Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Two Foundations

There may be three? I'm thinking of a scientific/medical foundation, for those that base their stance on the conception event as the start of a new unique human life, genetically and in terms of being a separate organism, as opposed to a tissue or organ of another organism. Of course, it still requires a moral or legal element in the end to demand rights for these lives, but for some this may be the stronger motivation or the starting point for the belief.

Darrowby 23:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the scientific/medical is behind both of the ones already mentioned. The "two foundations" are about what to do with that information. Maybe the article should mention what you are saying and THEN say there are wo possible foundations for being Pro-Life based on the scientific/medical data. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

First step in a long journey

I have removed the more obvious offences against NPOV. I have also tried to remove the air of "rushed homework".

Like I say this is a first step. If you revert then we simply have to take the first step again. I do not pretend the article is perfect. Failure of NPOV was/is not the only problem. A lot of it was babbly. If you revert becuase you think it makes for a more neutral pov please note the problems with the expression in the version to which you revert. There was a lot of misuse of language. You "cite" an authority but you "argue" that pro-life is a loaded term (cite is simply the wrong word). If you revert we get "cite" back and "Consistent Life Ethic philosophy", not to mention the ampersand.

My proposal in Text removal still stands. This is not an article about abortion. This is not even an article about the arguments about abortion. This is an article about the history of, usage of and controversy over the word "pro-life". Please do not bring your baggage here.

Stroika 13:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to applaud this effort! It's a real article now.

-- Darrowby 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Text removal

(I moved this up Stroika 10:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

My fixes keep getting deleted. Wiki really needs a peer review rather than just one person's judgment as to what should be written or not. Failure to do so makes wiki viritually worthless as a reliable source.

I was attempting to correct the language in the posted article accusing "pro-lifers" of being "anti-abortionsist". They have their own page, so why not worry about that there? And I'm not vandalising any more than whoever put the original aritcle up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.247.85.115 (talk • contribs)

Your "fixes" entailed a substantial amount of text being removed, prompting me to quickly revert. I will Assume good faith, but your edits certainly appear to be politically-motivated; therefore I encourage you to familiarise yourself with NPOV. Take care. SoLando (Talk) 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello 165.247.85.115.

"My fixes keep getting deleted

yeah I got the wikipedia blooo-ooos" ;-)

Making a wiki "peer reviewed" defeats the whole point of wiki. If you think that makes it a less reliable source then why are you here? What gives some reliability to wikipedia is if the editors bother to provide verifiable sources. Totally absent here.

As I have already noted (NPOV?) there is a strong tendency to make this article a definition of pro-life entirely from a pro-choice point of view. That is - by definition - not NPOV.

Speaking directly to 165.247.85.115: I must correct a misapprehension I detect (I may be wrong) in your post: "they" (presumably meaning the people deleting your edits) do not have "their own" page - any more than "you" have "your own" page. The point about wikipedia - like any encyclopedia - is to provide accurate factual information. That also means accurate factual information about different opinions held about various topics.

If I am right to detect this misapprehension please do not contribute to a stupid misuse of wikipedia by simply re-reverting to give this article a "pro-life" bias. That won't help. This article must not become a definition of "pro-life" from a pro-life POV.

If somebody's bias antennae aren't up to sniffing out the pitfalls of one form of expression over another in pro-life/pro-choice type articles then frankly he or she should not be editing here. There are dragons (see NPOV?).

I must say that checking the current revision against the previous version that neither of them are any good. That's an objective assessment: There are no sources, no grammar sometimes, and what the devil is that ampersand doing there?(not for much longer).

In my opinion SoLando might as well have left alone. All the recent versions appear to be "politically motivated". Oh well assume good faith and all that.

The article "pro-life" is not a forum for pro-lifers to tell each other what they already "know" (e.g. "pro-life is an accurate descripion of peple who heroically oppose abortion and a whole bunch of other stuff") . Nor is it a place for pro-choicers to tell each other what they already "know" (e.g. "pro-life is a euphemism to cover up the vile interference in the rights of others which some people insist on").

This article needs (1) a history of the term "pro-life" - properly sourced - where did it originate? who coined it?. (2) An accurate account of who uses it and why, (properly sourced) which leads to (3) some mention of the term dispute (yup you guessed it properly sourced). (4) Its history as a slogan (no need to bother finding accurate sources for this one...only kidding).

Discuss.

Stroika 10:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in this article (a person's time on Wikipedia is meant to be enjoyable ;-)) - I was on RC patrol, saw an anon removing a large amount of text and reverted. Yes, the article was/is in a....bad...situation but such changes should have been discussed on this talk page, as you have done. Take care. SoLando (Talk) 23:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

YEah all one article please!!

Child

Discussions below about N/POV of "child" seem to have skipped over the definition(s) of that word. Fetus is explicitly listed as a meaning of child and the older form "cild." "With child" also traditionally meant pregnant. Another definition is a son or daughter (offspring) of any age. Child also means a derivative item--computer science uses the words child and parent, for example.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/child

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cild

So, in reality the word "child" includes fetus. If the word brings unwanted attributes or emotions to a person's mind, I'd say that's the responsibility of the person, not the word. According to the definition, using "unborn child" is not POV.

Darrowby 10:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct --Nerd42 23:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article is written entirely from a pro-choice point of view. Just compare the opening sentence with that of Pro-choice. Here 'pro-life' is a euphemism there 'pro-choice' is a "self-description". I would edit it now but I don't want to start a fight. Does anybody know if there has been any discussion anywhere that would have a bearing on producing a NPOV article on this topic? If not I guess I'll get cracking and let the reverts fall where they may. Stroika 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think your point re: "euphemism" and "self-description" is a fair one. I certainly wouldn't object to that sort of edit (though you're right to be concerned with starting a fight). I'd be a little careful editing too stridently lest you disturb the sleeping pro-life and pro-choice dragons. Of which, I suppose, I might be one (see below).  ;) --Plumbago 16:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Stroika. It's still a highly biased write-up in need of some actual, independent wikipedians to give it a NPOV and factual write-up that includes both the the positive and negative.--Pro-Lick 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this article for quite a while now, and I am not certain why it is still considered POV. Could those who feel that it is so please state which paragraphs are still disputed, please? --Jakob mark 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If I look for POV, all I can come up with is this sentence: Just as murder is considered wrong by virtually all religions, it is also widely condemned by those with a secular outlook, since it equates murder and abortion, which the article states is one of the main controversies between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Anything else? --Jakob mark 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. 1 step closer.--Pro-Lick 00:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

fetus vs. unborn child

An anonymous user added "unborn child" instead of "fetus", which was reverted due to POV issues. But according to the fetus article, the term fetus only applies from the 8th week until birth, whereas the person who is pro-life considers the unborn child to be from conception to birth. The article again states that "unborn child", at least in the U.S., is defined as from conception to birth. From my reading of the fetus article and of those who claim to be pro-life, I'm inclined to prefer using the "unborn child" usage because it is far more accurate and descriptive. Both terms, fetus and unborn child, are both terms that are equally guilty of framing, so I don't see how one has more POV than the other. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Unborn child", as applied throughout gestation, is suspect because it ascribes attributes (e.g. being a child) to an entity which clearly does not possess these attributes (at least at first). Obviously, this is a greyscale issue, since the said entity gradually acquires these attributes during gestation until, after a successful birth, it can quite legitimately (and legally) be described as a "child" . The expression is non-NPOV because it has strong political overtones (in addition to being inaccurate). "Fetus", by contrast, has more of a biological basis, and could arguably be defined as the status of the entity up to the point where its independent existence is possible (although, given advances in medical technology, this also is something of a greyscale issue). After this point, it could legitimately be described as an "unborn child" since it is effectively a child-in-waiting. All that said, I've yet to hear "unborn child" being used in this way or, for that matter, in any context other than politically. --Plumbago 17:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You have some points, but fetus is not without its own political POV. The fact of the matter is that the *only* NPOV term that I can think of is not a term at all, but a series of terms: zygote, embryo, and fetus. These are the biological terms that are referred to by unborn child. Usage of fetus by itself is inaccurate. In a similar way "unborn child" does not refer to a completely formed child, so by using the term "child", it is inherently inaccurate as well. Also because it is such a politically charged issue, "unborn child" has taken on the implied bias of "child", whereas "fetus" has taken on the implied bias of "not a child", but in reality the categorization of the child/fetus is not something that biology can answer aside from the biological terms listed above. Debates of what constitutes full human life and so forth are matters of POV. I added to the article references on the controversy between the two terms, so maybe that is acceptable? If it is not, the only thing I can suggest is to try to reword the article to use the 3 terms, but I suspect that it will be cumbersome. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I should add that the usage of the term "unborn child" is obviously not used in a scientific/academic sense because the individual terms (zygote/embryo/fetus) would be applied for greatest accuracy. But in a wider social context (political and otherwise), the terms "unborn child" and "fetus" are used exclusively depending on who is doing the talking. The problem is that the term "fetus" is used to describe that which is not a fetus. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

How would someone fill in the blank: "The mother carried her ______ through all stages of pregnancy"? Very common answers would be "baby", "child", and "fetus". A very old english usage is to say "The woman was with child". Of course fetus would be factually inaccurate, but I've never heard anyone say "zygote, embryo, and fetus". — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Good points Ram-Man. Using fetus is not only incorrect, but also awkward. Unborn child or baby seems to be the best overall fit on a global scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.211.58 (talk • contribs)

Unborn human would solve everything! Dwain 19:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me on the biology usage of "fetus"; I wasn't aware of that issue. I've moved the discussion of "fetus" vs. "unborn child" to a parenthetical closer to the first usage--hope this change is acceptable. Best wishes all, Meelar (talk) 04:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Note also that unborn child redirects to fetus; I'll try and find a better target for the redirect. Meelar (talk) 04:03, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I accept the point about fetus having it own political angle, though this is less significant out of the United States. Your (Ram-Man) point about a succession of terms is a good one. That's biologically more representative. However, it seems we're looking for a single term here - essentially trying to black-and-white a greyscale world. In these circumstances, the choice of word is crucial for opposite ends of the debate (who each ascribe a different value to the gestating human; and to its mother and her rights). "Fetus" may have POV issues, but if, say, "embryo" were to replace it, before long this word would become POV (and the next one after that). These words have biological meaning, but because they can be read as essentially emphasising the non-child nature of the gestating human, they will always be flagged up as POV by those who favour "unborn child". Anyway, that probably doesn't help us reach agreement, but it's just my five cents for now. --Plumbago 06:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the update to the article to include both doesn't sound too bad. I like how it explains the usage of the words too. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 12:03, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think that by carefully using all of the terms discussed, the article now reads clearly, and is better from a POV strandpoint. Thanks Meelar. --Plumbago 12:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

recent "revert"

About the recent revert removing the life vs. choice information under term controversy: Meelar's summary suggested that possibly the "fetus/unborn child" is not life. Since quite obviously it is life, being made up of cells, which are life. I don't see the basis for removal, as saying that a fetus/unborn child is life is hardly POV, but an unarguable scientific fact. It's not a virus, which is the only "living" thing that science isn't sure is life. Now I suppose that pro-choice individuals can decide to ignore science and claim that the fetus isn't alive, but rather than revert the statement, it could be modified to say that "some pro-choice individuals believe that the fetus is not life, directly contradicting accepted scientific definitions of life". Unless there is a good explanation, I can't see why the removed content shouldn't be added again. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I should have been more precise; the phrasing in the article suggested that the fetus/child was alive; of course it is "life", but then, so is my kidney. Is there a better way to phrase this? Best, Meelar (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

How to write the term "Pro-Life"

The term is written a bunch of different ways around here, some with the hyphen, some without, some with Life capitalized, some with none of it capitalized ... and also correctly, with "Pro" and "Life" capitalized with a hyphen. "Pro-Life." Pro-Choice is also capitalized, if I'm not mistaken. So this article's name needs to have "Life" capitalized, and every use of the term ought to be standard. --Nerd42 23:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Searching Yahoo News for "pro-life" what I'm seeing is lower case when it's an adjective, and title case when it's part of an organization title or campaign title. This includes CBS, Reuters, Courier Mail, Christian News Wire, etc. So I don't think the case should be changed here.

Darrowby 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• They're all wrong.
• So is the Associated Press. It doesn't use the term "Pro-Life" at all. I've looked it up in their stylebook.
• They have different standards than Wikipedia. NPOV means, as I understand it, what people call themselves. Since Pro-Life organizations tend to capitalize it, even when not part of a proper name, it ought to be capitalized. For example: One does not say democrats, one says Democrats. One does not say republicans, one says Republicans. One does not say pro-life advocates, one says Pro-Lifers. News organizations are irrelevent. --Nerd42 02:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

[1] - Pro-life articles against, among other things, euthanasia [2] - Look at bottom on chastity [3] - List of Catholic Church pro-life issues, contraception, stem cell research, death penatly, etc.

Want me to give you more? -- Jbamb 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for quality, not quantity. The second link isn't a good example because chastity is part and parcel of the anti-abortion stance. In principle, anti-abortion advocates could support responsible use of contraception, but they generally do not; a good example is the RCC. I could speculate as to why, perhaps quite accurately, but it would be off-topic. The first link offers much stronger support, as it lists four key issues, one of which is abortion. The third is just as good, since it lists a whole bunch of issues not directly related to abortion.

In conclusion, I think your change is acceptable if you can put these references at the bottom of the article. I would like it, though, if you toned down the language. You changed it to: "The term "pro-life" is often incorrectly used interchangeably with "anti-abortion" as pro-lifers tend to hold positions on more than just abortion".

How about the same thing, but gentler: "The term "pro-life" is often used to mean "anti-abortion", but has grown to encompass positions on issues such as euthenasia, capital punishment and cloning"? Alienus 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is that "pro-life" has generally always held those things. It wasn't until Roe v Wade when abortion was even on the radar. It wasn't until Terri Schiavo until euthanasia was really on the radar. Sexual ethics and capital punishment have been around before abortion was... I'll try to think of another way to put it... -- Jbamb 23:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

These individual issues have been around for some time, and you may well be right about the use of "pro-life" to refer to some or all of them even back then (although I'd request a citation). Unfortunately, the term is now very strongly associated with anti-abortion, to the point that nobody even blinks when the Republican Party speaks of being pro-life while endorsing capital punishment. Clearly, there is a specialization that has occured, for better or for worse. I think we need to show both sides of this, explaining that the term really can mean more than anti-abortion, but some people mean only this when they use it. Anyhow, I realize this is a complex issue and explaining it briefly but accurately is hard. That's why I'm trying to work with you to make this right. Alienus 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Jbamb 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Religious aspects

I've included a number of religious views on the subject as well as a link to the main Religion and abortion article. However, looking back on the edits I've made, it seems I've been a bit abortion-centric on the subject, neglecting to cover euthanasia and the death penalty in greater detail. Oh, and I'm pro-choice, so it would be great if anyone could check my contribs for POV. Thanks! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

March for Life?

Why is there no mention of the March for Life? Isn't that what it's called? Isn't it coming up soon? Isn't it encyclopaedic? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote a tiny stub for March for Life. It could use expansion, but I don't know enough to write a full article. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

The line in the first paragraph which says "opposition to various other issues" seems both biased and clumsily written. Biased because it frames the pro-life position in negaitive terms, as though it was about opposition to activities rather than giving the reason for that opposition. Secondly, "opposition to..issues" is grammatically flawed. It sounds like it is the issue Pro-Lifers oppose rather than the activity (the issue is the dispute over the activity). Furthermore, at the beginning of the section about the secular Pro-Life position, the aside (which is not supported by the medical community) is not accurate, since the statement is supported by at least some members of the medical community. "Disputed in the medical community" might be a less biased, and more accurate, statement. In the same sentance, the phrase "belief which states that" is clumsy and redundant; "belief that" would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maiaminna (talk • contribs) 31 March 2006

Recent edits

I found it necessary to revert the edits by Hyphen5 due to extreme POV. Hyphen is a Catholic, and their edits reflect the typical orthodox Catholic POV. However, this article is intended to be NPOV, so the two are incompatible. I therefore object to these changes and will definitely revert them if they're attempted again without some justification here. Alienus 22:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is POV to label pro-life language as emotional and pro-abortion language as unemotional. Alienus, your POV is evident. Good 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out that you just pretended that the alternative to "pro-life" is "pro-abortion". This, in and of itself, shows your inability to choose neutral terminology. For you to recognize that the language favored by the (pay attention to this term) "pro-choice" side is the neutral language of medicine and science would be too much too expect. Alienus 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus is hypersensitive to abortion issues, so his/her eidts are highly POV. All of his/her edits should be monitired for POV insertion. Such edits must be reverted. Good 22:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Evil is hypersensitive ever since I got them banned for edit-warring over abortion. Such zealots are not qualified to edit these sensitive articles, because they can't distinguish between their own POV and the neutral one. I'm going to tell you this exactly once, so pay attention: any attempt to revert against consensus constitutes edit-warring. If you edit war again, I will get you banned again, this time for longer. Alienus 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am taken aback by Alienus' suggestions that my edits reflect a POV. (S)he offensively points to my Catholicism as evidence of the idea that I can't write on this topic with a NPOV, and does not cite a single thing in my writing to justify that. I invite all of you to view a comparison of this article as it is (which is a pretty sorry thing) and this article as I overhauled it: [4]. You can judge for yourselves which one better reflects a NPOV. Also note that I've done the same thing over at Pro-choice (see a comparison here). I have no agenda to push; only trying to clean up these articles, which truly reflect the worst of Wikipedia in terms of grammar and POV. --Hyphen5 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus is bullying. He has a huge POV plank in his/her eye. Good 23:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess some people are so biased that they can't recognize the difference between their POV and the neutral one. It's rather obvious that Hyphen's changes lean heavily towards what Catholic doctrine demands. Worse, Evil has launched an edit war to preserve Hyphen's changes at all cost.

