Talk:Abortion-rights movements

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Esocool (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Devshreebhatt (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sammiavizius (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 23 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Medavis3, Knbibb (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kristenmill2801 (article contribs).

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as consensus to not move as per WP:SNOW and the obvious POV issues with this title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Abortion-rights movements → Pro-abortion movements – This is a new article, discussing the abortion debate globally, rather just in the USA. The problem is what the title should be. The American article is United States pro-choice movement, but "pro-choice" seems to be an American euphemism. The most neutral and global title seems to be "pro-abortion". For example, see Pro-abortion activists rally in Argentina and Pro-abortion group fined in mainstream media outlets in Australia. Unfortunately, the article creator has already attacked me personally for even suggesting such a title. But the evidence suggests "pro-abortion" is both the most common and the most neutral designation. It also corresponds to the companion article also created recently, Anti-abortion movements (not "pro-life movements"). StAnselm (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest conceivable oppose. Seriously, we just managed to, against all odds, close WP:RFC/AAMC with a sensible and balanced result, and within 8 hours we have over-the-top POV pushing on the international articles refactored as a result? We couldn't take a break from that for an entire day? Unbelievable. So, yeah, okay. Describing movements in support of legal access to abortion as "pro-abortion" -- that is, in favor of abortion itself rather than against having the option forcibly taken away -- is a spectacular violation of WP:NPOV, designed as political propaganda, a demonization tactic that is anathema to everything Wikipedia stands for. So no, not neutral. And the assertion that this terminology is more common in the global media is, besides not being demonstrated by two cherry-picked links, a febrile, self-serving and transparent lie, as easily demonstrated by actual research, such as that below:

	Abortion-rights movement	Abortion-rights	Pro-abortion movement	Pro-abortion	Sources
Google Books	11,000	233,000	2,540	50,900	[1] [2] [3] [4]
Google Scholar	573	21,100	180	4,880	[5] [6] [7] [8]
Google News Archive	7	10,900	6	2,100	[9] [10] [11] [12]

As we can see, the language the current title is based on is five times more common than the propagandist construction proposed. This POV-pushing nonsense, while nice for a break due to its hilarious self-caricature, does not have any place whatsoever on Wikipedia. The end. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, leave off the personal attacks. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I note the lack of specificity, which makes sense given that all my extremely irritated and disgusted language is reserved for your actions as a Wikipedia editor, not yourself as a person. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That is absolute rubbish. You have described my requested move as a "demonization tactic", and called my assertion a "a febrile, self-serving and transparent lie". "Self-serving" is a comment on the contributor. Comment on content, not on the contributor. It is ridiculous to suggest that this does not include comments on people "as editors". If you are so irritated and disgusted can't discuss this topic sensibly and calmly, you should withdraw. StAnselm (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this article is not about pro-abortion movements, it is about abortion rights movements. I don't seen anything about eugenics or population control here. And there have been abortion movements based on those stands in the past. "opening access to abortions movements" would work as a different name (a descriptive name). -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, analysis of the reliable independent secondary sources shows prevalence of term usage as current title of the page, therefore should not be moved, but redirects to this page title are cheap. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course not - what a ridiculous time-wasting proposal to destroy accuracy and make WP into a propaganda engine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and speedy close - and really surprised, StAnselm is usually a sensible editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and permanently topic-ban the nom. --213.196.209.251 (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  It is not sufficient to topic ban someone for making a poor suggestion. A simple oppose or support, with reasons is enough, and the discussion will run its course and be closed soon enough. Often RM's are closed with a single support or oppose, and six to one, with valid reasoning, is sufficient to insure that this page will not be moved. Note to proposer, everyone is anti-abortion, no one is pro-abortion, just like everyone is anti-cancer or anti-falling into a river, or anti-getting run over by a car, but that does not stop people from being in favor of actions that lead to cancer, falling in a river or getting run over (going to the beach, kayaking, and crossing streets). Some people and some countries use abortion as a normal and accepted form of birth control. Some people abhor abortion as if it was some sort of plague, and think that anyone who obtains one is certain to go to someplace not nice. And abortion is one of the most hotly argued topics on Wikipedia, with editors of both viewpoints participating, until they get out of control and get topic banned. Apteva (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to topic ban someone for making a poor suggestion -- "Making a poor suggestion"? How about turning right around after a grueling RFC and forumshop to make a point and to aggressively and openly push a POV? --87.79.47.181 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm as irritated as you, but however we construct the situation it wouldn't be reasonable to topic-ban StAnselm based on it. Topic bans are extreme measures that cope with prolonged and intractable patterns of disruptive behavior, and even if this incident were much more disruptive than it is (it's a waste of all our time and stress-management capacity, but we're big kids, we can handle it), it wouldn't demonstrate a pattern of anything. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is inconceivable that anyone could seriously think this to be a neutral descriptor. Many abortion-rights advocates are anti-abortion. Powers ^T 18:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expanding (and some contracting) article

