Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about United States anti-abortion movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Query: I got a message when I clicked on "Edit this page" saying this page was too long (193 kilobytes). Should the older part of the discussion be archived?

Note: I recently added some information about methods of birth control to the webpage, to expand on the line about some pro-lifers considering birth control to be a form of "chemical abortion". While I am aware that some pro-lifers do so consider some forms of birth control to be "chemical abortion", they do so incorrectly - there is no form of birth control in common use that can be so considered, and I believe it to be misleading to users to leave the statement as it was. I write this note with extreme hesitation, aware that I am the latest contributor to what has evidently been a long debate.Yonmei 23:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your hesitation is justified. So-called "emergency contraception," in some cases, does not actually prevent conception. It causes the ejection/failure/abortion (depending on your definition) of an already conceived (but not implanted) fetus. Technically, I suppose, it does not cause an abortion because the woman/mother is not technically pregnant, but it kills a human life/fetus/being/embryo/zygote/(your word here), which is the sticking point for pro-lifers and makes it, for them, as close to an abortion as makes no odds. I'm going to revert you until there's been further comment by other editors, if that's alright. --BCSWowbagger 01:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Having now made the edit, I changed chemical abortion to abortifacient, because the abortifacient article actually discusses this controversy, and pro-lifers (generally) would consider abortifacient the more accurate term anyway. --BCSWowbagger 01:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that EC doesn't do what you say it does. There is no scientific basis to the claim of EC preventing implantation. During a cycle, when Luteinizing Hormone levels increase, ovulation occurs. However, introducing progesterone prevents this from happening. There is no evidence to support the implantation claims. [1] It is purely speculative at best. I personally feel it IS important to present the pro-life POV against birth control, but part of me agrees with Yonmei and wouldn't mind seeing something in the article reflecting the actual science.--Andrew c 01:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, BCSWowbagger, Andrew. Could we resolve the issue by having that paragraph state what some pro-lifers believe, but adding a sentence to say that this belief is disputed, with a ref to a website or paper that gives the actual scientific facts about birth control? Yonmei 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a great solution, as long as we avoid coming off with tone akin to a debate.--Andrew c 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to add something: in any case I'm much happier with the new version explaining what some pro-lifers believe since BCSWowbagger edited it. Yonmei 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of a way that isn't argumentative of adding a sentence to the paragraph as it now stands, to say that the pro-life belief that the contraceptive pill (either a regular daily pill or emergency contraception) is an abortifacient, is just not true - there is no scientific research that confirms it, and considerable research that discredits it.

I can't.

Yet I'm truly uncomfortable leaving it just as it stands - yes, it's a common belief among pro-lifers, and the fact of that belief ought to be documented, but it is as untrue a belief as the belief that condoms spread AIDS. This is not a religious belief: it purports to be a scientific fact, as I understand it, and it's not true. But - and please excuse this lengthy and, I fear, argumentative comment - I cannot find a way of phrasing this that is not argumentative, and hope that another more experienced editor than myself will be able to do so. Yonmei 17:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then pare it down to essentials first: group x believes y, but studies have shown (citation z) that this is not so. Then, if needed, add whatever verbiage is required by encyclopedic tone, carefully avoiding any partiality. Shouldn't be hard: start with the skeleton and then add only as much flesh as is absolutely required. Kasreyn 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This would of course be easier if we had consensus on what the studies (as a whole) actually show. which is (now) the issue here. It may well turn out that group x believes y, and studies show that y is in fact true. --BCSWowbagger 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(Reset Tab) No problem, Yonmei. You don't come across argumentative to me. Anyhow, on topic: My plan was to simply refer to the FDA's most recent page on EC's effects [2] and refer to their answer to Question 3: If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). The government oversight group is generally the most reliable source for this sort of thing, IMO. But, as of yesterday morning, I can't do that any more, because they updated the Q&A: [3]. It no longer includes anti-implantation as one of the effects of Plan B. BUT, a look at the approved Plan B box design [4] (PDF; page 5) shows that it is still very possible that it may prevent implantation. The scientific consensus to which you both refer appears to be a fairly recent development, as shown by the conflicting sources in this (rather POV) paper from Princeton [5], and still far from full consensus. I say let's give this thing a few more months or years before we declare pro-life beliefs--which have been built around scientific beliefs for several decades--a scientific falsehood. However, now that there is a viable dispute around it, perhaps we should link to an article that deals with the issue more fully, like, say abortifacients or beginning of pregnancy controversy. --BCSWowbagger 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, though - looking at the information available - what does the contraceptive pill do, certainly in its modern incarnation? It prevents ovulation. Reliably and effectively. Women who are on the pill do not ovulate. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant whether a secondary effect of the pill might be to prevent implantation - because, taken reliably, there is never going to be a egg to be fertilised/to implant. Therefore, the contraceptive pill is not an abortifacient. The claims by pro-lifers (which I understood to be of relatively recent date: the first I heard of pro-lifers claiming that taking the pill was equivalent to having an abortion was three or four years ago) have since been effectively refuted by research: the modern pill is shown to be ineffective in preventing implantation, as, anecdotally, we knew already from many reported instances of women who were on the pill through much or all of their pregnancy, not realising that one skipped dose let them ovulate. But even if it were proven to prevent implantation, if the pill taken regularly and consistently, it is plainly not an abortifacient, since it actually prevents their being any fertilised egg to abort.