Let me make something clear: NPOV is a non-negotiable requirement for articles. The question is not whether you will lose this battle, but how soon and with how much bloodshed. If you back away now, maybe you won't get banned again. Otherwise, this could get ugly. Alienus 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, Alienus, please point out which of my changes were POV. The only way you can characterize them as "Catholic doctrine" is if you didn't read them. To try and discredit work or arguments based on who is making them and not their content is a logical fallacy. --Hyphen5 01:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that being pro-choice is having a POV and being pro-life is having a POV. It is very insincere of either side to claim to be neutral. Logophile 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

All I see in this section of the talk page is accusations, name-calling, and controversy. Let's back up and discuss the exact wording that you all have a problem with, why you have a problem with it, and come to a consensus on CONTENT, not on who is more or less POV in their edits. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As the rest of the posts in this section are dated at the beginning of April, I'm guessing it was figured out already... romarin [talk ] 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus' POV Language in 2nd para

The article's 2nd paragraph discusses terminology. Alienus has inserted his opinion that pro-life langauge is emotional and pro-abortion language is strictly medical. It may be your opinion, but it is a fact that ob/gyns in practice and ob/gyn professional texts use the the same words (unborn, baby, mother). So it is wrong to label them non-medical. Likewise, pro-abortion rhetoric is not simply medical; using emotional terms for the mom but sterile terms for the fetus is worthy of note. Its simply factual that both sides play with words to garner support. To paint either side as emotional or scientific is POV given the facts. I am not all that concerned how it is worded, but Alienus's version was terribly POV. Good 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Classic feminists

Susan B Anthony and her contemporary feminists regarded abortion as an evil perpetrated by men who wanted sex without worry. I can post plenty of quotes if anyone is dubious. I have edited the article accordingly to reflect this. Good 00:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed overhaul

I overhauled this article only to have it reverted. So I am seeking consensus about my changes. You can view a comparison here. You'll notice that I did the same things for Pro-choice.

First of all, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are adjectives, not nouns! The first sentence of each article says that "Pro-life is a political movement...". No, it's not. It's a term that describes a political movement or idea.

Second, the article significantly overstates differences within the pro-life movement over the Consistent Life Ethic and euthanasia. There are differences about the death penalty and over "exceptions" to a ban on abortion, but otherwise there are few significant or controversial differences. Within the movement, that is. You have to decide whether this article's about the pro-life movement or about everyone who self-identifies as "pro-life".

Third, saying that pro-lifers rely on "non-medical and mostly emotionally evocative" arguments whereas pro-choicers rely on "less emotionally charged medical" arguments is (1) false and (2) POV. It is pro-lifers that are today relying on embryological arguments, and pro-choicers that are relying on metaphysical arguments about personhood.

Fourth, saying "A major goal of the pro-life movement is to promote the option of life for those who don't have a choice or voice" is POV (pro-life POV this time!).

Fifth, I wonder why we have a "Two foundations of being pro-life" section, when we don't have a "Two foundations of being pro-choice" section over at Pro-choice. The object here seems to be to emphasize the religious inspiration of the movement. This is POV. I wonder if we would discount the Civil Rights Movement, or the slavery abolition movement, because those were religiously inspired?

Sixth, the paragraph about the Bible only cites one verse, and it is hardly the only one with pro-life implications. The only religion whose beliefs are treated seriously here is Catholicism. And even much of that is inaccurate. (The Church does NOT approve of abortion to save a mother's life. The automatic penalty of excommunication applies only to those who are aware of that penalty at the time of the abortion.) There are no Protestant views represented (aside from the Alliance for Progress, which is frankly obscure and irrelevant), and Islamic and Jewish views presented only briefly, and without sourcing.

Seventh, saying that Jews are divided about "ending life" is POV.

Eighth, saying that "very few" pro-lifers hold no religious views is POV. If you want to claim that, you're going to have to source it.

Ninth, the putative "paternal rights" discussion is obviously POV. Nobody seriously attempts this line of argument. It is unjustifiable to call it "popular". You may have found a website that mentions it (the Angelfire personal website certainly doesn't count), but that is not evidence that it is mainstream enough to include in this article.

Tenth, the style and grammar in this article is appalling. You shouldn't talk about pro-life "campaigners"; they aren't running for office. Talking about "pro-life people" is just too colloquial for an encyclopedia. The consistent framing of the abortion issue in this article in terms of a hypothetical "woman" serves to advance a pro-choice POV. It personalizes the issue and makes it emotional: "A woman's health", "a woman's right", "the uterus of a woman" instead of "health risks", "abortion rights", "uterus". Which reflects a more NPOV? The latter. "Adults in a vegetative state" is mixing our numbers. Instead of "euthanasia of humans", how about just "euthanasia"? Characterizing one view as "more moderate" over others is POV. Using the verb "believes" excessively and to the exclusion of "thinks" or "holds" or "maintains" is POV. You should not talk about someone being "endowed" with personhood, or about personhood being "achieved". That's just stylistically awkward. "Rights-oriented pro-life campaigners": wordy. "...a unique human life (distinguishable by DNA) begins at conception and can never be replicated." Can never be replicated? What does that mean? And what does it have to do with this article? I'm not sure that you can say that pro-lifers favor "equal rights" for fetuses as for women. Do they support the right to vote for fetuses? In fact, the only right that they want to be equal is the right to life.

In sum, this article is a mess (grammatically and content-wise) and should be overhauled along the lines that I attempted. I am asking for a consensus on this. (And I'm doing the same thing over at Pro-choice.) --Hyphen5 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well-stated. I am happy to assist you in this endeavor. Good 01:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Total support for Hyphen's proposal. --WikiCats 02:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Right, so we can say "Pro-life refers to...". Next.

2) There are, in fact, significant differences, so your claim is false. Having said that, I don't even see where you tried to "fix" this non-problem.

3) You can't defend yourself from an accusation of bias by slinging your bias around. None of the changes to paragraph 2 are acceptable; they're profoundly POV.

4) Ok.

5) This is the part where you deny that pro-life is a religious movement. It's not purely one, but it is primarily one. If you want to claim otherwise, be prepared to back that claim up.

6) Given the religious nature of this movement, it makes sense to include more text on how various conservative, and orthodox and fundamentalist groups oppose reproductive rights.

7) Ok.

8) Actually, the burden of proof is on the other side.

9) The "paternal rights" argument is one of the few non-religious bases for opposing reproductive rights. Removing it would only make this movement seem even more religiously based.

10) Too many items to respond to, especially out of context. In addition, some of this was covered in my response on Talk:Pro-life.

11) The unqualified endorsement by your two Catholic buddies is not only worse than useless, it's damning. Alienus 02:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

2) You'll notice that I cut down the material on the Consistent Life Ethic and euthanasia considerably. That's how I "tried to fix this non-problem". I did not say there were no differences, I said that the article exaggerates those differences. There is little "controversy" in the pro-life movement over the Consistent Life Ethic (some activists don't ascribe to it, but it's not exactly a bone of contention), or over euthanasia. Again, if this article is about the pro-life movement, then my changes are accurate. If it is about those who identify as pro-life, then you might have a better point that some self-described pro-lifers support assisted suicide and some don't support the Consistent Life Ethic.

3) I think there is a consensus that the phrases in that paragraph reflect POV. If you want to claim that pro-lifers' rhetoric is less emotionally charged than pro-choicers' ("back alley abortions"! "women dying"! "coathanger abortions"! "women barefoot and pregnant"!), then you will have to provide some academic studies to that effect. Otherwise, it is POV at worst, or original research at best. Either way, it must go. As described here, at the 1998 convention of the American Political Science Association, pro-choice Professor Stanley Fish, upon reading a paper by Princeton Prof. Robert George, admitted that pro-choicers are increasingly relying on philosophical and metaphysical arguments, whereas pro-lifers are increasingly relying on scientific arguments (as our understanding of fetal development and embryology advances). That's where the whole debate about "personhood", as distinct from being a human, comes from. I'm simply describing the public debate; this isn't my opinion.

5) Go back and read what I said. I did not deny that the pro-life movement is generally religious. I said it is irrelevant: do you dismiss abolitionists and the 1960s civil rights marchers because they were religious? I guess Rev. Martin Luther King's argument against discrimination were all religious nonsense, right? The pro-life movement, while religiously inspired, is hardly trying to publicly advance a religious argument as a basis for its policy proposals. When was the last time you heard, "We should ban partial-birth abortion because Luke 1:44 says so"? Or "Jesus wants informed consent laws"? That doesn't happen. I wonder if we should have a discussion of atheism over at Pro-choice? Atheism must be a "foundation of being pro-choice" if religion is a "foundation of being pro-life".

8) Again, saying that "very few" pro-lifers hold no religious views is POV. Did you do a poll? If you want to claim that, you're going to have to source it. I would be just as unjustified as claiming over at Pro-choice that "very few" pro-choicers are religious. I have no idea how many are, and neither do you.

9) You seem very willing to ignore arguments that pro-lifers actually make, and to ascribe to them arguments that they hardly, if ever, make. I have never heard a "paternal rights" argument against abortion since I left eighth grade. It isn't, by the wildest stretch of imagination, "popular" as the article currently says. If you want non-religious arguments against abortion, go to a pro-life website and read some. The fact that you link to some Joe Schmoe's personal AngelFire website is indicative of how far you had to go to dig up a source for this wacky claim.

11) Your attempt to silence people based on not their words but their religious affiliations is despicable, offensive, totally contrary to WP:AGF. It is also nonsensical: Are only atheists allowed to edit this page? And what would make atheists any more NPOV than theists, anyway? You're just discrediting yourself the more you fulminate over our religions. I would suggest you stick to the issues, and cut out the personal attacks immediately. --Hyphen5 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history:

• I agree, "campaigners" is awkward. I find "innocent persons" and "that life after its conception, other than in self-defense" are both problematic. I think the self-defense bit is just weird. What is wrong with just saying "that life"?
• Including the term Framing (communication theory) is beneficial.
• "pro-lifers" doesn't sound that encycopedic to me.
• I can see a case for excluding the "non-medical" bit, but adding "sterilized" seems POV. Why not "medical" or "technical"? (note: the reason why doctors use emotionally evocative terms is because they want to relate to their human patients in a non-"sterilized" manner. How often are these terms actually used in this context in the professional literature?)
• I have no idea why you blanked the part about euthenasia.
• "quotes God thusly"? Are you serious?
• I think you snipped a little TOO much out of the catholic part, and your tone in regards to the excommunication part seems a little light (unencyclopedic).
• I don't know why you blanked the part about The Christian Alliance...
• It seems strange that you tagged the Islamic section, where the catholic section isn't tagged and the links in the reference section cover this material.
• I agree that "Jews... ending life" is poorly worded.
• There is no reason to say "indeed atheist..." Cut out the indeed. It is weasily to say "some pro-lifers". "Very few" could work if there is a source for this claim. I would just say "a minority".
• "scientific proposition" seems to far on one side and "belief" too far on the other, how about "idea"?
• you cut out every reference to "equal right" for the fetus.
• you cut out the section on Fathers' rights. it's bigger than you think.
• your paragraph on embryology needs to be explained more, and it seems a little POV

Just my two cents.--Andrew c 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Andrew. I think your first bullet point confuses my edits with the original. I wasn't the one who wrote the bit about self-defense; I was the one who took it out. I didn't know what else to call them besides "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers". I don't think it sounds as bad as "pro-life people" or "pro-life campaigners". You are probably right that "sterilized" is not the right word; "technical" is fine by me. "Thusly" means "in this way". And the speaker in the verse was God. It's not incorrect, but you can change that if you want.

I don't think I snipped too much from the Catholic part. The original was sloppy; it dribbled on and on about how the Church allowed an "indirect abortion", which is false, or at best misleading. I cut a bunch of that. It also had a long sentence about the exceptions that the Church does NOT recognize. But I thought it more concise to simply say, "no exceptions". Also, we have an entirely separate article for this topic (Religion and abortion), so we don't need long paragraphs of redundant info in this one. I can only imagine that you can accuse me of treating the excommunication "lightly" because of the words "of course". We can remove these.

I explained why I blanked out the Christian Alliance; it is obscure and irrelevant to the topic. No offense. Maybe it belongs at Religion and abortion. I tagged the Islamic section simply because I do not know it to be true. The idea that it is a mainstream Muslim idea that some abortions are acceptable seemed suspicious to me, so I asked for a cite. If you want to tag the Catholic and Jewish sections, that is fine; I will find the relevant sources.

Hmm. I don't remember typing "indeed". I guess I did; we can take that out. I don't think "a minority" works unless you have a citation also. "Some" is numerically vague; if you use "a minority", you are making some claim to know the numbers. Again, though, I don't see why religion is necessarily relevant to this article. (It is relevant, obviously, to our Religion and abortion article.) Are we going to remark over at Pro-choice how many pro-choicers are probably atheists or religiously indifferent? Religion is as relevant to both of these movements as it is to the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and to the 1800s abolitionist movement. It's relevant as a source of motivation, but that's about it.

"Scientific proposition": I wanted to emphasize that the "legal/human rights" strand of thought is based on another: the biology. I don't think you could find a single biologist who would dispute that embryos are alive, homo sapiens, and have their own DNA. That's not the real abortion debate (which instead centers around personhood, but that is all that I'm trying to claim. And to call it a mere "proposition" was actually kind of an understatement on my part.

I did cut out every reference of "equal rights" for the fetus, and I explained why. Pro-lifers don't think fetuses have "equal" rights. They don't think fetuses have the right to vote, or to free speech, or to bear arms. The "right-to-life" movement asserts only one right: the fetus's right to life! "Equal rights" is a bit of a misnomer and kind of makes pro-lifers seem absurd (to demand "equal rights").

If the paternal rights movement is that big, let's see some evidence. All the author was able to come up with is one article from "Men's News" (which I've never heard of) and some AngelFire personal website. That's pretty weak.

Thanks again for your comments. --Hyphen5 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Quickly. Looking at public opinion data from The National Opinion Research Center only 22% of respondents who didn't believe in the existence of God thought women should NOT be allowed to have an abortion for any reason. That's a minority, right? Next, google '"fathers' rights" abortion' (here is a good one [5]). Finally, your "Scientific proposition" is skirting the issue by saying something that is "alive, homo sapiens, and ha[s its] own DNA" also has personhood. You are presenting criteria that you think qualifies something for personhood. This isn't a scientific fact, just your POV. Do you think pro-choicers ignore the embryology? You said above "pro-lifers are increasingly relying on scientific arguments (as our understanding of fetal development and embryology advances)." What are these new understandings? What are they scientific arguments? I don't see how this avoids the personhood issue, but maybe I just don't understand the position.--Andrew c 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I can't find the specific survey you are talking about. GSS has a great number of surveys; which one is it? In any event, I have two responses to that stat: (1) it is irrelevant unless we're going to talk about pro-choicers' religious views as well, and (2) that is a pretty remarkable statistic anyway. 22% of atheists believe that ALL abortion should be banned? That's not less than -- it's roughly equal to -- the percentage of the general population that thinks that. As we acknowledge in our article, the pro-life movement includes many more than these absolutists! So your stat simply doesn't address the question of how many pro-lifers are atheist; rather, it addresses the question of how many atheists oppose ALL abortion. Next, I am open to a short paternal rights paragraph, but at least let's get some credible sources, unlike the ones we have now. (The paternal rights argument seems to be of more concern to fathers' rights advocates than to pro-life advocates. The Google search you recommended pulls up a BBC article that describes this topic are "rarely" discussed.) Finally, I think you misread my point about the "scientific proposition": I explicitly stated that I was not arguing about personhood, but merely making the observation that the legal/human rights case -- indeed, any secular case that abortion is murder -- depends necessarily on the fact that the embryo is "alive, homo sapiens, and has its own DNA". That is science. Now, the case also relies on a philosophical assumption that "personhood" begins when the life of a homo sapiens begins. That is the abortion debate right there. But I only want to observe that the "human rights" pro-lifers can only claim that human rights apply because you are dealing with a human being -- that is, a living homo sapiens. That is crucial to the argument, so it seems it is worth listing. --Hyphen5 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You have to imput the variables manually into the SDA Frequencies/Crosstabulation Program. It was late and I gave the wrong statistic anyway. The statistic I gave said 78% of people who responded that they do not believe in God think abortion should be legal for ANY reason. Therefore, 22% support some restrictions (how many and what type wasn't covered, so you cannot assume that the 22% are all pro-life). What we need to compare is not what atheists think, but what percentage of NO respondents are also DONT BELIEVE respondents: 1.3% of NO were DONT BELIEVE, where 6.5% of YES were DONT BELIEVE. Also for comparison, 50.2% of YES were KNOW GOD EXISTS, while 73.6% of NO were KNOW GOD EXISTS. The problem, as I pointed out above, is you are not sure if NO respondents are all pro-life. The numbers are surely even lower. We can look at questions like "Do you personally think it is wrong or not wrong for a woman to have an abortion. . . B. If the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children." for a broader picture. Also to note, GOD isn't necessarily the best indicator of religousness. Looking at PRAY rate and church ATTEND can be more informative.

