothing) Taking even a quick look at a few of their comments about the issue, you could see that's clearly not the case at all. Another thing that always seems to be forgotten by modern neo-feminism of today, is feminism's strong and most basic principles of freedom and personal responsibility.

Hardly "forgotten": the whole point of the pro-choice movement, which is one branch of modern feminism, is that women must not be prevented by legislation from taking personal responsibility. Whereas the whole point of the pro-life movement is to make it illegal for women to take personal responsibility for being able to decide whether or not to get pregnant or stay pregnant.Yonmei 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way, that doesn't change my initial point. - James xeno 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That it wouldn't be right to compare the modern pro-life and pro-choice movements of today with people and groups of the past? Well, on that at least, we are in agreement.Yonmei 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure... in America, the organized pro-life movement we know today didn't really come along until after abortion was legalized, not when it supposedly became safe. Unless, of course, you're speaking of the individual feminists of the early 20th century (e.g. Susan B. Anthony) who believed that abortion was a crime against women and morally problematic. But other than a few of them in the early 20th century, "pro-life" thought was not much of a social issue in the broad scheme of things.

 Pianoman123 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction: I had a vague impression of an organized pro-life movement prior to legalization (I presumed, opposing legalization) but I'll take your word for it that none existed. Yonmei 10:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that none existed, but just not in the form we know today; it was simply less important in the public conscience. Pianoman123 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the notion that the Hippocratic Oath only forbade pessary, not abortions themselves. The "pessary" procedure may have been explicitly stated since it was the only known medical procedure at the time for doing this. The context ("give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel") is already a blanket statement that would include pessary, independent of abortion.

Hardly. A pessary could be an entirely safe medicine: it would depend what it was made of. "Pessary" simply means a "solid, bullet-shaped preparation" designed to be inserted in vagina or anus for absorption of medication internally. "Give no deadly medicine" is likely to have meant "likely to be lethal to the patient" which would have meant a pregnant woman, not a fetus The presumption that it meant "lethal to the fetus" is too big an assumption, based on what we know about 4th century BC medicine.Yonmei 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. However, this doesn't change the fact that abortions themselves were plainly forbidden as an unethical medical procedure in the Oath. And don't underestimate what the ancients may have known -- they certainly knew that pregnancy colloquially meant "with child." LotR 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus, the statment clearly forbade abortions themselves as a medical procedure, and indeed, abortions have never been considered a "medical procedure" until the 2nd half of the 20th Century. And back to the original point: "The involvement of religious beliefs in opposing abortion is relatively recent." Whether or not the ethical principle was concern for the life of the mother, the unborn baby, or both, is really not relevant -- abortions were explicitly forbidden, well before Christianity. It should also be noted that the same advances in medical technology that have enabled "safe abortions," have also given us unprecedented looks at the human development in the womb, undreamed of in Hippocrates's day. LotR 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(Keep in mind that many women continue to die from botched legal abortions today...abortion is by nature dangerous). Pianoman123 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Between 1972 and 1987, 240 women died as a result of legal induced abortions. The case-fatality rate decreased 90% over time, from 4.1 deaths per 100,000 abortions in 1972 to 0.4 in 1987. Abortion mortality, United States, 1972 through 1987. By comparison childbirth itself is far more dangerous - in the US, the maternal death rate was 17 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2000. Pregnancy and childbirth are by nature dangerous: abortion is much safer. Yonmei 10:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's quite hard to find good statistics on the number of abortion-related deaths (for both the legal and illegal types). For one, the NARAL statistics about women who died from back-alley abortions have been admitted to be false, by NARAL's founder, Bernard Nathanson. And it's hard to find info about modern abortion deaths, too, though I have heard about more than what you've mentioned above (the 1987 statistic). In any case, it's important not to see abortion--whatever one's view towards it--as a magic, painless, cure-all for maternal crises (it's none of those things...this is admitted by many prominent abortion supporters). Inasmuch as abortion is an invasive surgical procedure, it will always be risky. Also, one has to realize the implications of saying that childbirth is inherently dangerous. After all, none of us would be here without it, so apparently a little danger is just part of life.