Sorry, Andrew, to pre-empt your comment, but mine was more clearly a response to Wow's. Yonmei 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It does prevent ovulation, and, according to a theory that has lasted for decades until only the last three or four years, it sometimes fails (we know that it sometimes fails, even when taken reliably) and prevents implantation instead. My problem with your claim is that you are wildly overstating this "modern research"; it's relatively sparse and all extremely recent. See my recent edits to emergency contraception for a list of sources (I hope that helped, Andrew; honestly, the lead paragraph's treatment of the pro-life views looks just about fine to me. Maybe a tweak or two, but JDG's complaint seemed overstrong). It is still hotly disputed whether or not EC pills prevents implantation, and confirmed that EC IUD's actually do prevent it, in most cases. So, we agree on the principle here: we have to reflect the scientific truth in the article; I simply dispute your interpretation of the scientific truth. --BCSWowbagger 07:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

But the reason that we know the pill sometimes fails, is because women sometimes get pregnant when on the pill. (This can usually be tied into forgetting to take their pill one day, or taking antibiotics which counter the effect, though.) Which strongly suggests that the pill is very effective at preventing ovulation, and not at all effective at preventing implantation - if it were effective at preventing implantation, there would be no pregnancies when women were on the pill.Yonmei 08:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1) That doesn't follow; we know that women become pregnant when and only when all three mechanisms fail (we agree on that); however, it is impossible to say whether this is a result of the first, second, or third mechanism in any given case. 2) Even if it did appear to follow, it disagrees with our research, which is what we have to use at Wikipedia. --BCSWowbagger 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, my guess is that you never heard of pro-lifers claiming this until recently because it wasn't an issue in the national spotlight. These complaints have been circulating in pro-life circles for a long, long time. --BCSWowbagger 07:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's more than possible: the first time I ran into it in public debate was pharmacists causing women to need abortions by denying women the pill and claiming it was for "pro-life" reasons. Yonmei 08:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, now you're starting to sound a little argumentative. --BCSWowbagger 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Nevertheless, that is where I first heard this claim. Yonmei 07:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Working the pro-life view into the emergency contraception article is proving to be a little problematic. I would appreciate if either one of you could go over their, view talk, and edit as you see fit. More help and perspectives are always welcome.--Andrew c 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting tabs/restarting conversation a bit) Okay - One, no study I have read suggests anything other than in the majority of cases, how the pill (either the regular pill or emergency contraception) works is by preventing the woman who takes it from ovulating. So, in the majority of cases, we can agree, it is not an abortifacient: no egg, no fertilisation, no abortion. A further effect is thicking of the mucus to block the sperm, preventing fertilisation even if an egg has been released. So, in those cases, it is not an abortifacient: no fertilisation, no abortion. A final effect is that the lining of the uterus is thinned, preventing implantation of a fertilised egg. Many people do not regard this as an abortion any more than they regard a heavy period as a spontaneous miscarriage: and this final effect can only matter anyway if fertilisation has actually taken place, which requires the first two effects to have been circumvented. Further, since implantation has been known to take place even when a woman is on the pill, plainly this final effect is not reliable under all circumstances. Current studies overwhelmingly show that the pill reliably prevents ovulation and fertilisation if taken regularly and consistently. The belief promoted by some pro-lifers that the pill is an abortificient is not accurate based on how we know the pill actually works: and taking the pill regularly (or making use of emergency contraception) plainly prevents an unknown but extremely likely to be considerably larger number of abortions of an implanted zygote, since women who are on the pill are on the pill because they do not want to have children and are therefore highly likely to have an abortion if they become pregnant. Yonmei 08:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this piece by piece: First, we both agree, in the vast majority of cases, the implantation effect is a total non-issue. Everything I have read reinforces that fact. Ovulation is almost always the mechanism that is limited, and, in the majority of cases where ovulation is not prevented, fertilization is. Until fertilization takes place, there can be no abortion.

Next: your statement, "Many people do not regard this as an abortion any more than they regard a heavy period as a spontaneous miscarriage". Fine. That may be. But those who do consider it abortion are overwhelmingly pro-lifers, and many if not most pro-lifers fall into that camp (a poll here would be nice). That's why the article says, "Pro-life abortion opponents are frequently in opposition..." etc.

Next: You are correct in saying that plainly the anti-implantation mechanism sometimes fails, just as the anti-ovulation and anti-fertilization do. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and, if there is an embryo/blastocyst destroyed in even 0.01% of uses of the Pill, (given about 780 million Pill cycles a year), the pro-lifers are going to be counting tens of thousands more abortions per year, which makes it an issue. Even if what pro-lifers call an "early abortion" is extremely rare in practice, it is still a major issue to them.

Next: The Emergency contraception article currently cites three studies that suggest that EC may not prevent implantation, after all. (These are currently being disputed on NPOV grounds by Lyrl, I might add.) There are five studies that suggest it does. There is not even close to a scientific consensus in favor of the proposition that EC and the Pill never prevent implantation of a zygote. (Thus, the statement in your last edit that "most" of the scientific community disputes it is simply false.)