In regards to "scientfic proposition", you said the scientific conclusion is "that is, a living homo sapiens." Deciding whether it is moral or not to abort such a thing is not scientific. Science cannot make value judgements. I don't see how that is an argument in favor of pro-life, without bringing up personhood issues. Pointing out the DNA/homo sapien fact is one thing, but making the leap to "therefore, it is wrong to kill such a thing" is not scientific. Perhaps word it something like "Biologically speaking, a unique organism that has its own DNA is created at conception. Pro-lifers believe that these qualities constitute personhood, and therefore morally object to the deliberate killing of human embryos and fetuses. (maybe this would be a good place to mention stem cell research, IVF, and hormonal contraceptives (including EC))"--Andrew c 14:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

PS In case you were curious, it was 78/22% for YES/NO in regards to DONT BELIEVE, but 33/67% for KNOW GOD EXISTS.--Andrew c 14:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It seems that you're demonstrating to me that most pro-lifers believe in God (or maybe most theists are pro-life?), but I can't really tell because you didn't say what question "YES/NO" is a response to. You still have to make the casse for why this is relevant information at all. Are we going to put the data about pro-choicers' religiosity over at Pro-choice? Next, about the "scientific proposition", we agree on this, so I don't know why we're arguing about it. I'm simply NOT making "the leap to 'therefore, it s wrong to kill such a thing". I'm just NOTING the fact that pro-lifers make that argument, and that the legal/human rights case rests on it. I think your proposed wording is fine. --Hyphen5 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I thought I posted it somewhere. The YES/NO question is ABANY: "Please tell me whether or not you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if the woman wants it for any reason?". As I said above, this isn't the best question because a NO answer does not equal pro-life. It could be a pro-choice individual who wants some restrictions. There are other more specific questions as well, but the results are all similar: the percentage of respondents who DONT BELIEVE and are also NO to abortion in the cases of 'any reason', 'family planning', 'inability to afford children', 'birth defects', 'woman unmarried', etc. is signifantly lower than the percentage of DONT BELIEVE respondents in the general population (usually 5 times lower). The reason this is relevent is because someone wanted to say in the article "hey look, not every pro-lifer is a religious. We got some atheists too." and the article ended up saying "While very few pro-life individuals hold no religious beliefs or consider themselves agnostic or atheist, the pro-life movement is not limited to conservative religious groups or persons (See External Links list below)." which you felt was unsourced or POV or something, and suggested to replace it with the weasel wording of "some". I wanted to avoid the weasel by being specific about this view being a minority position. This issue isn't about the religious nature of the pro-life position (which is already covered in the 'religion' section), but it is about qualifying any reference to pro-life atheists (to be accurate and avoid the weasel). Sorry for typing so much, I don't want to sound argumentative or anything. I just want to make clear the issue I am trying to address. And after all this, my proposed wording probably would still be "a minority", instead of "some". Yeah, and sorry about the confusion over the science stuff. I'm glad we are now basically on the same page there.--Andrew c 06:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if we discuss religion then we might reference the minority of atheists. I don't think "some" was "weasely", but whatever. I guess I still don't understand why a discussion of religious affiliation is relevant here, but not at Pro-choice. The idea seems to be to discredit the pro-life position as a religious "faith". We already have this discussion over at Religion and abortion. Why duplicate it here? --Hyphen5 11:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a few things. The hard numbering is that of the original. 3) Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers make both embryological and metaphysical arguments. IMO, many of these arguments of both types and on both sides are bullshit, but it would be unfair to claim that either side has ignored on facet of the debate. Although the present wording may be POV, pro-lifers to rely on "emotionally evocative" arguments (which some people consider a good thing). 5) I don't think it's POV to mention the divide between the religious and secular pro-life movement. Once again, that's only POV if you assume religion is a bad thing. 6) Then the solution is to quote (or summarize!) more religious views, not less. 8) This is perhaps inaccurate but not POV. I suspect that there are more religious pro-lifers than secular. Add a {{fact}} template and I'm sure this can be backed up. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

5) The whole point of mentioning the putative "divide" is to imply state flat-out that most pro-lifers are "religious" (as if that were relevant to their arguments), and to imply that they are trying to impose their pro-life "faith" onto others. There is no more a "divide" in the pro-life camp over religion than there is such a divide in the pro-choice camp. It's not like pro-lifers are split into two opposing camps, or that religion is a particular bone of contention among pro-lifers. 6) If we have this section at all, then there should be brief summaries of all the major religions' POVs. But, again, we already have a discussion of religious beliefs on this issue over at Religion and abortion. 8) Even if it can be backed up, what is its relevance? Should I add polling data about the religious affiliations of pro-choicers? Or should I go to Gun control and add data about gun control advocates' religious affiliations? I just don't get it. --Hyphen5 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You are making the claim that it is biased to mention ones religious affiliation because it is unrelated to the issue, right? I believe a lot of pro-lifers make it abundently clear that their views are religiously motivated. If they themselves are using religious arguments, can we blame them for pointing that out? Go here and read people's reasons. How many Gun control advocates mention God and the bible in their argument vs. pro-lifers? Religious motivation is significant, and hiding this fact would be POV. On a slightly different topic, I believe some editor a long time ago wanted to point out that there were pro-life athiests. However, it is weasely to say "some", and it is pretty clear that the percentage of pro-life athiests is less than the percentage of atheists in the general population. If we are going to include the athiest POV, we need to make it clear exactly how prevelent this position is. Otherwise it is giving undue weight to an otherwise significant minority position.--Andrew c 15:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you cite a religious website. Click on "about us"; that is a religious group. That doesn't make the whole pro-life movement religious. See, for example, the top organizations like National Right to Life Committee and Americans United for Life. What religious arguments do they make? Again, I've never heard anything like, "We should ban abortion because John 1:44 says so." I've only heard: "We should ban abortion because abortion is murder." That is a philosophic and scientific claim (insofar as it claims embryos are human beings). Sometimes they add, "and murder is condemned by God", but that's kind of beside the point, isn't it? It's fine to talk about religious "motivation" in the sense that the abolitionists and civil rights marchers we also religiously motivated. But it is not acceptable to give the impression that "pro-life" is a private faith rather than a public, philosophical position. Again, let's talk about the (ir)religious views of pro-choicers on the other page, shall we? --Hyphen5 17:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This all comes down to a matter of emphasis. It's true that the issue of abortion to some extent cuts across political and religious affiliations, in that you can find people of any affiliation on any side of the issue. Having said this, it remains the case that the pro-life position is associated with polticial conservativism and religiousity. While there are pro-choice Republicans and pro-choice evangelical Christians, both of these groups are much more strongly associated with the pro-life viewpoint. To ignore this substantial correlation is simply dishonest and I will personally disallow it. Alienus 20:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You "will personally disallow it"? With due respect, this isn't your encyclopedia. Much of your comment above is accurate. But you neglect to say that there are pro-life Democrats and pro-life atheists (and pro-life lapsed Christians), but both these groups are much more strongly associated with the pro-choice viewpoint. To ignore that substantial correlation is equally dishonest. Sp if we talk about religious affiliation at Pro-life, then there is every reason to do so at Pro-choice as well. But this exercise seems redundant to me since we already have this discussion over at Religion and abortion. --Hyphen5 21:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

He probably means that he'll revert any revision that takes away from it. And that isn't a substantial correllation you mention. You can't (and don't) have a correlation with trends in to different directions. Cites would make claims more appropriate and arguable, though. If a trend relating to pro-life can be cited, there should be less of a conflict. But one group is not a trend, per se. ColdSalad 02:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. The fact that pro-Life Democrats or atheists exist is not controversial or important. The issue here is whether these people are typical or atypical. Any counter-factual claims inserted, by Hyphen5 or anyone else, will be reverted by me unless someone beats me to it. Alienus 06:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that the existence of those people is controversial or important; all I'm saying is treat both pages the same. If you're going to talk about the religious affiliations of pro-lifers (and the "foundations of being pro-life"), then you should do the same over at Pro-choice. --Hyphen5 10:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Any attempt to make it look as if the pro-life coalition can be reduced to a group that want to impose religious ideals upon others will not stand. It is clear that both sides like to use religion to justify their views and their advocacy. The article will reflect this fact. Even the NYT understands this. Good 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Today's NYTimes headline: The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God

Today's NYT (April 3, 2006) notes that both sides of this debate invoke God (and always have). Funny how some editors here think pro-life policy is simply religious but pro-abortion policy is wholly secular. Such a view is clearly POV - and abortion-related wikipedia articles should not be written under the erroneous assumption that it is factual. Even the pro-abortion NYT understands that such a view is balderdash. Good 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Great. Since people seem to think that religious affiliations are relevant to Pro-life, it's only fair that be covered at the Pro-choice article. --Hyphen5 17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

It seems that a lot of links have been added to this article fairly recently. That is something I have noticed on a lot of articles, and some of the links seem redundant or just not that important. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Andrea Parton 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Anti-Abortion

Editors of this page may want to comment at Talk:Anti-abortion_movement#RfC:__Merger_of_article_with_Pro-Choice_and_Pro-Life.. DonaNobisPacem 21:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

“Biologically speaking, a unique organism that has its own DNA is created at conception.”?

This statement is inaccurate: after fertilization, a zygote could develop into any number of organisms (twins, triplets, etc.). This is why embryonic stem cells could be used to create multiple organisms. I am not good at theology, but do triplets share a single soul, or the additional souls fly in when the embryo splits? How about Siamese twins? Is each one of them “an organism”? What if one of them is underdeveloped (e.g. only a piece of a head)? Could someone clarify the stance of the pro-life movement on the issue of destruction of a partially formed Siamese twin (e.g. removal of an extra mouth) to improve the life of the other? By the way, quite a few animals in nature can produce new organisms without conception. Also, DNA often differs from cell to cell within a single organism (e.g. because of mutations, viral infections, or some developmentally programmed rearrangements).--EugeneK 06:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Part of the blastocyst never turns into an organism, but instead fetal membranes and part of the placenta. I proposed that wording as a compromise for one of Hyphen5 changes, but I didn't think it through all the way. Do you have any ideas on how to improve that section?--Andrew c 14:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the whole idea that the uniqueness of an embryo comes at fertilization is incorrect; it happens long before fertilization. Meiosis not only picks a chromosome from each pair (so as to form a haploid chromosome set) but swaps DNA within the pairs through crossing over. Therefore, each individual gamete is composed of unique chromosomes found nowhere else. At fertilization, there is only mixing at the chromosomal level, not at the level of genes. Alienus 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This begs another question, namely: If a zygote isn't an organism, then just what exactly is it? LotR 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now, my testicles are full of sperm with unique DNA. Is each one an organism? Nope, they're just a part of me. My body, my choice; I can squander my precious sperm into a napkin or send them on their way to their holy appointment with a fertile egg. There's your answer. Alienus 21:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Alienus's right to determine how to interpret his sperms' communication. Who else can better communicate with them?--Pro-Lick 07:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the individual cells of a multicelluar organism are not organisms in themselves has no bearing on the question. And your graphic diatribe did not answer the question. A zygote is not a sperm, nor is it an egg. LotR 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

“Organism” is a term that may seem intuitively simple, but, in reality, is rather umbiguous. In my humble opinion, an organism should simultaneously display a combination of physiological and morphological continuity (basically, being in one physical piece and having its parts mutually influencing each other), but there is a considerable “grey area”. For example, males of some fish loose all but sexual organs and literally become part of the body of a female, completely fused with the female blood system, etc. Such a hybrid creature may be considered as a single organism (it has one supply of blood, etc.). In my understanding, unseparated Siamese twins have one organism, but may have individual personalities. It is hard to judge it otherwise, because in some cases one of the twins is represented only by an underdeveloped body part. Sometimes it is difficult to claim whether a virus, a parasite or a symbiont that are present in their hosts are parts of the host organism. In fact, our genome is stuffed with the remnants of viruses and our every cell has symbionts (mitochiondria). A zygote could be just a zygote. It may or may not be an organism by itself. Since we know that the cells within the same organism may have different DNA (see some examples above), than a zygote of placental mammals may be just a cell (albeit, a very special cell) of the mother organism. A free-existing zygote of fish would be a different story. The fact that under some conditions a zygote could develop into a full-size individual animal is not absolutely unique. Sometimes the cells that we call somatic could do it too (naturally in some species, in artificial conditions – in the others). By the way, egg cells of some animals could develop into fully grown individual creatures, so the question of whether eggs are organisms is just as valid as whether the zygote are.--EugeneK 22:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Although my specialty is not in zoology, my understanding of the term "organism" is not ambiguous, and I don't think the term itself is ambiguous. Linus Pauling, in his college chemistry textbook, defines biochemistry as the chemistry that "deals especially with the chemical reactions which take place in living organisms," and indeed, this is the well-defined realm of biochemistry. Most all "life forms" that I am aware of may be individually distinguished as organisms. In the case of single-celled organisms, the "organs" in question are "organelles." Although I am not familiar with some of the exceptions you cite (and am not clear on the fish example), my sense is that one can still classify such entities (and classification is desirable for understanding). In the fish example you cited, based on your description I would conclude it to be a symbiotic relationship between two organsims of the same species. And why is it difficult to claim that a virus or parasite are separate organisms from a host? Taking this to its logical conclusion, one may make the claim that there are no diseases (and thus no mandate to "cure" them). This is not progressive thinking, but regressive. Returning to the zygote (BTW, when I say "zygote" in the present context, I mean "human zygote"), clearly it is a single cell. The question then becomes whether or not the cell is a single cell organism, or a specialized cell of the parent organism. However, I do not see how one can reasonably claim it to be a specialized cell of the parent organism. What function does this cell have in carrying on the life activities (respiration, digestion, etc.) in the parent? And clearly this cell is altogether different from other cells. Unfertilized egg cells, left to their natural course, are expelled; skin and hair cells die and are shedded; etc. A viable zygote, however, is programmed to grow and differentiate, activities distinct from the parent organism, and left to this natural course, undergoes several stages of growth into an independent multicelluar organism. This activity has absolutely no function in the life activities of the parent. It is erroneous to claim that a zygote is a specialized cell, and it is nonsense to say that a zygote is an unclassifiable entity -- it is minimally a cell. LotR 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of a fertilized egg is the exact same one as that of an unfertilized egg: reproduction. Reproduction, along with homeostasis and metabolism, constitutes the trio of basic functions required for life.

Fertilization is the injection of DNA into the woman's gamete. It is still the woman's gamete. A zygote is a sperm and an egg combined, not something magically independent of its origins.

As for being programmed to grow and such, that's not entirely accurate. As has been pointed out, the majority of fertilized eggs are never noticed as pregnancies, either because they promptly self-abort or because they fail to implant in the first place. Sure, fertilized eggs have the potential to become fetuses, but then again, so do unfertilized eggs. There's nothing magical about the moment of fertilization.

As a counterexample, consider that cancer cells contain DNA that's not identical to regular cells and are programmed to grow, grow, grow. I hope we're not going to claim that they're an independent organism with the right to live.

In the end, the line between one organism and the next is always going to be somewhat arbitrary, even though I'd agree that fertilization is a reasonable choice. However, it's just that -- our choice -- not something truly independent. Moreover, this choice has no impact whatsoever on the key issue of personhood. Arguments that zygotes have more potential to be infants than unfertilizes eggs do necessarily fail because potential is not actuality. A zygote is no more a "pre-born infant" than you are an "pre-expired adult". Alienus 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

LotR: Why is it hard to separate some viruses and symbionts from their hosts? As I have mentioned, many viruses become parts of the host chromosome. Some of them will never leave it, pass from generation to generation, and may loose the ability to produce new viral particles, while gaining the role in the function of the host genome. Every human chromosome has hundereds of such viral remnants. Would you then say that a part of your normal gene is a separate organism because it originated from an integrated virus? Just don’t try to cure yourself from it: your DNA will fall apart. Also, as you may know, we are absolutely unable to function without mitochondria, yet they are symbionts with their own DNA, etc. We are functional entities (living organisms?) only in conjunction with them.

