2996:
an actual movement that happened about abortions and pro choice and how it left a positive impact leading to the higher court not furthering abortion restrictions. Including more information about protests that have happened and have left a positive impact shows actual abortion rights movements rather than just laws to compare from each country shows how different countries respond to the topic. To the United States section I also added how "90 percent of abortions take place in free-standing clinics. And these clinics, their funding networks, and their legal support are typically run by non-profits that receive federal Title X funding" (Cicerchia, Lillian). This shows the reader why even when abortions are legal why it is so difficult to obain them. The last thing I added was in
Irelands section and it was about how in Ireland a women was raped and even though she did not want to and tried to attempt suicide “She was eventually forced to give birth by C-section. At every step of the way, the Irish authorities’ concern for the protection of the fetus trumped any consideration of Ms Y’s mental and physical health.” (Newbery, Gher). Including this shows a real example of consequences women go through when they are denied their right. Seeing that it is from a different country help the reader understand the similaries/differences in each country of abortions restrictions.
3079:
in their first trimester were legally allowed to have an abortion in most states, but not all. It (abortion) was considered a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure that was common enough to appear on medical records. This happened far before the official abortion laws appeared in the United States. No legal, social, or religious force stopped women who wanted an abortion in the New
England part of America between the 17th and 18th centuries. There were people, such as Dr. Horatio Storer who pushed efforts to drive the legalization of abortion. Nearly a century later, Colorado was named the first state to liberalize abortion in 1970. Just a few short years after women had finally begun to see the hope within legal abortions, in 1973, Roe vs. Wade occurred, which ended all previously made laws that made abortion legal. Nearly forty years later, in 2009 polls were released that showed 51% of Americans advocate pro-life. However, Congress still passed a healthcare reformation that possibly will be tax-funded abortions. Abortion was an issue that was tossed and contemplated for years prior to its first legalizations, and it will continue to be an issue for years long after present day.
2106:, in the context of US-centric articles: "The scientific sources seem to support pro-life/pro-choice despite that they would appear on the surface to us to be the ambiguous option." I can see the use of the term "anti-abortion" in a number of contexts as valid, such as those topics where the term "pro-life" is not commonplace, but for those US-centric topics I would think it less appropriate. I do also want to note that, in my opinion, in the context of such a controversial subject, in the context of previous RfCs which hold these terms as preferred, in the context of the recognized lack of viewpoint diversity on Knowledge (XXG) (recognized as mostly liberal, likely pro-choice), your recommended solution that "pro-choice" be purged seems, to be blunt, quarrelsome. (Noting that, in my opinion, "quarrelsome" defines the character of debate on the subject, and many if not most participants, on all sides, consider it acceptable.)
1580:
insure that this page will not be moved. Note to proposer, everyone is anti-abortion, no one is pro-abortion, just like everyone is anti-cancer or anti-falling into a river, or anti-getting run over by a car, but that does not stop people from being in favor of actions that lead to cancer, falling in a river or getting run over (going to the beach, kayaking, and crossing streets). Some people and some countries use abortion as a normal and accepted form of birth control. Some people abhor abortion as if it was some sort of plague, and think that anyone who obtains one is certain to go to someplace not nice. And abortion is one of the most hotly argued topics on
Knowledge (XXG), with editors of both viewpoints participating, until they get out of control and get topic banned.
2238:
non-neutral term", which are obviously part of the question posed in the RFC. In fact "pro-abortion" was the first of the three suggestions you listed for describing "How will we refer to abortion-rights movements in article prose". I suggest that deleting my comment was out of line. I don't think it is a personal attack to say that, and I also don't think my comment itself was out of line (and I was not the first to suggest that some aspect of the RfC submission seemed "to be blunt, quarrelsome"). To me it is very obvious that "pro-abortion" is not a neutral term that could be a reasonable candidate for receiving consensus support for widespread use on
Knowledge (XXG). —
3548:. Pro-choice would be better. Pro-abortion is misleading, it's not like the activists encourage abortion for every pregnancy. Although we should consider what is the most common terminology used in related discourse - and such analysis is totally missing from the RM proposal, which makes mostly pointless from the start. (But such an analysis was done in the previous RM at the top of this page and it confirms the current title is better, although it ommitted the pro-choice variant, which could be considered for another RM I guess - I did not review the archives in case this is a dead horse too).
4218:"the vast majority of abortions", or "all abortions". Most abortion-rights advocates are aware that over 90% of abortions are early, and so shouldn't be restricted; it's very possible that those are what they think of as "abortions". Most of the 3rd trimester the fetus is already viable. If the question had been worded "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, including in the 3rd trimester after viability?", the percent saying "yes" would have been far, far smaller. Only a tiny tiny minority would be in favor of legal 3rd trimester abortion on demand.
2799:. I am only one man, so I do what I can in my corner of the universe, and if I fail, I retreat and regroup, having learned my lesson. I am a good-faith editor, and I would therefore ask everyone, especially my opponents in this long-standing and bitter debate, to put aside our biases for the sake of Knowledge (XXG)'s goals, and evaluate our own actions in light of the letter and spirit of policy. Whatever the outcome of this RFC, I solemnly promise to obey the consensus established herein. Thank you for participating, and God bless.
158:
4104:
next comment below you say the opposite, that is, you repeat the disinformation of the anti-abortion movement to the effect that it does mean supporting abortion up to birth. In reality, even in places like Canada with the most liberal laws it is permitted and expected that the medical profession imposes ethical limits on the circumstances when doctors perform late abortions. My statement that hardly anyone advocates 3rd trimester abortions except in extreme situations is correct.
857:
830:
3203:
goal for this section is to highlight research by
Caitlin Gerdts, PhD, MHS, which evaluates the often unseen burdens for Texas abortion patients who were affected by closures of facilities that closed after House Bill 2 was introduced in 2013. Gerdts, Caitlin, et al. “Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 106, no. 5, 2016, pp. 857–64. Crossref,
1054:
5436:– The hyphenated forms are common enough, and the hyphen provides a valuable cue to the reader. It is common for writers to omit this cue, while assuming that readers will be familiar enough with the topic to avoid the possibly ambiguous parse, but nevertheless, as a kindness to novice readers, it's still a good idea to use the standard affordance that English grammar offers to make the reader's job easier. Or as SarekOfVulcan says, "Hyphen is correct."
142:
982:
961:
5304:
within the discussion that's also something people can do. If you'd like to go ahead and you'd like me to do any of the above for you then you can let me know. As an aside, we should probably press for the clause mentioned above to be removed from the RM close script, particularly if people are adding it inadvertently... Cheers, and apologies if my tone above has seemed a little harsh, I've been a little down all morning so far actually! —
3626:. The proposed term "pro-abortion" is simply a slur against the abortion-rights movement that's used by its opponents. It completely misstates what the movement believes and what it campaigns for. In general, abortions are no less common in countries where women lack abortion rights than in countries where women have reproductive rights. But many women die from unsafe illegal abortions, and that's what the movement wants to stop.
746:
693:
725:
415:
3526:- "abortion-rights" is the term for people who support the RIGHT to have an abortion, and it is the common term because abortion-rights supporters don't say that abortion is a good or desirable thing as the term "pro-abortion" implies; free and available birth control is better and safer and would lead to less abortions, so the movement is now named more accurately based on what they support, which is NOT lots of abortions.---
394:
3669:
425:
756:
242:
516:
495:
4663:
rather than a matter for the woman and her doctor to decide. If something is illegal, it is not a "choice" unless one wants to be considered a criminal. In contrast, "anti-life" as a term for the abortion-rights movement is nothing but a slur. But if other editors like the idea of dropping the "anti-choice" redirect, I have no problem with that. I see no harm in having it and no harm in dropping it.
867:
326:
5181:, I am following your instruction and asking you to do that. There was not a lot of discussion here, and it didn't have any relists, and given that the new name fairly clearly doesn't follow the hyphens guideline, I think reopening for another week is by far the best thing to do. Starting a fresh discussion immediately after the first isn't usual practice. Please could you reconsider? Cheers —
3368:
305:
933:
274:
611:
584:
621:
3664:
5260:
discussion makes no sense to me and does not reflect well on you, trust is an important thing on the project. I don't want to have to take this to move review, that's totally unnecessary here when all is required is a relist. And all the more so when the guideline so clearly doesn't support the close. Please do the relist as you promised. —
2197:
people saying that abortion shouldn't be criminalized and prosecuted as a violation of law. The difference is really rather obvious. The RfC poster said that "pro-choice" is "a biased non-neutral term" for the concept of people being able to choose for themselves whether to have an abortion without facing criminal penalties, but has not said
3607:-- most in the abortion rights movement would be glad for there to never be another abortion, because no one ever again found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy nor at medical risk due to a pregnancy they desired. But until that day is reached, they want abortions to be available for people who find themselves in such situations. --
1951:. The participation here is much too low to support a change on this subject, especially when compared to the participation in the previous abortion discussions. This applies even more if the result is to be binding, as intended by the RfC initiator. As such, the current approach should be maintained until this criterion can be met.
3782:"Pro-abortion" is becoming increasingly common in the abortion debate, as it is a neutral descriptor that is equal in tone to the "anti-abortion" descriptor. Whether you like the phrase or not doesn't change the fact that it is one of the self-styled terms that people within the abortion-rights movement use or are starting to use.