All invasive surgical procedures can be dangerous, yes. But abortion (especially of course an extremely early abortion - and the vast majority of abortions in the US are carried out at >8 weeks) is less dangerous than many such invasive surgical procedures, and certainly (statistically) far less dangerous than pregnancy/childbirth. Most women who have abortions either have or intend to have at least one child, so it's not like abortion prevents women from having children - indeed, one strong reason for keeping abortion legal, easily available, and safe is so that a woman who needs an abortion can have one without risking her future fertility. Sorry, this is turning into a pro-choice argument, I just wanted to make the point that if you oppose abortion, it's not really possible to do it on the basis that it's a threat to women's lives. More women die in countries where abortion is not safe/legal/easily available: not just because illegal abortion tends to be unsafe, or because it's more difficult to get an abortion in the early weeks when it's - to all intents and purposes - utterly safe, but because pregnancy is, far more frequently than abortion is, lethal to women. I understand pro-lifers consider a fetus equally important to the pregnant woman, but I presume most pro-lifers would agree that any woman who has to have an abortion because her physical health is at risk ought to be able to get one, and as fast as possible. Granted I think this applies to something like 2 or 3% of abortions, but that's still a far larger number (about 26 000) than die of having abortions (4).Yonmei 08:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One reason among the many that caused the pro-life movement to form was the dawn of medical advances which shed light on embryology and pregnancy. Christianity was dependent on science to help it form its own opinion on the matter. (After all, you need facts before you can deduce a belief about something not already mentioned in scripture, teachings, etc.) Before the 20th century, the understanding of embryology and fetal biology was at about the same level as it was 1800 years previous...that is, Aristotle's speculation on how human beings are formed. Since they had none of the information we have when they formed their opinions about abortion, it's surely fine to disregard them. It is natural and understandable that quickening was regarded as the indication of life, for the mother's sensation of movement was the extent of the empiricism available to them at the time (whereas we have ultrasound machines and other tools today). The fact that abortions were dangerous (as were all invasive surgical procedures at that time) was a good reason not to do them. To add on to that, modern science has caused an enlightenment in many people, causing them to form pro-life opinions on bioethical issues such as this... Pianoman123 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - indeed, this was my initial point - that the scientific and other advances mean we can't compare objections to abortion in the past to the present. Yonmei 10:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

————— Wow. That sparked a pretty discursive discourse. My question was not whether we should write a comparison of past and present objections, only whether we should organize the Motivations section chronologically. I think this is a good suggestion regardless of how we perceive the validity of those historical arguments. Harmfulness of early abortions was indeed a motivating factor in early opposition to abortive procedures, but it is false to say it stood alone. Stanton and Anthony believed (a la "Marriage and Maternity," etc.) that restrictions on the lives of women and forced pregnancy were a root cause of abortion, and Anthony very justly calls the men who forced women into a corner that abortion was the only way out of "murderers." She clearly believed that "unborn innocents" were human lives, else they could not be "murdered." I'm only suggesting that the Motivations section have a historical trajectory. In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Justices discuss in detail the rise of anti-abortion laws and the positions of the American Medical Association on embryology, quickening, and the beginning of human life. This may be helpful.

Also, on the diversity of the pro-life position, see http://www.feministsforlife.org (secular feminists opposed to abortion), http://www.democratsforlife.org (secular leftists opposed to abortion), http://www.sojo.net (Christian leftists opposed to abortion), http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/index.html (Hindus opposed to abortion). Let us all try to remember that our goal is not to promote or detract from the pro-life position, but only accurately describe it. Some of us might be making the mistake of confusing "pro-life" with the "Religious Right." While many people of a pro-life persuasion are part of the "Religious Right," many others are not. "Pro-life" as it exists today is a large and varied movement. Opposing contraception is not a pro-life issue. It may have a spurious correlation, but many people who oppose abortion, capital punishment, and unjust war (which many consider pro-life issues) are thoroughly in favor of contraception. And all of the organizations I hyperlinked above favor reducing abortion through economic relief and education, not through male hegemony and sexual oppression. I hope this helps broaden some perspectives.