I admire that you are so clear about what is a single organism. Don’t you get any doubts looking at Siamese twins, or at an invertebrate animal with its progeny (genetically identical, from somatic cells) budding out of it? I would really like to see your definition of an organism. In my twenty years in biology, I am yet to come across an all-encompassing and universally acceptable definition. Of cause, it should be applicable to all life forms, not only humans.

So far, your arguments that a human zygote is an organism are: 1. It performs no other function but reproduction. However, from the very early stages of a human embryo there is a cell lineage that will eventually develop into gametes and serve no other major function but to allow reproduction. Are all of these cells separate organisms? Testicles are also not used for breathing or eating. Are they separate organisms? Of cause, they secrete factors that influence their “host”, but so does a zygote. BTW, it is often stated that all the function of an organism are there to improve reproduction.

2. A zygote is programmed to grow and differentiate. But so are the precursors of all our tissues. You don’t believe that our bone marrow has a collection of many organisms, do you?

3. It may become an organism, so it is an organism. Even with this being a somewhat circular definition, you have to remember that a zygote could become any number of such organisms (remember the twins), but so could many cells at the early stages of development. That is how twins and triplets appear, when some of these cells get separated. Do you argue that at the early stages an embryo is made of many organisms? Also, if a zygote has changes (e.g.mutations) that absolutely prevent it from fully developing, would you claim that it is not an organism? BTW, some messed-up ones will develop only into a tumor. How about them?

4. “It is erroneous to claim that a zygote is a specialized cell…” This has to be proven, not just stated. You are yet to do so. I am afraid, without an agreeable definition for an organism, it is futile to argue whether something is one. I do understand that this is the key issue in the pro-life position, because it is the life of an organism, and not of its part, that is allegedly being defended. I also wonder whether we may want to move the discussion somewhere else, because the talk page appears to exceed the recommended size.--EugeneK 05:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realize there is a recommended page size -- it's probably a good idea to move the talk somewhere else if we are exceeding it (where do you suggest?). Alas, it might take me a little bit before I can provide a respectful response to both arguments as they deserve (at least with some degree of coherence, anyway). But let me say before going "offline" that I am proceeding from a conventional zoological standpoint -- that the life span of a typical multicelluar organism (including homo sapiens) has its origins as a zygote. One can take the life cycle back a step to the sperm and egg (as Alienus suggests), but this would be an ill-defined boundary because we know the sperm and egg are specialized cells of the parents (and one could then take it back practically an infinite number of steps). This generational cycle is no doubt the cycle of "human life," but the life cycle of an individual human being has a definite beginning and end. And philosophically, to think otherwise would be to imply the existence of a "continuum of humanity" where some are "more human" than others. LotR 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If the page is getting too big, we can archive any sections that are inactive.

In any case, not only are you mistaken about where to draw the boundary, you are wasting your time trying. Who says that even a principled biological boundary would correspond to human rights? Alienus 18:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The only non-arbitrary boundary for the beginning of a human being is the zygote (a cell with a human genome distinct from the parents). Prior to this we have two gametes; after this we have stages of growth and development no different, in principle, to those occuring after birth. Where would one otherwise draw the boundary? And I am not even pretending to address how any of this would tie in with human rights. Your previous response deserves a more specific consideration from me which I plan to get to, perhaps this weekend. LotR 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple comments to LoTR.

• "Living" is ambiguous - there viruses are the classic example of having most of the properties of life, but not being living.
• Pauling's definition is vague - biochemistry goes on in your washing machine when you add these newer detergents with enzymes...
• It's still a disease even if it's not caused by a separate organism - from as simple a thing as a clogged artery to as complex a thing as leukaemia (where your own immune system attacks your own body)
• A zygote does not simply develop into an embryo - it also develops into the umbilical cord and part of the placenta. So you can't say that a single fertilised egg is destined to become a new organism - no one is arguing human rights for an umbilical cord, are they?
• The even that sets an organism apart from its parents is meiosis. Sperm and eggs have a different genetic complement from that of the parent. Given the billions of sperm a man produces over him lifetime, even if you have a hundred children, it's still the fate of 99.99999% of them to die.
• In the case of a chimera, do you assign human rights to the remants of a separate zygote which happens to exist in a patch along your back? What about the Siamese twin who's just a lump at the back of your throat?
• "I am proceeding from a conventional zoological standpoint -- that the life span of a typical multicelluar organism (including homo sapiens) has its origins as a zygote" - I'm not sure what you mean here. "Conventional zoological standpoint"? Since they are the most common animals in the world, the "typical multicellular organism" is an insect. While sex determination in animals is complex, male bees are hapliods and are produced from unfertilised eggs. In the case of asexual reproduction, there is no genetic separation. By your definition, identical twins (not just Siamese twins) are not separate organisms. At the same time, a cancerous cell may be genetically distinct, and mammalian cell-lines derived from cancerous cells are functionally immortal (which is what makes them useful for researchers). I'm not sure that you are so clear as to what a "conventional zoological standpoint" is. Guettarda 20:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Been gone, but now I'm back. Sorry for the lack of etiquette in not responding more promptly. Also, don't mean for this to run on endlessly (and I alone cannot keep responding to 3 individuals). The original sentence in question has been replaced with one that I don't have any objections to. LotR 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, in brief:

• Disagree that "living" (the adjective used by Linus Pauling) is vague. Assuming what you say is true about viruses (biology is not my specialty, and to be honest I don't understand your distinction between "life" and "living"), that does not make the term vague. All of us having this discussion are "living" human beings.
• Likewise, foregoing the fact that Pauling was one of the most distinguished chemists who ever lived, I would venture to guess that newer detergents are, in fact, based upon biochemistry; but I don't see how that makes Pauling's simple definition vague.
• A zygote develops into an umbilical cord, placenta and embryo. So what? It seems to me that the umbilical cord and placenta serve as external temporary organs. No one argues for human rights for these organs any more than they would argue for the human rights of a person's heart, brain, etc., even though it would be unethical (and a crime) to deprive a living person of them.
• Sperm and eggs are specialized cells of the multicelluar human organism. Just like skin cells, left to their own, they die.
• Again, I don't know about all these out-of-the-ordinary cases. Just because there are cases that are not straigtforward to categorize, doesn't mean a classification system, in general, is completely invalid.
• By conventional zoological viewpoint I mean that found in a college biology textbook (which, to my knowledge, generally try to describe the properties of "living organisms"). And yes, although you are correct about insects, given the context (human zygotes) I was not thinking about them or other non-mammalian creatures. Finally, zygotes are not cancer cells, and we know the difference. LotR 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

EugeneK:

• For the cases you are citing, are you saying that we can't distinguish between the virus and host? If this is true, then in this case the terms "virus" and "host" become meaningless. I respect the fact that you are a biologist and acknowledge that I am not. But in spite of the fact that there is not yet an exact definition, does that mean it has no real-world prototype that has meaning? Are you saying that we cannot claim that you and I are individual organisms because the term is "vague"? Do college biology textbooks need to be re-written to exclude the term? It seems to me that DNA is but one factor of what constitutes an individual organism. My argument is that sexual reproduction has already occured with the formation of the zygote. And of course the separate organs of an organism are not organisms in themselves.
• Bone marrow does not differentiate into the organs a separate organism.
• No, I am saying that it could be characterized as a single-celled organism that grows into a multicelluar organism. In the case of twins, my understanding is that, for reasons not completely understood, it unpredictably divides into 2 (or more) zygotes. Because the zygote stage in the human life cycle is not atypical, I do not think it qualifies as a "difficult to categorize" oddity.
• Clearly a zygote is different from the other specialized cells of either parent. And it is simply not true to say that "this is the key issue in the pro-life position." Zygotes are not aborted, cloned, harvested, etc. -- embryos and fetuses are. I am trying to make sense of what it means to be a human being. And for one thing, we all have an origin. You can say to a child "we came from our mommy's tummy," but the inquisitive child will ask "how did we get there?". Clearly we had a beginning to our existence. As a scientist I ask: At what point did this organism (me) come into existence? LotR 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus:

• Sexual reproduction has already occured with the formation of the zygote even though the zygote is not an adult organism.
• A zygote is not a gamete. And it is not simply a "sperm and egg combined." A water molecule is an oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms "combined." Even so, the molecule has properties different from each individual atom, and this is clearly evident at the macroscopic level. However, a water molecule can be broken back into its constituent parts; this is not the case for a fertilized egg or zygote. Fertilization is an irreversible, not magical, process.
• Cancer cells may multiply, but they do not differentiate.
• You are correct that potential is not actuality, and I'm glad that you consider zygote formation to be a reasonable dividing line in the generational cycle. LotR 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

LotR:

The examples that I gave you (e.g. mitochondria and viruses) are meant to show the vagueness of the intuitive definition of “organism”. In most cases, professionals who use this term know about its vagueness and this does not create a problem. As I have mentioned before, it is pointless to waste time on arguing what is and what is not an organism before we have an agreeable definition of this term. BTW, it is easy for me to claim that I am one complete organism because I don’t have a Siamese twin. I wouldn’t be so sure if I had one. Monozygous twins do not result from a zygote forming into two zygotes. Zygote is clearly defined as the result of sperm-egg fusion. During a few early cell divisions any cell of a forming embryo has a capacity to develop into any and all types of cells in a body. So, one or more of these early cells may try to form a whole body and you end up having one or more monozygous twins. Here your claim that placenta is simply an organ of an organism gets ambiguous because twins may share placenta. If each twin is an organism, whose organ is placenta? If one of the twins (non-Siamese) asks your question about his individual beginnings, would the answer be a zygote, a cell that split from the cells forming the other twin, or the birth, when the twins stopped sharing organs (placenta)?

Theoretically, when I look at every atom in my body, it could be traced to some molecule in my (or my parent’s) food, etc. So, looking back at that molecule, I could say that it was destined to be me and deserved special treatment. However, lacking clairvoyance, I cannot look at a pile of similar molecules and claim that one, some or any of them will be used to form a human or any other body. All I see is that they are now a part of an apple (carrot, sandwich, etc.) with an uncertain future. Similarly, you look at a history of a human being and point to the zygote, which was a part of this history, and with a perfect accuracy of hindsight identify it as an “organism”. However, when we look at a current zygote, we cannot predict whether a while from now it will become one individual, many individuals, a mass of tumor cells (BTW, some tumors differentiate and people have recovered things like teeth from teratomas), a little pile of dead cells, etc. All we can see is a cell with uncertain future which is currently in a larger body.

BTW, under ideal circumstances a zygote might form a full human body. Even a zygote produced in vitro, theoretically, under ideal circumstances and with some help could be developed into a full human body. Moreover, technology (regardless of it desirability, morality or legality) approaches the stage when under ideal circumstances and with some help a somatic cell could be developed into a full body too. Will this theoretical possibility force us to treat any somatic cell as an organism? Depends on the definition, I suppose… EugeneK.

EugeneK:

I see your point about the difficulty of providing an exact definition of "organism." My point has been that the existence of "non-textbook cases" does not make the concept of an "organism" vague. As far as definitions go, when I turn to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, I find: "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being". I realize that "life" and "living" cannot be precisely defined as in mathematics or in physics. But all the same, these terms are precisely what distinguises "biology" as a separate science, and in "everyday" cases (e.g., human beings, insects, vertebrates, etc.) they are well undersood. This discussion is only possible via living, individual (and intelligent) human beings.

Obviously you know much more about biology than I do, so you are far more aware of the complexities of living beings. My recollection of "twinning" was the division of a single fertilized egg into separate individuals; but it has been a while since I took zoology in college. Twinning must occur before the embryo stage, right? And the placenta and umbilical cord still seem to me to function as temporary, external organs. Because they are external, they can be shared by separate twins. None of this detracts from the "individualness" of the developing being(s) from the parents.

I do not agree with your analogy. A molecule does not spontaneously differentiate into an organism. Under normal circumstances, the life span of an individual human being starts as a zygote, not a molecule, or gamete for that matter. The fact that not all zygotes result in full-grown adults does not diminish that most of us mortals, including you and me, began as humble zygotes. The fact that the molecules currently making up our bodies originally came from "nonliving" sources does not mean that "nonliving" matter is "living" (or vice versa). A zygote will die if you deprive it of nutrition; the same is not true for a diamond.

And I have only been considering natural processes, not artificial follies. Somatic cells of a human being are not organisms, even if someone has the audacity to try to make a human organism out of one. For some reason, the story of Frankenstein is coming to mind. LotR 16:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

LotR: I admire your conviction about the pure and separate science of biology. I wish I could see biology as clearly separate as you do, but in the last hundred years its purity has been marred by biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, bioinformatics, and a whole lot of other murky disciplines. You are right, the jerks in the labcoats have to be reminded that in the textbooks (6th grade texts are preferred) there are some imprecisely defined terms that, nevertheless, very precisely tell them what biology really is. BTW, I suppose you do not accept the Webster’s definition, since an embryo and its mother carry on the activities of life (whatever it means) as a single unit, using the same (mothers) organs, in an interdependent manner; therefore, by this definition, they are a single organism.

Sorry, but whatever comes after zygote by definition is an embryo (there may be some terminological ambiguity at the 2-cell stage, but twinning can also occur much later).

No need to be bashful about your shortage of knowledge of biology. Isn’t the whole point of Wiki that you do not need to be knowledgeable in the subjects that you write about? All you need is a rock-solid conviction and some time at hand. Be bold!

Your choice of organs that do or do not matter for the definition of an organism is quite arbitrary. Limbs or genitalia are also “external” and rather dispensable at an older stage (more so than placenta during embyogenesis). Although someone may think that the heart is “external” to the testicles and sharing it does not make Siamese twins a single organism for as long the scrotums are separate…

If we follow your argument that a molecule that will contribute to formation of a body does not deserve a special treatment because it does not spontaneously differentiate into an organism, than the many zygotes that never form adult bodies should not be treated specially either. You don’t disagree that whether a product of sperm-egg fusion is a part of a future human life cycle or a precursor to something very different (e.g. a tumor-like mass) is not precisely known before such development occurs, do you? You, apparently, assume that a zygote is assured development into a human body, which, for a very large proportion (if not the majority) is not true.

I understand that it may be a culturally sensitive issue, but in most cultures “the life span of an individual human being” (aka. duration of life) is measured from birth, which is way past the zygote stage. This is, generally, recorded in a variety of documents and you may be able to confirm it with your local authorities.

We may be able to simplify classification by ignoring the “artificial follies”, but I reckon that some of these “follies” (aka “test tube babies) may strongly object and call themselves human.