Finally: your conclusion: Current studies do indeed show that the Pill and EC, taken reliably and consistently, rarely (if ever) cause a pre-implanted human fetus to die. You are correct about that. However, people do not always take these medications reliably. In fact, they often do not. Which, to pro-lifers (who believe that Life Begins At Conception (TM)), means that these contraceptive tools, used improperly, essentially become murder weapons. (Indeed, even with proper use, a miniscule fraction of cases, according to those studies, ends in embryonic death.) The point is, even if these so-called "early abortions" are rare, they are totally unacceptable to pro-lifers. Your finally section concerning the higher number of later abortions due to pro-life opposition to EC is totally irrelevant to the article; we are not reporting on what you view as logical. We are reporting on the views of the pro-life movement and, if applicable, its disputes with the scientific establishment.

Having said all this and tried to understand your point of view on this touchy subject, I would like to propose a new, slightly more qualified sentence:

Pro-lifers are frequently in opposition to certain forms of birth control, particularly emergency contraception. Because pro-life supporters largely believe that life begins at conception <possibly internal wikilink?>, and because it is possible that these contraceptives can, in rare cases, cause the death of a zygote after conception but before implantation, pro-lifers often regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients. The Catholic Church recognizes this view, but the possibility that any contraceptive can affect a zygote after fertilization is currently disputed within the scientific community. (See Also: Emergency contraception and implantation)

How does that read to you, Yonmei? --BCSWowbagger 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Yonmei, but I'll comment. The possible internal wikilink should be beginning of pregnancy controversy. The more technical and accurate term should be blastocyst, not zygote. We should say fertilisation, not conception because there is dispute over the definition of the latter. And I'd change the wording to the last section to be "but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilisation effects is currently disputed within the scientific community." I also feel like we need to say more than that, something like "with a number of recent studies finding no evidence to support the implantation prevention claims" with a link/citation to support that statement. --Andrew c 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, even if you're not Yonmei, I'm glad you're here. I agree with most of your revisions. Hormonal contraception, in particular, is a good way to make the vague language in that paragraph much more precise. I do not agree, however, that we need to refer specifically to these recent studies, and that, if we do, we need to also refer to earlier studies to illustrate the point that pro-lifers are not simply making up facts out of whole cloth, and then... and, well, essentially reprint the entire EC and Implantation section from the other article where this has been an issue (but in a completely different way, amusingly enough). Oh, also, conception (biology) and fertilization are the same article, so I don't see the difference. The controversy, I believe, has always been over the beginning of pregnancy, not conception; but, if I'm wrong, please tell me. And, for that matter, both zygote and blastocyst refer to pre-implantation embryos, so I also don't see the difference there (perhaps a broader term is in order?), but I will use your word there nonetheless. So, here's an updated proposal for revision:

Pro-lifers are frequently in opposition to certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as ECP's, which, in rare cases, may possibly cause the death of a zygote after conception but before implantation. Because pro-life advocates largely believe that life begins at fertilization, they often regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients. The Catholic Church recognizes this view, but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is currently disputed within the scientific community. (See Also: Emergency contraception and implantation) Better? --BCSWowbagger 01:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Zygote specifically refers to a 'fertilized egg' or single diploid cell before cleavage. If we want to use a more vague term than blastocyst, we could always go embyro. But I'd oppose zygote for its rough/inaccurate usage that, while maybe vernacularly acceptable, shouldn't be used in this manner in an encyclopedia. Same for conception vs fertilisation. The ACOG has "changed" the definition of conception to be implantation, which has caused a lot of controversy in pro-life circles. Needless to say, everyone knows what is meant by fertilisation, while conception is now a more confusing term. If those two minor things are changed, I'd 100% support this version. I agree that we don't need to drag out the whole debate here (when it is already spelled out on a number of other pages).--Andrew c 02:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you have my agreement. Wonderful. Yonmei, what do you think? --BCSWowbagger 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have left my response so long - I was avoiding coming back to this debate while I was still in a negative mood about it. I think the current version is excellent: thanks for working it out so thoughtfully. Yonmei 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I'm just glad it did work out in the end. More proof of that the wikiway is the right way. Thanks for all your additions to the conversation; we have improved the article as a whole. --BCSWowbagger 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pianoman123 - With regard to your new edit - "Relatively rare" compared to what? Yonmei 08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Relatively rare compared to the prevalence of every other type of violence, basically...I think it's important for people to understand that the types of extremism and pointless violence mentioned here are not frequent occurances...and that extremists are obviously not pro-life, and therefore don't deserve that label.

Pianoman123 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your comment on "disruptive picketing" - by definition, disruptive picketing is protesters doing more than exercise free speech. For example: pro-life protestors who picket a doctor's private residence, striking employees who prevent non-striking employees from entering the workplace, so-called sidewalk counselling. And we haven't even touched on the fake abortion clinics. I count deliberate emotional harm as a form of violence. Yonmei 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Picketing a doctor's private residence, sidewalk counseling, and "fake abortion clinics"...can you explain why these don't count as free speech, as you write? All three of them are legal, and if they're not exercises of free speech, I don't know what is. Also, see below Pianoman123 04:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You realize counting "deliberate emotional harm" makes Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a violent protester, right? --BCSWowbagger 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Martin Luther King ever cut up a doll in front of a woman seeking an abortion and told her "that's what your baby will look like". Yonmei 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