4598:
It's incorrect that "anyone" would, there are people who are very much pro-abortion and have no regard for fetal life, and some who actually fetishize it or celebrate the killing of a child-in-utero. Anti-choice is a broad, ambiguous term that can be interpreted to be a lot of different things. So is
4217:
That's not the way the question was worded. There was no "up until birth" in the wording of the option that 34% voted for; it was asking whether the respondents "think abortions should be legal under any circumstances". It's poorly worded, because it doesn't specify whether it means "most abortions",
4166:
Looking at that whole paragraph, you're repeating the bogus claim of the anti-abortion movement that the abortion-rights movement and even the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade have essentially wanted abortion to be completely unrestricted in 3rd trimester. My statement earlier was that hardly anyone
4103:
Well, "pro-abortion" certainly does not mean that one of the reasons many in the abortion-rights movement support wide availability of contraception and sex education is to reduce the number of abortions. Anyway, after stating that "pro-abortion" doesn't mean you support abortion up to birth, in your
3990:
are symmetrical, one does not need to see them as such to include it as one of the terms in the "self styled" part of the lead sentence. Pro-abortion is equally as contestable to the abortion-rights movement as abolitionism is contestable to the anti-abortion movement. I don't think the clarification
3955:
None of your examples use "pro-abortion" with "movement". Some individuals in the abortion-rights movement feel comfortable using the term about themselves, and some don't. Most abortion-rights advocates are also strongly in favor of legal and readily available contraceptives and sex education in the
3936:
There are numerous people in the abortion-rights movement who not only think and advocate that pro-abortion is the proper and best term for this movement, but also say that the term pro-choice "demonizes women who have abortions." So no, it isn't a term solely used by anti-abortion activists. Just as
3156:
I think the article’s focus is on the “Pro-Choice movement”, when it should be multiple movements, or at least the most prominent two: Pro- Choice movement and Pro-Life movement. I would like to make this article more unbiased and neutral. This would mean changing some word choice. I am hoping to add
3078:
The first known legalization of abortion in the United States was passed by the state of
Connecticut in the year of 1821, where women barred abortions following quickening, usually performed by administering a poisoning to the mother up to four months into her pregnancy. Up to the year of 1856, women
2913:
services. The right to have an abortion, or not, muddled with issues such as: how long in to the pregnancy, under what circumstances, the health of the fetus and the mother, the viability of the fetus out of the womb, and many more, are often complicated, personal, and many times religious issues for
2876:
Well, the first sentence of your proposal is not helping "clear things up". Also, your attempt at making this NPOV has had the reverse effect, you now make it sound like all abortion-rights activists have limits. I agree the existing statement is somewhat weird, but your re-wording has just turned it
2564:
Similarly 'pro-abortion' is very 'loaded', I've never in my life met anyone who thought abortion was a good thing, though I know thousands of people who feel that in some circumstances, it is the right outcome and should not be banned by law. Essentially the debate is between those who feel it should
1486:
this article is not about pro-abortion movements, it is about abortion rights movements. I don't seen anything about eugenics or population control here. And there have been abortion movements based on those stands in the past. "opening access to abortions movements" would work as a different name (a
5195:
That's just something that the closure tool inserted automatically as boilerplate. It's not actually an expression of the person who closed the RM, but rather a creative invention of the closing tool's author. In my opinion, it's not well aligned with
Knowledge (XXG)'s actual guideline on closure of
4643:
Either way, that is irrelevant to the issue at-hand. The phrase "anti-choice" is a completely ambiguous and vague term, meant to be a "gotchya" to the anti-abortion movement. So is the "anti-life" term. There shouldn't be a re-direct to this page from "anti-choice movement." Anti-choice could mean a
3096:
The bias made editing to an NPOV impossible. First sentence became: "In 1821, Connecticut codified a pre-existing common law prohibiting the sale of drugs to those intending to induce abortion with those drugs, becoming the first state to pass a statute criminalizing participation in abortion." That
2995:
In the United States section I added two different paragraphs the first one was “One of the largest protest marches on the nation’s capital and soon after, the high court refused to endorse
Pennsylvania’s new restrictions and left the Roe v. Wade decision intact.” (History.com). Including this shows
2853:
Yes, people take a wide range of positions in the abortion-rights debate; and yes, if you exclude one rather narrow set of positions (those which involve being opposed to abortion rights under **all** circumstances), there are still a lot of positions left. Which means those remaining positions can
2782:
As my good faith has been called into question, I wish to address the misgivings head-on. Yes, I am pro-life, so I have a built-in bias for that side of the argument. No, I have not let my bias influence any of my editing behavior so as to contravene
Knowledge (XXG) policies. On the contrary, I seek
1642:
Believe me, I'm as irritated as you, but however we construct the situation it wouldn't be reasonable to topic-ban StAnselm based on it. Topic bans are extreme measures that cope with prolonged and intractable patterns of disruptive behavior, and even if this incident were much more disruptive than
5303:
the usual process would be to move the pages back to the titles they had before and during the RM, and also to remove the RM close templates from the discussion area and then put a relist template after the nomination statement. If you wanted to leave your previous RM close as a "collapsed" section
4125:
in extreme situations. Roe v. Wade practically guaranteed abortion up to birth, because it said that "states can restrict abortion in the 3rd-trimester so long as there is an exception for health." Health was not clearly defined, and was interpreted to include all forms of health: social, economic,
3967:
are not symmetrical. Members of the latter movement are unambiguously anti-abortion, and someone who's not willing to say that they are "anti-abortion" would not be welcome in that movement. In contrast, you don't have to be willing to call yourself "pro-abortion" in order to be an active member of
3778:
The claim that the only use of the phrase "pro-abortion" is by anti-abortion advocates is false. Pro-abortion does not mean people love abortion, it literally means that you favor its legalization and availability. Just like pro-capital-punishment doesn't mean you love the death penalty, but rather
2860:
So here’s my attempt at NPOV: “Non-absolute positions on abortion rights sometimes take the form of an absolute position with exceptions. For example, a person may support abortion rights in all circumstances except late term abortions, or oppose abortion rights in all circumstances except rape.”
1920:
I think this article was done very well. However, since several countries are brought up I am concerned why all countries aren't mentioned. I think the recent abortion rights movement in Poland should be referenced heavily due to the fact that there is so much going on over there right now with the
1703:
than there ought to be.) This should be the article where we discuss general philosophy behind the position, any forms of activism or historical facts that can be generalized across countries, ..., ... As well, I recommend removing unnecessary information about the legal status of abortion where it
1579:
It is not sufficient to topic ban someone for making a poor suggestion. A simple oppose or support, with reasons is enough, and the discussion will run its course and be closed soon enough. Often RM's are closed with a single support or oppose, and six to one, with valid reasoning, is sufficient to
5259:
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to be blunt here. You made an offer above, when closing this RM. It doesn't really matter whether it was an automated message or whatever, you made that offer under your own name and signature. To withdraw it at this stage, when it's just a simple request to relist the
4957:
states that a hyphen should be used in a compound modifier like "abortion-rights movement" ("abortion rights" by itself should not be hyphenated). However, I see much less need for a hyphen in this formulation with - , as compared to say "anti-abortion movement" where the hyphen is clearly needed.
4662:
No, I don't believe that all opponents of abortion are extremists. There's no reason for you to assume that. The fallacy in what you're saying is that "anti-choice" in the context of abortion is a reasonable term for those who believe that abortion should be illegal or severely restricted by law
4221:
Another issue with the wording of the question is that it's asking only about legality. Someone can be in favor of legality of a practice without being "pro" that practice. Legality just means decriminalizing, it doesn't mean endorsing. In particular, many people (especially in certain places like
4086:
The term "pro-abortion" doesn't mean you love or support abortion up to birth. It means that you generally support the legality and availability of abortion. Just like the term "pro-capital-punishment" doesn't mean you support the death penalty in all cases for everyone, and certainly doesn't mean
3180:
Q: "Should this article's title be pro-life movement?" A: No. Knowledge (XXG) does not use euphemisms. The term "pro-life" is a branding or marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion. The fact that the two sides officially call themselves
2288:
and all parties are proposing different flavors of that, & the arguments are over what the rights are and implementation access. I would recommend caution about the "binding project-wide" though to allow some coverage for quoted lines and article titles, and that the groups are not limited to
2196:
editing to me. The "pro-abortion" characterization is obviously not going to receive consensus support as NPOV terminology on
Knowledge (XXG). The topics in question are not about people encouraging other people to have abortions or saying that abortions are somehow desirable – they are only about
4639:
You seem to consider anyone who is anti-abortion "extremists", so I'm not sure how that is a useful modifier. And furthermore, I am also completely aware and completely agree that there are people in the anti-abortion movement who have outrageous views as well (such as some who hate women or want
3202:
Added a new section to the page titled "Legal Rights" as an overview of recent legislation to change abortion-related healthcare access. I feel it's important to more distinctly document how recent pro-life initiatives have changed the lives of people seeking abortions, especially in America. The
3085:
Full of claims, no citations. "Poisoning" without naming substances used, "women had finally begun to see the hope," entire last sentence all imply strong bias. Last sentence includes conjecture based on a political talking point. Refers to "the official abortion laws" without stating what those
3048:
abortion-rights activism, or the (extraordinary, imo) claim that the protest march you name had an impact on the court's decision, they might be appropriate for the article in a revised form, but since this article is meant to be specifically on abortion-rights movements, not abortion or abortion
2283:
goal of consistency - this gives both a similar style of "pro" prefix and a philosophical point suffix, and more importantly is how they each self-identify. (i.e. the "Pro-Life Journal") Slightly improves conciseness by being shorter. Slightly increases precision too as 'abortion rights' would
4635:
You are making a generalized statement about an entire group of people. I'm very certain that most pro-abortion people don't love abortion, but that doesn't mean there is nobody in the entire world who loves it. There is such thing as abortion addiction, and also there is such thing as "abortion
4120:
Also, numerous states allow abortion up until the moment of birth: Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont. United States abortion laws are similar to Canada and North Korea in that they have no national gestational limits on abortion. So, I
3022:
Yes, the tone of these entries was not encyclopedic. By that I mean that Knowledge (XXG) writing is dispassionate and neutral, and does not attempt to persuade the reader of a particular point of view, for example pro-abortion. The text you added contained several clauses that seemed designed as
2421:, a process that ended an intractable rolling maintenance war that had gone on for years and tied it up with a neat bow. This RFC now proposes to restart that maintenance war for flimsy reasons. The partisans for "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have their propaganda goals catered to in the form of
2948:
I think the new language was harder to parse, but the point about how "pro-life" supporters are also not all absolutists is fair - the question is just about whether or not it's appropriate for the lede of this article. Since this is the article on abortion rights movements, it doesn't seem to
4583:
They're not analogous terms. "Anti-life" is a slur, and anyone in the abortion-rights movement would say that they're very much in favor of protecting the life and wellbeing of the woman, and believe that her life should have priority over that of a zygote, embryo, or fetus. In contrast, the
4067:
Just because it's possible to cherry-pick quotes that use the rhetorical device of calling the whole abortion-rights movement the "pro-abortion movement" -- apparently because they think doing so will reduce "abortion stigma" -- that does not mean that it's correct to refer to "pro-abortion
2643:
there are issues with NPOV, and in this case I would say there are such issues: both the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" have been chosen to depict those movements positively (how you can you be anti-choice? how can you be anti-life?) and there is no reason for us to buy into that process.
