Talk:United States anti-abortion movement

Why not Pro-life movement?

Given that this page is about the pro-life movement, why isn't this page called Pro-life movement? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not just about 'movements' some are just about views i guess and definitions. The movement surrounding it is a part of 'pro-life' not the other way around. I doubt i just made any sense. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.161.137 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It says at the top that it is about the movement(s). And most of the contents are about prolife movements. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Diversity of pro-life views

I removed a sentence from this section that listed Feminists for Life and Anarchists for Life as prominent supporters of the view that pro-lifers should not advocate for changes to existing law, but should instead find other ways to further the objective of reducing abortions and upholding the value of human life. This is a massive distortion of Feminists for Life's actual views; a review of their web site shows that they do promote and oppose legislation regarding these issues. As for Anarchists for Life, the link to their web site was dead, I was unable to find their web site, and I was unable to even verify that this organization exists -- let alone that it is "prominent."

SCBC (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The diversity section has a section on the life extension movement, but does not mention the alternate view that "God's will" should determine the end of life. I don't believe that the life extension movement is as common as the belief that although it is justifiable to give life support to the aged, it is not be the goal to seek extension of life beyond what is natural. Others oppose all medical intervention including abortion, life support, and in some cases anything beyond prayer and providing comfort. There should be an explanation with appropriate citations that describe more prevalent views and less common but well known views.

Hagrinas (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Could the experts here check another article

Hi,

I'm not interested in taking positions on this issue (on Wikipedia only; in real life I might have an opinion), however I do appreciate Wikipedia's NPOV policies. To further that goal, I invite the people who edited this article to take a look at List of common misconceptions#Judaism_and_Christianity, which contains this assertion:

Even though many Christians have adopted abortion as a cornerstone principal to abolish as part of their religious principals, nowhere in the Bible is abortion indicated as being against God's will or prohibited. In fact, according to the Bible (specifically, the book of Leviticus, which contains many laws not accepted by most modern Christians), killing a fetus is considered a property crime.

While I believe that is POV and should just be removed, the item is sourced and I'm not willing to get into any debate on the issue. In hope there's someone here who's not so lazy or to whom this is more important :) (OTOH I think the entire article is silly, but that's somewhat beside the point.) --SLi (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Secular motivations

The following unsourced material is from the Secular motivations section. It should be sourced if it is to be replaced.

Many disciplines of philosophy may be implemented in the formation of a secular pro-life viewpoint. Some make use of natural law theory, which would emphasize the primacy of the right-to-life as the most fundamental human right guaranteed by law.

Biologically speaking, the zygote created at fertilization possesses a unique genome of human DNA, a unique blood type, and all other essential biological manifestations of a living organism. Pro-life advocates assert that this constitutes membership in the human species and personhood, and therefore conclude that the deliberate harming of human embryos and fetuses is morally objectionable. Other pro-life arguments may hold that destruction of human embryos and fetuses constitutes discrimination against them, based on their stage of development.

Thanks, Whatever404 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Life Views in the First Centuries of Christianity

I think this site provides several quotes from great christian thinkers from the first centuries of Christianity, that can be used in the article, including the "Didaché" quotation. I will try to select some of them when I had more time to include them in the text and also Jesus quotations that can be interpreted as pro-life. [1]82.154.82.136 (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove fact tags without inserting a citation. I understand that you intend to add citations, but until that is done, the tags should remain. Also, it will probably not be best for you to merely add "Jesus quotations" and call them "pro-life", as this alone would likely be original research. You would also have to add citations of some prominent sources that interpret the quotations as pro-life. Whatever404 (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Quotes That Can Be Interpreted as Pro-Life

I found this site with Jesus quotes :[2]. I will select some of the best for the pro-life stance. Since Jesus also started as an embryo this quote can be interpreted as pro-life : 40 "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me." (Mathew, 25)85.240.20.90 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. Not only does that cite not even mention "pro-life", it doesn't meet WP:RS. If we could find a reliable source that makes similar claims, then I think that would be appropriate, don't get me wrong.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange sentence

"They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong." - Does this mean that they argue or imply that a righteous war is possible? - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

the term

What is the origin of the term "pro-life" (or can it not be determined?), and why (if not) isn't it in the article? Like You Never Did See (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fetus or embryo?

A recent edit added some text, shown in bold.

The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that fetuses (unborn babies), and some include embryos, are human beings, and therefore have a right to live

The explanation given in the edit comment is that some people are pro-life but support embryonic stem cell research. This was interpreted to mean that they believe fetuses have a right to life but embryos do not.