-Recent edits/additions-

BCSWowbagger is right. But even moreso, Yonmei, you can't impose your definition of violence-- its your personal POV. Your view that sidewalk counseling is violence is a POV. Your view that pro-lifers induce "deliberate emotional harm" is also, clearly, a POV. Just because you may not agree with the strategies of certain people, does not make their actions violent. Just because you may find offense in someone else's actions, does not make those actions violent. For example: I may be very offended that Planned Parenthood is allowed to dictate sex education to teenagers. Does that make Planned Parenthood violent? No. They impose their views on others forcefully, but it's not violent. I would suggest sticking to a dictionary definition of violence:

Violence: "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment" If you can find a reputable source that cites an example of this on the part of pro-lifers, put it in. Otherwise, there's no justification for the clinic picketing in this section, because the section is on extremism and violence.

Sdedeo, you've written this about a citation recently added by Yonmei:

"disruptive picketing is not being described as "violence", but "harassment" -- seems NPOV and reasonable to me?)"

This is factually untrue-- the title of this section is "Extremism," and the subtitle-link is "Anti-abortion violence." Clearly, any information in this section details either:

A.) the actions and attitudes of extremists, or

B.) specific violent anti-abortion acts or statistics

As you and BCSWowbagger seem to agree, disruptive picketing is not worthy of being called violence. And of course, the only reason to call something violence is if it is perpetrated by extremists, right? So if you're going to keep this section in the article, you also have to explain why clinic-picketing is an example of extremism. I certainly don't think it is-- just look at the reality: clinic-protests are very common, and have become a mainstream strategy of pro-lifers...not just the tactic of a small minority. It's the clinic-bombing, etc. that represents extremism, as it is perpetrated by the smallest group of people.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,Pianoman123 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Clinic protests that attempt to prevent people entering the clinic are harassment. "Sidewalk counselling", so called, is harassment. I am not attempting to call this violence, but it is extremism: many pro-lifers do not take part in this kind of abuse of people attending clinics. Yonmei 08:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To put this in context - in 2005, fewer than 14 000 incidents of picketing harassment were reported. These are figures from NAF, and we can assume that NAF is not downplaying the numbers. The number of people that represents can't possibly represent a majority - or even a significant minority - of pro-lifers in the US. I agree that picketers standing quietly with signs, making no attempt to harass people entering or leaving, would not represent anything but free speech. But pickets outside clinics providing abortions are notorious for harassment.^[1] This is a form of extremism, and it is not common behavior among pro-lifers, unless pro-lifers are a much smaller group than I'd assumed.Yonmei 09:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statistics back you up, and I think we can safely can conclude that a minority of pro-lifers participate in activities like sidewalk counselling and disruptive picketing. But it's my impression--and I think extremism and the Wiktionary will back me up on this--that "extremists" are those who hold views that are "beyond the pale" of the mainstream. The simple fact is that most pro-lifers disapprove of violence, and that just isn't true with regards to disruptive picketing. They don't participate, but they quite probably approve--though I wish there was a source on this that I had handy. So, if you define extremism as acts practiced by a relatively small minority, then, yes, we're talking about extremists here. But, then again, that makes a *lot* of people into extremists: Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, George Washington, Jesus Christ, etc. I opine that true extremism has to be beyond the realm of mainstream thought and approval, not just action. Anyone else? --BCSWowbagger 21:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is a better word than extremism to use (I can't think of one, but in the spirit of compromise, perhaps that is the main issue that we could address). I do not feel that we need to remove the information about unlawful picketing that results in filing police reports. Maybe another solution is to move it into another section? I think we can find a solution that addresses the concerns without removing the cited information. (however, I think we also need to make it clear that this information is coming from a biased source, or find better citations). I personally feel that the people outside of clinics who get the police called on them are "extremists" in that not everyone who protests clinics get the cops called on them, or end up arrested at the end of the day.--Andrew c 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your personal opinion, but agree that there's no need--in fact, it would be POV--to remove data pertaining to pro-life arrests. Fitting it into another section--particularly with better citations--would be the best solution. --BCSWowbagger 23:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew c. In particular (1) if a neutral source can be found for disruptive picketing statistics, use that: I foresee that citing NAF statistics is only going to lead to further arguments. In particular (2) while I think that disruptive picketing is a form of extremism regardless of how the pro-life movement regard it* if it's easier to work this into the article, a separate section on "Picketing" would be better.