2606:
for US articles. No comment on others, since, per previous discussions, life/choice seems to be mainly US terminology. However, care should be given to be consistent. Anti abortion should probably be paired with pro-abortion, and choice with life, unless there is an outstanding reason to do
2237:
I don't see how my comment could be interpreted as having "no content contributing to the two three-part questions posed in the RFC". Five of the six sentences of my comment discussed your suggestion to consider using the term "pro-abortion" and your assertion that "pro-choice" is "a biased
1840:
I honestly don't know what the answer to this question is, but calling this Abortion-rights movements, while we call the Pro-Life counterpart page 'Anti-Abortion movements' seems like we're breaking with NPOV and COMMONNAME, aren't we? Shouldn't they be 'Pro-Life Movements' and 'Pro-Choice'
4535:
Seems very inconsistent and biased to me. The pro-abortion movement uses "pro-choice" as their phrase, and the anti-abortion movement uses "pro-life" as their phrase. So if we are going to re-direct based on the opposite of their preferred phrases (as it seems people have already done with
4280:
It would be ok to use those sources for a statement somewhere in the article like: "Since 2020, some in the movement have been advocating for calling themselves "pro-abortion" as a way to de-stigmatize abortion." But this unless you can find "pro-abortion" being used INTERCHANGEABLY with
2849:
This doesn’t seem NPOV: “Abortion-rights supporters themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be available and to the circumstances, for example different periods in the pregnancy such as late term abortions, in which access may be restricted.”
1813:, not simply on the legal status of abortion in these various countries. How did it come about that abortion was legalized in Iran and Japan (to take the recently added material as an example, though similar issues exist in other sections) - through the efforts of pro-choice advocates?
3757:
I have noticed that there have been attempts to change the article's title to be titled as "Pro-abortion movements," yet it appears there is already a consensus against doing that. This is not a request to change the title of an article, but rather to amend the lead sentence to:
4276:
The sources DocZach has found seem to show (in my opinion) no more than that RECENTLY (2020 and newer), SOME in the Abortion-rights movement support using the term "pro-abortion". This does NOT mean that the MAJORITY of the sources talking about the movement use that term.
3891:
and those who might need abortions in the future. It implies that abortion isn’t a moral good and that while legal abortions are needed, they are somehow bad. As we navigate this tremendously fraught time for abortion access, we are asking you to stand with us and commit to
2000:. This RFC instead asks the question: how can we refer to the movements in article prose? This question is necessary because the status quo has gradually settled on a certain balance and I contend that that status is entirely out of balance, a clear and present violation of
4147:"Anyway, after stating that "pro-abortion" doesn't mean you support abortion up to birth, in your next comment below you say the opposite, that is, you repeat the disinformation of the anti-abortion movement to the effect that it does mean supporting abortion up to birth."
1358:
3092:
Sources contradicted the claims. Dr. "legalization of abortion" Horatio Storer: was an anti-abortion advocate. Colorado, the "liberalize abortion in 1970" state: decriminalized abortion in 1967 (nothing in 1970) and only in cases of rape, incest, or health issues. Etc.
3859:, and contributes to the shame and silence around abortion, making people who’ve had abortions feel isolated and ashamed. At least one in four people who can get pregnant will have an abortion during their lives, and they should be supported and celebrated. It’s time to
1263:. So no, not neutral. And the assertion that this terminology is more common in the global media is, besides not being demonstrated by two cherry-picked links, a febrile, self-serving and transparent lie, as easily demonstrated by actual research, such as that below:
1362:
4706:"No, I don't believe that all opponents of abortion are extremists." Perhaps not, but extremists are setting the various political agendas of the anti-abortion movement. In recent years, they are determined to incarcerate their opponents. See some of the laws in
4071:
One problem with the term is that it doesn't distinguish between different stages of pregnancy, a distinction that was the hallmark of Roe v. Wade. Hardly anyone in the abortion-rights movement is in favor of 3rd-trimester abortion except in extreme situations.
3473:
I disagree that the nomination is violating NPOV. "Pro" and "Anti" are opposite of each other. This new title keeps everything balanced compared to what we have here, and also maintains consistency. "Abortion rights" seem to skew in favor of "Anti-abortion".
2730:
which do not comport with Wikipedians' idea of neutrality. The fact that you oppose the premise, which is "parity for both sides", indicates that you accept the inherent bias of the status quo. And you may well be in the majority opinion. How does that feel?
1360:
3968:
the abortion-rights movement. The fact that all the people you quote are arguing against others in the abortion-rights movement that the term "pro-abortion" is okay is an indication that there's no agreement about that among abortion-rights advocates.
5318:
Ah that seems like a lot of work. To be honest, I've never done such thing before and I don't want to mess anything up. I think it's better if you could do that for me. Thanks and don't worry about that. I hope you have a great rest of your day!
2082:
I suggest that the outcome of this RFC should become binding project-wide so that we have a clear and consistent method of referring to these topics that will not be the subject of constant contention and edit-wars without any clear resolution.
1364:
4198:
I agree with you that most pro-abortion advocates do not support elective abortion up to birth. However, that does not mean "hardly anyone" or "nobody" does. According to Gallup, 30% of Americans support abortion up until birth for any reason
5011:
the move. I agree with Amakuru's reasoning. The hyphen between abortion-rights helps provide context and maintain a NPOV. Excluding the hyphen would suggest that it is widely recognized as a "rights movement" for the same purposes that the
4151:
You completely misread what I said. I was replying to your statement that "hardly anyone is in favor of 3rd-trimester abortion except in extreme situations," I never once said that pro-abortion meant that you support abortion up to birth.
4724:
That's not extremism... That's literally just the standpoint of the anti-abortion movement.. The common belief in the anti-abortion movement is that the abortionist should be charged with murder or a similar crime, and the mother should
4621:. Your outrageous claim that "some" in the abortion-rights movement "fetishize" or "celebrate the killing of a child" mirrors the rhetoric of the extremists in the anti-abortion movement. You're really losing credibility at this point.
4883:
1921:
protests. I also see a lack of religious reference. I think religion has a very big part on the abortion rights views. Because this has such a heavy influence on what people believe, this article should express the severity of that.
4415:
3437:
4126:
mental, physical, financial, spiritual, etc... therefore practically guaranteeing abortion up to birth. Planned Parenthood v. Casey had an even stranger standard of an "undue burden," which had no clear definition whatsoever.
3488:
2857:(One could as easily say, “Abortion-rights opponents themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion services that should be denied and to the circumstances, for example rape, in which access may be allowed.”)
4647:
Both anti-choice and anti-life are biased, POV language that has no place on Knowledge (XXG). Either be consistent with applying those terms equally, or don't apply them as re-directs at all. I am in favor of the latter.
2054:
Therefore, the logic would suggest that "pro-choice", a biased non-neutral term used only by supporters to describe themselves, should be eliminated in order to level the playing field. It is the only way to comply with
2441:
do, it is entirely appropriate to use the generic terminology commonly adopted in the international press. The world is not the United States and the names of the United States abortion advocacy movements are not the
4879:
4167:
is opposed to reasonable 3rd trimester restrictions, although in some places it's common to believe that such restrictions should be imposed by the medical profession rather than by state or provincial legislatures.
135:
2703:
all goals of this RFC for reasons similar to those given by chaos5023. The NPOV goal of Knowledge (XXG) should not be abandoned on some topics because a majority of editors want to push a non-neutral point of view.
2418:
2103:
1985:
2330:. Yes both are "loaded" since they are both "pro" something, but I think they've entered common speech. It's not uncommon for groups on one side to use both terms. Like a brand that has genericised. I don't think
150:
1432:
That is absolute rubbish. You have described my requested move as a "demonization tactic", and called my assertion a "a febrile, self-serving and transparent lie". "Self-serving" is a comment on the contributor.
1376:
more common than the propagandist construction proposed. This POV-pushing nonsense, while nice for a break due to its hilarious self-caricature, does not have any place whatsoever on Knowledge (XXG). The end.
4181:
I never said that the abortion-rights movement wanted it to be completely unrestricted. I did not even say the majority of abortion advocates support it up to birth. What I did say is that it is not true that
2664:"Pro-choice"/"pro-life" are the most common terms so we should use them. Plus, being "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily mean you are "pro-abortion". Many "pro-choice" people actually personally oppose abortion.
4186:
is in favor of elective 3rd trimester abortions. Quite a few are, but I never said it was the majority, or even close to the majority. And in regards to the Supreme Court, I never said that the Supreme Court
4009:"As the struggle for reproductive rights and justice continues in the United States, abortion advocates must continue to document the dangerous strategies used by abortion opponents and learn from the global
702:
594:
3316:
I believe this comes from a belief that consistency is important. I think that the other article should be called the Unborn-rights movement. However a solution that supports consistency is a good idea.
3104:
P.S.: This edit will be my first on Knowledge (XXG). I tried to follow all the applicable policies and procedures. If I made any mistakes, or you have any advice for future edits, please let me know. --
1032:
4121:
would disagree that "hardly anyone" is in favor of the availability of 3rd-trimester abortions. They are still performed to this day, and contrary to popular narrative, the majority are elective and
2791:. When others are edit-warring and bickering over the correct way to do something, I will be the one seeking compromise, collegiality, and resolution to difficult situations. I believe in countering
942:
840:
4644:
wide variety of things, such as "anti the choice to slap someone" or "anti the choice to use drugs" or "anti the choice to get an abortion." And anti-life can mean a wide variety of things as well.