I would refrain from this discussion and conserve my energy until we have an agreeable definition of an organism that we could check against the properties of a zygote.--EugeneK 13:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

EugeneK: Ah yes, I thought you were insinuating this. So your stance is that there is no separate science of biology (and I suppose this would also apply to biochemistry), and that "life" is ambiguous because, after all, "life" is just an illusion, and no distinction can be made between "living" and "non-living" matter — everything is the same dance of atoms. While such a view would certainly give rise to moral concerns (e.g., since "life" is an illusion, there is no such thing as "death," and thus "killing" is meaningless and/or arbitrary), I have tried to approach this as a scientist — as someone who is trying to make heads or tails out of the complexity of nature. And my philosophy is that the principle of Occam's razor applies in this regard. Patronizing tone aside, I have not referred to 6th grade texts, but college texts, including a classic General Chemistry text from Linus Pauling, whose research directly led to the discovery of DNA. Pauling, BTW, in the chapter on biochemistry, acknowledges that there is "difficulty of defining a living organism" (describing the example of a certain virus), but nonetheless, devotes many dense pages describing the chemistry of "organisms" (and zygotes seem to fit the bill). The definition of "organism" from Webster's Dictionary I already knew to be insufficient as you indicate, but I felt obliged to provide one since it was me who kept insisting that the term has meaning. However, be this as it may, I agree that it is pointless to continue further discussion since this is not the forum to hammer out agreeable definitions of "organism," "life," "living," etc. Respectfully, LotR 15:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Vegetative or Mental

Is there a source for this attempted change? Can you cite a significant number of pro-life organizations that actually are trying to interfere with anyone's right to die that is not in a state that is effectively vegetative? To me, it seems there's an attempt to respin vegetative states as mental conditions that inhibit or prevent communication or mental incapacities. I'll accept the change if it can be verified.--Pro-Lick 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of pro-life organizations protesting major cases of euthanizing those with mental/physical disabilities who were NOT in vegetative states - the Robert Latimar case in Alberta, Canada (where he murdered his daughter Terry, who had cerebral palsy) and the so-called "Baby Doe" case, involving an infant with Down's Syndrome (again, he required ongoing care, was mentally handicapped, but not vegetative). I can amass a number of sources, plus others that particularly single out opposition to the euthanizing of physically/mentally handicapped individuals, but it will take a couple of days if you want them listed here. As well, institutions such as REAL Woman of Canada, the Pro-Life medical associations in the US and Canada, the Catholic Church, many Christian churches, various Islamic and Jewish factions oppose euthanasia in ANY form - so that would include any level of mental handicap, and even those of sound mind who request it. Again, I can list exhaustive sources if necessary, but there will be a time factr. DonaNobisPacem 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The sources for those 2 cases may be fine if they in fact turn out as described (assuming "murder" is just the term you selected and was in fact not the case) along with a couple larger pro-life organizations that use the language you use or something equivalent.--Pro-Lick 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Cookamunga left an inane comment and made harmful changes to the article. I reverted them, but true to form, our buddy Evil has decided to help the vandal by launching an edit war. Note that Evil has not explained why these changes by Cook should be kept, and neither has Cook. This means that neither one is seeking a consensus. I've reverted to a version prior to Cook's damage, and I expect Evil to leave it alone unless he can justify a change right here in Talk. Alienus 10:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Change were made to a previous version without obtaining consensus - I simply reverted those changes (thereby removing POV that some had inserted). ____G_o_o_d____ 05:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, you are simply mistaken. Look again, more carefully. Look, but don't touch, else you'll likely be reverted by any of the people who form the consensus. Alienus 18:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part in that the current revision is better than the G&E/cookamunga version. I will go by point by point and explain why. "persons who cannot communicate their wishes" is completely vague and cryptic. Why cannot a person communicate their wishes? because of "physical or mental incapacitation". If this isn't accurate, change the wording, but the clause needs to be clarified somehow. Remember, this current version was inserted, to an extent, by G&E after he deleted the bit about Terri Schivo and "vegetative states". Maybe we should go back to the older version? Next, I actually a that "believes it" should be removed. The pro-life movement does not rely solely on religion justifications. It isn't a matter of belief. Now whether the atheists are a minority or very few, does it really matter? Next, I believe this version is better " therefore morally object to the deliberate killing of human embryos and fetuses." but there is no need for 'deliberate'. However, the other version isn't POV or anything. Both may be able to fit in, but it also might be a matter of choosing which one serves the purpose better. Is it redundent to say "x qualifies as a person, so killing x equals killing a person"? Coz that is what the other version is saying. Once again, does it matter if it says "finally" or "another"? The word "finally" doesn't sit well with me because it reminds me of middle school generic essays that follow a strict structure. But that is just me. Next, "feminist positions on reproductive decision-making" vs. "positions on female reproductive rights". I believe the use of "feminist" is inaccurate, and reproductive rights is the term of the movement, so I am going to side with the current version. Next, " pro-lifers tend to hold positions on more than just abortion. However, this can be said of any activist for any position." This just reads poorly. And it isn't conveying the point in the current version. Pro-life and anti-abortion are related, however sometimes pro-life specifically refers to other issues besides anti-abortion (euthenasia for one). This isn't claiming that pro-life individuals aren't one issue people, it is claiming the term and movement "pro-life" doesn't always refer to abortion. Maybe the current version doesn't say this perfectly, but the edits completely change the meaning for the worse. Next, you have reverted a spelling error "woudl". Next, I changed the structure of the pro-choice sentence to fit with the structure of the pro-life sentence. your revert removed this edit (which I consider to be an improvement). Finally, "killing an innocent (the pro-life view of every abortion) is never a legitimate choice." Seriously, does anybody want that exact wording the in article? So all in all, I can see positive and negative in both edits. Maybe we can talk this out before reverting again. --Andrew c 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain some of the major reasons why the attempted text was of lower quality. Alienus 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your pro-abortion POV. ____G_o_o_d____ 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither Andrew nor I are pro-abortion. You seem, uhm, confused. Perhaps to people who are staunchly anti-choice, everyone who cares about women's rights looks "pro-abortion". Alienus 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to look up the word "pro-abortion" in the dictionary. You will then discover that according to Webster's, you are definitely "pro-abortion". It apparently bothers you to admit that you do in fact advocate abortion as a good thing. I can't imagine why that would bother you.____G_o_o_d____ 19:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, my view is that abortions should be safe and rare. With comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives, pregnancies can be planned instead of accidental, which removes most of the demand for abortions. In other words, I don not think abortion is a good thing, nor do I advocate it as a primary form of birth control. I realize that it may well be the case that, from your extreme anti-choice perspective, everyone who supports the legality of abortion looks the same, but this is merely your bias. Alienus 22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the dictionary, it does say "pro-abortion" means "in favor of legalization of abortion". However, despite what the dictionary says, "pro-abortion" has a definite flavor of "thinking abortion is a good thing", whereas almost everyone in favor of the legalization of abortion sees it as the lesser of two evils, far better than producing unwanted babies but worse than preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. DanielCristofani 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I see why this happened: modern dictionaries describe the way words are in fact used by people, rather than how they "should" be used. Thus, if a word is used by one side only, the dictionary definition will reflect the way that side uses it. The word "pro-abortion" is used almost exclusively by pro-lifers, and they do use it to refer to everyone who is in favor of legalizing abortion. DanielCristofani 22:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is misleading in that it implies an endorsement of abortion as opposed to merely desiring the continued legality and availability. Sometimes the connotation overrides the denotation. Alienus 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I also am not "pro-abortion" but support legaization as women through the ages have sought abortions. If they cannot obtain one legally they get butchered by some quack. I think to use this term is POV and allows the debate to take place on the terms of the pro-life groups (who do not dipsute this description of themselves). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick's edits, G&E as well

Your addition of "Pro-Life Activism" is not helpful. Maybe you would want to merge the existing content from pro-life activism here? However, in regards to what you added: "harrass" is a POV, you have to also explain that pro-lifers feel that they are not harrassing women, but "witnessing" or some other term. The extreme methods section reads very unencyclopedia. Your language, for one, is vernacular, and you lack sources. How many clinics have been 'blown up', how many employee's shot? Don't give this issue undue weight, and you need to balance the POV by referencing what the pro-life movement feels about these "extreme" actions. These isolated instances do not speak for the whole. And as I said above, it not a belief that "the pro-life movement does not rely solely on religious justification". Why have two entries on secular arguments if the existence of these arguments is based on belief, not the fact that they actually exist (the arguments themselves, not the accuracy of them).

That said, I agree that some of G&E's edits should be reverted, but I am not going to get into a revert war over the matter. I am not sure what to do about the personhood vs. humanity section. If we remove it, as G&E did, we'd need to change the pro-choice sentence as well. G&E's suggested change doesn't sounds good to me. What about something like " This contrasts with the beliefs of many pro-choice activists who hold varying opinions on what constitutes personhood"? Next, as I said above, "feminist" is inaccurate. Finally, "have adopted the framing language of abortion supporters and" is redundent, read the two sentences before it. The user does not need it spelled out any more to them. --Andrew c 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I'd just like to see more comprehensive and historical coverage as opposed to a pro-life organization's standard press-release handout. Consider this a step in that direction, crude as it may be viewed. I agree it needs sources, as does much of the page anyway, so I think I'm not going beyond what's already standard practice in this article. As for the activism article, yes, I do think it should be integrated into this one. As it stands, it also reads almost entirely as a pro-life promotion handout on how to participate, shilling for various organizations. In short, I see POV forking. From what I can tell, there is no equivalent pro-choice article, nor am I suggesting that their should be.--Pro-Lick 17:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus - stop the POV pushing

Please stop re-inserting silly phrases that push your POV. Section headings should not editorialize (as yours do). Pro-lifers reject current feminist views that abortion is a human right - that is NOT POV, it is fact. Etc. etc. etc. The comment about about atheists is POV, as well - the topic is secular - religious people can and do have secular motives. The atheism line falsely insinuates that one must be atheist to hold secular views. You left out the necessary word "unjustly". Etc Etc. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been addressed elsewhere: there are feminists who do NOT see abortion as a human right. In fact, we link to one such group. Your proposed change is counterfactual, therefore unacceptable. I will continue to revert it as necessary. Thank you for understanding. Alienus 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Great then we can take that word out. Don't worry I will make sure it happens. Two can play tattle tale. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You see, that's the difference between you and me: I'm not playing. If you try to inject more POV, I'll remove it. Alienus 05:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your MO is so obvious. Your constant POV edits will not stand. ____G_o_o_d____ 07:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Endless accusations do not substitute for facts, and are not conducive to good faith. Alienus 07:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your MO is so obvious. Your constant POV edits will not stand. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey you guys, try to assume WP:FAITH and try to stay WP:COOL! --Andrew c 13:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. As it stands, I'm politely disregarding his empty claims, so as to avoid unnecessary conflict. Alienus 14:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Heading: "Disagreement among pro-life individuals"

This section heading is POV. It blatantly couches the pro-life movement's diversity into a negative. I will be changing it later today, so please make suggestions. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, in this section is the sentence "They feel this includes the fetus in a pregnant woman, persons who cannot communicate their wishes due to physical or mental incapacitation, and those who are too weak to resist being euthanised." I am going to change it to read "They feel this includes the "unborn child" (fetus),..." because this article is supposed to articulate the position of the pro-life movement and using the language of that movement to describe their position is common sense and cannot in context be considered POV. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to mention that "pro-life" activists prefer terms such as "unborn child", feel free. However, if you want to use these terms in the article, that would be an endorsement of the POV, hence a violation of NPOV. See the difference? Don't worry; even if you don't, someone else will revert it. Alienus 10:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that phrase was changed to "They feel this includes the fetus in utero" by Hyphen5. I do not know how it got changed back, and I supported hyphen5's reasons behind the change. However, there is NO reason what so ever to use POV language in an encyclopedia unless you are explaining the fact that a specific group uses specific language. And yes, this is already covered in the third paragraph. --Andrew c 13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I also have to wonder what "fetus in utero" means that is not covered by the first word on its own. Fetuses are found in uteruses, so this is redundant at best, POV at worst. The POV would be that it's trying hard to medicalize a standard pro-life slogan term: "unborn baby". Alienus 14:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. What does everyone feel about just saying "fetuses" or maybe "embryos and fetuses" and leaving out the "in utero" and "in a pregnant woman" part?--Andrew c 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should simply use the term that pro-lifers use, and qualify the term parenthetically so that everyone knows it is not a neutral term: "The pro-life movement includes what they refer to as "unborn children" (embryos or fetuses)..." No one would then get the idea that unborn child is a neutral term, but they would understand the view of the pro-life movement in context. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to stop being encyclopedic in favor of using POV language that favors the subject. Go to the Animal euthanasia article. It clearly says that "put to sleep" is a euphemism used by pet owners. However, the article does not continue to use that sort of terminology to favor the subject. It's one thing to mention a fact that involves pointing out POV language; it is another thing to adapt that language for otherwise encyclopedic parts of the article.--Andrew c 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to comment on the current POV section heading. Please offer suggestions. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see nothing wrong with the current phrasing, but what if we changed controversial to "polarized" or "partisan" or "conflicting". And maybe one of these words could be used with either "terminology" or "language". "Terminology", by itself does not seem adequate because that suggest that we are going to present a lexicon, where we are talking about how both sides use language for biased framing. If we cannot come up with something better, and we cannot convince you that "Controversial terminology" isn't POV, then I wouldn't be opposed to just using "Terminology" as a header, but it seems inaccurate and I would prefer this as a very last compromise.--Andrew c 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I can live with "Term Controversy" as a heading. But I was talking about the heading for this section ("Disagreement aomn pro-life individuals" - I changed it to something more neutral" "Diveristy of views within pro-life movement". ____G_o_o_d____ 21:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, geez. I apologize. I totally got side tracked and missed your point. I feel like I've done enough talking for one day. I personally think the structure of the article should be changed, and the content expanded, to have different sections on each pro-life issue, such as a section on abortion, on euthenasia, on capital punishment, on war/poverty/racism, etc. And in the section introduction to all the different issues, state that there is disagreement among these issues, and how there is a diversity of individual views within the bigger movement. And then we can also merge the 'tactics' from pro-life activism. But that is just me dreaming. Maybe one day.--Andrew c 22:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So, can we change the "in utero" part to just "fetuses and embryos"?--Andrew c 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

POV sentence in "Secular" section

This sentence ("However, very few pro-life activists are atheist or agnostic") gives unnecessary weight to speculation about how many atheist pro-lifers there are in the world - and falsely insinuates that religious people cannot hold or promote secular ideas or policies (and also that only atheists can hold or promote secular ideas or policies). Human rights is for many a view that comports with their religion, but is not necessarily religious. I will be removing this line. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that "pro-life" activists are overwhelmingly religious? Because if you are, you need to support your claim, and if you're not, then your edit is unjustified (and will, of course, be reverted). Alienus 10:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not about me. Its about article content. The current version will need a cite - right now its POV statement. Its funny that you demand cites for everything but your POV assertions. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we can take this sentence out. An editor a while back decided they wanted to point out that there were some atheists in the pro-life movement. One of the original wordings they inserted was "Many pro-life individuals hold no religious beliefs or consider themselves agnostic or atheist." Not only is this weasely, it is clearly false, as I demonstrated above with the GSS statistics. There are proportionately less atheists in the pro-life movement than in the general population (around 5 times lower). The wording that is in the article now reflects the clearly minority position of atheist in regards to pro-life. That said, I see no reason to single out atheists, unless editors believe it is important to say "hey look, there is a very small group of atheist in the pro-life movement, so we aren't all religious" (as the original editor who mentioned this probably thought). Remove it, or keep it in as long as it is qualified.--Andrew c 13:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article should not leave the reader with the false notions that only religious people are pro-life or that the pro-life view is simply a religious view. The article should mention atheists - I simply don't think the mention ought to be where it is now. The point of the "secular" section is not that atheists can be pro-life - rather it is that the pro-life view can be (and is) reached or defended with no reliance upon religion. In other words, there public policy arguments against abortion, for instance, that can be defended without ever talking about God or souls etc. The atheists reference is simply misplaced right now. ____G_o_o_d____ 13:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you can find points to agree with in my assessment. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As Andrew pointed out, it is an incontrovertible fact that the pro-life position is strongly correlated with religiosity. It would be false to say that all pro-lifers are religious, but it would be false to pretend that religion has no significant bearing on this position. I say we stick to the facts. Let's change it so that it gives the statistics, properly cited. The truth is not POV. Alienus 14:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... this is a tough situation. I wouldn't mind removing the part about atheists completely. I wouldn't mind keeping it in exactly where it is (because atheists aren't going to use religious motivations or term controversy to explain their beliefs). I was trying to think of a place to move it, but couldn't come up with anything. I believe the sentence: "The pro-life movement does not rely solely on religious justification." explains that someone can reach a pro-life view through secular means. But maybe there needs to be a second sentence to cover G&E's rather it is that the pro-life view can be (and is) reached or defended with no reliance upon religion. I know you guys don't want to hear this, but maybe a citation would help. Hyphen5 I believe linked to organizations he claimed only used secular arguments: NRLC and AUL. However, a google site search for "god" in the former has ~350 hits (while the latter only 3).--Andrew c 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Are there good stats on the precise question of how many atheists or agnostics are pro-life? Especially when pro-life is so hard to pin down since it can mean everything from exclusively anti-abortion to total pacificst. The only verifiable truth on this point is that there are some atheists who are pro-life. To say more is to include unverifiable information. Of course the article should also mention that many pro-lifers are religious - that is verifiable. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some" is weasely. Please go here and scroll down to the part that starts unindented "Quickly". Read through the conversation. There is not one simple statistic that says X number of atheist individuals are pro-life. But we can examine the statistics and clearly see the proportional trend that not only is "Pro-life" a minority view in people who do not believe in God, but that the percentage of atheists within the pro-life view is 5 times less proportionately than the percentage of atheists in the general population. --Andrew c 15:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Heading: "Term controversy"

Again, this heading focuses on the negative, rather simply noting that various terms and relevant information about them (which might include amny controversy). Terminiology (not Controversy) is the main point of the section - unless one is trying to push a POV. I will be changing the title to "Terminology" unless someone has a better suggestion. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what POV you think is being pushed because the exact same header is used in the pro-choice article. I do not see the current header to be problematic, but if we decide to change one article, we need to change the other as well.--Andrew c 13:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am editing this article. By all means, I encourage you to eliminate POV from all articles. ____G_o_o_d____ 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the POV though. Are you saying that it is only a POV that there is controversy over the terms? That people, in actuality, don't argue about, or misuse terms like "anti-choice" "pro-death" etc? --Andrew c 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My view: The section is about the terminology. Primarily, it should explain the terms. In addition it ought to address facts about those terms (such as controversy). The general topic of the section is terminology. One part of it is the controversies elated to the terms. ____G_o_o_d____ 13:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I appreciate your input. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed Andrew's point. To remind you, this is the same header that is used in a parallel article, so we'd want to keep the parallel. Therefore, you have to justify changing both, and you have made no attempt to do so. As it stands, there is no POV involved in making it clear that the terminology is the the subject of controversy. Alienus 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mis-statement of a popular pro-life view

