Talk:Anti-abortion movements/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Question

I will ask this, why is this extended protected? -104.151.242.85 (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This page has indefinite extended-confirmed access, see [1]. It's pretty easy to find the request for protection over on WP:RFP. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Enlarging the topic

I don't want to resurrect the thread from February; which was poorly framed anyway. What do people think of changing the scope of this article to "Opposition to abortion"? This would be an alternative to my renaming proposal above.

This article currently covers movements. The February discussion proposed to add laws to this article, which don't belong. But why can't we have an article about "opposition to abortion" in general? As in, religious views on abortion, or philosophical debates against it, or societal taboos/norms? There's be a lot to write about, that wouldn't be redundant with Abortion law, and currently doesn't seem to fit into any article.

There's be a slight POV issue, since we couldn't make an equivalent "Support for abortion" article (support for abortion, and support for abortion rights are two different things). But there's certainly be a lot to talk about when it comes to "Opposition to abortion". No? DFlhb (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The article Abortion debate has an NPOV-compliant presentation of the two sides of the debate. Your proposal to give the arguments for only one side of the debate in the present article raises more than a "slight" POV issue. NPOV is a core policy, and your proposal would violate it. NightHeron (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your reading of WP:NPOVFACT, I simply didn't know Abortion debate existed. That article is great, pretty much what I was looking for. DFlhb (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed rename to "Movements against abortion rights"

I agree with the previous RFC on the page title; the previous title was bad for many reasons.

But I feel the new one doesn't fully work either; these people aren't "against abortion", they're "against abortion rights". Practically everyone is technically "anti-abortion" (see the "safe, legal, and rare" slogan).

I rather like NPR's style guide:

On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights").

For this article, this would mean a move to "Movements against abortion rights", with this page turning into a redirect. This isn't an RFC yet; I'd just like to test the waters. DFlhb (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That is true, although I think 'right' is not neutral enough, as it suggests the interpretation that anti-abortion is against human rights. A better title could be 'movements against legalized abortion', and then you could solve the problem you mention about how people in favour of legalization are not really in favour of 'more abortions'. Reesorville (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:MOS, an article title should be "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". The current title is all of these things. The proposed title is awkward and not "natural".

The present article title does not logically imply that the opposing movement wants to see more abortions or believes that abortion is always the best option. The basic viewpoint of the abortion rights movement is that abortion, like any other medical procedure, should be a decision of the woman and her physician.

I personally agree with the OP that access to abortion should be regarded as a human right, but per WP:NPOV the article title should reflect not our own POV, but rather what is indisputable. What's indisputable is that the anti-abortion movement is bitterlyadamantly opposed to abortions. NightHeron (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I would dispute your characterization of "bitterness", why did you have to poison it with that negative judgement? Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll replace "bitterly" if it offends you. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a question of individual offense, it's just that you proposed something as "indisputable" and then you're attaching value judgements and negative connotations to it. I'm not sure you've improved that very much. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Europe: Ireland section, this is quoted:

"...which was a significant landmark for women in the UK"

I think this conflicts with

NPOV, as it implies that legalisation is a 'victory' for all women. I think this should be changed to language similar to

"...which was a significant landmark for abortion-seeking women in the UK"

...or something along these lines. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done The references to Northern Ireland were proper to the UK section, not the Ireland section. I moved the relevant sentences there and did some copy-editing as the language in the whole section was quite poor. While I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the original, I've removed the sentence in question in the course of the copy-edit. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)