1437:. It is ridiculous to suggest that this does not include comments on people "as editors". If you are so irritated and disgusted can't discuss this topic sensibly and calmly, you should withdraw.
4273:
The way to settle disputes like this (which has strayed WAY off subject) is to follow Knowledge (XXG) policy: we say what Reliable Sources say. (This makes discussions easier and to the point.)
3711:
3940:
Feel free to respond with your thoughts about this proposal. I am very open to compromise and civil discussion so long as the other person demonstrates both respect and civility as well.
1989:
1857:
2215:
Support or opposition for your comment is not why I removed it, but rather that it has no content contributing to the two three-part questions posed in the RFC, only content intended to
1723:
I generally concur, except that I would argue that all of the "movement" articles should be very light on general philosophy, with the bulk of material on the points of debate going in
5389:. I agree with the discussion held at Iwaqarhashmi's talk page, indicating that the title should be in singular rather than plural... However, I don't agree with the original premise.
3442:. While the nom may be correct that consistency is an issue, it is almost certainly the other article that would be moved (though according to the AP, both are at their best titles).
171:
3877:
is Good, Actually! So next time, before trying to distinguish yourself as NOT “pro-abortion,” think about what it would look like if everyone who wanted an abortion could have one.
5661:
2022:
707:
639:
2787:. I have never been sanctioned for POV-pushing, or any other distasteful behavior, and I intend quite earnestly to keep that record as clear as the day I started. I specialize in
5701:
1695:
has been determined to have as its scope the United States and renamed accordingly, there is more general material there that should probably be moved or copied here. (Also from
2252:
After a bit of further thought and side discussion, I accept that this RfC was submitted in good faith. It is hard to keep a cool head on this topic, but I also pledge to try. —
5565:" page has an "s" on the end of "movements" (meaning plural), unlike the title of this page. Also, the lead of this article uses the plural "movements." Why the inconsistency?
4281:"anti-abortion" in a large majority of mainstream sources which refer to the movement, (which we DEFINITELY do not have) than we don't call it that in Wikivoice in the lead.---
3706:
2429:, and this is as much of a bone as they deserve to be thrown and then some. When we are not covering specific, named movements like those, but are discussing these movements
2334:
is accurate at all, since (i) it is only used by pro-life/anti-abortion campaigners, and (most importantly) (ii) it's inaccurate, since pro-choice/abortion-rights groups are
643:
5716:
4222:
Canada and also among doctors) believe that the medical profession and not state or provincial legislatures should decide what medical practices are ethically permissible.
4060:
First, I agree with you that "abolitionist movement" is not a common term the anti-abortion movement uses for itself, and I don't think it belongs in the first sentence of
2472:
Broadly agree with you (mostly for the 'don't open the can of worms' point). I must point out that, yes, the world is not the USA, but "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are used
5666:
2164:
The process has occurred mostly by editing, across a wide range of articles. Sometimes talk page discussions occur but the consensus has always landed on "anti-abortion".
1992:
from 2012. Knowledge (XXG) has never been quite sure how to refer to the abortion activism movements, and currently the article titles are set from a narrow consensus at
3887:"It’s not uncommon for people to say 'I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion.' If you are one of those folks or know someone who is, we know your heart is in the right place.
2037:. Editors simply will not allow anyone or anything to be called "pro-life", whether or not the topic in question clearly transcends anti-abortion, or a preponderance of
5066:
3491:
to get proper ngram viewer results. "Pro-abortion movement" was actually the more common term until around the late 1980s, though it's significantly less common today.
3374:
2686:- Summoned by bot. Both are the more neutral descriptions most commonly used in reliable sources. The alternatives present a negative connotation, which we must avoid.
5405:, just to name a couple. And style decisions are often cited as being exempt from WP:COMMONNAME. As such, I think the page is correctly titled as it stands. Cheers —
4044:
1022:
44:
3695:
2587:
What do you "oppose"? You do realize that currently, "pro-choice" is in widespread usage here? Do you oppose its usage? What would you suggest as a replacement term?
1504:, analysis of the reliable independent secondary sources shows prevalence of term usage as current title of the page, therefore should not be moved, but redirects to
566:
5721:
2573:. I endorse what is said by Chaos5023, present terms seem straightforward, neutral, easily understood and accurate, while many of the proffered alternatives do not.
2063:
bias which would be indicated by the way that the pro-abortion position is given the largesse to self-identify while pro-life is not. So the questions before us are:
5656:
5020:
are. However, to do so would be uncalled for, as the abortion-rights movement is about preserving access to a procedure, not for protecting a specific population.
4191:
abortion to be unrestricted in the 3rd trimester, I'm saying that was the practical outcome because they failed to precisely define what "health" really meant in
4878:. No other rights movement uses the hyphenated version of the title (e.g. civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc.) on Knowledge (XXG). Google Books shows
2644:"abortion-rights" is a precise descriptor, because that movement advocates for the option, not for the use of abortion: "anti-abortion" is also precise, because
5706:
5636:
556:
184:
4710:: "Performing an abortion is a Class A felony with up to 99 years in prison, and attempted abortion is a Class C felony punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison"
998:
923:
79:
5510:'s comments persuasive. I think "movements" refers to each country, versus United States "movement", but this isn't sufficient to meet one of the criteria at
3181:"pro-life" and "pro-choice" is not a reason for Knowledge (XXG) to prefer those terms, since neither is neutral, nor accurately describes their positions. ---
3991:
word "movement" is necessary to understand that if someone is saying they are a pro-abortion activist, then they are clearly part of a pro-abortion movement.
5711:
4615:
very much in favor of protecting the life and wellbeing of the woman, and believe that her life should have priority over that of a zygote, embryo, or fetus
812:
683:
376:
1184:– This is a new article, discussing the abortion debate globally, rather just in the USA. The problem is what the title should be. The American article is
3855:
to people who’ve had abortions. It implies that abortion isn’t a good thing, that legal abortion is important but somehow bad, undesirable. That’s deeply
3802:
supporting the belief that women should have the right to have an abortion (= the intentional ending of a pregnancy) if they need or want one. (Cambridge)
3712:
https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/lleida/20210304/6263553/entidades-tarrega-critican-obispo-solsona-califique-aborto-genocidio-crimen-abominable.amp.html
2142:(Yes, quarrelsome seems to define the character of debate. Equally so.) Was this a decision as part of an RfC? Or are you identifying a systemic process?
1643:
it is (it's a waste of all our time and stress-management capacity, but we're big kids, we can handle it), it wouldn't demonstrate a pattern of anything.
5696:
5641:
4707:
1331:
913:
4536:"anti-choice movements" re-directing to the anti-abortion article), then wouldn't it make sense to add an "anti-life movements" re-direct here as well?
2102:
I think the better solution is to use the commonplace terms that have been widely agreed in the US: pro-life/pro-choice. I have to agree with TParis in
532:
5570:
5369:
has given permission for me to vacate that close and relist this discussion, which I am now doing. I will add a !vote under my name shortly. Cheers —
4780:
5681:
5651:
5606:
3157:
data that is more up to date and include the most common arguments of both movements. Therefore, I would create two sections: one for each movement.
1335:
802:
673:
366:
4301:
classifier in the anti-abortion article. Very little in the anti-abortion movement use that label, and it is way less common than "pro-abortion" is.
1704:
does not serve as context for the activities of pro-choice/abortion rights groups. There are other articles on the legality of abortion by country. –
2826:
Right to choose redirects here, but probably deserves its own article for Euthanasia, Abortion and other "choices" wrapped up together, similar to
989:
966:
85:
5671:
213:
889:
477:
1333:
5686:
5631:
5611:
4887:
4862:
2033:, a holdout from the Great Renaming in which cats were mostly moved to "anti-abortion", which is the current status quo term for the so-called
1668:. It is inconceivable that anyone could seriously think this to be a neutral descriptor. Many abortion-rights advocates are anti-abortion.
778:
648:
342:
5059:. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the
3818:
Here are numerous examples of the use and promotion of the term "pro-abortion" by numerous organizations within the abortion-rights movement:
3707:
https://www.elespectador.com/judicial/ministerio-de-salud-retira-concepto-que-equiparaba-al-aborto-con-el-genocidio-article/%3foutputType=amp
1566:
1337:
1304:
523:
500:
5621:
5393:
tells us that in general we should hyphenate compound modifiers, to ease understanding and avoid confusion between <Abortion rights: -->
4784:
4397:
3569:
Pro-choice is just the term used by supporters. It would only be acceptable to move it to pro choice is anti abortion is moved to pro life
3261:
2030:
467:
30:
1308:
4818:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
3349:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
5691:
3479:
3464:
3419:
3390:
3306:
3011:
1879:
1842:
1488:
5676:
5646:
5601:
4203:). That isn't "hardly anyone," that's a fairly large group of people, and a fairly common viewpoint - despite not being the majority.
3105:
2919:
2862:
2726:
on Knowledge (XXG) dictates what is and what is not regarded as "neutral", as does the everyday negative evaluation and sidelining of
1629:
1251:
Unbelievable. So, yeah, okay. Describing movements in support of legal access to abortion as "pro-abortion" -- that is, in favor of
2128:
I only suggest that it be purged because it has been decreed that "pro-life" be purged as well, and I find that equally quarrelsome.
1188:, but "pro-choice" seems to be an American euphemism. The most neutral and global title seems to be "pro-abortion". For example, see
880:
835:
99:
5626:
4775:? It's certainly the exception, but they could be considered "anti-(human) life" and are often pro-abortion rights for that reason.
4045:
https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-march-in-london-in-support-of-woman-jailed-for-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-limit-12904463
2426:
1692:
1306:
1185:
5574:
4043:, and highlighted British abortion law which states that in the majority of cases, after 24-weeks abortion is a criminal offence."
3696:
https://elpais.com/sociedad/2023-03-26/el-giro-de-bukele-con-el-aborto-de-defenderlo-a-calificarlo-de-genocidio.html?outputType=amp
2918:
individuals alike. Worldwide, abortion-rights issues are historically controversial. In the US, many rights stem from the landmark
2722:. NPOV is whatever the community says it is. It is routinely overridden, such as in the case that brought me to open this RFC. The
769:
730:
634:
589:
333:
310:
104:
20:
3863:
the phrase “pro-choice, not pro-abortion” for good. So what can someone say instead of just “pro-choice”? You can absolutely say
1059:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
5278:: Okay, but I have a question. How can I relist the discussion when the page is already moved? Can you please help me with that?