The article notes that one popular pro-life view "oppose[s] all acts that end human life". This is not accurate - the words "deliberate" and "unjustly" must be added for it to be true. It should read "oppose all deliberate acts that unjustly end human life" to be accurate. Philosophers and theologians have come up with all sorts of examples of acts that might justifiably end a human life. I will be making the change unless - please let me know if there is some reason to leave in this inaccuracy. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this begs so many POV questions, I don't know where to start. You're going to have to avoid this line entirely unless you can get a cited quote. Alienus 10:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the current version will not remain without a cite. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You'e mistaken about this. Alienus 10:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are taking the phrase out of context. This view is attributed specifically to "those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic". If you change the wording to include "deliberate" and "unjust" you are going to have to show that CLE holds that view. Go to the CLE article; it seems like your changes would not accurately describe the CLE. And you are missing the point of the paragraph. It is saying that some pro-lifers hold a POV that opposes all acts that end human life, while other pro-lifers hold POVs that justify certain acts that end human life. --Andrew c 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I know the CLE quite well. CLE does not oppose killing in self defense, for example. If we use the wikipedia CLE article you noted as a reference we find "Advocates of the Consistent Life Ethic are consequently opposed to abortion, capital punishment, "economic injustice", assisted suicide and euthanasia, and unjust war; some who hold the Consistent Life Ethic oppose all war." This article indicates that killing in a just war (WWII perhaps) is a CLE position- and also notes that some who hold the CLE are also pacificsts. And the Catholic view, which has informed the CLE position to a large extent, also does not oppose killing in self-defense - or executiing criminals if no other means exists to protect society from murderers (which is often interpreted to mean that in modern 1st world countries with well-funded prison systems, there ought not be any capital punishment). The reference you suggested justifies the addition of the words I suggested be inserted. ____G_o_o_d____

I don't think you know it very well, because there are some points you're missing. For example, it may well be just to execute a murderer, but the death penalty is inconsistent with CLE. Andrew's point holds; you're trying to generalize in a way that isn't justifiable. Alienus 13:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You did not read very carefully. I precisely addressed the example you now mention. I know CLE inside and out. I support CLE. And I know the nuances of CLE. And one nuance is that in a poor nation with no adequate penal system that can assure that citizens are protected from the murderer, it could be permissible under the CLE principals to use capital punishment. Nevertheless, some CLE followers are absolute pacifists - but many are not. Nazism is one evil that many CLE followers concede might justify war. ____G_o_o_d____ 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you still do not show an understanding of the CLE. There is a clear distinction between killing in self-defense and killing in justice, and the CLE only allows the former.

If I have to shoot you dead to stop you from murdering me or someone else, that's simple self-defense, and the CLE allows it. However, if I arrest you, take you to trial and convict you, any attempt to kill you now is not self-defense and not allowed by the CLE. Arguably, executing you for your crimes is just and deliberate, but it's still not self-defense. In short, your formulation differs in a key way from the CLE's, so it represents your own WP:POV generated by WP:OR.

Note that your hypothetical nation with "no adequate penal system" is a red herring, seeking to justify retributive killing as self-defense. It's ultimately irrelevant, because your formulation would allow execution even if the prisons were just fine, on the basis of justice.

In short, you are not qualified to write this text and any errors you make while attempting to do so will likely need reverting. Alienus 13:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that my suggested edits can be tweaked to be even more accurate - justice alone is not enough under CLE principals. I hope you can suggest wording since you are the know it all. The point is, the current version is not accurate. You even admit that killing in self defense is allowable under CLE. As to my explanation of CLE - everything I wrote is correct. Of course the CLE movement is no monolith - but you write as if it is. ____G_o_o_d____ 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's nice that you "know the CLE quite well", however that isn't exactly WP:V. Sources would be nice. Here is an article that says JPII's Evangelium Vitae does not promote a CLE because there are justifications left open for some actions against life. While some advocates of a CLE may individually support some "just" actions, it appears most oppose all acts against human life. Read through the library here. --Andrew c 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

CLE has an umbrella organization, consistent-life.org, and a founder, Cardinal Bernardin. If we can find good sources from either one of these that some acts against human life are justifiable, then you have a stronger case.--Andrew c 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus has acknowledged my main point (CLE allows killing in self defense). ____G_o_o_d____ 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So when we go to verify these claims, we can just come to G&E and Alienus? That is not how wikipedia works. Please find a citation.--Andrew c 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wayward sentence

In context, the last half of this sentence has no discernable meaning: "In either case, it is often associated with political conservatism in general and a rejection of the current positions on female reproductive rights in specific." The phrase "rejection of current positions on female reproductive rights" can mean anything, depending on the state, country or culture one is in. It is also inaccurate: many pro-life people use birth control and would never dream of making birth control illegal. What the movement rejects is the right to abortion (and often any unjust killing of any person). I am going to truncate the sentence so it simply reads: "In either case, it is often associated with political conservatism." ____G_o_o_d____ 10:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, we'll restore it to an earlier, clearer version, instead. Alienus 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I can understand your position. As I and Alienus have both stated, using feminist is clearly inaccurate. Likewise, reproductive rights doesn't just mean abortion, and some pro-lifers might agree with other aspects for reproductive rights. I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of this sentence is. Perhaps if there was a citation or reference to explain the motivations and background of the father's rights movement. Otherwise, I am fine with leaving out the second clause.--Andrew c 13:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response. ____G_o_o_d____ 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to show where pro-lifers stand in the political spectrum. While there are always (often unprincipled) exceptions, the pro-life position is strongly associated with social (and religious) conservativism, including an endorsement of "traditional sex roles". The former, and especially the latter, would generally be seen as incompatible with feminism and reproductive rights. (unsigned comment left by Alienus)

As it stands, the text is unclear, which is why it needs to be improved. Removing it, however, would be premature. Alienus 13:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Secular

Regarding KillerChihuahua's edit removing the following line:

However, very few pro-life activists are atheist or agnostic.

with the following justification:

Rm uncited statement; feel free to re-add once a source meeting WP:RS is located

I don't think that sentence should be re-added even if cited. It doesn't provide any statistically-useful information, because there are almost no activist movements of which more than a very small minority of its members are atheist or agnostic. Atheists and agnostics simply make up only a tiny part of the population. (See Adherents.com for statistics on worldwide numbers of various religions, including atheism and agnosticism. (unsigned comment made by MamaGeek)

I agree that there is no need for this statement. The sole purpose of it is to say "hey, not every single pro-lifer is religious, we've got some atheists as well". And I believe saying that there are secular arguments in addition to religious arguments does this without bothering with weasel words, possible irrelevent data, or dealing with undue weight issues. --Andrew c 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

MamaGeek and Andrew c both make excellent points; consider my summary to "feel free to re-add once a source meeting RS is located" rejected. Concur that unless someone makes a valid argument for including and persuades consensus otherwise, this statement should simply be left out as falling under the level for NPOV's "significant minority" level. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is highly irregular for a neutral encyclopedic article:

• The pro-life movement does not rely solely on religious justification.

The implication of this sentence is that the notion that the pro-life movement relies solely on religious jsutification has to be refuted. Which is clearly a POV assertion. It would be more appropriate to simply state that there are secualr arguments such as:

• The pro-life movement relies on several secular arguemnts.

I am not wedded to my example language, but certainly what is in the article now is editorial, not neutral.

____G_o_o_d____ 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a group of pro-life atheists and agnostics of all political views known as the Atheists and Agnostics Pro-Life League. The pro-life article used to include a link to their site but I think someone has deleted it. Most of their members seem to adhere to the consistent life ethic. So it is true that not all pro-life activists adhere to Abrahamistic religions. Andrea Parton 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrea, thanks for joining the discussion. I don't think anyone is disputing that there are atheists and agnostics in the pro-life movement, and if they do have an organisation, you should add a link to it in the external links section. The question here is whether it needs to be mentioned in the secular section of the article. My contention is that it is not necessary, since this section is not dealing with religion, or lack thereof, but rather the non-religious arguments against abortion. MamaGeek Joy 11:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed?

IIRC, the TotallyDisputed tag was added when hyphen5's overhaul was reverted by Alienus. However, the majority of hyphen5's changes were eventually added, and most of the disputes have quieted down. Can we remove the TD tag? If users still have a problem with parts of this article, they can NPOV tag sections, and fact tag specific claims. I do not believe the whole article as it stands now deserves the TD tag. What do you say?--Andrew c 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the tag. MamaGeek Joy 17:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, removal of the tag during what amounts to an edit war may be precipitous. I suggest waiting for a bit and working towards a stronger consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK how about now? What is totally disputed about the article? Edit warring has died down, in fact, editing in general has died down over the last week (besides two anon vandals).--Andrew c 02:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank goodness. I'll look it over; you look it over, and if neither of us finds anything which seems to warrant the tag (and if no one else states an objection) we'll take it off. Sound good? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

G&E's slow edit war

I appreciate G&E coming to the talk page with a number of issues, as seen above. However, I believe it is premature to impliment every single one of these changes as seen here. I do not believe a decision has been made in regards to "disagreement" vs. "diversity". Multiple users have specifically said there is NO justification for using "unborn child". That word is already used in the article in the right place. How did the atheists slip back into the article. I thought we were taking them out. And the changes to the father's rights section are fairly controversial. I'd urge G&E to be patient and talk things out a little longer before making all these changes that may very well be reverted. --Andrew c 04:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Secular Motivations

I believe under the Secular Motivations section, we should state some of reasons why people are pro-life for economic reasons, and for health reasons. Both of which truly do effect peoples choice on wether or not to be for, pro-choice, or for pro-life.

What are your thoughts on this, should we explain more secular motivations for being pro-life? I believe we should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biglonstud (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO Religious needs trimming; Secular could use some expansion, and both badly need sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This was also my impression when I first stumbled upon these pages, so I would tend to agree with this. LotR 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Links

Why is there a Links section, shouldn't that be merged with External links? I can see they are overview links, but a seperate section isn't required IMO. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, good catch!--Andrew c 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove first paragraph in religion section?

Here it is:

The first appeals to "revealed truth," or the shared religious values of a society. By this account, every human individual, from conception to natural death, is held to possess an equal value, accorded to him or her by their God.

I have no idea what this means or what it is trying to say. I do not believe it is actually saying anything that contributes to the overall Pro-life article, so I would move to remove it. If others feel that it needs to be included, could they please revise it so it makes more sense.--Andrew c 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur, and have removed the statement. I have also re-organized the section slightly. There is still a strong Christian bias, with no Hindu or Buddhist views given. We may be able to get some information from the main article, Religion and abortion, although that article has its issues as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AP, anti-abortion, and citation

• The Associated Press, the largest news agency in the Free World, still follows that policy.[6]
• .. in 1984, I noticed an abortion entry in the stylebook... The entry said "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" were acceptable terms...[7]
• The Associated Press, for example, prescribes that pro-lifers be referred to as “anti-abortion” and that the pro-choice side be called “abortion rights.”[8]

That said, none of these are really verifiable. It seems more like a rumour than a fact. However, doing a search of the last 7 days on the AP official site, I got 1 hit for "pro-life" and 9 hits for "anti-abortion". Doing a rough search of google news for "associated press" + either term, yeilded twice as many hits for anti-abortion (196 vs. 97). So the question is, do we need this sentence (that was recently removed)? and if so, how shall we cite it, if necessary.--Andrew c 05:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, basing the sentence off google hits would be original research. If a source could be found making claims about the AP's word usage, or better yet, an AP guideline on word usage, we could cite that. Note that there's a difference between calling something an "acceptable term" and making something mandatory usage. Kasreyn 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, that fairamendment.us page doesn't itself have any backup for its claims re: the AP. Its footnote refers to a knoxville news sentinel article titled "Alito offers reassurances". Googling knoxnews.com, or even the entire web, returns no hits for that phrase. So I think we'd need someone from Knoxville to go through old papers at their library to check that one.

In any case, I'd think the sentence, if it could be cited, would be more appropriate in Media bias in the United States, which is an article devoted to these issues. We could include a link to that article under see also. Kasreyn 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro and revert

The intro was significantly changed without discussion by Jtdirl two days ago. I felt that a number of changes were not improvements, so I reverted a large part. Jtdirl has since reverted my edit back to the newer version. I will explain why I feel the new edit is poor.

• This is en.wikipedia. There is no reason to say Pro-Life "is a term used in English-speaking countries".
• the primary use of "pro-life" does not refer to all these other issues
• stem-cell research is not a page, but a redirect
• going along with point 2, it isn't just the media that focuses on pro-life's stance on abortion. Because of these two points, I feel the original version thats says pro-life generally refers to abortion opposition, and has grown to encompass the other issues is better
• conception vs. fertilisation first of all, look where the former redirects to, second of all, the latter IS technically more accurate since the ACOG defines conception as implantation
• it is wordy to explain the other viewpoints "rather thanb at birth or at some point in-between..."
• "In that viewpoint" is poor English
• " any action that destroys an embryo kills a human being, making it ethically wrong," it is already stated that pro-lifers feel life begins at "conception", so this is redundent. Furthermore, introducing "embryo" is confusing, and doesn't cover every situation that pro-lifers oppose.
• It's wordy to say "even if that death benefits others through science" and seems to be POV pushing
• "etc." is unencyclopedic
• The paragraph on the pro-choice POV is, well, POV pushing. There is NO reason to have this section in the opening of an article on the opposite topic. Would we want a similar paragraph in the opening of the pro-choice article? If we are going to combine the two articles into one, why don't we do that instead? If not, we need to keep things seperate, and simply wikilink to the other.
• I feel that the origin and Roe v. Wade info needs to be in the first pargraph.
• "Attachment to a pro-life or pro-choice set of beliefs is often impacted by gender, age and/or religious belief." probably needs a citation, and doesn't seem that helpful. I understand that Catholics are more likely to be pro-life. Are you saying women and younger people are more likely to be pro-choice? What is the source of these statements?

--Andrew c 00:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to a superior accurate version from the garbled heap of rubbish it had become in recent weeks. Frankly the version Andrew thinks is OK is so far from accurate it could be used as an example of how not to write a WP article.

1. As so often on WP, American contributors have tried to turn in a world article into an American article. Roe versus Wade has nothing to do with the abortion topic worldwide. It has no more right to be mentioned in the front of the article than has Ireland's abortion referenda, Italy's abortion laws, the 1967 Act in the UK, Simon Weil's law change in France, etc. Either they all go in or none goes in up front. This is not Americopedia. Just because something is important in the US does not make it important worldwide.
2. Pro-life does not, and never has, referred simply to abortion. It refers to a wide group of issues with its proponents argue and concerned with the right to life. Issues like euthanasia, stem-cell stuff, etc are also central to the topic. Focusing on one aspect of a broader issue is substandard writing, to put it mildly. It is also factually wrong.
3. "In that viewpoint" is standard English. Maybe users of American English don't use it, but it is used in British English, Hiberno-English, Canadian English and International English all the time.
4. "etc" is used throughout the planet and in all encyclopaedias.
5. Given that the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" arguments shape the other's viewpoint, with each side defining themselves both positively and negatively based on the other, it is impossible to contextualise the one without pointing out the opposing rival viewpoints that shape the debates on the various issues. Of course the "pro-life" angle has to feature in a "pro-choice" article. Not doing so would be like writing about Hillary Clinton without mentioning who she is married to and how that impacts on her image and appeal.
6. "Attachment to a pro-life or pro-choice set of beliefs is often impacted by gender, age and/or religious belief." probably needs a citation, and doesn't seem that helpful. - The mind boggles at that statement. All polls on the planet show that gender, age, and religious belief impact directly on attitudes towards the two polar opposites, PL and PC. Religious worshippers tend to be influenced by religious arguments on life, from the absolutist "never" of Roman Catholicism" to "only in extreme cases" of most Christian faiths, etc. Polls show that support for abortion declines with age (in part corresponding to increased religious practice as people get older). Furthermore older people's perspectives were in many cases shaped by growing up in an era when abortion, for example, was a crime, and when stem cell research was unheard of, whereas young people have lived their lives in a society where abortion is seen as a right, not a crime.
7. The statement "even if that death benefits others through science" is at the heart of the pro-life argument. They argue that life begins at conception. The termination of life is morally wrong, irrespective of any benefits that might accrue to others. Pro-choice argues that life does not begin at conception, and even if it did, at that stage it is not equivalent in rights to a born living human being. I'm astonished that that that elementary difference in the concepts underlying the two beliefs wasn't grasps.