*I think it's a question of how the whole population regard it that makes it extremist: most pro-lifers may approve of "sidewalk counselling" and attempts to block people entering/leaving clinics, but unless you can show that a majority of Americans approve this it remains extremism in the US: it certainly is extremism in the UK, which is where I'm speaking from. In the UK, pro-lifers who engage in disruptive picketing outside hospitals are subject to criminal sanctions, and a pro-lifer was recently jailed for criminal harassment of hospital staff. Yonmei 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That gave me an idea that I had forgot about. We could merge the pro-life activism article with this article. I'm not sure we really need a spinout article for that topic, and instead, we could work on creating a well sourced, concise, yet comprehensive overview of the tactics used in the pro-life movement. If we do that, then we could easily mention this current information in the section on picketing/sidewalk counciling.--Andrew c 00:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my explanation of my revert. The changes to the first paragraph of the secular section are unacceptable. They introduce too many weasel words. Introducing "harmonious" and "comprehensive" seems POV pushing. Saying "others" is giving undue weight to a minority POV (go in the achives where we tried to verify how many athiest/agnostics hold pro-life views). No citation on saying "a large part of common pro-life arguments". Has anyone done a statistical analysis. This claim goes against the words I hear out of vocal pro-lifers, and what I read on the web (but again, my personal experiene isn't verifiable or a reliable source, so take it as anecdotal evidence only). The second paragraph doesn't even make sense anymore. What does "Many schools of philosophy may be implemented in the formation of a secular pro-life viewpoint." even mean? Why add "just society" to the end? Why add " a member of the human species." when this is already mentioned in the same sentene? Why erase the reference to the pro-choice contrast? Finally, the quote? Why is a quote that mentions souls and guilt after death in a section called "Secular"??--Andrew c 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your revert edit. From what I can see in your paragraph, it would seem that the best course of action would be to revise my edits rather than delete them wholesale (after all, some of them were just wording improvements). Rather than explain why I disagree with your objections, I'll go ahead and make some revised edits to the section, and we can take it from there.

Best,

Pianoman123 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. To put this all in perspective, this article is very poorly written and organized, and it is by no means a thorough examination of pro-life arguments. Naturally, some people will disagree with the pro-life arguments reported here. That's why there's a pro-choice WP article as well. My main goal with these edits was to improve the article, and if you dispute the changes, you should edit them rather than undoing all the progress made.

I understand that being fully reverted can be shocking and can sometimes be taken personally, and I tend to salvage as much usable content instead of doing a wholesale revert, but I am sorry to say that I had a hard time finding usable content in those edits. I tried to explain my concerns with each edit above, but I'd be glad to address individual issues. Feel free to reinstate things that you feel are helpful, and I sincerely apologize if I reverted helpful content. I am not trying to be a bully or anything by reverting you, and I admit I could be wrong in my judgement about the edits, but I seriously had a hard time understanding some of the phrasings used, and felt that a number of added words and clauses didn't help understanding, but instead pushed a POV. I welcome discussion on this topic, and I apologize again if my revert was a bit rash, please don't take it personally. (and anyone watching this page can chime in as well and support me or call me out on the revert).--Andrew c 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We can look at this diff to see what changes were kept from the previous edit I reverted and the most recent edits.

• We can see that my concerns about WP:WEASEL were not addressed. "Many" was simply changed to "some". While this is a step in the right direction, it still doesn't address the issues covered in the past in regards to giving undue weight to a minority view. To summarize that, no one has a stastical analysis directly applicable to this, but there was a The National Opinion Research Center study that showed that only a minority of respondents who didn't believe in the existence of God also held the view that women should not be allowed to have an abortion for any reason. (22%, and keep in mind that those who answered NO to belief in God, are also a minorty, ~5% IIRC, so that's like 2% of the population who doesn't believe in God and want to disallow abortion). This study also showed that the more religious a person was, the more likely they were to hold pro-life views (and obviously vice versa). So when dealing with atheist/agnostics/non-religious, we have to keep in mind that not only are they a minority of the general population, but also that it is only a minority of them that hold the pro-life view. Because of this, I think it is confusing to try to quantify who holds what view, and feel the previous version is superior. It states that even those who are religious can and do use secular arguments.

• "some of the most commonly heard pro-life arguments are made at the level of "public reason," rather than from sectarian viewpoints" Is there a source to back up this statement? What does "public reason" mean? Like I said, it is hard to quantify the prevelence of specific arguments. I feel we shouldn't try to comment on what is "most common", unless we have a source to back it up.

• I still feel strongly that "Many disciplines of philosophy may be implemented in the formation of a secular pro-life viewpoint" is nonsense. I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say. I don't see how it is better than what was already there, but that's because I don't know what it means.

• The wikilink to personhood is helpful, and I felt well placed in this section. Adding the word "deliberate" is strange because I'd still find it 'objectionable' if my mother died in a car accident that wasn't deliberate. Why add the word deliberate? Is there a citation that all pro-lifers only find deliberate, and not accidental death objectionable?

• I still think mentioning the slogan "human life begins at conception" should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but maybe not where it was. (but I feel strongly about that because I merged the article human life begins at conception with this one a while back).

• Mentioning pro-choicers is helpful because it shows that the "assertion" or "belief" regarding "personhood" or "membership in the human species" is disputed. We can't take sides in this matter, and if something is disputed, we cannot present it onesided (althought, we don't need to cater to the pro-choice view too much because that isn't the topic of this article).

• Adding the part about "discrimination" might be helpful, but if you are going to add new information to an article, you need to cite a reliable s ource per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CS.

• I do not agree with removing the father's right part because that is a 'common' secular argument, though the 'rebuttle' has had a citation needed tag for a while now.

--Andrew c 23:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to have time to go point-to-point, as I usually like to do for clarity's sake, because school has started. So I'm going to say this: Andrew's version is clearer, more concise, less weasely, and reads much better (the last two often go together, in my experience). While I appreciate Pianoman's decision to bring it to the Talk page, and for expressing his obviously well-thought-out position, the increased precision of his entry sacrificed too much clarity with too little sourcing for me to support it in any respect. Between the two, I unreservedly support the current revision by Andrew. --BCSWowbagger 01:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I'm in the same situation as BCSWowbagger, and I can't address everything.

First of all, I do not dispute the fact that most Americans, at least, believe in God and are religious in some way. Neither do I dispute that religious people are more likely to be pro-life. I think that fact is neutral.

--Don't take this personally, but I wouldn't worry about trying to find statistics for the prevalence of certain pro-life arguments, or stats about whether pro-lifers are divided on deliberate vs. accidental death...I think the points you've made are getting a bit on the legalistic side-- we don't want to hold back progress in the name of perfection. There's a small contradiction, too. While you've taken issue with my yet uncited add-ins, you say that "the father's right part...is a 'common' secular argument" without proving that it is, in fact, a common argument among non-religious people (it's also in the original article). Quite frankly, it's impossible (I agree with you) to assess the prevalence of a given argument among a given group of people. But unless we start somewhere, this article will stay as bare-bones as it is.

--Also, the word "deliberate" should not be problematic. Abortion is clearly a deliberate act (carried out by a doctor, by the consent of the mother, etc.), and the deliberate nature of legal abortion is the reason abortion is a political issue, for its deliberate nature separates it from spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, etc. Of course pro-lifers are sad when a baby dies accidentally, but that has nothing to do with the ethical dilemmas of abortion.

More importantly... Why is it that the explication of the life-begins-at-conception argument is in the Secular portion of the article? Truth is, most pro-lifers and virtually all of the most vocal pro-life leaders focus on non-religious arguments as the substance of their public arguments, and only invoke religion as a contextual matter. Just look at the bulk of pro-life websites and literature for examples of this. One problem I see with this article is that it portrays atheists and other non-religious people as the only ones who make the strictly logical case against abortion. This couldn't be further from the truth.

We need to decide whether the Secular portion of this article is about secular pro-lifers or about secular pro-life arguments. It can't be about both, because both religious and non-religious pro-lifers make secular arguments.

Additionally, we need to understand what a religious argument against abortion is. For instance:

Abortion is a sin against God

This is a religious argument, based (presumably) on a religious dogma.

But most pro-lifers go further than simply stating their belief. Another example:

Abortion is the taking of innocent human life

This is not, by any definition, a religious argument, because it does not invoke anything religious. It is a belief based on many sources, some religious, others scientific, others philosophical.

A few definitions:

a "public reason" argument is one that appeals to the sense of reason of the general public; in other words-- arguments whose terms anyone can understand, and which don't only appeal to a particular group of people (e.g. religious people). I didn't make this term up-- it's fairly widely used.

a "school of philosophy" is the traditional way of referring to a category or division of philosophy assigned to a certain mode of thought, or certain philosophers. Many atheists and secular humanists may turn to philosophy as an underlying motivation for their pro-life stance, as they do not have the religious background to fall back on as a starting point for forming their viewpoints on political issues. (See the WP disambiguation article on "school.")

Lastly, here's a great quote on this exact subject by Robert George, a prominent professor, consitutional lawyer, and bioethicist:

True, inasmuch as most pro-life advocates are traditional religious believers who, as such, see gravely unjust or otherwise immoral acts as sins—and understand sins precisely as offenses against God—"a pro-life advocate sees abortion as a sin against God." But most pro-life advocates see abortion as a sin against God precisely because it is the unjust taking of innocent human life. That is their reason for opposing abortion; and that is God’s reason, as they see it, for opposing abortion and requiring that human communities protect their unborn members against it. And, they believe, as I do, that this reason can be identified and acted on even independently of God’s revealing it. Indeed, they typically believe, as I do, that the precise content of what God reveals on the subject ('in thy mother’s womb I formed thee') cannot be known without the application of human intelligence, by way of philosophical and scientific inquiry, to the question.

(for the full essay, see http://www.pc.cc.ca.us/jwiens/StemCells/Robert_George_3.htm)

Thanks to everyone, Pianoman123 06:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"We need to decide whether the Secular portion of this article is about secular pro-lifers or about secular pro-life arguments." Excellent point. I would advocate that it be the latter of these. As already asserted, secular pro-lifers (in the USA, anyway) are a minority viewpoint -- coming from this angle will always run into the objection "this a minority viewpoint." But secular arguments against abortion exist and these are, in fact, frequently employed for debate in the public square. Keep in mind that there are many places in the world aside from the USA (e.g., several European countries) that have at least some restrictions on abortion for presumably secular reasons. LotR 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that is an interesting point, Pianoman and LotR. The poor structure of the "motivations" section, the segregation between God-arguments and murder-arguments, and the undue weight (I think) that's given to religious arguments and biblical references over the more commonly-used (not to mention relevant) arguments concerning the legal and personal status of the fetus are all things that have bugged me about this article before, but I never gave it a hard look until now.