4903:
4034:
3440:
3221:
3177:
1310:
1115:
1097:
74:
3668:
3058:
2958:
2784:
2422:
1901:
1869:
1826:
1766:
1713:
1536:
1414:
I note the lack of specificity, which makes sense given that all my extremely irritated and disgusted language is reserved for
1079:
4640:
control). I acknowledge that these groups of people are the minority in each movement, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
285:
259:
249:
5197:
3475:
3460:
3415:
3302:
3298:
1443:
1401:
1218:
3929:
descriptor, a quite rare and minority stance and term within the anti-abortion movement, then why not be consistent for the
2556:'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are both essentially 'marketing' slogans and not neutral, their use may be widespread in the US
65:
5422:
move. Hyphen is correct, and the timing and results of the various countries' movements should be considered separately. --
4599:
anti-life. So it only makes sense to either have both re-directs, or have neither. Both are "slurs" in their own meanings.
1978:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5616:
5552:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5534:
4974:
3645:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2817:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1728:
1682:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1189:
191:
2796:
5566:
4840:
4776:
3999:"But now it’s really about the LGBTQ community as well, and how it affects trans men. That was just absent in the older
3097:
sentence, while informative, doesn't belong in "Abortion-rights movement" category. Other edits follow a similar vein.
2151:
2115:
4809:
3982:
There's not an agreement in the anti-abortion movement either for the use of "abolitionist." Whilst I personally think
3340:
438:
399:
4490:
3086:
laws were. Unclear what "liberalize abortion" means, also what it means to be "named the first state" to do it. Etc.
2854:
be described as “divided”. But using that terminology makes abortion-rights supporters sound particularly fractious.
2201:
that term is biased or non-neutral. This RfC just seems like a way to provoke contentious discussion and waste time. —
1732:
5479:
2280:
1527:. Of course not - what a ridiculous time-wasting proposal to destroy accuracy and make WP into a propaganda engine. –
3232:
I'm not sure what the section title is meant to indicate. The entire article is virtually all about legal rights.
4584:
anti-abortion movement sometimes does mock the notion of choice with slogans such as "It's a child, Not a choice!"
3701:
2783:
to balance Knowledge (XXG) and uphold its policies and guidelines to the best of my ability, and I always have, in
208:
109:
5586:
4851:
4531:
Why does "anti-choice" re-direct to the anti-abortion article, but "anti-life" doesn't re-direct to this article?
3930:
3401:
2438:
1993:
1175:
1111:
4464:
4440:
4333:
I'm not familiar with that article, and if that article has problems, that is irrelevant to this discussion. ---
2350:(I think both are too biased to be considered BTW). I'm not really sure what this RFC is about, since I've seen
1739:" situation where each of the two "opposed" articles winds up becoming a polemic for the position of its topic.
1193:
222:
198:
5498:
5452:
5385:
5223:
4832:
2189:
2155:
2119:
2014:
1570:
126:
24:
5456:, for the same reason as Amakuru pointed out. The hyphen is fine, but generally we avoid plural titles as per
4891:
4819:
3350:
3265:
291:
3690:
1753:
That's a good point. Would you agree though that covering abortion-rights movements does ask that we include
5581:
5562:
5515:
5423:
4836:
4061:
3922:
3655:
3411:
3385:
3173:
3109:
3007:
2866:
2709:
2434:
2034:
1997:
1883:
1846:
1633:
1553:
1492:
1205:
442:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
4950:
4875:
4617:" is a fair statement of what the entire abortion-rights movement believes, and that's why I used the word
3674:
3209:
2999:
2980:
2526:
2500:
2451:
2443:
2391:
2327:
2276:
2193:
5402:
5327:
5286:
5242:
5219:
5160:
5078:
4935:
3593:
3574:
3217:
2608:
1093:
1075:
3812:
do these dictionaries say that it is a derogatory or hurtful term that only anti-abortion activists use.
3775:, advocate for the right to have legal access to induced abortion services including elective abortion.
1616:
55:
5487:
5205:
5017:
3380:
3322:
2653:
2529:
is not applicable to these terms where article titling is concerned; the higher standard articulated in
2394:
is not applicable to these terms where article titling is concerned; the higher standard articulated in
2373:
2306:
2257:
2243:
2206:
1926:
1161:
997:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
888:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
777:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
531:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
341:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
177:
5475:
4931:
4416:"What's wrong with choice?: Why we need to go beyond choice language when we're talking about abortion"
4317:
Agreed, as per our earlier discussion. I've removed "abolitionist" from that article's first sentence.
2792:
2759:
2723:
2530:
2522:
2455:
2395:
2387:
2060:
1809:
I see I've posted about this before, but we should be making an effort to keep this article focused on
1612:
1240:
70:
4024:
2302:
4899:
4668:
4626:
4589:
4356:
4322:
4227:
4172:
4109:
4077:
3973:
3799:
in favor of the availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy. (Oxford)
3631:
3612:
3260:
Hey the anti-abortion movement article is called anti abortion so shouldnt this be opposite of that?
3213:
2767:
2691:
2508:
2223:. It is on these grounds that I objected to it and duly issued a warning template to your talk page.
5056:
4373:
4200:
3432:- This must be an April Fool's Joke just two weeks late, right? The proposed move actually violates
2755:
2518:
2383:
1736:
1624:
1247:
we have over-the-top POV pushing on the international articles refactored as a result? We couldn't
273:
4696:
4560:
4340:
4288:
3902:"I believe that abortion care is a positive social good—and I think it’s time people said so. I am
3742:
3724:
3663:
3533:
3450:
3288:
3245:
3188:
3054:
3028:
2954:
2804:
2736:
2592:
2538:
2463:
2403:
2228:
2192:
article, in which the organization's position was characterized as "pro-abortion", seems like mere
2169:
2133:
2088:
1897:
1865:
1822:
1790:
1762:
1744:
1709:
1648:
1532:
1464:
1423:
1382:
1200:
for even suggesting such a title. But the evidence suggests "pro-abortion" is both the most common
5511:
5457:
5179:"If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion"
4822:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3353:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3023:
persuasive, and overall the writing was not appropriate for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Thanks.
2447:
1204:
the most neutral designation. It also corresponds to the companion article also created recently,
5441:
4715:
3039:
3003:
2705:
2578:
2485:
2359:
2018:
1549:
1447:
1405:
1222:
227:
5397:. This guideline is generally applied even where not all reliable sources do so, for example in
5060:
4004:
1944:
1620:
1456:
4747:
for informing me of what and where RfD is, and I'll probably propose something there later on.
3436:, rather than maintaining it. "Pro-abortion" is used in absolutely no results in google ngrams
1775:
Yeah, absolutely. I envision something like the usual Knowledge (XXG) "summary section with a
5526:
5461:
5410:
5374:
5366:
5320:
5309:
5298:
5279:
5265:
5254:
5235:
5186:
5172:
5153:
5143:
5133:
5122:
5117:
point 3 - "To link related terms in compound modifiers". The hyphens are necessary. Cheers —
5113:
please can I take up your offer of a relist from above? The proposed names do not comply with
5108:
5071:
5029:
4966:
4919:
4752:
4743:
Nevertheless, this isn't a place to debate abortion or the movements around it. I appreciate @
4734:
4653:
4604:
4574:
4541:
4306:
4245:
4208:
4157:
4131:
4092:
4051:
4035:
https://abortionrights.org.uk/the-panuelo-verde-joy-and-solidarity-in-pro-abortion-organising/
3945:
3589:
3570:
3558:
3496:
2938:
2887:
2477:
1961:
856:
829:
51:
4686:
3459:
I saw a possible consensus with the discussion right on top of this move. It's why I did it.
3433:
3363:
2056:
2001:
1256:
1153:
165:
5483:
5227:
5201:
4995:
3956:
schools, and many of them would say that part of the reason is to make abortion less common.
3318:
3162:
2835:
2672:
2649:
2369:
2253:
2239:
2202:
2147:
2111:
1922:
1606:
1585:
1157:
224:
4678:
3071:
Breaks Every Policy, Guideline We Have. Tried Editing To Compliance, Couldn't. Deleting It.
2719:
2368:
I inserted a "" above, since the context seems to imply that it was accidentally omitted. —
2220:
2216:
1434:
1255:
rather than against having the option forcibly taken away -- is a spectacular violation of
5398:
4895:
4664:
4622:
4585:
4352:
4318:
4223:
4168:
4141:
4105:
4073:
3969:
3735:
3627:
3608:
2763:
2687:
2504:
1724:
1696:
994:
761:
626:
4014:
3588:
to Pro-abortion movements, but I think Pro-abortion rights movements is the best option.
3113:
2788:
2727:
2046:
2038:
1260:
1196:
in mainstream media outlets in Australia. Unfortunately, the article creator has already
3937:
anti-abortion isn't a term solely used by pro-abortion (aka abortion rights) activists.
2562:(who after all could be anti-life or anti-choice except in relation to specific issues?)
5013:
4744:
4691:
4556:
4335:
4283:
4195:, opening up any abortion ban later in pregnancy to persistent litigation and lawsuits.
3738:
3720:
3659:
3528:
3513:
3446:
3284:
3241:
3183:
3050:
3024:
2950:
2800:
2732:
2588:
2560:, but at best they are 'shorthand', each term attempts to demonise the other position,
2534:
2459:
2399:
2224:
2165:
2129:
2084:
1893:
1861:
1818:
1786:
1758:
1740:
1705:
1644:
1528:
1515:
1460:
1419:
1378:
872:
4682:
2458:
must be applied. Leave the situation alone. No good will come of tampering with it.