I've posted about this on that article's talk page, but now that United States pro-choice movement has been determined to have as its scope the United States and renamed accordingly, there is more general material there that should probably be moved or copied here. (Also from Abortion debate, although there's also less material there than there ought to be.) This should be the article where we discuss general philosophy behind the position, any forms of activism or historical facts that can be generalized across countries, ..., ... As well, I recommend removing unnecessary information about the legal status of abortion where it does not serve as context for the activities of pro-choice/abortion rights groups. There are other articles on the legality of abortion by country. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I generally concur, except that I would argue that all of the "movement" articles should be very light on general philosophy, with the bulk of material on the points of debate going in Abortion debate, Abortion in the United States, Ethical aspects of abortion and so on. This helps avoid the "dueling POVFORKs" situation where each of the two "opposed" articles winds up becoming a polemic for the position of its topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Would you agree though that covering abortion-rights movements does ask that we include some discussion of their reasoning, even if the main debate is in another article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I envision something like the usual Wikipedia "summary section with a {{Main}} crossreference" convention. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Maintain focus

I see I've posted about this before, but we should be making an effort to keep this article focused on movements, not simply on the legal status of abortion in these various countries. How did it come about that abortion was legalized in Iran and Japan (to take the recently added material as an example, though similar issues exist in other sections) - through the efforts of pro-choice advocates? That is what's in the scope of the article, really. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Name NPOV?

I honestly don't know what the answer to this question is, but calling this Abortion-rights movements, while we call the Pro-Life counterpart page 'Anti-Abortion movements' seems like we're breaking with NPOV and COMMONNAME, aren't we? Shouldn't they be 'Pro-Life Movements' and 'Pro-Choice' Movements? 72.224.172.14 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting to the current names took an unbelievably long discussion-consensus process: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I assumed that there's been one of those, so thanks for the link! 72.224.172.14 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Anyone who hasn't hit their 1RR for the day want to remove the IP's POV addition from the lede, please? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion-rights movements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121117021337/http://choiceireland.org:80/node/60 to http://www.choiceireland.org/node/60

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Review

I think this article was done very well. However, since several countries are brought up I am concerned why all countries aren't mentioned. I think the recent abortion rights movement in Poland should be referenced heavily due to the fact that there is so much going on over there right now with the protests. I also see a lack of religious reference. I think religion has a very big part on the abortion rights views. Because this has such a heavy influence on what people believe, this article should express the severity of that. Ttayloranne (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC: parity for abortion activism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles from 2012. Wikipedia has never been quite sure how to refer to the abortion activism movements, and currently the article titles are set from a narrow consensus at Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements. This RFC instead asks the question: how can we refer to the movements in article prose? This question is necessary because the status quo has gradually settled on a certain balance and I contend that that status is entirely out of balance, a clear and present violation of Wikipedia's core neutrality policy and an affront to the supporters of both movements.

• What is the current status quo? Abortion-rights movements are referred to as "pro-choice" for example NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood and Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States. The only place "pro-life" survives is Category:American pro-life activists, a holdout from the Great Renaming in which cats were mostly moved to "anti-abortion", which is the current status quo term for the so-called anti-abortion movements. Editors simply will not allow anyone or anything to be called "pro-life", whether or not the topic in question clearly transcends anti-abortion, or a preponderance of WP:RS describe the topic as "pro-life", which would seem to violate WP:V and WP:OR.

