Talk:United States anti-abortion movement

Other non-abortion issues

I agree for the most part with Kenatipo's recent edit - the new wording is more felicitous in general. However, it called my attention to some information that was added recently, namely the description of other issues associated with the "pro-life" movement. I think we can agree that opposition to assisted suicide and stem-cell research (as well as socially conservative values) are generally found together with opposition to abortion, but is there really such a strong correlation between support for a living wage and opposition to capital punishment, and opposition to abortion, that it should be mentioned in the lead? I would say no. It may be that in some cases these positions are motivated by the same core beliefs that motivate opposition to abortion, but given that the correlation seems actually to run the opposite way (with people who support abortion rights also supporting a living wage and opposing capital punishment), I don't think it should be in the lead. It can be mentioned in the body, of course. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it by 15 minutes! I got here via the same route. I think it's dangerous to spread this topic any wider than the abortion issue. That support or otherwise for the other issues (capital punishment, assisted suicide, etc, even war) has any strong correlation with an anti-abortion stand has not been demonstrated. To include it in the lead is totally wrong. I'd suggest that it's even wrong anywhere else in the article unless we are shown very good sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My edit was mainly to make the English sound better. That last sentence is still awkward. In my own experience, and I'm no expert in the abortion area, many prolife people do not believe capital punishment, for example, should be abolished. The American Life League (ALL) says it is for the protection of all innocent human life, which would exclude most folks on death row. Like I say, I'm no expert, but has anyone done a poll that shows what the pro-life movement thinks across a spectrum of issues? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ros. May I call you Ros? I like your last edit. Those last four words needed to go. One question: on "family values", does the comma go inside or outside the quote mark? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I think I'll answer to anything that remotely resembles my username (I have also been called Rosecleese and Roscoe in the recent past). Comma placement depends on your usage: see logical punctuation vs. traditional punctuation. I personally prefer logical, because it is logical, but I've had traditional drummed into me through schooling. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Punctuation is extremely important to me, but I insist on doing it my own way." — Donald Knuth PhGustaf (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I better read that essay again. I'm pretty sure I'm a traditionalist. Gustaf, it reminds me of "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Ros. I agree with your edits. But after thinking about it, my feeling is that some of what we took out should probably find its way back in for the following reason: there is a "difference of opinion" among prolife Catholics (is there any other kind?) who could be categorized as "traditionalist" on the one hand, or "social justice" on the other on the issues of the death penalty, the living wage and just war. If this disagreement is described to some extent in the body of the article, it should probably be in the lead. I'm no expert here, but has any polling been done of what the prolife movement thinks across a range of issues? If there's no sampling of opinion then we end up with anecdotes and mealy-mouth wording and he-said she-said. Just letting you know whats on my mind; I have no intention of bold edits at this time. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it might be a good idea to have a "other issues sometimes associated with the PLM" section? Of course I'm aware of the consistent life ethic philosophy and so forth, but that notwithstanding, the correlation is still likely very small, and to put it in the lead would give undue weight. I agree that it would be good to have survey numbers. If we had a section that was well-sourced and possibly included statistics, the lead could say "opposition to abortion is sometimes associated with other socially conservative issues and (find some neutral way of phrasing the other ones)." But going into that specific difference of opinion, in the lead, is probably too much.

(As for your aside, yes, there is "another kind" of Catholic - indeed, depending on where you go you may find that a majority of Catholics are pro-choice.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese that the correlation isn't as strong with those other issues, and should probably be omitted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Without any stats, aren't we guessing about how strong the correlation is? My intuition tells me that the consistent life ethic philosophy will become stronger as the magisterium continues to teach it. Regarding the pro-choice CINOs, they've excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (is that the right one?) and are only nominally Catholic. Any Catholic who commits a grave sin has separated himself from the Church. (Let's not open this can of worms, Ros. I will not debate it.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I started looking for polls, and I found this one on stem cell research and abortion. Maybe there are more.

You've apparently been misinformed, at best. To avoid taking up space on the article talk page, I can explain on your talk page or on mine, if you'd like to be more knowledgeable about the subject. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Those dad-burn ratch-a-fratch Jesuits! I just knew they were misinforming me. Is it too late to get my money back? Seriously, Ros, you may very well be correct on a technicality, but that kind of hair-splitting on this issue I don't care to be "educated" about. There are only 2 paths: the path towards the light and the path towards darkness. And we all have to make a choice. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's nice that you feel that way, but there's clearly disagreement on what constitutes the path to light and the path to darkness, and neither are within the scope of this talk page. Please stay on topic - this is for discussion of the pro-life article, not general discussion of whether opposition to abortion is morally superior. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who opened the "can of worms". Nobody asked you to define other people based on your own beliefs, or to make up some disdaining label for them(CINO). You do not get to define other people or decide what religion they are. The overwhelming facts do not back up your claims, as most American Catholics both have historically voted Democrat and are at best split on the choice issue. If you "will not debate it", then stop making personal attacks and insinuating people who do not agree with you cannot be "Catholics" and/or chose a "path towards darkness". In other words, stop that right now. Dave Dial (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't be so judgmental. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, and finally, there's nothing complicated about what a Catholic is. A Catholic is someone who accepts the Church's teaching and tries his best to live up to it. End of discussion. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, accurately defining who is a Catholic, or a Christian, or any other faith, is one of the least clear matters going around. Countries run censuses where people self declare religious alliance. I can guarantee that many who tick the Catholic box would not satisfy your criteria. But if you were asked to tell us how many Catholics there were, you would probably count them. Many certainly would. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

But that discussion is not for this page. As far as wikipedia goes, a Catholic is someone a preponderance of reliable sources identifies as such. Self-identification as Catholic works too. PhGustaf (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Amen, Br. Gustaf! Verifiability will set us free! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is that on these types of matters reliable sources and self-identification can be guaranteed to differ quite frequently. As soon a self-identified member says or does something that others think they shouldn't, a reliable source will report that "x said that y is not a real Catholic". HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Idea for a category

NYyankees51 and I have been discussing a potential new category, to group together people like Bernard Nathanson, Abby Johnson, and Marjorie Dannenfelser, who formerly supported abortion rights and now are (or I suppose, "more recently were") active against them. However, there were a few things we weren't sure of, so we decided to bring it to a broader forum:

1. What criteria should determine inclusion in this category? Nathanson was a pro-choice activist, founding NARAL, before he changed his mind and opposed abortion. Johnson was not an activist, but rather a Planned Parenthood clinic manager; does that count? Norma McCorvey and Aleck Bourne were not activists, but they were involved in important abortion-related court cases on the side of allowing abortion. How much of a pro-choice activist was Dannenfelser, and does it matter? In short, how broad should the scope of this proposed category be?
2. What should it be called?
3. Would it create a POV or balance problem? We'd really only be able to make a category for "conversions" from support for abortion rights to opposition - not because the converse doesn't happen, but because the "pro-life" side makes a huge deal out of every "conversion" while the other side does not. We'd need to weigh "we only have verifiable information for one direction, because only one side cares" vs. "this makes it look as though it's a one-way street."

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Pro-choice apostates"? Frankly, I don't see the great need. People change their minds about things all the time, and unless there's something connecting these people beyond their changes of mind, they're too independent to be catted together. PhGustaf (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many prominent people whose change of mind influenced the course of their lives and society at large in some way. Examples - Norma McCorvey, Bernard Nathanson, Abby Johnson (activist), Aleck Bourne, Marjorie Dannenfelser. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here was my thought process. First thing I thought of was [[Arlen Specter], because he used to be a Republican, but now is a Democrat. I found no such category to describe such a change. The only categorization which I can think of that relates to this may be Category:Religious conversion. It has both categories for "Former X" and "Converts to X". But I don't know of anything besides religion that is categorized like this. Do we have Category:Former vegetarians? And clearly, unless you were raised that way, most vegetarians would be a Category:Convert to vegetarianism or something like that. While it may be an interesting trait, I don't think it is defining enough of a trait to deserve it's own category. Therefore, I would oppose any such creation of that category. Can anyone give an example of a non-religious categorization scheme that categorizes people by their former beliefs? (and I wonder, is there anyone out there where the opposite applies, or is it just a one way street? Are any current pro-choices former pro-lifers??) -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich was the only one that occurred to me off the top of my head, though obviously his change of opinion has received press because he is a politician rather than an activist. The problem, as I alluded to above, is simply that the pro-choice movement doesn't set up a great hurrah every time they win someone over, meaning that the press around "conversions" is all one way.

Anyway, what you're saying makes sense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

American Social Conservatism template at bottom

This article is about more than just the American viewpoint, so I removed the {{American Social Conservatism}} template which was placed at the bottom. Lionelt added it back without comment. I think having it at the bottom trivialized other nations' viewpoint. What do other editors think? Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Move?

Pro-life → Anti-abortion movement —

• And the existing Anti-abortion movement to Anti-abortion movement/version 2 to ghet it out from undert the incoming page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)