stand by my decision that Pianoman's edit was not a good one, but I will allow that there is some work to be done here. It is not, however, work that can be done by grafting in new qualifiers and clauses to the existing structure. This issue calls, I think, for a complete rewrite of the Motivations section. Maybe more. --BCSWowbagger 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BCSWowbagger, I concur, although it may not be necessary to do a complete rewrite. Some of the paragraphs/sentences may be retained or just slightly modified -- but I agree that a restructuring and/or change in approach to this section (a good idea) would require more than just grafting in new qualifiers and clauses. LotR 15:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this section is somewhat redundant with Pro-choice#Term controversy, and, to boot, is a good deal less complete than that one. What if we merged both these sections into a new article: Abortion terms controversy? --BCSWowbagger 22:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a new article is warranted. The issue is that instead of having one article to cover both sides (such as Gun politics instead of Gun controll and Gun rights which both redirect to the former), we have two different articles that at times are going to cover redundent information. I think for these parallel section, we should try to use as close to verbatim phrasing as possible in order to avoid introducing bias and POV in either article. However, if we are going to keep the two articles seperate, I feel we should comment to some extent on the term controversy (but again, I don't think there is enough to be said that takes up too much room, thus necessitating a spinout article).--Andrew c 22:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if there is a content dispute, please take it to talk. If I want the content out, and you want the content in, and we keep changing the article without discussion, this is called "edit warring", and not only does it not help improve the article, it is against wikipedia policy. Next, in our external links, we put what issues each group deals with in parentheses next to the links. How come not a single one mentions "war" (and how come when I clicked on each link and searched the page for the word "war", I didn't get any results on a single of our external links). A big part of wikipedia is verifiability. Can we verify that an issue in the pro-life movement is "war"? We can argue and revert all we want, but if we don't have any sources to back up the content, then it doesn't belong in the article. --Andrew c 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is, of course, impossible to prove a negative, but I contend that the anti-war movement is a very small aspect of the pro-life movement--obviously, pro-lifers all want peace, but there is enough division within the movement to preclude a consensus view, so it is rarely (if ever) discussed. More often, in fact, war is thrown in the face of pro-lifers by angry letter writers criticizing the lack of what they understand to be a Consistent Life Ethic in pro-life politicians' voting records. (As a side note to 72.whateverIP: vandalism is a weighty charge. Be certain you have some idea what you're talking about before you throw it around.) If we were to include war, we'd have to be able to back it up with references to a large number of powerful pro-life organizations; since we're defining the consensus pro-life viewpoint in the top paragraph, sites like [noviolence.info] wouldn't work. I won't revert it until there's been further conversation. --BCSWowbagger 21:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I encourage people interested in this issue to read my commnets on the anon's talk page, and their comments on my talk page. I have since encouraged the editor to join us here, so we may still get a response to our concerns.--Andrew c 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this...

Just as pro-choicers are undoubtedly diverse in their views on economic systems, religious beliefs, and foreign policy issues, so are pro-lifers diverse in those views. It's my guess that since many pro-lifers associate with the Republican party on account of its pro-life stance, they feel compelled to go along with all its other positions, since they see abortion as --by far-- the most consequential issue.

It makes sense--I agree--for people to be pro-life in a comprehensive sense: against abortion, capital punishment, and unjust wars. But that's simply not the issue that comes to mind when a person self-identifies as "pro-life." After all, the criticisms you mention above are criticisms of pro-life people, not criticisms of pro-life arguments

Additionally, (and I'm not defending the ethics of any war), it is an unequal comparison to compare abortion to war. Anyone can see that soldiers are quite distinct from fetuses, and anyone can see that there is much more of an element of freedom in the lives of the soldiers than in the lives of the fetuses. Many others would likely point to the sheer number of abortions performed compared to the number of lives lost in war. (about 42 million surgial abortions since Roe v. Wade, and tens of millions more instances of abortafacient use)

Pianoman123 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it needs pointing out that one may be compelled, under certain circumstances, to be both "pro-life" and "pro-war." We need only refer back to WWII and the Holocaust. LotR 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So do we all agree on removing the word "war", and perhaps only putting it back in if anon (or anyone else) can make a compelling case for its inclusion, while citing sources? --Andrew c 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It would appear so. Doing it now. BTW, this page is 234 kilobytes long; does anyone know anything about archiving? --BCSWowbagger 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro life is anti-war, so war should remain in it. BCSWowbagger's reason for removing it is highly questionable. 75.3.50.41 01:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If I said "pro-life is not anti-war, so war should not remain in it", would that convince you of my position? Part of wikipedia is verifiability, no matter what you or I say or think, we cannot put it in a wikipedia article without citing a reliable source. No one has agreed that war should stay in the article, so until all of us are convinced that the pro-life movement is specifically anti-war, war will be left out of that sentence. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but the principals of community consensus and citing reliable, verifiable sources are the foundation of wikipedia. Also, keep in mind that repeatively putting in controversial/contentious content is considered edit-warring. You are not going to 'win' by simply putting your edit in the main article over and over again. Content disputes are not won my sheer force, but instead by discussing things here on the talk pages.--Andrew c 20:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

2666 American soldiers have died so far in the Iraqi war, why aren't those lives important to you, BCSWowbagger? 75.3.50.41 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... I hate Americans and Iraqis and just generally support genocide? How should I answer that, 75.3? Point: I don't see how my personal biases should affect this argument. I am anti-Iraq War I simply recognize that my involvement in the anti-war movement is not part of what is generally regarded as the "pro-life" movement. There is a prominent minority within the largely Republican pro-life movement which advocates against war, both against specific conflicts and for general pacifism. More power to them. But they are not the defining wing of the pro-life movement. They are a minority, which is well-documented under Consistent Life Ethic.