2042:
981:
960:
755:
745:
724:
5595:
5437:
4711:
4029:"The pañuelo verde is a lasting testament to the joy and inventiveness of the global
2915:
2827:
2574:
2481:
2355:
2298:
2294:
1856:
Getting to the current names took an unbelievably long discussion-consensus process:
1779:
1669:
1438:
1396:
1213:
5542:
5491:
5466:
5445:
5428:
5414:
5378:
5332:
5313:
5291:
5269:
5247:
5209:
5190:
5165:
5147:
5126:
5083:
5033:
4999:
4982:
4939:
4844:
4756:
4738:
4719:
4699:
4672:
4657:
4630:
4608:
4593:
4578:
4564:
4545:
4360:
4343:
4326:
4310:
4291:
4249:
4231:
4212:
4176:
4161:
4135:
4113:
4096:
4081:
4055:
3977:
3949:
3746:
3728:
3678:
3635:
3616:
3597:
3578:
3564:
3536:
3516:
3500:
3483:
3468:
3454:
3423:
3395:
3326:
3310:
3292:
3269:
3249:
3225:
3191:
3166:
3062:
3032:
3015:
2962:
2942:
2891:
2870:
2839:
2808:
2771:
2740:
2713:
2695:
2676:
2657:
2619:
2596:
2582:
2542:
2512:
2489:
2467:
2407:
2377:
2363:
2310:
2261:
2247:
2232:
2210:
2173:
2159:
2137:
2123:
2092:
1966:
1930:
1905:
1887:
1873:
1850:
1830:
1794:
1770:
1748:
1717:
1672:
1652:
1637:
1589:
1574:
1557:
1540:
1519:
1496:
1468:
1451:
1427:
1409:
1386:
1226:
1165:
241:
226:
5521:
5507:
5406:
5370:
5305:
5275:
5261:
5215:
5182:
5139:
5118:
5025:
4961:
4915:
4772:
4748:
4730:
4649:
4600:
4570:
4537:
4302:
4241:
4204:
4153:
4127:
4088:
4047:
3941:
3554:
3492:
2929:
2906:
2878:
1952:
692:
528:
4949:. I believe the need to have consistent punctuation across Knowledge (XXG) trumps
414:
393:
5365:- per the discussion in the collapsed section immediately above this, the closer
5178:
4685:(what they are and why they exist); neutrality doesn't matter for redirects, see
3933:
article and include pro-abortion as one of the self-styled descriptors as well?
2639:, as it is my belief that we should avoid POVish terminology. COMMONNAME applies
1602:
4991:
3702:
https://academic.oup.com/sp/article-abstract/14/1/126/2259045?redirectedFrom=PDF
3158:
2924:
2831:
2668:
2143:
2107:
1581:
424:
1757:
discussion of their reasoning, even if the main debate is in another article? –
5503:
5390:
5114:
4954:
4510:
2290:
2010:
2009:
What is the current status quo? Abortion-rights movements are referred to as "
1878:
Ahh, I see. I assumed that there's been one of those, so thanks for the link!
1259:, designed as political propaganda, a demonization tactic that is anathema to
866:
862:
751:
616:
515:
494:
430:
420:
325:
304:
4033:
and I will be wearing mine with pride this International Safe Abortion Day."
3906:
like I’m pro–knee replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro–cataract surgery."
3176:. 2) As far as naming goes, this has been dicsussed extensively: Please see
2569:
all circumstances and those who feel it is the right of the mother to decide
4552:
4068:
movement" as a term the abortion-rights movement commonly uses about itself.
4023:
is about busting stigma and spreading joy, all new members receive a gift."
1510:
932:
885:
4894:
search shows almost unanimous use of "abortion rights" without the hyphen.
3204:
3691:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684239?journalCode=signs
3172:
Thanks for contributing! 1) The "pro-life" movements has its own article:
3831:, pro-sexual & reproductive rights candidates in the 2022 elections!"
2910:
2026:
774:
338:
253:
125:
3414:. Also maintains neutral point of view. What are your thoughts on this?
3141:
3049:
access generally, they would not be appropriate in their current form. –
2981:
https://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/abortion-rights-faqs.html
2419:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage
2104:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage
1986:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage
5460:, and this topic doesn't appear to meet the exceptions laid out there.
5200:, which included both myself and Waqar objecting to what it says. —
4511:"Ready to take your activism to the next level? — Shout Your Abortion"
2454:
is irrelevant to a situation like this because the higher standard in
1603:
It is not sufficient to topic ban someone for making a poor suggestion
2285:
5198:
User talk:TheTVExpert/rmCloser#User:BilledMammal/rmCloserExpanded.js
3995:
Either way, here are examples of "pro-abortion movement" being used:
3100:
This paragraph doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG). I'm deleting it.
4990:. this is a minor change of punctuation that is uncontroversial...
4240:. That's how the word is defined, and that's what the word means.
4025:
https://abortionfunds.org/get-involved/become-an-individual-member/
610:
583:
5152:
I think a new RM should be opened to discuss this matter further.
4886:
are at least 10x more common than their counterparts, and a quick
4201:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
3658:
have the blue lock but this doesn't? Both are controversial, no?
3142:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Abortion_in_Colorado#Legislative_history
2949:
require a similar statement about the other side to balance it. –
2476:
in the Anglosphere outside the USA. (e.g. in Ireland we have the
1691:
I've posted about this on that article's talk page, but now that
5478:. Once noticed, the plural makes me wonder if it's some kind of
4441:"Destigmatizing Abortion: Being Pro-Abortion is Good, Actually!"
3130:
2077:(a) anti-abortion (b) pro-life (c) opposition to abortion rights
2069:
How will we refer to abortion-rights movements in article prose?
646:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at
3779:
that you support it in certain circumstances as a punishment.
3753:
Add pro-abortion as one of the self-styled phrases in the lead.
3198:
Adding "Legal Rights" as a section to Abortion-rights movements
1548:- and really surprised, StAnselm is usually a sensible editor.
141:
4236:
If you are in favor of the legality of abortion, then you are
2075:
How will we refer to anti-abortion movements in article prose?
2041:
describe the topic as "pro-life", which would seem to violate
1048:
443:
267:
236:
228:
15:
4005:
https://prospect.org/justice/the-new-pro-abortion-generation/
1372:
As we can see, the language the current title is based on is
638:, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the
3044:
if you were able to source statements that eg. Ms. Y's case
1990:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Abortion article titles
1858:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Abortion article titles
931:
691:
4491:"Why I Am Pro-Abortion, Not Just Pro-Choice | Free Inquiry"
3889:
But this framing is hurtful to people who’ve had abortions
5138:(sorry, trying again as pings seem to be not working) —
4677:
The proper place for discussing removal of a redirect is
2517:
As was thoroughly established in debate in the course of
2382:
As was thoroughly established in debate in the course of
149:
4003:, and something that the younger generation has added."
252:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
5231:
4867:
4856:
4013:
to develop strategies that will restore these rights."
3851:,” as in, I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion. But that’s
3805:
favoring the legalization of abortion (Merriam-Webster)
3406:
2417:
all goals of this RFC. I was the primary organizer of
2185:
1197:
1180:
1107:
1089:
1071:
4064:. Should I remove it, and see if other editors object?
4015:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10098009/
3847:"Well-meaning folks often contrast “pro-choice” with “
2023:
Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States
5580:
Try reading back about ten lines before your post. --
5218:: There was a lot of discussion regarding this RM on
3837:"It’s 100% fine to support abortion — be proud to be
5502:. I was previously unsure about the hyphen, despite
5177:
I don't understand... Your close above clearly says
4374:""Proud Abortion Rights Voter" Social Media Toolkit"
3256:
Suggestion to change tittle to pro-abortion movement
1141:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
993:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
884:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
773:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
527:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
337:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2071:(a) pro-abortion (b) pro-choice (c) abortion rights
2004:
and an affront to the supporters of both movements.
197:
5518:should be moved to the singular form in parallel.
2289:just the abortion topic -- pro-life would include
2845:Explanation for change to last sentence of intro
2342:people being able to choose an abortion. If the
2324:, but would lean towards "pro-choice"/"pro-life"
1817:is what's in the scope of the article, really. –
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
5230:for bringing this issue up, here's the link to
3075:First Paragraph Under Heading "United States":
1156:and the obvious POV issues with this title. --
642:and that biomedical information in any article
5057:uncontested request with minimal participation
3410:– This new title maintains a consistency with
5662:Low-importance reproductive medicine articles
5226:after consensus. Having said that, thanks to
5196:RMs. See the discussion of that "feature" at
4551:There's already a disambiguation page called
2648:movement advocates against abortion, period.
1144:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
640:Manual of Style for medicine-related articles
157:
8:
5702:B-Class social movements task force articles
3912:"We’ve cultivated a robust and very active
2100:pro-life/pro-choice for US-centric articles
5093:
5044:Initial close, now vacated due to a relist
5039:
4835:; consensus against removing the hyphen.
4808:The following is a closed discussion of a
4708:Abortion law in the United States by state
4636:parties" and "abortion cakes," look it up.
4530:
3925:article... If we are going to include the
3672:
3667:
3662:
3339:The following is a closed discussion of a
2997:
2795:, but I reject the idea that I am here to
1735:and so on. This helps avoid the "dueling
1435:Comment on content, not on the contributor
1007:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women's Health
955:
824:
719:
578:
489:
388:
299:
5667:Reproductive medicine task force articles
4555:, which includes a link to this article.
4351:I think we can conclude this discussion.
1249:take a break from that for an entire day?
1243:with a sensible and balanced result, and
1190:Pro-abortion activists rally in Argentina
649:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Medicine
3205:https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303134
2002:Knowledge (XXG)'s core neutrality policy
1687:Expanding (and some contracting) article
1416:your actions as a Knowledge (XXG) editor
1266:
541:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Human rights
4365:
3734:Ended up adding the word "genocide" to
3716:Should it be mentioned in the article?