So what do we think? Should the Motivations section be reordered chronologically? Chadbald 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that that the page discusses a "movement," presenting the "motivations" chronologically is certainly a logical approach. LotR 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should keep the ordering the way it is. We are not presenting a chronology here. We are discussing the current motives of the current movement. Maybe we need a more historical oriented section, but Chadbald says that was not the intent. The secular section probably needs a rewrite, because as it is, I'd hate to see it first. On top of that, it makes more sense to me to explain the primary motivation first, and the secondary motivation second, right? Doing otherwise might be giving undue weight. The whole chronology argument really doesn't make sense to me because like I said, this isn't the history section, and it seems backwards to present a chronolgy in the guise of primary and secondary motivations, no?--Andrew c 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that primary motivation, followed by secondary motivation, is also a logical approach. But consider this: While the majority of pro-lifers may be described as religious, and their moral support structures may be church-based, their primary motivations may very well be rooted in their secular knowledge of what happens in an abortion clinic. Thus, I'm not sure I agree that a chronological ordering would give undue weight. LotR 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the section is poorly written. DO we want to give the illusion that most pro-lifers believe abortion is age descrimination? The arguments presented in the secular section are not sourced, and now written well. I just don't think that it needs to go first (but more importantly, I feel it needs an overhaul). If we can come up with a better section, maybe I would support it going first. A side note, the bit about 'right-to-life' and 'law' seems to exclude religiously motivated pro-lifers. It seems to me that the religious ones wouldn't accept the idea of a 'natural law', and only justify morality under God's law. The reasoning is the same "abortion is wrong because it violates a law that says fetuses have rights". However, the motivation is different. Religious adherents would tack on "because God/the bible says so", while the non-religious adherent would appeal to some concept of natural law or humanism that does not require religious motivations. So therefore, I think this matter only confuses things. If that makes sense.--Andrew c 16:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I think you're right that the section could be better organized and written in general. If my memory serves me correctly, I think this proposal for rewriting may have been touched upon before, but nothing was ever done about it. The great majority of the section merely presents the moral positions of the world's major religions on abortion -- these moral positions may be distinct from the personal motivations of pro-lifers (which was my point above). In fact, as it stands now, a chronological reordering would indeed give the appearance of undue weight as you originally commented. LotR 17:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

I am 100% for including multi-cultural views, however the new hindu section is completely off topic. It is Hinduism's view on abortion, not Hinduism in the pro-life movement. There is a big difference. This page isn't a generic place to post everyone's criticisms of abortion (try abortion debate or a few other articles). Does anyone have verifiable information on the pro-life movement in India? Or pro-life Hindu actions in the US or any where else?--Andrew c 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article makes strong but weakly substantiated links between religion and pro-life ideologies. The article would be better if it analyzed the pro-life movement separately from pro-life in general, and then goes on to talk about religious stances towards pro-life ideology. The article makes a strong and inappropriate statement that the basis of the pro-life movement is religious in nature.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.48.55.105 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 November 2006.

Mother

What is wrong with just saying "woman"? If some editors do not agree that being pregnant=being a mother, but everyone can agree than the person who is pregnant is a woman, what is the big deal about using the less controversial of terms? Nothing wrong with "playing politically correct games" in this instance, if it means a more neutral article. Chooserr fails to realize that even people who are politically correct have valid POVs when it comes to wikipedia.--Andrew c 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C, I doubt I can convince you that I'm right, but I dislike the attempt to change established definitions. I just do. Chooserr 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, your personal dislike noted, can we agree to use the less controversial term for the sake of neutrality? --Andrew c 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mother is an accurate term. I don't see why we need to agree to change it to woman. Chooserr 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You BELIEVE that mother is an accurate term. Others disagree. The term is controversial. On the other hand, everyone can agree that woman is accurate. In order to accomidate everyone's belief, and thereby be neutral to everyone's point of view, we should use the less controversial term. It has been argued that being pregnant does not equal being a mother (if you and your siblings die, does your mother stop being a mother. Alternatively, do we commonly consider a woman who has undergone an abortion and has no children a mother?). Whether we agree with this is beside the point. We should respect this POV, and choose the most neutral language. This issue has come up in the past with other users. I know AI/Alienus had issues with this use. It seems to me that people have an argument against the use of mother, but no one has an argument against the use of woman, so we should obviously pick the one that has no argument, right?-Andrew c 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine Chooserr 04:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a convention throughout abortion-related articles that the term "woman" is used over the term "mother." It is not as though this change was isolated or without precedent; I don't think anyone's trying to reinvent the wheel here. While the term "mother" is not a loaded, politicized term, like "contents of uterus" or "preborn human baby," and it is in a biological sense accurate, its usage in reference to women who have had abortions is still problematic to some for the reasons Andrew has outlined. But "woman," is a broad, open-ended term. It doesn't preclude the potentional that women who have abortions are mothers — after all, mothers are women — but it escapes being conclusive on the matter. -Severa (!!!) 07:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "mother" IS an accurate term in a biological/scientific context, as it means "human female parent," whereas "woman" only means "human female." "Mother" is more specific than "woman." Genetically speaking, a pregnant woman, like it or not, IS a parent (while the offspring survives). If she is not genetically a parent, then just what exactly constitutes "pregnancy"? However, after considering the context of the sentence, the term "woman" is acceptable since it makes mention of pregnancy when referring to the woman, whereas the term "mother" may actually confuse the sentence since it also has non-biological definitions. LotR 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