Therefore, the logic would suggest that "pro-choice", a biased non-neutral term used only by supporters to describe themselves, should be eliminated in order to level the playing field. It is the only way to comply with WP:NPOV if we are to avoid accusations of WP:SYSTEMIC bias which would be indicated by the way that the pro-abortion position is given the largesse to self-identify while pro-life is not. So the questions before us are:

1. How will we refer to abortion-rights movements in article prose? (a) pro-abortion (b) pro-choice (c) abortion rights
2. How will we refer to anti-abortion movements in article prose? (a) anti-abortion (b) pro-life (c) opposition to abortion rights

I suggest that the outcome of this RFC should become binding project-wide so that we have a clear and consistent method of referring to these topics that will not be the subject of constant contention and edit-wars without any clear resolution. Elizium23 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• pro-life/pro-choice for US-centric articles I think the better solution is to use the commonplace terms that have been widely agreed in the US: pro-life/pro-choice. I have to agree with TParis in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, in the context of US-centric articles: "The scientific sources seem to support pro-life/pro-choice despite that they would appear on the surface to us to be the ambiguous option." I can see the use of the term "anti-abortion" in a number of contexts as valid, such as those topics where the term "pro-life" is not commonplace, but for those US-centric topics I would think it less appropriate. I do also want to note that, in my opinion, in the context of such a controversial subject, in the context of previous RfCs which hold these terms as preferred, in the context of the recognized lack of viewpoint diversity on Wikipedia (recognized as mostly liberal, likely pro-choice), your recommended solution that "pro-choice" be purged seems, to be blunt, quarrelsome. (Noting that, in my opinion, "quarrelsome" defines the character of debate on the subject, and many if not most participants, on all sides, consider it acceptable.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I only suggest that it be purged because it has been decreed that "pro-life" be purged as well, and I find that equally quarrelsome. Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • (Yes, quarrelsome seems to define the character of debate. Equally so.) Was this a decision as part of an RfC? Or are you identifying a systemic process? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
      • The process has occurred mostly by editing, across a wide range of articles. Sometimes talk page discussions occur but the consensus has always landed on "anti-abortion". Elizium23 (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• The submission of this RfC, like the the edit the submitter just did to the NARAL Pro-Choice America article, in which the organization's position was characterized as "pro-abortion", seems like mere tenditious editing to me. The "pro-abortion" characterization is obviously not going to receive consensus support as NPOV terminology on Wikipedia. The topics in question are not about people encouraging other people to have abortions or saying that abortions are somehow desirable – they are only about people saying that abortion shouldn't be criminalized and prosecuted as a violation of law. The difference is really rather obvious. The RfC poster said that "pro-choice" is "a biased non-neutral term" for the concept of people being able to choose for themselves whether to have an abortion without facing criminal penalties, but has not said how that term is biased or non-neutral. This RfC just seems like a way to provoke contentious discussion and waste time. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support or opposition for your comment is not why I removed it, but rather that it has no content contributing to the two three-part questions posed in the RFC, only content intended to disparage me, my goals, and my good faith. It is on these grounds that I objected to it and duly issued a warning template to your talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't see how my comment could be interpreted as having "no content contributing to the two three-part questions posed in the RFC". Five of the six sentences of my comment discussed your suggestion to consider using the term "pro-abortion" and your assertion that "pro-choice" is "a biased non-neutral term", which are obviously part of the question posed in the RFC. In fact "pro-abortion" was the first of the three suggestions you listed for describing "How will we refer to abortion-rights movements in article prose". I suggest that deleting my comment was out of line. I don't think it is a personal attack to say that, and I also don't think my comment itself was out of line (and I was not the first to suggest that some aspect of the RfC submission seemed "to be blunt, quarrelsome"). To me it is very obvious that "pro-abortion" is not a neutral term that could be a reasonable candidate for receiving consensus support for widespread use on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • After a bit of further thought and side discussion, I accept that this RfC was submitted in good faith. It is hard to keep a cool head on this topic, but I also pledge to try. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• pro-choice/pro-life - for WP:COMMONNAME and these better support the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA goal of consistency - this gives both a similar style of "pro" prefix and a philosophical point suffix, and more importantly is how they each self-identify. (i.e. the "Pro-Life Journal") Slightly improves conciseness by being shorter. Slightly increases precision too as 'abortion rights' would literally be about a legal framing Rights and all parties are proposing different flavors of that, & the arguments are over what the rights are and implementation access. I would recommend caution about the "binding project-wide" though to allow some coverage for quoted lines and article titles, and that the groups are not limited to just the abortion topic -- pro-life would include Euthanasia; pro-choice would include Sex education and Birth control. Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to the current abortion-rights/anti-abortion, but would lean towards "pro-choice"/"pro-life" as per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes both are "loaded" since they are both "pro" something, but I think they've entered common speech. It's not uncommon for groups on one side to use both terms. Like a brand that has genericised. I don't think pro-abortion is accurate at all, since (i) it is only used by pro-life/anti-abortion campaigners, and (most importantly) (ii) it's inaccurate, since pro-choice/abortion-rights groups are [not] pro abortion, they are pro people being able to choose an abortion. If the "pro-abortion" is to be considered, then so should "anti-choice" (I think both are too biased to be considered BTW). I'm not really sure what this RFC is about, since I've seen "pro life" being used on wikipedia articles. ____Ebelular (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I inserted a "[not]" above, since the context seems to imply that it was accidentally omitted. —[ v[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • As was thoroughly established in debate in the course of WP:RFC/AAT and WP:RFC/AAMC, WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable to these terms where article titling is concerned; the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE must be applied. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all goals of this RFC. I was the primary organizer of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, a process that ended an intractable rolling maintenance war that had gone on for years and tied it up with a neat bow. This RFC now proposes to restart that maintenance war for flimsy reasons. The partisans for "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have their propaganda goals catered to in the form of United States pro-life movement and United States pro-choice movement, and this is as much of a bone as they deserve to be thrown and then some. When we are not covering specific, named movements like those, but are discussing these movements in abstract, as the list articles Anti-abortion movements and Abortion-rights movements do, it is entirely appropriate to use the generic terminology commonly adopted in the international press. The world is not the United States and the names of the United States abortion advocacy movements are not the WP:COMMONNAMEs for these movements from a WP:GLOBAL perspective, and even if they were, WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant to a situation like this because the higher standard in WP:POVTITLE must be applied. Leave the situation alone. No good will come of tampering with it. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Broadly agree with you (mostly for the 'don't open the can of worms' point). I must point out that, yes, the world is not the USA, but "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are used a lot in the Anglosphere outside the USA. (e.g. in Ireland we have the Pro Life Campaign). ____Ebelular (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Pro-life & pro-choice per WP:COMMONNAME. Instaurare (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As was thoroughly established in debate in the course of WP:RFC/AAT and WP:RFC/AAMC, WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable to these terms where article titling is concerned; the higher standard articulated in WP:POVTITLE must be applied. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any change and Comment 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are both essentially 'marketing' slogans and not neutral, their use may be widespread in the US (less so in UK), but at best they are 'shorthand', each term attempts to demonise the other position, (who after all could be anti-life or anti-choice except in relation to specific issues?) Similarly 'pro-abortion' is very 'loaded', I've never in my life met anyone who thought abortion was a good thing, though I know thousands of people who feel that in some circumstances, it is the right outcome and should not be banned by law. Essentially the debate is between those who feel it should be banned in (almost?) all circumstances and those who feel it is the right of the mother to decide (in many/most circumstances). I endorse what is said by Chaos5023, present terms seem straightforward, neutral, easily understood and accurate, while many of the proffered alternatives do not. Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What do you "oppose"? You do realize that currently, "pro-choice" is in widespread usage here? Do you oppose its usage? What would you suggest as a replacement term? Elizium23 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Pro-life/choice for US articles. No comment on others, since, per previous discussions, life/choice seems to be mainly US terminology. However, care should be given to be consistent. Anti abortion should probably be paired with pro-abortion, and choice with life, unless there is an outstanding reason to do otherwise. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This one is rather complicated. In general, I would say abortion-rights and anti-abortion, as it is my belief that we should avoid POVish terminology. COMMONNAME applies unless there are issues with NPOV, and in this case I would say there are such issues: both the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" have been chosen to depict those movements positively (how you can you be anti-choice? how can you be anti-life?) and there is no reason for us to buy into that process. "abortion-rights" is a precise descriptor, because that movement advocates for the option, not for the use of abortion: "anti-abortion" is also precise, because that movement advocates against abortion, period. Vanamonde (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Pro-choice"/"pro-life" are the most common terms so we should use them. Plus, being "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily mean you are "pro-abortion". Many "pro-choice" people actually personally oppose abortion. Summoned by bot. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Pro-choice/pro-life - Summoned by bot. Both are the more neutral descriptions most commonly used in reliable sources. The alternatives present a negative connotation, which we must avoid. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose all goals of this RFC for reasons similar to those given by chaos5023. The NPOV goal of Wikipedia should not be abandoned on some topics because a majority of editors want to push a non-neutral point of view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, but that is the very crux of consensus-based editing. NPOV is whatever the community says it is. It is routinely overridden, such as in the case that brought me to open this RFC. The systemic bias on Wikipedia dictates what is and what is not regarded as "neutral", as does the everyday negative evaluation and sidelining of reliable secondary sources which do not comport with Wikipedians' idea of neutrality. The fact that you oppose the premise, which is "parity for both sides", indicates that you accept the inherent bias of the status quo. And you may well be in the majority opinion. How does that feel? Elizium23 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and stick to the status quo of WP:RFC/AAT and WP:RFC/AAMC. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement of faith