Frankly recent rewrites made a dog's dinner of the opening. It was factually wrong, Americocentric, confused about the theoretical perspectives underlying the rival viewpoints, incoherent in its grasp of facts to the level of comedy, and way below even encarta levels. Thinking that "pro-life" is all about abortion is like writing about the US presidency purely in terms of writing about George Bush. Abortion is just one of many aspects to the concept. They all flow from a principled set of beliefs as to life, when it starts, and how the rights pro-lifers believe exist should be expressed. Pro-Choice also flows from a different but equally trenchantly held set of beliefs, focused on the rights of women and the "right to control their own fertility" by deciding when to be pregnant, when to stop becoming pregnant, whether the embryo/foetus has rights, and how to apply those rights or non-rights to the human rights of born individuals.

Garbled terminology, shoddy writing, and single country-orientated inaccurate explorations of issues are a non-starter on WP. As an encyclopaedia it has to aim to achieve a higher standard than a high school pass level essay. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 02:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)}

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Al 02:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. I have a bad cold and should have gone to bed. (My edit summary was badly worded too. Apologies for that. That's what comes from sneezing and coughing your way through WP stuff!) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 02:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)}

I'm sure you didn't mean to be uncivil, so of course I accept your apology. I'm going to sit back and let others get involved, rather than get stuck in an edit war with you over this. Al 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I take the encyclopaedic standards very seriously and hate when article standards slip through well-meaning but illinformed edits, or where, as in this case, contributors miss the whole point of the article and go off in the wrong direction, like thinking pro-life is about abortion, when it is in fact a concept that underlies some people's opinions on issues like abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc. One of the most annoying things about WP is the tendency of some American contributors to think of an issue purely from an American perspective, as in thinking that Roe versus Wade must be mentioned up front, when that case is just one example of many that could be explored and which are all equally important in the growth of abortion laws. Roe versus Wade in reality is totally irrelevant to most abortion debates internationally on the planet. Imagine the outcry if Irish people wrote this article purely from an Irish perspective and plonked their abortion cases, the X Case and the C Case, upfront. Or if British writers ditched anything other than UK examples and put the 1967 Abortion Act up front. American readers would rightly be furious, because the article is not about Britain, or about Ireland. Nor is it about the US. Or about abortion. It is about an ethical concept of life and when it begins, and how that belief shapes attitudes to issues perceived to be based on that issue, issues like whether and when pregnancies can be terminated, or scientific experimentation on what pro-lifers rightly or wrongly perceive to be a pre-birth human being. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}

I agree completely that we need to battle systematic bias, and introduce international views. However, it must be my Americocentricism kicking in, but I was unaware that the exact term "pro-life" was used outside America prior to Roe v. Wade. I could be completely mistaken here, so could you please cite some sources for the use of this international term pre-1973? I also feel that your wholesale revert deleted some of my neutral and beneficial contributions (like fixing redirected wikilinks). I also do not feel that the old revision hid the fact that the pro-life movement has views on other issues. I think the problem with your revision is that it hides the fact that not everyone who identifies as pro-life can agree on every topic you listed (just think of all the anti-abotion, pro-war, pro-death penalty pro-lifers). I also disagree with you, in that I feel that the main issue when it comes to pro-life is abortion (and at least you admit that is the case in the media. I'd go so far to say that it isn't just media bias that presents abortion as the leading issue for most pro-life groups). Also, if "All polls on the planet show that gender, age, and religious belief impact directly on attitudes" it shouldn't be hard for you to find a citation for that ;P Finally, would you mind typing up a similar pro-life paragraph (following a similar format to your pro-choice paragraph) to put into the opening of the pro-choice article? I would do it myself, but I'd be scared that my Americocentricism, my inability to grasp the facts, my garbled terminology, my shoddy writing, and my illinformed edits would probably butcher any attempt to copy your superior, encyclopedic style ;p--Andrew c 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

1+1 is 2

That is proved. If zilions of people believe, that there is a higher meaning to numbers and that 1+1 is actually 3,5, which is the anwer to life, universe and everything, it will still not be true. Can we please change the article so that it doesn't reflect religious beliefs and describe the pro-life movement correctly as religious quackery?

Religious POVs should not be reflected anywhere in Wikipedia. God doesn't need anyones help. \

ackoz 20:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is Neutral Point of View. It does not mean no point of view. Religious points of view, secular points of view and other points of view all have to be reflected. Calling any view "religious quackery" is contrary to NPOV and cannot be done on WP, unless such a claim is independently sourced, not stated as editorial fact. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)}

I totally agree here. Perhaps ackoz could be more specific in their concerns over what exactly is problematic about the article. However, painting a POV in a negative light is clearly not neutral.--Andrew c 04:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion and so-called Natural Law

I've added a cite needed tag to the section in question. Claims of a position being supported by alleged "natural law" require sourcing and cannot appear as Wikipedia editorializing. Natural Law is highly subjective and open to varying interpretations; it has been used by both sides in the abortion debate to support their positions. Kasreyn 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree; thanks for noticing and taking action. I think we should reword this paragraph to remove that mention, if no one comes up with a good citation soon. romarin[talk to her ] 16:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, someone has entered a citation, so thank you to the anonymous user. However, this still doesn't solve the "natural law" thing; this is POV language, especially as on the page cited, it says:

"...the natural law engraved in men's hearts by the Creator..." (section 21)

Unless someone can come up with a neutral definition for this term, I would support taking it out. romarin[talk to her ] 16:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

MamaGeek, your rewording in terms of a direct quote is somewhat better, in my opinion; however, I still take issue with the "natural law" usage, as the term, in this context, is a religious construction, and therefore inherently biased. Does the direct quote validate its usage? Maybe, but I would feel more comfortable with something referencing "Catholic law" or "Christian law" or something along those lines. I don't know... what do others think? romarin[talk to her ] 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Best case scenario would be if we could get a quote from an official Catholic document - such as a speech or better yet, an encyclical - in which the purported link between natural law and the "pro-life" stance is detailed. That would be an excellent source. Kasreyn 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree that there may be something on this in Catholic documents, but will state here that "Natural Law" and "Christian Law" are two different things (although "Judeo-Christian Law" is not in opposition to Natural Law, which is why Catholic documents may reference it). My training is not in Philosophy, but I seem to recall that a key distinction is that Natural Law can be derived from our "natural lights" (i.e., understood without reference to any particular religion) whereas "Judeo-Christian Law" would be that revealed by God alone (e.g., the Ten Commandments). An example of Natural Law is that it is always immoral to deliberately murder an innocent human being -- this is understood by all lucid persons (even children), independent of creed, be it Jewish, Christian, Islam, pagan, atheist, etc. LotR 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This article violates NPOV by obviously demonizing pro lifers. For instance, the article states that pro lifers use "emotional" terms while pro choicers use "scientific" terms. That is clearly insulting. BTW, it's a scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization. A fertilized egg has his or her own DNA, not the DNA of the mother. Changes will be made accordingly.Politician818 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to claim scientific support, it would help to be scientifically accurate. It turns out that, due to crossing over, eggs and sperm both contain chromosomes with DNA sequences not previously found. Fertilization, however, simply combines chromosomes without mixing, so its claim to uniqueness is lesser.

In any case, it is a simple fact that pro-lifers, as they call themselves, avoid scientific terminology. They choose lay terms that are consistently more emotionally laden, hence more likely to bias. In contrast, pro-choicers have a history of sticking to scientific terminology. Draw your own inferences, but don't blame us for reporting the facts. I think you're a bit confused about what WP:NPOV means. Al 01:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your statement, Alienus, due to your poor grammar. (I thought that liberals were the intelligent ones.) Personally, I don't have a problem with the terms "zygote," "embryo," and "fetus" when used neutrally. The fact is, those terms don't necessarily indicate that the unborn child is less than human. Saying "embryo" and "unborn human being" are both scientifically correct and do not even contradict each other. Therefore, I disagree with the POV of this article that pro life terminology is "wrong" and that pro choice terminology is "educated." Anyway, I took care of that problem. Just let the people who read this article decide.Politician818 01:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have any concrete suggestions for improving my grammar, I'm open to them. However, I'm not particularly interested in your broad conclusions about my grammar, especially since they may well reflect deficits on your part.

In any case, the term "unborn child" is misleading in much the same way as "unkilled corpse" is. It is overly focused on a possible future, rather than the present state. It is also a fine example of biased "pro-life" terminology. Terms like "mother" and "baby" understandably have strong emotional connotations not found in more neutral scientific terminology.

Your recent edit, unfortunately, fell into that same trap, so I simply reverted it. It also had some specific grammar problems (which I'll be glad to explain, if you're curious), and violated WP:NPOV. Thank you for understanding.

I politely recommend that you do not edit-war over this. It is my estimate that you will not get your way through such a path. Your best bet is to discuss your suggestions here. Al 02:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "unborn child" is a misleading term. There's no need for the terms "emotive" and "scientific." Just the word "term" should suffice. Let the readers decide which side is correct. Using those words violates NPOV. It clearly shows favoritism for the anti-life side. I'm clearly correct. There's no reason for an editing war on this. Just agree with me.Politician818 04:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC) You mean grammatical problems, not grammar problems.Politician818 04:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC) My insertion of the word "who" is no more biased than your insertion of the word "what." Btw, fertilization is conception. I've never heard of the distinction which you brought up. My World Book 1989 Encyclopedia states as such. Each cell increases its chromosome count from twenty-three to forty-six upon conception.Politician818 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself. Al 04:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"I think this speaks for itself" is a run-on sentence. You mean to say, "I think that this speaks for itself." All of your grammatical corrections were incorrect. Please don't condescend to me. Explain where I'm wrong in this discussion room. Got that?Politician818 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that if you don't want people condescending to you, you will have to first stop condescending to them. Stop mocking people's grammar. It's a veiled ad hominem attack and only serves to suggest you lack substantive arguments regarding the point in question. Comment on the comment, not the contributor.

Regarding "unborn child" and whether or not it is misleading, I feel it necessary to comment. Part of the ongoing public debate is over at what point a new, separate human life begins. "Unborn child" is a term suggesting that the object in question is already a child. Since this is a point still under debate, we must represent it as such. There is much dispute over the proper name for the object in question between when it ceases to be an embryo and when it is born. "Child" is a term which has only partial acceptance in this role. "Fetus" is a term which is recognized as having precisely this meaning.

Therefore using "unborn child" is begging the question; it is assuming that the debate is over and that a consensus has been reached, which it has not. As for "emotive" and "scientific", I agree with you. The word "fetus" can be used emotionally; the word "child" can be used scientifically. A better description would be "clinical terms" (for fetus, etc.) and "colloquial terms" (for child, etc.). A term cannot be considered clinical if its definition is not precise and uncontroversial. The best and most neutral antonym for "clinical" which I can think of is "colloquial".

You also seem confused over what a run-on sentence is. Allow me to help, my friend. A run-on sentence is a sentence which combines two or more independant clauses without punctuation or conjunction. The sentence "I think this speaks for itself" is merely missing a relative pronoun. It might be considered a sentence fragment, but I'm not entirely certain. Cheers, Kasreyn 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This might surprise you, but Politician818 won't be able to answer promptly because he's been blocked for incivility. I'm sure he'll get back to you with his usual friendliness in about a day.

Actually, the only surprising thing to me is that it took this long. Kasreyn 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with colloquial/clinical instead of emotional/scientific. In fact, I'd be fine if we dropped both adjectives and let the terms speak for themselves.

Oh, and speaking of speaking for themselves, the grammar's fine. As it happens, it's a translation of a Latin phrase frequently used in the field of law. Al 19:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. To the best of my knowledge, relative pronouns are somewhat optional. A lot of languages don't even have them. Just another thing about English that makes it weird. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Secular

The article states "The pro-life movement does not rely on religious justification when making public policy arguments in the legislative and judicial arena."

The sentence in itself may be true. (At least it seems true for the most part, although I'm not sure if there has never been a religious argument in those arenas, in which case it would not be true.) But by itself, without any other explanation or information, it would tend to imply that the only real motivations are religious, and secular reasons are simply justification and superficial.

In other words, that looks like a possible attempt to discredit while avoiding the appearance of obvious bias. It may have been intentional, or perhaps the unintentional result of writing with bias. If intentional, I'm surprised at how people try to do that with articles. Regardless of political views, people shouldn't feel free to try to manipulate content in this way. I wouldn't like to see it in a pro-life or pro-choice article; it doesn't matter which side, it's still not right.

And of course, other than bias, it also fails to provide some relevant information.

I added a sentence and reference to include those who are pro-life primarily for secular reasons, so a more accurate picture is presented. But I add this comment because I'm disappointed that the article would say there are two main motivations and then using the sentence above and a lack of additional explanation, basically imply that in reality motivation is only religious. Darrowby 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look through the past few months history, you'll see that there has been constant changes to this section. Here is one of the previous versions: "While very few pro-life individuals hold no religious beliefs or consider themselves agnostic or atheist, the pro-life movement is not limited to conservative religious groups or persons." I think the problem with introducing secular or atheist pro-lifers is with giving the position undue weight. It needs to be qualified that not many people are atheist pro-lifers, if this information is to be included. But then how do we word it, how do we verifiy or cite these claims, etc. It's a tough situation, and its hard to avoid weasel words or insure everything is WP:V. So I think your version (and the previous version for that matter) still needs some work with wording and citations, but perhaps we are on the right track.--Andrew c 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, that's a very good analysis and I fully endorse it. Al 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No bias is needed. The best would be to simply present the secular reasons on their own merits without any spin or attempts to minimalize. Actually, religious beliefs or not of pro-lifers are also not the same as secular or religious argument. Darrowby 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be biased to pretend that this is a largely secular movement. Al 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be biased to spin the article about secular motivations, biased to minimize secular motivation in the movement without knowing, and illogical as well as biased not to differentiate religious affiliation/not with secular/religious arguments. Lots of ways bias could get into this kind of article. Darrowby 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that we must avoid undue weight. If it is a verifiable fact that the movement is primarily religious, giving the secular side equal time would constitute undue weight. Bias comes from distorting the facts, not from any tilt the facts themselves have. Thank you for understanding. Al 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say it would be original research to claim this is a largely secular movement, or a largely religious movement, or a largely anything movement, without proper sourcing. What we need is sourcing on what percentage of "pro-life"ers base their beliefs on secular as opposed to religious principles. It can be hard, though, to disentangle the two, especially in America. Americans, in my experience, typically have a very poor understanding of the difference between morals and ethics, in particular the division between the secular and religious varieties. Many subscribe to a peculiarly American misconception that religion is the only possible source of morality. Of course the reality is that those without religious beliefs are entirely capable of developing personal ethics and morality, and they can be found on both sides of the abortion issue. Kasreyn 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kaseryn, those are good points.

Al, you're trying to frame this as a simple matter of due weight, but in fact you're confusing separate issues, and bias also comes from distorted presentation. Darrowby 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WIth all due respect, no I'm not. I said "if it is a verifiable fact" not "it is a verifiable fact". It all comes down to what is verifiable. As Kas said, we need proper sources and hard numbers. Al 17:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Defining Pro-Life

The end of the description states clearly "One method of resolving the dispute is simply to use the terms each group uses for itself. This approach is rarely adopted by news organizations."

While much of the information is accurate, the framing of the discussion is most important here. It would be consistent that a definition of "Pro-life" be given from that perspective. Per the closing statement that would not be a biased position.

As it is, much of the terminology as used is in opposition to the pro-life position. I added consistency to using more technical terms which were subsequently removed being termed "biased". The first change was from "fetuses and embryos" to "the unborn (humans in the fetal or embryonic stage of development)"

The inclusion of infanticide and euthanasia as significant aspects of the pro-life movement was removed.

Also, a comment involving the change of rhetoric was removed: "In the same vein, the morphing of scientific terms into colloquialisms has led to some degree of confusion as well. The term 'fetus' is not heard the same as would be the expression 'human in a fetal stage of development', thus subtracting a degree of humanity from the unborn."

A pro-life link pertinent to the general concerns of the movement was removed. "Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity" (unsigned)

I know that pro-life groups oppose infanticide, but then again, so does everyone else, including pro-choice groups. The opposition to euthanasia should probably be mentioned, but it's not a primary aspect of the pro-life position. To some, it's part of consistency, to others, it's a political wedge, but to most, it's not particularly relevant to "saving babies".

Note how I just quoted "saving babies", to show that I'm using their term without endorsing its accuracy. In fact, it would be inaccurate to call an embryo a "baby", and most abortions are of embryos. This is the same issue as "the unborn", which is a political term of questionable accuracy. Medical terms, for better or for worse, are neutral. Al 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--Collin Brendemuehl 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Unfortunately not all ("everyone") opposes infanticide or it would not be an issue. And while it's not a mainstream issue in the eyes of many, isn't what we're discuss here how to represent the positions of the pro-life movement, rather than to represent its critics?