3131:https://en.wikipedia.org/Horatio_Storer
3123:
2973:
957:
826:
721:
580:
491:
390:
301:
271:
5717:Mid-importance women's health articles
5657:B-Class reproductive medicine articles
4868:United States abortion rights movement
4863:United States abortion-rights movement
4614:
2354:being used on wikipedia articles. ____
1699:, although there's also less material
3685:Some critics say abortion is genocide
3555:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
2184:The submission of this RfC, like the
1565:and permanently topic-ban the nom. --
1261:everything Knowledge (XXG) stands for
898:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Sociology
183:
7:
5707:Social movements task force articles
5637:Mid-importance Human rights articles
5051:The result of the move request was:
4827:The result of the move request was:
4465:"Why We All Need to Be Pro-Abortion"
3358:The result of the move request was:
2450:perspective, and even if they were,
2346:is to be considered, then so should
2031:Category:American pro-life activists
1974:The following discussion is closed.
1239:managed to, against all odds, close
1135:The following discussion is closed.
987:This article is within the scope of
878:This article is within the scope of
787:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics
767:This article is within the scope of
703:the Reproductive medicine task force
658:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Medicine
632:This article is within the scope of
521:This article is within the scope of
436:This article is within the scope of
351:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Abortion
331:This article is within the scope of
5722:WikiProject Women's Health articles
2627:This one is rather complicated. In
2284:literally be about a legal framing
1010:Template:WikiProject Women's Health
446:and the subjects encompassed by it.
290:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
5098:Discussion following initial close
2059:if we are to avoid accusations of
1625:aggressively and openly push a POV
14:
5697:Mid-importance sociology articles
5642:WikiProject Human rights articles
4569:That doesn't answer my question.
3827:"Show that you're ready to elect
2718:Ah, but that is the very crux of
2427:United States pro-choice movement
1936:RFC: parity for abortion activism
1693:United States pro-choice movement
1186:United States pro-choice movement
544:Template:WikiProject Human rights
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
5682:Mid-importance politics articles
5652:Low-importance medicine articles
5607:Mid-importance Abortion articles
5548:The discussion above is closed.
3641:The discussion above is closed.
3439:, and barely appears in trends.
3366:
3178:Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ
2813:The discussion above is closed.
1678:The discussion above is closed.
1052:
980:
959:
865:
855:
828:
754:
744:
723:
644:use high-quality medical sources
619:
609:
582:
514:
493:
423:
413:
392:
324:
303:
272:
240:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
5712:B-Class women's health articles
4729:receive any criminal penalty.
4420:www.plannedparenthoodaction.org
4378:www.plannedparenthoodaction.org
4087:you "like" the death penalty.
2922:decision allowing abortions in
2785:my nearly-nine-year career here
2423:United States pro-life movement
2316:I'm not opposed to the current
1027:This article has been rated as
943:the social movements task force
918:This article has been rated as
807:This article has been rated as
678:This article has been rated as
561:This article has been rated as
472:This article has been rated as
452:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law
371:This article has been rated as
256:, which is a contentious topic.
5672:All WikiProject Medicine pages
5587:20:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
5575:20:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
5482:to imply a lack of unity. —
4906:) 14:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
4785:20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
3885:Whole Woman's Health Alliance:
3790:is widely defined by reliable
3375:closed by non-admin page mover
3192:03:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
3167:23:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
2822:Right to choose redirects here
2188:the submitter just did to the
1393:leave off the personal attacks
901:Template:WikiProject Sociology
1:
5687:WikiProject Politics articles
5632:B-Class Human rights articles
5612:WikiProject Abortion articles
5567:Knowledge (XXG)'s Biggest Fan
5561:It's a minor thing, but the "
5543:21:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
5492:20:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
5467:18:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
5034:19:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
4922:) 08:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
4845:03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
4801:Requested move 13 August 2024
4777:Knowledge (XXG)'s Biggest Fan
4489:kreidler, Marc (2016-07-08).
4469:Whole Woman’s Health Alliance
4039:"The case has galvanised the
3921:Finally, in reference to the
3879:Why wouldn’t you be pro- that
3070:
3063:23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
3033:03:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
3016:03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
2897:How about a whole new lead: "
2809:04:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2696:16:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
2677:00:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
2658:05:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
2543:19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
2490:16:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2468:16:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2408:19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
2378:15:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2364:10:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2311:03:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2279:and these better support the
2262:08:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2248:05:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2233:04:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2211:02:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
2174:23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
2160:23:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
2138:23:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
2124:23:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
2093:21:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
1943:Responding to the request at
1795:04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
1771:04:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
1749:03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
1729:Abortion in the United States
1718:03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
1673:18:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
1653:15:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
1638:07:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
1611:turning right around after a
1590:06:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
1575:04:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
1558:11:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
1541:03:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
1520:17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1497:07:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1469:06:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1452:06:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1428:06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1410:06:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1387:05:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1227:05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1166:07:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
1001:and see a list of open tasks.
940:This article is supported by
892:and see a list of open tasks.
790:Template:WikiProject Politics
781:and see a list of open tasks.
700:This article is supported by
661:Template:WikiProject Medicine
535:and see a list of open tasks.
354:Template:WikiProject Abortion
345:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
3871:National Women's Law Center:
3679:16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
3332:Requested move 17 April 2023
3301:. Feel free to participate.
2620:13:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
2597:23:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
2583:22:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
2571:(in many/most circumstances)
2513:05:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
1967:23:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
1931:20:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
1906:07:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
1888:21:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1874:17:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1851:14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1785:crossreference" convention.
1418:, not yourself as a person.
1233:Strongest conceivable oppose
5622:Mid-importance law articles
5446:03:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
5429:15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5415:09:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5379:08:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5333:08:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5314:08:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5292:08:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5270:07:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5248:07:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5210:06:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5191:06:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5166:17:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
5148:17:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
5127:17:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
5084:14:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
5000:16:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
4983:19:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
4940:11:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
4445:National Women's Law Center
3114:06:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
2772:18:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
2741:21:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
2714:15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
2446:for these movements from a
2293:; pro-choice would include
1733:Ethical aspects of abortion
5738:
5692:B-Class sociology articles
4884:"abortion rights movement"
4361:06:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
4344:05:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
4327:06:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
4311:01:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
4292:22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4250:01:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
4232:22:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4213:20:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4177:17:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4162:16:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4136:04:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4114:09:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4097:04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4082:04:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
4056:03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
3978:03:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
3950:00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
3689:As seen in these sources:
3636:00:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
3617:22:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
3598:22:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
3579:22:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
3565:03:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
3537:23:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
3517:12:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
3501:17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
3489:You need to add the hyphen
3484:03:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
3469:03:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
3455:01:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
3424:21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
3396:00:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
3327:14:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
3311:21:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
2728:reliable secondary sources
990:WikiProject Women's Health
924:project's importance scale
813:project's importance scale
684:project's importance scale
567:project's importance scale
478:project's importance scale
377:project's importance scale
5677:B-Class politics articles
5647:B-Class medicine articles
5602:B-Class Abortion articles
4857:Abortion rights movements
4852:Abortion-rights movements
4757:11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
4739:11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
4720:21:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
4700:20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
4681:. Also you should read:
4673:08:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
4658:07:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
4631:21:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
4609:20:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
4594:01:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
4579:01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
4565:16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
4546:16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
4439:jadehurley (2021-05-28).
4297:The same is true for the
3931:abortion-rights movements
3762:Abortion-rights movements
3747:04:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
3729:04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
3476:Wikiexplorationandhelping
3461:Wikiexplorationandhelping
3430:Strongest possible oppose
3416:Wikiexplorationandhelping
3402:Abortion-rights movements
3303:Wikiexplorationandhelping
3293:14:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
3270:10:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
3250:23:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
3226:23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
2899:Abortion-rights movements
2840:08:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
2497:Pro-life & pro-choice
2439:Abortion-rights movements
1994:Abortion-rights movements
1272:Abortion-rights movement
1176:Abortion-rights movements
1112:Abortion rights movements
1108:Abortion-rights movements
1090:Abortion-rights movements
1072:Abortion-rights movements
1070:, 11 November 2012, from
1026:
975:
939:
917:
850:
806:
739:
699:
677:
604:
560:
509:
471:
408:
370:
319:
298:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
5627:WikiProject Law articles
5550:Please do not modify it.
5499:Abortion-rights movement
5453:Abortion-rights movement
5396:<rights movement: -->
5386:Abortion-rights movement
5224:Abortion rights movement
4833:Abortion-rights movement
4815:Please do not modify it.
4613:AFAIK the words I used "
3650:Protection inconsistency
3643:Please do not modify it.
3346:Please do not modify it.
2963:19:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
2943:14:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
2892:13:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
2871:02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
2815:Please do not modify it.
2190:NARAL Pro-Choice America
2015:NARAL Pro-Choice America
1976:Please do not modify it.
1831:16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
1680:Please do not modify it.
1607:Making a poor suggestion
1546:Oppose, and speedy close
1508:are cheap. :) Cheers, —
1194:Pro-abortion group fined
1138:Please do not modify it.
524:WikiProject Human rights
455:Template:WikiProject Law
25:Abortion-rights movement
5563:Anti-abortion movements
5516:Anti-abortion movements
4062:Anti-abortion movements
3923:anti-abortion movements
3656:Anti-abortion movements
3412:Anti-abortion movements
3174:Anti-abortion movements
2720:consensus-based editing
2435:Anti-abortion movements
2433:, as the list articles
2035:anti-abortion movements
1998:Anti-abortion movements
1212:"pro-life movements").
1206:Anti-abortion movements
1148:Closed as consensus to
1106:, 13 August 2024, from
1013:women's health articles
5514:in my judgement. Also
5403:African-American music
5222:, and it was moved to
3927:abolitionist movements
3794:in the following ways:
3764:, also self-styled as
3407:Pro-abortion movements
2901:, also referred to as
1487:descriptive name). --
1278:Pro-abortion movement
1198:attacked me personally
1181:Pro-abortion movements
1094:Pro-abortion movements
1088:, 17 April 2023, from
1076:Pro-abortion movements
936:
696:
280:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
5018:civil rights movement
4515:shoutyourabortion.com
4041:pro-abortion movement
4031:pro-abortion movement
4021:pro-abortion movement
4011:pro-abortion movement
4001:pro-abortion movement
3275:How do you figure?