As my good faith has been called into question, I wish to address the misgivings head-on. Yes, I am pro-life, so I have a built-in bias for that side of the argument. No, I have not let my bias influence any of my editing behavior so as to contravene Wikipedia policies. On the contrary, I seek to balance Wikipedia and uphold its policies and guidelines to the best of my ability, and I always have, in my nearly-nine-year career here. I have never been sanctioned for POV-pushing, or any other distasteful behavior, and I intend quite earnestly to keep that record as clear as the day I started. I specialize in dispute resolution. When others are edit-warring and bickering over the correct way to do something, I will be the one seeking compromise, collegiality, and resolution to difficult situations. I believe in countering systemic bias, but I reject the idea that I am here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am only one man, so I do what I can in my corner of the universe, and if I fail, I retreat and regroup, having learned my lesson. I am a good-faith editor, and I would therefore ask everyone, especially my opponents in this long-standing and bitter debate, to put aside our biases for the sake of Wikipedia's goals, and evaluate our own actions in light of the letter and spirit of policy. Whatever the outcome of this RFC, I solemnly promise to obey the consensus established herein. Thank you for participating, and God bless. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion-rights movements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005033006/http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/july81869.html to http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/july81869.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Right to choose redirects here

Right to choose redirects here, but probably deserves its own article for Euthanasia, Abortion and other "choices" wrapped up together, similar to Right to life. Thoughts? L32007 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Explanation for change to last sentence of intro

This doesn’t seem NPOV: “Abortion-rights supporters themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be available and to the circumstances, for example different periods in the pregnancy such as late term abortions, in which access may be restricted.”

Yes, people take a wide range of positions in the abortion-rights debate; and yes, if you exclude one rather narrow set of positions (those which involve being opposed to abortion rights under **all** circumstances), there are still a lot of positions left. Which means those remaining positions can be described as “divided”. But using that terminology makes abortion-rights supporters sound particularly fractious.

(One could as easily say, “Abortion-rights opponents themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be denied and to the circumstances, for example rape, in which access may be allowed.”)

So here’s my attempt at NPOV: “Non-absolute positions on abortion rights sometimes take the form of an absolute position with exceptions. For example, a person may support abortion rights in all circumstances except late term abortions, or oppose abortion rights in all circumstances except rape.” 97.115.71.30 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence of your proposal is not helping "clear things up". Also, your attempt at making this NPOV has had the reverse effect, you now make it sound like all abortion-rights activists have limits. I agree the existing statement is somewhat weird, but your re-wording has just turned it on its head. StarHOG (Talk) 13:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

How about a whole new lead: "Abortion-rights movements, also referred to as pro-choice movements, advocate for legal access to induced abortion services. The right to have an abortion, or not, muddled with issues such as: how long in to the pregnancy, under what circumstances, the health of the fetus and the mother, the viability of the fetus out of the womb, and many more, are often complicated, personal, and many times religious issues for abortion-rights and anti-abortion individuals alike. Worldwide, abortion-rights issues are historically controversial. In the US, many rights stem from the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing abortions in Roe v. Wade (1973)." StarHOG (Talk) 14:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the new language was harder to parse, but the point about how "pro-life" supporters are also not all absolutists is fair - the question is just about whether or not it's appropriate for the lede of this article. Since this is the article on abortion rights movements, it doesn't seem to require a similar statement about the other side to balance it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Added changes

