Talk:Anti-abortion movements

Lead edit request

I'm requesting an edit to link the "pro-life" in "Anti-abortion movements, also self-styled as pro-life movements" to the Pro-choice and pro-life page. I made a similar edit on the Abortion-rights movement page. Also, why is this page protected, but the other page isn't? It seems inconsistent. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Because people kept trying to rename this one "Pro-life movement". Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

How to name entire movement?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article is on topic (anti-abortion). But it's not optimal to have "pro-life" redirect to an article with this title. Noting all the objections listed above to the term "pro-life" and granting them for argument's sake, an appropriate umbrella term is still needed. This redirect is like having a search for "Poverty reduction movement" redirect to "Free School Lunch". Free school lunches might be one element of poverty reduction, but the movement itself would be much larger, which is the case here. In 2025, the movement expends only part of its energies and organization toward fighting abortion. It varies by country. Currently, very active areas of the movement in Canada and the US include battling euthanasia programs. In the US, there are currently media stories about self-identified "pro-life" lawmakers seeking to overturn the death penalty in their various states. In both the examples above, the persons involved would certainly be against abortion, based on their choice of a label that includes that, but to have their battles against euthanasia and the death penalty fall under "anti-abortion" seems inadequate. If someone who has heard of it is looking for information on the entire movement and conducts a search by a term that describes the movement as a whole, they should get to a page about the entire movement -- even if a more neutral name is wanted. So, back to the question I opened with. If "pro-life" is objectionable for the reasons outlined in the box above above, what is the neutral, non-partisan, objective and preferably not too wordy term for a movement that is opposed to everything/anything that deliberately terminates human life between conception and natural death? Granting that it should start with Anti-, because opposition to various practices is what defines it. So, Anti-...what? Greenbough (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The term "pro-life movement" has long been understood as a political-spin term for the anti-abortion movement. The notion that it stands for something broader is a fiction promulgated by anti-abortionists. The issue about which that movement feels strongly and to which it gives almost all of its resources is opposing abortion. In the U.S., the states that have the most powerful anti-abortion movements and most restrictive laws against abortion are the ones that also have the worst maternal mortality and infant mortality rates, so claiming that they're the defenders of "life" is a bit backwards. NightHeron (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree that the term is not for something broader however your criticism that the term is "political-spin" is irrelevant. It is the common usage term for people with these beliefs. Frankly, I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to take a stance on issues. The common usage has long been 'pro-life'. Rebranding it at the behest of those who have an agenda isn't helpful. Calling it "anti-abortion" is not observing or describing common usage terminology. I'm pro-choice but this is not non-POV. Changing terms to something more acceptable isn't what Wikipedia should do (or claims to do). Even if you think the term that is actually used is inaccurate or propagandist. Report the facts and leave your agenda at the door. I'm very disappointed in this article.2603:6011:2D02:D8E0:EC03:78C2:B281:76A0 (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"are the ones that also have the worst maternal mortality and infant mortality rates" Based on their rhetoric, an increase in maternal mortality is one of the main objectives of these misogynist movements. An increase of infant mortality is just a happy byproduct, since anti-abortion misogynists do not care at all about the survival or the material needs of the infants. Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

When you say, "has long been understood as," I think that's a fair reflection of the headlines garnered in traditional media over past decades and the impression they would have created to the typical media consumer. However, this impression doesn't survive inquiry. If we do a web search today for the name of any national "pro-life" group in the US or Canada, adding the term 'euthanasia,' the results show this topic has been a major focus of these organizations for years. As another example, news media today are reporting that "pro-life" politicians in three US states are trying to reverse the death penalty. So the movement is clearly focused on an array of issues that includes, but goes beyond, abortion. That brings us back to my previous point and question. Greenbough (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Strongly agree. 'Pro-life' is a specific ideology with certain beliefs and history, for which we have plenty of RS to prove has opposition to other things beyond its main focus of abortion. 'Anti-abortion' is referring to all activity against legalized abortion regardless of its source or context. Calls in Muslim countries to outlaw abortion because they think it promotes promiscuity have little to do with the 'pro-life movement'. Reesorville (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The act of restricting the term pro-life based on politics is ironic at best, because it's being restricted by those who are pro-choice. Pro-choice supporters are using Wikipedia to censor pro-life language. Otherwise there would be no problem using the word pro-life since its supporters use it, for several decades, in media and literature. It was only recent that the term, anti-abortion movement, came to exist. Pro-life should be allowed simply based on historical reference. ~2025-43554-38 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

A few years ago, two simultaneous RFCs reached a consensus of editors that both terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are political-spin terms that obscure the true nature of those movements. In both cases we decided to reject politcally biased and misleading language. Plenty of people who call themselves “pro-life” are in favor of the death penalty, in favor of what Israel has been doing in Gaza, and in favor of the bombing of boats in the Caribbean. Plenty of people who call themselves “pro-choice” are opposed to letting pharmacists choose whether or not to fulfill prescriptions for abortion pills and are opposed to letting publicly funded hospitals choose whether or not to give abortions. The uniting cause of the so-called “pro-life” movement is opposition to abortion; the uniting cause of the “pro-choice” movement is support for the right to get an abortion. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition needed