While that is one plausible interpretation, I am not comfortable with it, especially in the complete absence of citations. In fact, I see some other problems with this article that I'm going to try to resolve. Spotfixer (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I made my changes. I think most of them are uncontroversial and even self-explanatory, but I recognize how sensitive this topic is so I encourage other editors to talk about my WP:BOLD changes instead of launching into an edit war. Spotfixer (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Motivations

I felt like this was a POV attempt to limit the reasons why people are pro-life. As I understand it, fetuses have their own unique human DNA, and to me, that affords them some rights. I know the sources are lame, but you can't tell me people aren't coming to the pro-life position based only because their religious. If so, find sources. In a while, I'll try to write reasons under secular. Thanks and I welcome any of your opinions 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Gangreneday (talk)

I removed the word "alleged" [benefits] in the sentence that describes the pro-life position. It implies that the benefits are not real. Many pro-choice advocates also reject abortion when there is no true benefit, but the movement has no firm position. The pro-life movement takes a stronger position than merely opposing abortions with perceived benefit; abortions with some true benefit are generally considered unjustified. Extreme pro-choice advocates accept abortion for any reason when a pregnant woman wants one, including stupidity. Extreme pro-life advocates reject abortion for all reasons, even if it considered necessary for the health or life of the pregnant woman. Rejection in cases with "alleged" benefits describes a middle ground, not the true position of either side.

Hagrinas (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Science/Medicine

This section seems heavily biased, because it assumes that the majority of medical professionals think that fetuses are not alive. It's odd to me that bacteria are considered alive, even viruses, but not unborn human beings.

The choice to restrict the definition of "life" to exclude fetuses doesn't come from objective scientific standards, therefore I expect that this section is rewritten. Or, give a definition for life (which is widely supported) and explain how the growing fetus does not match the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.5.97 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hyppocrates Oath Is Pro-life

I think this also should be mencioned, which gives physicians the moral duty to be pro-life.81.193.220.211 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First, it's called the Hippocratic Oath, not the "Hyppocrates" Oath. Second, I really think you need to research the oath a bit more. It is neither inherently pro-life nor pro-choice and it certainly does not give "physicians the moral duty to be pro-life." Third, this position is original research and biased and can't be included without an accompanying reliable source. Sorry. --13² 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my native language it´s really called Hyppocrates Oath. Anyway, it´s still the same. I don´t know in what world do you live or if you´re obsessed with political correctness that you decide not to view the obvious. The original Hippocratic oath says : "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.". From the Wikipedia itself. All the physicians from what is known really have the moral duty to be pro-life.83.132.111.32 (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hippocratic Oath says "I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." It does not say "I will not give a woman an abortion" or "I will not allow a woman to get an abortion" or "I will try to dissuade or stop a woman from obtaining an abortion" or anything similar. The type of abortion mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath is a very, very, very specific type of abortion, despite the fact that there have, throughout all of history, been several ways of getting an abortion. If they meant abortion in general, it would have said it in more generalized terms. Doctors have no obligation to be pro-life on the abortion issue, period. Further, this is not a forum. If you can provide a reliable source that says that doctors have a duty to be pro-life based on the Hippocratic Oath (which you aren't going to find), then you need to drop it and discuss it on an outside forum. --13² 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I find almost unbelievable the attempt of some pro-choice supporters to obliterate the clear condemnation of abortion made at the original Hippocratic Oath. If it was really pro-abortion and abortion was then legal, in any stage of pregnancy, like infanticide, until the first year of life, in Ancient Greece, it certainly would have been something like that : "I will not put any woman life in risk while performing an abortion." Anyway, the pro-life interpretation as been made through ages, like we can see by this article and Margaret Mead own opinion : [3].85.242.239.23 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Mead interpretation of the original Hippocratic Oath : "For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing. Throughout the primitive world, the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person. He with the power to kill had power to cure, including specially the undoing of his own killing activities. He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill...With the Greeks the distinction was made clear. One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age or intellect - the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child..."85.242.239.23 (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Embryos

How many pro-lifers say abortion is ok up through the 10th week? Because that is when the fetal stage starts. Pre-implantation embryos (used in stem cell research) are clearly different from a 9 week embryo, and perhaps we should revise the wording to account for these nuances. However, we should not make any major changes without going to sources first. Do we have any sources, what so ever, that suggest pro-lifers don't believe embryos are persons? We need to make sure we don't give the incorrect illusion that the pro-life positions supports early (pre-fetal) abortion procedures. -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ACMA

How is the ACMA's blacklisting a form of activism? The content is extremely non-neutral, and off topic. Perhaps we could add a couple sentences saying that "truth displays" can take the form of websites, and that they have lead to the Australia blacklisting controversy? There is probably a way to work the general idea of this content into the article, but the specific content itself is highly problematic (and unsourced). The way the content was added and phrased, reminds me of the news headline I read recently Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian article - pro-choice view?

Please have a look at Russian "Prolayf" (Pro-life) article at google translate

It has:

• Critical part in preamble about statistics
• Statements about link of pro-life and killing of abortion doctors
• Term "prolayfer" (pro-lifer) which is disrespectful to the Pro-life movement members

I think interwiki link to this article should be excluded from English Pro-life article. --Ourcastle (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-Abortion" would be more accurate than "Pro-Life"

Titling this article "Pro-Life" is absurd and extremely misleading. Most Pro-Choice advocates are "pro life" as well. In fact, many of them are against abortion, but accept that it may be necessary on some occasions (rape, incest and to protect the mother's life). Also, note that the majority of "Pro-Life" advocates are Conservative and/or Republican and favor things like the death penalty. You can't be "Pro-Life" if you favor the death penalty. Once again, Wikipedia is catering to (and using the propagandistic and dishonest language) of the GOP.