In the United States section I added two different paragraphs the first one was “One of the largest protest marches on the nation’s capital and soon after, the high court refused to endorse Pennsylvania’s new restrictions and left the Roe v. Wade decision intact.” (History.com). Including this shows an actual movement that happened about abortions and pro choice and how it left a positive impact leading to the higher court not furthering abortion restrictions. Including more information about protests that have happened and have left a positive impact shows actual abortion rights movements rather than just laws to compare from each country shows how different countries respond to the topic. To the United States section I also added how "90 percent of abortions take place in free-standing clinics. And these clinics, their funding networks, and their legal support are typically run by non-profits that receive federal Title X funding" (Cicerchia, Lillian). This shows the reader why even when abortions are legal why it is so difficult to obain them. The last thing I added was in Irelands section and it was about how in Ireland a women was raped and even though she did not want to and tried to attempt suicide “She was eventually forced to give birth by C-section. At every step of the way, the Irish authorities’ concern for the protection of the fetus trumped any consideration of Ms Y’s mental and physical health.” (Newbery, Gher). Including this shows a real example of consequences women go through when they are denied their right. Seeing that it is from a different country help the reader understand the similaries/differences in each country of abortions restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devshreebhatt (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the tone of these entries was not encyclopedic. By that I mean that Wikipedia writing is dispassionate and neutral, and does not attempt to persuade the reader of a particular point of view, for example pro-abortion. The text you added contained several clauses that seemed designed as persuasive, and overall the writing was not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Devshreebhatt: if you were able to source statements that eg. Ms. Y's case spurred abortion-rights activism, or the (extraordinary, imo) claim that the protest march you name had an impact on the court's decision, they might be appropriate for the article in a revised form, but since this article is meant to be specifically on abortion-rights movements, not abortion or abortion access generally, they would not be appropriate in their current form. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit help

Hi,

In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.

Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)

Thanks in advance. Warm regards

Bookku (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ABORTION IN MODERN SOCIETY

A lot of change has surfaced through abortion since the early ’70s to the present day. it's crucial for the article to be accurate and informational in order for the article to be useful. The information that would like to contribute would be addressing how the movement is in today's society, and What kind of impacts it has on women. Address the issues that women go through today. Add some vital information that would significantly improve the article such as the health risks, and more information on the non-western countries. 08:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Supporting articles: NARAL_Pro-Choice_America and Unsafe_abortion

Relatable articles: Socialist_perspectives_on_abortion and United_States_abortion-rights_movement

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatimaomar88 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Protest in Łódź, 25th October 2020 - 13.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Breaks Every Policy, Guideline We Have. Tried Editing To Compliance, Couldn't. Deleting It.

First Paragraph Under Heading "United States":

The first known legalization of abortion in the United States was passed by the state of Connecticut in the year of 1821, where women barred abortions following quickening, usually performed by administering a poisoning to the mother up to four months into her pregnancy. Up to the year of 1856, women in their first trimester were legally allowed to have an abortion in most states, but not all. It (abortion) was considered a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure that was common enough to appear on medical records. This happened far before the official abortion laws appeared in the United States. No legal, social, or religious force stopped women who wanted an abortion in the New England part of America between the 17th and 18th centuries. There were people, such as Dr. Horatio Storer who pushed efforts to drive the legalization of abortion. Nearly a century later, Colorado was named the first state to liberalize abortion in 1970. Just a few short years after women had finally begun to see the hope within legal abortions, in 1973, Roe vs. Wade occurred, which ended all previously made laws that made abortion legal. Nearly forty years later, in 2009 polls were released that showed 51% of Americans advocate pro-life. However, Congress still passed a healthcare reformation that possibly will be tax-funded abortions. Abortion was an issue that was tossed and contemplated for years prior to its first legalizations, and it will continue to be an issue for years long after present day.

???

Full of claims, no citations. "Poisoning" without naming substances used, "women had finally begun to see the hope," entire last sentence all imply strong bias. Last sentence includes conjecture based on a political talking point. Refers to "the official abortion laws" without stating what those laws were. Unclear what "liberalize abortion" means, also what it means to be "named the first state" to do it. Etc.

I tried to edit it.

Sources contradicted the claims. Dr. "legalization of abortion" Horatio Storer: was an anti-abortion advocate. Colorado, the "liberalize abortion in 1970" state: decriminalized abortion in 1967 (nothing in 1970) and only in cases of rape, incest, or health issues. Etc.

The bias made editing to an NPOV impossible. First sentence became: "In 1821, Connecticut codified a pre-existing common law prohibiting the sale of drugs to those intending to induce abortion with those drugs, becoming the first state to pass a statute criminalizing participation in abortion." That sentence, while informative, doesn't belong in "Abortion-rights movement" category. Other edits follow a similar vein.

This paragraph doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'm deleting it.

P.S.: This edit will be my first on Wikipedia. I tried to follow all the applicable policies and procedures. If I made any mistakes, or you have any advice for future edits, please let me know. --24.217.32.13 (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)