After the phrase "This is a practice held in low regard by many, as it causes anxiety and distress." an addition is needed - "and harms businesses".--95.24.78.31 (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it is held in low regard by many is irrelevant to the discussion of anti-abortion movements. Mailing medication abortion pills is held in low regard by many; saying either pavement counseling or the mailing of medication abortion pills is held in low regard is an addition that has no objective relevance. The phrase, "This is a practice held in low regard by many, as it causes anxiety and distress," is not necessary to the text's context and should be removed. In addition, the Wikipedia Manual of Style explicitly rejects "weasel words." This would include the phrases "by many" and "and harms businesses" WP:WEASEL. ~2026-37544-67 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Add a hatnote that says "Abortion is murder" redirects here, for the song by P.O.D. see Snuff the Punk

ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done Clearly not going to happen. Wikipedia has WP:NPOV. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• @ILoveSmallEdits: the song is capitalized; the slogan isn't. You can create a redirect to Snuff the Punk from the capitalized version (which doesn't yet exist). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

"Abortion is murder" doesn’t redirect here though. It redirects to Snuff the Punk. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

'Anti-rights movement'

I'm putting this here because User:Black Kite believes this needs to be discussed on the talk page again. I think that labeling this as an anti-rights movement is a NPOV problem and essentially declaring that those fighting against abortion are fighting against human rights. However, it is quite obvious that access to abortion is not a universally accepted human right and that those who claim it is a human right are partisans on the issue. The label is essentially abandoning neutrality between the two sides of the issue and shouldn't be used here. Reesorville (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Although those wishing to ban reproductive freedoms are obviously partisans as well. The category is aimed at those fighting against any rights, whether you agree with those rights or not; for example Anti-suffragism is in this category, along with various misogynist and anti-LGBTQ+ organisations. Indeed, I note that Category:Anti-abortion movements is in fact a sub-category of this category, so you may be correct for the wrong reason, in that it is a duplicated category, but I would welcome more input too. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you're reasoning makes sense in that this category could be used as you say for 'those fighting against any rights whether one agree with them or not', but let me explain in detail why this is still problematic.

1) Who gets to decide what is a 'right' or not? For example, slave owners believed that it was their right to have slaves. Is it OK to therefore to put the abolitionist movement under the category of anti-rights movements? Or what about those who want to take away the freedom of people to own guns? Or those fighting against the freedom of husbands to beat their wives? or trying to take away the rights of husbands to control their wives? Would people who advocate for wealth redistribution be considered as fighting against the rights of property owners?... and this list really could just keep going on... if this category on wiki is supposed to include ALL THINGS that one group or another has considered to be their right, regardless of whether or not you agree with the idea that this is a right, then logically you must include all of those things too, because there are indeed people in the world who believe it is their right to do those things.

2) Wikipedia, however, does not include EVERYTHING that are considered to be rights by one group of people or another in this category. But it only includes some things. Therefore, the mere fact that there are people who consider something to be a right is not a sufficient rationale to justify the inclusion of something in this category.

3) I would argue that this category should only include things that are actually considered rights in a very universal sense. For example, rights within the UN's universal declaration of rights would be a good starting point; abortion is not one of the things mentioned in that declaration. Things that are only considered rights in one country but not in another should probably not be included, otherwise you fall back into the same problem I identified in point 1.

4) If, despite all of this, we put this movement into the category of anti-rights movements, but we would never dare to do it for any of those other things, it produces a major POV issue, because it seems to be saying that anti-abortion movements are fighting against, not just what some group considers to be a human right (since that's now how this category works), but rather it is fighting against human rights objectively. And that would then be a wholly partisan application of wiki's rules.

Now there is one way I could see how you could avoid the NPOV issue if you assigned this category, and that would be if you also put abortion-rights movements also under the same label, since obviously pro-lifers believe that the abortion-rights movement is fighting against the rights of the fetus. And if you really believe that it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with whether something is a right or not, but as long as it is considered anti-rights then the label is deserved, then I think you should take this position from a neutral viewpoint and assign the same label to both movements. Reesorville (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, we'd then end up having the argument about when human life starts (which has been rehashed so many times and I don't think it's useful to do that one again). However, if you're going to say that "things that are only considered rights in one country but not in another should probably not be included", that's a very slippery slope because, well, consider very repressive countries like South Korea or countries that repress parts of their population (women in Afghanistan, homosexuals in Uganda, there are dozens of examples). I would say that bodily autonomy is a pretty high-profile "right" and the fact that many countries have laws against it (although only six ban it entirely) cannot really be taken into account. This I suspect is why Category:Anti-abortion movements is already a sub-category of Category:Anti-rights movements. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not a slippery slope, because even repressive countries like North Korea or Uganda I believe are still signatories to those UN declarations, even if they don't follow them in practice. According to the North Korean government, all citizens of their country enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of thinking, etc., so, yes, even those countries officially recognize these things as universal rights in principle, if not in practice. I don't think we get into serious problems with neutrality by including those things under the category of 'rights'. However, defining 'rights' strictly according to a western progressive viewpoint is definitely not NPOV, as it basically amounts to declaring as an objective fact that one side is against human rights and the other is for it. Reesorville (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the CATEGORY "Anti-rights movements" should be deleted as being both too vague and too POV; in general, "rights" are things people just arbitrarily believe that they are magically entitled to: there are something like 200+ "rights" people have synthesized out of thin air but there is no country on this planet that provides anywhere near all of these "rights" to all of their citizens, and there is a discussed difference between a positive right and a negative right; for people to have a "right", it almost always generates an obligation of others to provide that "right".

I don't have the time or interest to put that category up for deletion, but if you do, ping me for that discussion. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)