National Abortion Federation

Statistics from the National Abortion Federation show that violence against abortion clinics or providers has decreased steadily since a peak in 2001. However, the majority of the health-care facilities that perform abortions in the United States experience protests from pro-life demonstrators every year, of which the most common form is picketing. Most clinics that perform abortions experience picketing at least 20 times a year: in 2005, 13,415 incidents of disruptive picketing were reported.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chooserr (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The above section is located under extremism, and provides some valuable information, however everything after "however" has nothing to do with extremism, and may equate picketing with extremism. Also I'm unsure whether the sources are NPOV, and believe that "disruptive picketing" is subject to various interpretations. What exactly counts as "disruptive"? Praying the rosary outside? For those reasons I'm thinking of removing it, but want others' opinions. Chooserr 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, I found "Disruptive picketing (defined as protest activity that harasses, intimidates, and impedes the movement of staff or patients)". Hope this helps.--Andrew c 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? I checked the 24th source link, and all I got was a chart - no definition of what counts as disruptive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chooserr (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Try #25.--Andrew c 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A more neutral article title needed

"Pro-life" is too POV.--Azer Red Si? 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly no great secret that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are manipulative political frames. But they are what the organizations in question call themselves. How NPOV could any other appellation be? Besides, though the entire issue is blown out of proportion, as well as presented with no context, by the media, it is certainly notable and we have to find a way to cover the issue. Any perceived POV bias can be handled by carefully explaining that "Pro-Life" is not a term WP is applying, but a term self-applied by the groups in question. Kasreyn 04:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments that "Pro-life" is not NPOV have been made here many times. But besides the valid points just made above, you have in addition the fact that many, many people use the term, even those who hold the opposite viewpoint. From one perspective it's just a label that stands for a very emotional and politically charged issue. -- RM 12:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The convention throughout abortion-related articles is to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" per the self-identifying terminology guideline in WP:MoS. -Severa (!!!) 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed from "term dispute" section

One method of resolving the dispute is simply to use the terms each group uses for itself. This approach is rarely adopted by news organizations. I removed this because the first sentence is redundant while the second is an unreferenced claim that I imagine any of use could refute with a survey of news regarding "pro life" and "pro choice" -related events. As such, doing so would also probably be redundant as well. --Lenoxus 00:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The second sentence seems to be entirely backwards from my experience; I've seen vanishingly few news organizations that use phrases like "self-described pro-life" or "so-called pro-life"; the great majority of the time, news organizations buy into the reframe without so much as batting an eyelash. Kasreyn 23:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the story behind that sentence is that the AP published style guidelines specifying the use of "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" instead of pro-life/pro-choice. I agree it is worded poorly, but I just wanted to comment that it came from somewhere.-Andrew c 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Singular They

You put singular they in the edit summary, and expect me to realize that it is actually the PLURAL they? Anyways, I feel that it is a cumbersome way of writing, and singluar his is standard, so you might as well object to the use of the word "the" or "a". Chooserr 02:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Abortion articles
• Unknown-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles