Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles

Contents

1 Preamble
2 Proposals on titles
3 Discussion
4 Comments by the community

Preamble

The Arbitration Committee has requested a binding, structured community discussion on the article titles "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion". From commencement, this discussion will take place for one month. In that time, editors should collect systematic evidence of the frequency with which the proposed titles are used in various English-speaking countries, as well as any other material which is relevant to the appropriateness of any proposed title, and present that evidence in an organised, structured and easy to navigate manner. When the possible titles are finalised, the issue will be put to a vote; this will be closed by three neutral administrators whom the Arbitration Committee will appoint.

At this structured discussion, participants should maintain civility and decorum, and the discussion should remain focused on the topic. The format of the discussion is simple and will be conducted in two stages. The three proposed variants of titles will be presented, each with its own section. In each section, editors are welcome to provide reasoned arguments and appropriate references that support that section's title.

After a period, the community shall be asked to vote on the titles. The vote shall be closed by three administrators (HJ Mitchell, Black Kite and EyeSerene), who shall report to ArbCom. The vote's result shall be binding for a period of three years.

It is advised to maintain decorum on this page, civilly discussing issues and staying on topic. If you have any questions about the process, feel free to leave a message on the talk pages of Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) or Whenaxis (talk · contribs) or both, or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.

Regards, Steven Zhang (talk · contribs) and Whenaxis (talk · contribs)

Arguments and policies regarding Pro-choice movement / Pro-life movement

Sources

• Encyclopedia Britannica uses pro-life movement.
• The United Nations seems to prefer pro-life; 100 results for pro-life versus 30 results for anti-abortion.
• South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) (Same as below for anti-abortion) "pro-choice activists say that shows exactly why he did the right thing."
• China Post (Taiwan) (Same as below for anti-abortion) "On the other side of the debate, about 60 demonstrators, mostly women belonging to pro-choice or feminist associations" and "With Democrats mostly pro-choice and Republicans mostly pro-life"
• Philippine Star (Philippines) "Indeed, the pro-life groups face a formidable battle"
• Daily Beast/Newsweek (USA) " Now top Santorum aides are denying the former Pennyslvania senator’s supposedly pro-choice past." and "“Rick Santorum has always been pro-life,” insists his spokesman"
• Indian Express (India) "Asserting that his presidency would be a pro-life presidency"
• Telegraph (UK) "amid clashes between pro-choice and pro-life campaigners and within the Coalition."
• France24 (France) "Seven states already mandate pre-abortion ultrasounds, which pro-life activists believe would discourage women from terminating their pregnancies"
• New Yorker (USA) "The President is pro-choice, and he has signalled some misgivings about the Stupak amendment."
• CBS News (US) "Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a staunch pro-life Republican"
• Huffington Post Canada (Canada) "When pro-life Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth"
• The National (UAE) "marched in pro-choice and marriage equality rallies."Not clear that this refers to abortion

Policy based arguments

For

• Pro-life organisations often self-style themselves with that name.
• Straight Google for pro-life +abortion gives 61 million hits.
• Straight Google for pro-choice +abortion gives 31 million hits.
• Concerns about global perspective can be allayed by having articles with these titles be specifically about the United States political movements that use these names, with separate, more general articles providing a global perspective.

Against

• Not neutral. "Pro-life" suggests that the opposition is anti-life, while "pro-choice" suggests that the opposition is anti-choice.
• "Pro-life" can be ambiguous. It might also refer to opposition to stem cell research or euthanasia.

Arguments and policies regarding Abortion-rights movement / Anti-abortion movement

Sources

• BBC (UK) "Apple denies claims that Siri is anti-abortion"
• Economic Times (India) "Some suspected Siri of being anti-abortion but Apple rallied to explain that the innovative "personal assistant" in iPhones is a work in progress"
• Fox News (USA) "Apple's Siri Is Not Anti-Abortion"
• The Guardian (UK) "Except it isn't. Anti-abortion that is."
• Straits Times (Singapore) "Apple's voice software Siri irks abortion rights advocates"
• South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) (As above for pro-choice) "There are hundreds of ways to make a political, anti-abortion statement."
• The Hindu (India) "The letter said that first of all abortion should not be referred to as foeticide, which had anti-abortion implications"
• The Economist (UK) "In April 2011 he signed a broad anti-abortion bill." and "Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights."
• New York Times (USA) "a rule that anti-abortion forces hope will cause some women to change their minds"
• China Post (Taiwan) (same as above) "Organizing the anti-abortion protest was March for Life"
• The Star (Malaysia) "Apple's Siri irks abortion rights advocates"
• ArsTechnica (USA) "the company was showing an anti-abortion stance in its search results"
• AFP "like the anti-abortion crusade and limits on gay marriage are written into the law of the land"
• Indian Express (India) "Tech glitch, or is Apple’s Siri anti-abortion?"

Policy based arguments

For

• Preferred by the AP Stylebook - "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions."
• Abortion rights is more precise than pro-choice as pro-choice is used to refer to things other than Abortion. A straight Google for pro-choice -abortion gives 230 million results, vs only 30 million with the word abortion. The top hit for me (I'm in the UK) is for a recruitment firm in Nottingham.
• Anti abortion is a bit more precise than pro-life. A Straight Google for pro-life -abortion gives 788 million hits, and although quite a few are about conservative groups they aren't explicitly about abortion - although the top hit for me (I'm in the UK) is for a gym in Glasgow. Pro-life also refers to opposition to stem cell research.
• A Straight Google for anti-abortion gives 103 million hits, more than for pro-life +abortion.

This is not necessarily accurate; see discussion here.

• A Straight Google for abortion-rights gives 173 million hits, more than for pro-choice +abortion.

Against

• Not neutral. Gives preferential treatment to abortion-rights by suggesting that they are for the protection of a right, while anti-abortion is against that right.
• Not parallel, since the syntax of "abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion" is different.
• Not exclusive; it is possible to be both for abortion rights and against abortion itself.

Arguments and policies regarding Support for the legalization of abortion / Opposition to the legalization of abortion

Policy based arguments

For

• Arguably meets WP:NPOV by not using names that are considered biased (but see Against section).
• Has precedent on Wikipedia: Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, Opposition to the Iraq War, Opposition to immigration.

Against

• Specifically contraindicated by WP:TITLECHANGES as compromise titles made up to quell contention.
• Less concise than the other options.
• Overly precise – exclude content on support and opposition for criminalization of abortion (in locales where abortion is legal).
• Stigmatize abortion by implying that the baseline state of affairs is for it to be illegal, which violates WP:NPOV.
• Nonsensical as considered in any jurisdiction where abortion is not illegal, especially ones where it has never been illegal.

Other descriptions

• Xinhua (China) "Thousands rally against abortion", "Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of the Campaign Life Coalition, said she believed about 60 out of Canada's 308 members of parliament were opposed to abortion, too."

Arguments and policies regarding Support for legal abortion / Opposition to abortion

Policy based arguments

For

• Meets WP:NPOV by not using names that are considered biased.
• Has precedent on Wikipedia: Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, Opposition to the Iraq War, Opposition to immigration.
• Descriptive
• Concise

Against

• Specifically contraindicated by WP:TITLECHANGES as compromise titles made up to quell contention.

Other descriptions

• Xinhua (China) "Thousands rally against abortion", "Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of the Campaign Life Coalition, said she believed about 60 out of Canada's 308 members of parliament were opposed to abortion, too."

Discussion

Please keep discussion focused, and on topic

• Query. Will the result of this discussion apply only to article titles, or will it also apply in-text to other articles, eg. "X is pro-life" vs. "X is anti-abortion"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that the result of this discussion will only affect the current article titles: "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion". Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, article titles only. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• (Sorry, posted this first in wrong section)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 06:19, 23 February 2012‎
•    I'm embarrassed to weigh in with fundamental issues at this apparently late date, but then, i suppose no one is obligated to respond.
  1.    "Legalization" is an act or process; as the "pro-choice" article indicates in a graphic, abortion is fully legal in essentially the whole northern hemisphere, and legal at least to protect the mother's [physical] health in most of the rest of the world, so the controversy is actually about legality versus illegality of abortion, and far more about (hypothetical) acts or processes of prohibition than of legalization.
  2.    The articles purport to respectively be about two opposing world-wide phenomena of advocacy: a two-sided struggle. The graphic offers support more for the idea that there are at least six positions, corresponding to unqualified legality, unqualified prohibition, and four intermediate ones of advocacy for the status quo where it matches one's own position, but some degree of legalization in some other jurisdictions and/or prohibition in others.
  3.    In fact, even this 6-position view is too reductionist: IMO there are a lot of people who are sincere in believing that it's none of their business to have an opinion about what is right for other societies, and have only an opinion of whether their own should needs change.
  4.    In practice, what you think about abortion in other societies is as significant as your opinion of the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, unless you are going overseas with your sniper rifle, or sending similarly deadly quantities of money overseas.

  In short, the attempt to write two articles about two supposed world-wide movements on reproductive rights is ridiculous. Oh, excuse me, fundamentally misguided. IMO the articles should have their "Amero-centric" tags removed, and be merged into American controversies about abortion and contraception law, which should be tagged {{Lacks nuance}}, pending addition of at least 4 more sections.
  --Jerzy•t 05:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  

  •    (What i said above is far more important than this, so i am subordinating it as a comment on my own main point.) Part of the political controversy in the US is about what actions actually constitute "abortion". (A very small number of people are probably interested in a corresponding scientific and philosophical issue, about whether that question has any meaning -- since there is no such thing as an "instant of conception".) Arguments one way or the other can be important talking points in efforts to win votes, but i have serious questions about any use of "abortion" in defining the scope of a WP article that doesn't devote a section to how ill-defined the word is.
    --Jerzy•t 05:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    

Comments by the community on proposals

Members of the community are invited to comment on the various proposals here, giving reasons as to why they support their preferred argument. This discussion is not a vote, and as per all discussions, comments will be weighed based on strength of argument.

• "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both euphemisms. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more specific. Regarding "pro-life": Everyone wants to think he is "pro-life," though some are not universally pro-life, as when a legal death penalty has been rendered. Fetuses are "life" (as are gametes before fertilization), but the legal question is not "life" but "personhood," and opinions vary as to the proper dividing line. On the other side, everyone wants to be "pro-choice," a fact that the "pro-choice" side has used to advantage even when advocating funding by the unwilling for medical procedures performed by the unwilling. Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the above proposal is for "abortion-rights", not "pro-abortion". What do you think about that? --Cerebellum (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the focus. Indeed, a problem with "pro-abortion" that I did not note above is that most "pro-abortion" advocates claim they are asserting no opinion on abortion itself (many, notably candidates, insist that they personally would like it if not many abortions occurred). I find "abortion rights" inherently vague as it varies from advocacy that the government not restrain abortion, to advocacy that government mandate funding of abortions, which I do not view as a (natural) "rights" question. I have no solution, as a catch-term that avoids this problem might be anything but concise. "Anti-abortion," for its part, has no such ambiguity. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro-abortion is out of the question, so there is no point in arguing for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are both a) rallying-cries much more than they are objective and b) are hugely emotionally loaded, which I suspect is what lead to this discussion taking place at all. "Abortion-rights movement" and "Anti-abortion movement" are less loaded terms. However the term "movement" to me implies unity of purpose and unity of methods to a greater extent than I think it is right for us to presume. The titles "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" are far more neutral (NPOV as mentioned above). The subject of abortion vs anti-abortion is and will remain fraught with questions of conscience, with emotion and with political maneuvering. The titles "Support for the legalization of abortion" and "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" insert Wikipedia into the debate to a lesser degree than the other options offered. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • But do we really discuss opposition to or support for abortion rights except insofar as people who hold those views act on them in organized ways? "Movement" doesn't seem inappropriate, whichever adjective we decide to use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Abortion rights v. Pro-life sounds like NPOV-but-recognizable phrasing to my ears. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Pro-life" is a very loaded term, and certainly wouldn't instantly be in line with NPOV. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • At the moment I don't have a very strong view on what set of titles to use (as has been my position throughout), but having mismatched titles is absolutely not neutral. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why not a compromise arrangement: "Abortion rights (pro-choice) movement" and "Anti-abortion (pro-life) movement"? It would allow both sides of the POV labelling to be aired and thus cancel out, and would also allow for maximum "google recognition" titling. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. A compromise arrangement I see like this: Pro-choice is what I have always heard and what has always 'rung' in my ears best. I say we use that. However, Anti-abortion strikes me as wrong, because those views cover more than abortion- they cover women's birth control rights in general, in most people's minds at least. Problem is, rejecting anti-abortion AND pro-life as grossly politically incorrect, I don't know what we'd use for that. What about Anti-choice? ADDENDUM: Yes, I like those two. Pro-choice and Anti-choice strike me as fair, accurate and encyclopedic. In addition, they are in no way judgmental, merely logical with "choice" as the root, thus you have "pro-" and "anti-". Logical and simple.--Djathinkimacowboy 05:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum to comment for clarification: Let's look at the 3 picks. You have "abortion", pro- and anti-, which is loaded automatically. You have "life", as in "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" which is imbalanced and reminds too many people of "abortion". Now, we want to be balanced and encyclopedic. You then have "choice" which is a clear, accurate and impartial reflection of the issue. So I repeat, the only logical and non-judgmental course is to use Pro-choice and Anti-choice, and that is doubly good to the purpose since "pro-" and "anti-" are nothing but descriptive; they're not loaded no matter what.--Djathinkimacowboy 05:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• 'Pro' and 'anti' may be neutral terms but 'choice' is not. Choice is a good thing with connotations of rights and freedom. "Anti-choice" implies that restricting someone's rights and choices is the main purpose of the anti-abortion movement, which they would strongly object to: for them, the issue at hand is not choice at all, it is life. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• The community already favors "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" 1,729 to 485. No single phrase is going to be prefect but this is probably the least objectionable, it is the common name and it the one favored by the community. For similar reasoning, "pro-choice" is probably for the best on the reciprocal articles. - Haymaker (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that was the actual article title for a long time I don't think its a particularly meaningful result. People who don't have a preference will tend to use the article title. Wikipedia has a much higher use of People's Republic of China (rather than China) than the outside world because that was what we called our article until recently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• (Sorry, posted something here first that belonged in preceding section; now moved up there.)
  -Jerzy•t 06:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  

• Originally I was going to side with the "support and opposition", as they fit the NPOV the best out of the three original options, though after Haymaker's suggestion for "pro and anti-choice", I think that would truly fit better than any of the three options listed. Can it be added as a fourth option? Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice would more clearly reach the NPOV and define the rules of engagement for any editors to those articles.

After all, the "Pro-Choice" movement isn't for abortions, they are for the right to choose the option of an abortion if you want or need one. The "Pro-Life" movement doesn't want to 'end abortion' per say, they want people to choose life over abortion. On sktool, it looks like anti-choice gets 6,600 global searches a month. Not quiet as traffic gaining as anti-choice or pro-life, though definitely more accurate and more neutral. Which is what we're striving for, isn't it? =)

If we can't add this fourth option, I would side with support for the legalization of abortion and opposition to the legalization of abortion. --Bema Self (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a historical analysis of the derivation of the terms may help? Why and was the term 'abortion' chosen to describe the killing process? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=abortion&searchmode=none http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=abortive&allowed_in_frame=0 Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is not an area in which I have edited. I think 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are preferable because that means each is described positively by the principle they consider to be the more important, and because they are the simpler names proposed. The one thing which gives me slight pause is that they are only subjectively specific to the abortion debate, but I don't consider that to be substantial enough an objection because few people do use the term to refer to other issues and that's what hatnotes are for. As a historically minded chap I note that in Britain in the 19th century it was common to refer to 'Reform' without needing further explanation that what was meant was reform of the Parliamentary franchise. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support/Opposition to the legalization of abortion implies it is in the process of becoming legal. This is false, as abortion has been fully legal for over 30 years in my country. Yoenit (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• We can't rely on consensus here, since both pro-life/pro-choice and anti-abortion/abortion-rights are offensive to significant portions of the community. We can't rely on policy, because one option is more common and the other is more neutral. I feel like this is a lose/lose situation where the compromise (oppostion/support) is the only viable option. I don't like supporting something based on its mediocrity, but the very blandness of this option makes it unobjectionable and I don't we can agree on anything else. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur. I specifically believe that in this case the specific rule against "compromise titles made up to quell contention" should be ignored, suspended, amended, or otherwise evaded. In this particular case, any decision that gives a "win" to anyone is deeply undesirable for precisely that reason, and mediocrity should indeed rule! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Journalistic media commonly use language that is terse but unnatural, such as "axe" rather than "dismiss". This is especially common in headlines. I don't like this style, which is often ambiguous, and even cryptic at times! "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" both have numerous possible meanings and lack precision. On the other hand, the proposed titles using the term "legalisation" make it sound as though legislation is the heart of the issue for the people in these movements, which it isn't. Legislation is only one part of the mechanics by which either side seeks to achieve their goals. I would therefore favour the "Anti-abortion movement" and "Abortion rights movement" titles. Fuzzypeg★ 11:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'm not convinced that "abortion-rights movement" with the hyphen is grammatical. Removing the hyphen would look better to me (compare "women's-rights movement" and "women's rights movement"). Fuzzypeg★ 12:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not neutral. "Pro-life" suggests that the opposition is anti-life, while "pro-choice" suggests that the opposition is anti-choice. — this is simply false: "pro-choice" does not suggest that the opposition is anti-choice. It accurately states that the other side is anti-choice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-choice" does not accurately capture the ethos of the movement, just as "anti-life" does not accurately capture the ethos of the pro-choice movement. Pro-lifers value life above the freedom to choice; this does not mean that they are against choice. Pro-choicers value the freedom to choose above life; this does not mean that they are against life. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly presenting the idiocy this debate has to put up with. Simply logically wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In what way? --Cerebellum (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ad homimen attacks aren't going to convince anyone of your logical case. Cerebellum is right - for the anti-abortion side of the argument, the issue is about life, not choice. 