But wait! I am now pro-Iraq War. I believe that achieving freedom for the Iraqi people and removing a brutal dictator from power, under my interpretation of Just War Doctrine, justifies the conflict and the 2666 American lives lost--as well as the perhaps 100,000 Iraqi lives lost. (Speaking of Iraqi lives, why don't they matter to you, 75.3? Are you a bit Ameri-centric there?) I remain opposed to abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, and the whole host of actions promoted by our culture of death, and so identify with the vast majority of the pro-life movement. But, as regards war in general and the Iraq War in particular, I am in one of the two camps in a peacefully divided movement.

I'm not actually going to tell you where I stand on Iraq, because that's not what matters here. Obviously, 75.3, you're a newb, or I wouldn't be explaining this with such effort to you. There's much more important work to be done in the continuing PAS debate elsewhere in the WikiProject. WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. It reports facts according to the Neutral Point of View. According to NPOV policy, when defining a group, especially in the sweeping generalities of the opening paragraph, you define it according to the general perception of the world, not according to what it should be, what it sounds like, or, above all, what individual editors think it should be.

To conclude: the only way war will be added to the top paragraph is if consensus can be achieved on the Talk page. The only way that consensus will be achieved is by finding reliable sources (prominent, conclusive, and representative) to confirm that anti-war is, in fact, an integral part of the pro-life movement. You have provided not even one such source, 75.3. You have instead thrown around accusations of troop-hatred, questioned my patriotism, acted in a manner befitting a Vandal, and generally shown off your inexperience and ignorance. Forgive my strong words, but I hope this brief tirade is successful in imparting to you the core principles of Wikipedia. You will now be reverted, per overwhelming Talk page consensus of 4-1.

Also, you should have used a semicolon between "war" and "why," not a comma. --BCSWowbagger 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And I would continue to argue that being pro-life, in the strict sense, must sometimes necessitate being "pro-war," because history has taught us that war is sometimes necessary to defend innocent human beings against aggressors/tyrants. Therefore, being pro-life does not include being pacifist in principle. LotR 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all moot. Refer to WP:NOR. Unless we have a reliable third party source, we cannot use this "pro-life leads to anti-war" theory. It is original research. Kasreyn 01:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the death penalty? I think a good way to compromise and include this content in the introduction is to have a sentence mentioning the similar and not necessarily mutually exclusive philosophy, the Consistent Life Ethic. However, war and the death penalty are not the issues that jump out when someone says they are pro-life, eh? --Andrew c 01:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's correct -- pacifism, as I've already mentioned, does not, in principle, automatically follow from a pro-life stance. And the death penalty is a far lesser issue within the pro-life movement, with no consensus opinion one way or the other (probably because the sheer numbers of abortions far surpass, by several orders of magnitude, the numbers of state executions, among other things). LotR 13:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, we've been dealing mainly with nit-picky issues. I was just re-reading certain parts of the article I hadn't paid close enough attention to previously, and I was--frankly--astonished at how many weasel words I found in several sections, including the first few paragraphs of the piece. It's hard to give a one-sentence generalization about them, but essentially, several parts of the article read as if they're written by a person who has a particular dislike for pro-life people and their understanding of these issues. Many phrases seem to say between the lines: "Of course, the fact that they believe all this is outrageous." And, unlike the Pro-Choice article, the authors of this article seem to be constantly apologizing for pro-life views. How? After many of the most controversial pro-life contentions are stated, a pro-choice counter is forcefully asserted. This, in itself, is not bad, but take a look at the Pro-Life article's structure compared to the structure of the Pro-Choice article, and you'll see what I mean.

I made some small edits and citation pleas in the painfully lacking "Debate" section of the article. I explained them in the edit history comment line. Additionally, I must ask a question: does anyone really think that the Alan Guttmacher Institute (funded by Planned Parenthood, etc.) should be cited in this article? It's not too unfair to say that they're just a bit biased towards the people they get their finances from...

Best Pianoman123 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues you raise here, Pianoman. One, about the source of refs used in the article, here's what I think.

If you can show that any of the links on the page go to an inaccurate source of information, and can replace the link by a more accurate source, that would be appropriate.

For example, there is a link to a Planned Parenthood site because that had the report of the most recent arson attack on a clinic: if you have another link to another site that shows a more recent pro-life attack on a clinic, that would be appropriate (or, conversely, if you can show that the attack on the clinic did not happen, post the link here to justify your removal of the link from the page itself).

Or, if you wish to argue that it's not appropriate for the Pro-life page to have a section on the violence committed by pro-life extremists, or that the section shouldn't detail that violence or say how recently violent attacks have occurred, then make your case.

But, given that most of the links on the page link to pages that could be callled biased one way or the other, it seems unreasonable to me to say that only pages biased towards the pro-life viewpoint should be linked to from the pro-life page in wikipedia.

Likewise with the work done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute: if the article can be shown to present invalid data, that would make a case for removing it. But if the data is valid, then there is no reason not to link to it.

Or so I think.

If the article has slipped away from NPOV, that's a more serious criticism, and deserves, I think, a separate section to discuss it. Yonmei 11:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I posted this, I didn't have the extremist violence section in mind, and I think it's fine that it's part of the article; what I was taking issue with was 1. the Guttmacher Institute in particular, and 2. the way the article is set up with respect to the arguments presented...

Pianoman123 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)