--Collin Brendemuehl 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)The positions of major pro-life groups support this position: http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm http://www.afa.net/prolife/pba1.asp So to say that it isn't part-and-parcel of the movement is simply a matter of some education.

I support Alienus's edits. The bit about abortion's "counterparts, infanticide and euthanasia" is one point of view: the point of view of pro-lifers. Some do not believe that abortion is a form of infanticide, therefore infanticide is not a "counterpart" of abortion. Wikipedia must address this public disagreement, not side preemptively with one point of view. We could say that "pro-life"ers "believe that abortion is a form of infanticide". But the phrasing which was removed was stated in Wikipedia's "voice", giving the appearance that the encyclopedia itself endorsed the view that abortion was infanticide. This is inappropriate. Kasreyn 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--Collin Brendemuehl 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)The positions are viewed as counterparts because one can show historically that the reasoning behind one is the reasoning behind the other. The position is stated consistently by its proponents: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9801/opinion/nuechterlein.html Professor Pinker has had a lot to say on the movment.

On a minor point, "to morph" as a verb is a neologism, or slang. It is not yet considered widely to be proper English. "Change" or "shift" would be more appropriate. Kasreyn 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If I really wanted to be controversial, "new speak" might have been used. :) Yes, a term different than "morph" might have been better. Good clarification. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Collin Brendemuehl (talk • contribs) .

Note that the belief that the reasoning behind infanticide and abortion being the same is a specific belief of partisans of one side of this debate. There is nothing wrong with noting the viewpoint of "pro-life"ers. The only problem is when that viewpoint is not clearly marked as the "pro-life" viewpoint, allowing the reader the misperception that Wikipedia is endorsing that viewpoint. This can only harm the public's respect for the encyclopedia. Kasreyn 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kas, I agree with what you've said so far. We're free to report what pro-life groups claim, but not free to endore their framing. Al 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--Collin Brendemuehl 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)It would seem inconsistent to presume that one must oppose a viewpoint in order to be object -- that accepting one's self-defining statements is by nature unobjective. In this case, the common pro-life positions are generally consistent among the mainstream groups. (There are smaller groups that go to extremes like suggesting prosecution of women after having had an abortion.) But the broad consensus opinions should be presentable as positions because they're simply a factual presentation. And if there is evidence that such presentation is false (the truth value of such statements being questionable) then that should also be noted as a fact. If presenting a factual presentation is construed as support then there's another premise to deal with as an issue -- is this a presentation of information or opinion? Such second-guessing seems a waste of valuable time.

Collin, please just sign at the end of your text block with a simple ~~~~. See below for how this appears.

Anyhow, to repeat myself, we can say that certain groups view abortion as equivalent in some way to infanticide, and we probably should, since they consider this to be an important claim. However, we cannot endorse this claim by speaking of it as if it were true. Al 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Thanks for your patience. I'm still getting a handle on the nomenclature here.) My argument is that the mainstream groups are taking not that position. To presume that upon the bulk of the adherents is a bias and therefore not objective.Collin Brendemuehl 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mainstream pro-lifers take this view, which is why it's fine for us to report this. However, pro-lifers are biased, so we cannot state their beliefs as factual, only the fact that this is what they believe.

Let me give you a simple example. All pro-lifers think abortion is wrong. Does that mean we can write that abortion is wrong? Al 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's ok as far as it goes. But to report that "pro-lifers believe/understand that..." would be to report fact. For beliefs without an empirical or sound philosophical base, the term "belive" is appropriate. For a conclusion which may well have a scientific or sound philosophical basis, the term "understand" is appropriate. That's the first thing -- a fair (comprehensive) representation of a position does not have to in any way imply endorsement.

The second follows like this: "The concensus position of the pro-life community is ..." and provide suitable links. To leave out the concensus positions is a simple error of omission.Collin Brendemuehl 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, only if the belief is uncontroversial or overwhelmingly supported. The idea that abortion is equivalent to infanticide does not meet such a standard. We can say that some group believes it, sure, but we can't flatly state it as a fact. Al 00:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But that is the consensus in the pro-life movement. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)}

Yes, in the pro-life movement, not in the world at large. That's why we can attribute this belief to the movement, rather than state it as factual. Al 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's the concensus of the pro-life movement that we're talking about -- how the movement defines itelf is a factual matter only and does not require advocacy to be represented accurately.Collin Brendemuehl 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Uncontroversial" becomes a subjective evaluation and not a representation of the concensus positions of the movement. Also, the regular demand for some level of equivalency is difficult to understand. The acts are both seen as morally (whether a religious or practical morality) equivalent as well as technichally unique acts. It's the uniqueness of the act which places it in their positions, and so it should be represented as being from their position. This does not mandate any level of advocacy.Collin Brendemuehl 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Al 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh, what? I'm dealing with this statement: "No, only if the belief is uncontroversial or overwhelmingly supported. The idea that abortion is equivalent to infanticide does not meet such a standard."Collin Brendemuehl 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof that it is actually concensus in the pro-life movement that abortion is equivalent to infanticide? I've met plenty of self-identified pro-lifers who would not agree with that statement. Maybe we could simply say "a large number" or "a majority" (if that is the case, which would still have to be backed up). Sorry if this was mentioned before; I just got back from being away from my computer for a week and there's too much catching up to do around here... romarin[talk to her ] 13:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Who on earth wrote this rubbish?

Who on earth wrote that pro-lifers consider a foetus to be "the moral equivalent of a baby". D'oh! They don't consider it to be the "moral equivalent" of anything. They consider it to be a baby, merely one that has not been born yet. Zeeech. Talk about getting elementary facts wrong. I look forward to reading how George W. Bush is the "moral equivalent" of a US president, or how Tony Blair is the "moral equivalent" of a prime minister. That sort of elementary mistake undermines Wikipedia's credibility. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)}

If they consider a blastocyst to be identical to a baby, they're deeply confused. Let's apply the principle of charity here. Al 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I take it you are a pro-lifer then, since you speak so authoritatively about what "they" believe. While there may be uneducated individuals who think that foetus = baby (in biological terms), we "educated" editors know better. I cannot agree more about the principle of charity. I also agree that "entity" is a weasel-word in the context. "Fetus" is a far more specific and accurate term. LotR 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make any presumptions as to my viewpoint. It is astonishing however to see in your edit such a collossal clanger in definition. If your definition of "educated" is not knowing the meaning of the terminology you use then I suggest you look up the dictionary for what "educated" actually is. It might help if you actually read some of the writings on the topic by main pro-life and pro-choice campaigners. Anyone who knows so little about the topic that they misunderstand the whole definition of the status of the embyro and foetus help by pro-lifers is seriously needs to read up on the topic. As far as Pro-lifers are concerned, from the moment of fertilisation, the entity created is human. They use the term unborn child to describe the developing entity post-implantation to stress their belief, which they are entitled to hold, that it is a human being, a pre-birth child. Whether they are right or wrong is a POV which this article cannot express. That is their belief. The wacky idea "moral equivalent" doesn't feature in it at all. They believe it is a child (hence their belief that to abort it is to commit murder, just as to kill a born child would be) not the "moral equivalent" of one. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)}

Insults aside (WP:CIVIL), the statement in question did not say "moral equivalent of a human being," which I agree would be nonsense since "murder" only applies to human beings, not their moral equivalents (if any existed). Anyone with a high school education knows that, biologically speaking, the terms "fetus" and "infant/baby" refer to two different stages of human development. LotR 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we've got educated editors here now? Gosh! I'm impressed. This will really raise the standard.

Sorry, couldn't resist poking a little fun. I find it just a little humorous to post the link to Civil and call people uneducated. Yep, that's walking the walk, showing 'em how it's done!

Baby is not a precise term. It can refer to a fetus as well as a born infant. Darrowby 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to see a band called "Single-Cell Human Baby". DanielCristofani 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The text in its current form is better than what it was. You have a point about "baby" not being a precise term, although I think most people equate "baby" with "infant." And for what it's worth, there seems to be a misunderstanding here, as I did not call anybody uneducated. LotR 21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian rock?

accuracy disputed

Since a handful of users seem intent on keeping glaring factual inaccuracies in the article, such as the rubbish about pro-lifers regarding a foetus as being the "moral equivalent" of an infant (a laughable misunderstanding of their position that would earn an automatic fail if written by a student in an exam paper on the abortion issue) then the article has to be tagged with the ad and {{dubious}} tags as per WP rules. It doesn't say much for the standard of knowledge about the topic when an elementary clanger like that is added in. The whole point of the pro-life position is not about moral equivalence but human equality: that a pre-birth entity from fertilisation to birth has the same right to life as a born child. That is why they oppose spem cell research — the believe it is taking place on a human being in its pre-birth stage. That is why they oppose abortion, because they believe that it has exactly the same human rights, including the right to life, possessed by the born. They don't suggest a biological equivalence, or a moral equivalence, but a human equality. How hard is that to grasp? Anyone know has ever read their position papers on the topic knows that it their argument. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)}

It isn't that pro-lifers think a embryo is a baby, it's that they believe both are 100% human. We have to watch how we phrase this part. We might end up saying something like "a tadpole is the same "thing as a frog" when obviously they are not the same thing (even if we believe they both are part of a bigger, more general classification). I'd say leave in the "moral equivolent" or just say "Pro-lifers believe fetus/embryos are fully human, with all the rights of personhood". Saying "pro-lifers believe zygotes are toddlers" seems to imply they do not understand basic biology (yes, hypoerbole illustrates the point... where a late-term fetus and a neonate, esp. premature ones, are much closer). It's sticky, but I think we can find a solution without getting hostile. Hopefully.--Andrew c 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well stated. LotR 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording is one thing--that could be resolved in various ways, if needed. But as for the question of whether pro-lifers think an embryo is a baby, I bet many do. (Fetus was originally the question, BTW, but I think they would probably respond the same for embryo.) If you asked some pro-lifers, I think you might be surprised. Dictionaries tend to list a definition of baby for unborn/fetus also. The word simply isn't as narrow as some would maybe like it to be. Well, the word has been around for a while. Darrowby 00:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This was the point of my "high school education" comment -- assuming school curricula still teach basic biology/human reproduction, most of us, including the "pro-lifers," have been taught the distinction between "infant" and "fetus" (although I will grant that there are always exceptions). That the pro-life camp calls the fetus an "unborn baby" is primarily for emotional appeal (indeed, as previous editions of this article has explicity stated), not because they all flunked high school. LotR 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The word baby is simply not limited in that way. Wishing or even asserting otherwise would not change the history and meanings of the word. It's a fact that the word baby can be, has been, is, and will be used to refer to either born or unborn. It's that simple--if people go around saying the word 'baby' does not include fetuses, it won't be any credit to their schools. Seeing one meaning of a word used in a certain context doesn't mean that particular definition can be imposed on the word--that isn't the way language works. Before you were a baby (infant or even embryo) the word already had meaning. If you want to limit the meaning to those who are born, you'd probably have better results with 'infant.' Darrowby 02:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Darrowby. When a woman talks about the fetus she is carrying in her womb, you don't often hear her say "fetus" or "preneonate" or "unborn child". She typically says "my baby" or "my child". "Stop cursing, the baby can hear it." "Don't smoke, it's bad for the baby." "She's carrying a new baby." "But what will happen to my baby?" And so on. If you need more examples, try the Lifetime network. Kasreyn 03:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You do have a point there. LotR 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Having dated a woman for five years who *only* ever referred to her fetuses as, well, "fetuses" (she was a Master's Molecular Biologist then, she's a Phd. working in in bioethics at the CDC now), I think the linguistics question is largely a matter of the emotional intentions involved in a *desired* outcome of a pregnancy, rather than an conscious, verbal choice being made to have an accurate description. That being said, I have also heard "this fucking thing", "this cancer", "this damned curse", "my rape baggage", "my trial from god", and "my husband's damn fault" being applied to a fetus. (Somehow, I don't expect these terms to show up on the feel-good Lifetime channel). Once a pregnant woman decides to keep a potential child, she may project into the future and refer to it as a "baby", and people who think that all potential children should be kept often refer to all forms of potential life as "babies"... i.e. Bush's "snowflake babies" (referring to roughly 400,000 frozen blastocysts kept in US fertility labs). Anyways, my point is that not all pro-lifers, or even pro-choicers, refer to a fetus (even their own) as a "baby" until they decide they *want* it to be a "baby" in the future. Ronabop 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt you. I just feel - and this is just my opinion - that from what I've observed of colloquial English, it's very common to refer to an unborn child as a (usually gender-neutral) "baby". Kasreyn 05:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew c, I understand where you're coming from. The entire debate is being founded on an assumption that all people uniformly agree that the prohibition against killing should apply to all "humans". The problem is, we as a society still do not have a concrete and consensus definition of exactly what an individual, specific human being is. When do we become human, and when does the baby become a separate person from the mother, and what is human anyway? If we go by having certain limbs, organs, etc., then certain crippled people might no longer be "human". If we go by genetics, then identical twins are the same "human". Religious people claim it's because we are ensouled, but some skeptics disbelieve in the soul, so back we go to square one. There isn't a consensus yet on these questions, which is why the abortion issue cannot be resolved. I like your optimism and I, too, am hopeful for a resolution, but as long as people continue to mistakenly focus on the procedure without first defining their terms, I don't see it happening. Kasreyn 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You still don't grasp it and didn't get what Andrew correctly said too. Your wording implies they think it is the equivalent of something. They actually believe it is something. They believe it is human. That doesn't mean that it physically is the same. It means that it is however in their eyes a human being. Look up the dictionary for what the words actually mean. I never said that they think an embyro is a baby. They believe it is human, and a baby is human. Therefore they are the same, in their eyes. The only difference is that one is dependent and developing, one is non-dependent and has completed the pre-birth development stage. It isn't equivalence. It is that they are two parts forms of identical life, (ie, human) simply at a different stage in their humanity. Their whole argument is that human life from conception to death is the same: it is all human and involves the same rights. That does not that in each moment of that that "chain" the individual humans are physically the same. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)}

Not true. In fact, based on what you just wrote, it seems we are in agreement. What Andrew wrote above perfectly expresses the point I was trying address. The new rewording of the article from the pro-choice page is superior to what was there previously, including my attempt at improving it. I have no attachment to the word "equivalent." LotR 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Andrew, BTW, on the use of the stuff from pro-choice. When I wrote that I had the idea that we should use the same structures and arguments to analyse both, rather than having each article written in a different style and language. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)}

Agreed. LotR 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

I tagged a couple of statements with fact tags. Namely:

In the United States in particular, the religious motivation of many pro-lifers is often used to discredit the pro-life movement as being almost theocratic in its aims and philosophy, and

This is certainly true of some elements on the Christian Right which have a much broader political agenda.

Firstly, I think the language needs some work. It sounds a little like My opinion is.... Secondly, if these views are held by someone notable and relevant, it should be noted. My first instinct was to remove as POV, but this being a hot topic, I want to start with discussion. --Elliskev 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning proposal

This article has a pretty long intro. What do you think about breaking some of it up into sections, e.g. Abortion, Euthanasia, Death penalty, etc.? --Elliskev 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose this in principle, but would it really be beneficial in practice? Al 23:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be helpful to avoid redundancy, to shorten to too-long intro, and to lessen the need for endless qualifiers. I don't think that there is any hurry, though. I'd like some more feedback before proceding. --Elliskev 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is almost entirely about the anti-choice aspect of the pro-life view, and that's also what makes the lead so big. Maybe the solution isn't to break out more sections, but to move everything up top (except for the first paragraph, of course) lower down. Al 00:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to add sections that deal with aspects other than the anti-choice v. anti-life debate. This article could use some more emphasis on the other aspects. --Elliskev 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

Can we put together a list of what needs to be done to remove this tag? --Elliskev 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll take that as a no. I'm removing the banner. --Elliskev 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say

those three photos are wonderfully easy on the eyes. Those must be the kinder, gentler Pro-Lifers. Where I used to live, their signs had hugely magnified photos of aborted fetuses, which they waved around in public for children to see. When I first loaded this article, I braced myself for such a thing. Nice to see that not all pro-lifers are like that. Kasreyn 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and Thanks

I am very strongly something: either pro-life or pro-choice. I'm not going to say which, because I want say that from my perspective (which could be either of the two of the two perspectives), I think that everyone who has worked so hard on this article has done a terrific job. I came to this page expecting to see a lot of watered-down statements and/or vandalism revealing an inability of people from different perspectives to talk about this view point calmly and objectively. I appreciate that what you have produced isn't just pretty good--it also reflects an ability for people to talk with one another that is much more important than this single Wikipedia post.66.171.197.20 00:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)