'Anti-choice' is a loaded term, that's why it's not on the table for consideration, so there's not a great deal of point debating it further. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• These terms have always irritated me. Frankly, everybody is "pro" life and "pro" choice and nobody is "pro" abortion or "anti" choice. The reasons are irrelevant. It all boils down to legality - are you in favor of legalized abortion or against it? Of the choices given above, only Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion are close to appropriate; however, they seem to indicate that abortion is yet to be legalized (which is not always the case). Therefore, it would be better to shorten them to Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• That has got to be the most sensible suggestion for titling the articles. It accurately describes what each side is trying to achieve without promoting or denigrating either one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree: Yes - that's it. This is concise, perfectly balanced and neutral, doesn't put undue weight on 'legalization', and puts the focus fairly on abortion itself rather than the associated political movements. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• See response to Light-jet pilot below for why the rational opposite number to "support for legal abortion" is "opposition to abortion". —chaos5023 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion:to avoid the problem of "overly precise" titles, change "legalization" to "legailty" in both. --Stfg (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Also, these titles are short, NPOV and make sense to people all over the world ("pro-life" and "pro-choice" certainly don't). – Danmichaelo (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

*"Legality" is certainly a logical improvement over "legalization", but it puts the focus on legal rather than moral issues, and the articles cover both. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Pro choice and pro lifes are euphemisms. They do not address what they seek to support or oppose. "Pro abortion" and "anti abortion" use the name of the thing they are fighting for/against. It is time to stop using cop-out euphemisms and start naming the thing that is being supported, if one chooses to support it. This illogical and biased distortion in language needs to be addressed. "abortion rights" and "pro life" are inconsistent with each other, and again, they are a euphemistic cop-out. One is pro abortion or against it. It seems like "pro-choicers" believe that "pro-abortion" sounds too harsh because they dont like the connotation of the thing they are supporting and as such must come up with these euphemisms, or throw a "rights" in there. Call a spade a spade. "pro abortion" and "anti abortion" are simple, precise and consistent. Saruman-the-white (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Do you know anyone who is "pro abortion"? Abortion is sometimes necessary or desired, but I can't think of anyone who would actually advocate it. I'm definitely "pro choice", but I'd never say I'm "pro abortion" because it makes it sound as if I like abortion in the same was as I like candy bars. The articles are about whether or not abortions are legal, not about whether or not they are right. That's why I think Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion make sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see that while the straight Google results are higher for the anti-/pro-abortion, a good chunk of the relevant links provided in evidence relate to one issue, the controversy surrounding Apple's Siri. As such, and especially in light of compromise alternatives like "anti-choice" which verge on neologism-land, it makes sense to me to stay with the classic pro-choice/pro-life, though Scjessey makes an interesting argument. Are those terms are in global usage? Aslbsl (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has said, 'The community already favours "pro-life" ' as opposed to 'anti-abortion'. Firstly, as a terminology, I didn't say 'anti-abortion', I said 'anti-choice' . The editor who commented that said acceptable known terms are 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'. I think I made it eminently clear why those terms as automatic usages should be avoided by Wikipedia. For one thing, many people are offended by the term 'pro-life', which automatically implies pro-choice groups as 'pro-death'. How else can you conceive it? And a note: Haymaker did not suggest pro-choice and anti-choice: I did. Another editor has said we must stick to terms that define for or against legalisation. In America abortion is the law of the land Roe v. Wade. So that suggestion is nothing but divisive. Someone says 'anti-choice' is a neologism. False. It is a concrete, accurate position and 'anti-choice' describes it perfectly and without offense. What does it matter if 'anti-choice' is not so common? It isn't common because the two groups seek to offend and attack each other. Let's not feed that fire here. I say we use 'pro-choice' and 'anti-choice' as main terms. My post is not too high up there- I recommend it be re-read and reconsidered.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Anti-choice" reeks of partisanship and should not be used.

• The political left almost always uses "pro-choice/anti-choice" while the political right uses "pro-abortion/pro-life". To use either of these would be taking sides on the issue. Also, using "Anti" anything is negative one way or the other. I believe Support for legal abortion and Opposition to legal abortion are the least biased and clearly state what needs to be said.Light-jet pilot (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  The opposite number of "support for legal abortion" that makes any sense is "opposition to abortion". Nobody (by which I mean a statistically and politically insignificant number of people) is opposed strictly to legal abortion; a stance of opposition to abortion's legality is always found as one aspect of a stance of opposition to abortion of any kind. In fact, "opposition to legal abortion" could be seen as POV in that it echoes a common propaganda claim of the American left, that opponents of legal abortion want to go back to the days of high-lethality back-alley abortions. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Anti-choice" is a non-starter in every conceivable way. Its opposite-number propaganda title is "Pro-baby-killing". Come on. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I've always liked this idea myself... count me in for naming the articles Advocacy of the murder of babies vs. Advocacy of the enslavement of women. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Very much agreed "anti-choice" is a non-starter. No one should be labeled an "anti-" anything against their will. - Haymaker (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's already an article called Abortion debate. Why bother with separate articles about each of the two sides of the debate?--Victor Yus (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Because the objective of Wikipedia isn't to efficiently taxonomize political issues, it's to provide coverage of distinct topics of encyclopedia interest. Besides being linked by their opposition, abortion-rights and anti-abortion movements are distinct political movements that each receive extensive coverage as such in reliable sources, so our natural tendency is to draw the abstractions at the same level our sources do. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Understood, but I'd ponder if there can really be said to be one worldwide "anti-abortion" movement and one worldwide "abortion-rights" movement (or whatever you want to call them). Everywhere you go there are people declaring opposition to abortion, but are they really linked in one "movement"? And are their opponents all linked in one "movement" too? Is everybody in the world who hates cats part of an "anti-cat movement"? (Maybe that wasn't a good example.)--Victor Yus (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Pro-life when limited to the abortion context is contrary to the stance of (arguably) one of the most vocal and well-funded voices of the "Pro-Life" message, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Their site here states their take on "pro-life":

The committee assists the bishops, both collectively and individually, in teaching respect for all human life from conception to natural death and in organizing for its protection, especially on behalf of those who are unborn, disabled, elderly, dying, or facing the death penalty.

This mandate includes the following areas of responsibility: Education, promotion of pastoral care programs, and public policy advocacy focused on issues involving the defense of human life at its beginning (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning) and at its end (euthanasia, assisted suicide, including collaboration on opposition to the use of the death penalty).

Opposition to abortion is just part of the concept of pro-life in the USCCB's view. Use of "Pro-Life" solely in the context of abortion is a twist of one commonly understood use of that wording. Note: "Pro-Life" + "Death Penalty" yields 11 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "Contraception" yields 34 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "Capital Punishment" yields 2 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "Stem Cell" yields 6 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "Euthanasia" yields 2 MM results, "Pro-Life" + "suicide" yields 50 MM results, clearly there's more to pro-life than abortion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)