3152:Possible Improvements
935:
881:WikiProject Sociology
695:
547:Human rights articles
284:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
123:Find medical sources:
100:Neutral point of view
5617:B-Class law articles
5583:SarekOfVulcan (talk)
5425:SarekOfVulcan (talk)
5395:vs <Abortion: -->
3299:requested move below
3089:I tried to edit it.
2914:abortion-rights and
2903:pro-choice movements
1343:Google News Archive
770:WikiProject Politics
635:WikiProject Medicine
334:WikiProject Abortion
105:No original research
5014:gay rights movement
3845:Planned Parenthood:
3835:Planned Parenthood:
3825:Planned Parenthood:
3444:Obvious snow close.
2797:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
2684:Pro-choice/pro-life
2338:abortion, they are
2273:pro-choice/pro-life
2219:, my goals, and my
262:and edit carefully.
258:Please consult the
5061:technical requests
4837:Extraordinary Writ
4402:Planned Parenthood
3910:ShoutYourAbortion:
3894:being pro-abortion
2909:access to induced
2789:dispute resolution
2778:Statement of faith
2025:. The only place "
2019:Planned Parenthood
1977:
937:
904:sociology articles
697:
286:content assessment
250:contentious topics
129:
86:dispute resolution
47:
5557:Title Consistency
5480:WP:EDITORIALIZING
5394:<movement: -->
5363:Relisting comment
5358:
5357:
5090:
5089:
5070:
5067:non-admin closure
4942:
4923:
4880:"abortion rights"
4398:"Abortion Stigma"
3900:Secular Humanism:
3681:
3512:seriously what!?—
3378:
3362:Closed early per
3297:I have started a
3283:
3240:
3212:comment added by
3018:
3002:comment added by
2750:and stick to the
2667:
2666:Summoned by bot.
2533:must be applied.
2478:Pro Life Campaign
2398:must be applied.
2281:WP:NAMINGCRITERIA
1975:
1892:You're welcome! –
1369:
1368:
1235:. Seriously, we
1124:
1123:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1038:
954:
953:
950:
949:
823:
822:
819:
818:
793:politics articles
718:
717:
714:
713:
664:medicine articles
577:
576:
573:
572:
488:
487:
484:
483:
387:
386:
383:
382:
357:Abortion articles
266:
265:
235:
234:
128:Source guidelines
127:
66:Assume good faith
43:
5729:
5584:
5539:
5531:
5524:
5464:
5426:
5330:
5324:
5302:
5289:
5283:
5258:
5245:
5239:
5180:
5176:
5163:
5157:
5137:
5112:
5094:
5081:
5075:
5064:
5040:
4979:
4971:
4964:
4924:
4907:
4870:
4859:
4817:
4694:
4525:
4524:
4522:
4521:
4507:
4501:
4500:
4498:
4497:
4486:
4480:
4479:
4477:
4476:
4461:
4455:
4454:
4452:
4451:
4436:
4430:
4429:
4427:
4426:
4412:
4406:
4405:
4394:
4388:
4387:
4385:
4384:
4370:
4338:
4286:
3671:
3666:
3561:
3531:
3409:
3393:
3388:
3383:
3372:
3370:
3369:
3348:
3276:
3233:
3228:
3186:
3144:
3139:
3133:
3128:
3043:
2983:
2978:
2665:
2617:
2614:
2611:
1947:: the result is
1784:
1778:
1604:
1275:Abortion-rights
1267:
1183:
1140:
1056:
1055:
1049:
1033:importance scale
1015:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1005:
984:
977:
976:
971:
963:
956:
906:
905:
902:
899:
896:
875:
870:
869:
859:
852:
851:
846:
843:
841:Social Movements
832:
825:
795:
794:
791:
788:
785:
764:
759:
758:
748:
741:
740:
735:
727:
720:
666:
665:
662:
659:
656:
629:
624:
623:
622:
613:
606:
605:
600:
597:
586:
579:
549:
548:
545:
542:
539:
518:
511:
510:
505:
497:
490:
460:
459:
456:
453:
450:
433:
428:
427:
417:
410:
409:
404:
396:
389:
359:
358:
355:
352:
349:
328:
321:
320:
315:
307:
300:
283:
277:
276:
268:
244:
237:
229:
202:
201:
187:
161:
153:
145:
131:
95:Article policies
16:
5737:
5736:
5732:
5731:
5730:
5728:
5727:
5726:
5592:
5591:
5582:
5559:
5554:
5553:
5538:
5535:
5530:
5527:
5519:
5462:
5424:
5399:Box-office bomb
5359:
5328:
5322:
5296:
5287:
5281:
5252:
5243:
5237:
5170:
5161:
5155:
5131:
5106:
5099:
5091:
5079:
5073:
5045:
4978:
4975:
4970:
4967:
4959:
4866:
4855:
4813:
4803:
4692:
4533:
4528:
4519:
4517:
4509:
4508:
4504:
4495:
4493:
4488:
4487:
4483:
4474:
4472:
4463:
4462:
4458:
4449:
4447:
4438:
4437:
4433:
4424:
4422:
4414:
4413:
4409:
4396:
4395:
4391:
4382:
4380:
4372:
4371:
4367:
4336:
4284:
3755:
3736:Abortion debate
3687:
3652:
3647:
3646:
3563:
3559:
3529:
3405:
3391:
3386:
3381:
3367:
3364:snowball clause
3344:
3334:
3282:
3258:
3239:
3207:
3200:
3184:
3154:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3140:
3136:
3129:
3125:
3073:
3037:
2993:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2979:
2975:
2905:, advocate for
2847:
2824:
2819:
2818:
2780:
2701:Strongly oppose
2633:abortion-rights
2615:
2612:
2609:
2604:Pro-life/choice
2558:(less so in UK)
2552:any change and
2415:Strongly oppose
2318:abortion-rights
1980:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1938:
1918:
1838:
1807:
1782:
1776:
1725:Abortion debate
1697:Abortion debate
1689:
1684:
1683:
1567:213.196.209.251
1506:this page title
1316:Google Scholar
1253:abortion itself
1179:
1173:
1136:
1129:
1053:
1012:
1009:
1006:
1003:
1002:
969:
903:
900:
897:
894:
893:
871:
864:
844:
838:
792:
789:
786:
783:
782:
762:Politics portal
760:
753:
733:
663:
660:
657:
654:
653:
627:Medicine portal
625:
620:
618:
598:
592:
546:
543:
540:
537:
536:
503:
457:
454:
451:
448:
447:
439:WikiProject Law
429:
422:
402:
356:
353:
350:
347:
346:
313:
281:
231:
230:
225:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
5735:
5733:
5725:
5724:
5719:
5714:
5709:
5704:
5699:
5694:
5689:
5684:
5679:
5674:
5669:
5664:
5659:
5654:
5649:
5644:
5639:
5634:
5629:
5624:
5619:
5614:
5609:
5604:
5594:
5593:
5590:
5589:
5558:
5555:
5547:
5546:
5545:
5536:
5528:
5494:
5469:
5448:
5431:
5417:
5381:
5356:
5355:
5354:
5353:
5352:
5351:
5350:
5349:
5348:
5347:
5346:
5345:
5344:
5343:
5342:
5341:
5340:
5339:
5338:
5337:
5336:
5335:
5232:the discussion
5101:
5100:
5097:
5092:
5088:
5087:
5047:
5046:
5043:
5038:
5037:
5036:
5023:
5022:
5021:
5003:
5002:
4985:
4976:
4968:
4888:Google Scholar
4872:
4871:
4860:
4848:
4825:
4824:
4810:requested move
4804:
4802:
4799:
4798:
4797:
4796:
4795:
4794:
4793:
4792:
4791:
4790:
4789:
4788:
4787:
4773:anti-natalists
4769:
4768:
4767:
4766:
4765:
4764:
4763:
4762:
4761:
4760:
4759:
4675:
4645:
4641:
4637:
4532:
4529:
4527:
4526:
4502:
4481:
4456:
4431:
4407:
4389:
4364:
4349:
4348:
4347:
4346:
4331:
4330:
4329:
4271:
4270:
4269:
4268:
4267:
4266:
4265:
4264:
4263:
4262:
4261:
4260:
4259:
4258:
4257:
4256:
4255:
4254:
4253:
4252:
4219:
4196:
4149:
4144:
4118:
4117:
4116:
4069:
4065:
4037:
4027:
4017:
4007:
3997:
3992:
3957:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3907:
3897:
3882:
3868:
3842:
3832:
3814:
3807:
3806:
3803:
3800:
3784:
3754:
3751:
3750:
3749:
3719:
3700:
3686:
3683:
3677:comment added
3651:
3648:
3640:
3639:
3638:
3620:
3619:
3601:
3600:
3583:
3582:
3581:
3553:
3551:
3550:
3549:
3540:
3539:
3520:
3519:
3506:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3486:
3471:
3399:
3356:
3355:
3341:requested move
3335:
3333:
3330:
3314:
3313:
3295:
3277:
3262:86.114.249.202
3257:
3254:
3253:
3252:
3234:
3199:
3196:
3195:
3194:
3153:
3150:
3146:
3145:
3134:
3122:
3121:
3117:
3103:
3072:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3066:
3065:
2992:
2989:
2985:
2984:
2972:
2971:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2895:
2894:
2846:
2843:
2823:
2820:
2812:
2779:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2698:
2680:
2679:
2661:
2660:
2631:, I would say
2622:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2444:WP:COMMONNAMEs
2412:
2411:
2410:
2380:
2344:"pro-abortion"
2313:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2096:
2095:
2079:
2078:
2072:
2065:
2064:
2051:
2050:
2029:" survives is
2013:" for example
2006:
2005:
1981:
1972:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1937:
1934:
1917:
1916:Article Review
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1837:
1834:
1806:
1805:Maintain focus
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1688:
1685:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1560:
1543:
1522:
1499:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1367:
1366:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1339:
1329:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1245:within 8 hours
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1131:
1130:
1128:
1127:Requested move
1125:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1101:
1083:
1057:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1029:Mid-importance
1025:
1019:
1018:
1016:
1004:Women's Health
999:the discussion
995:Women's Health
985:
973:
972:
970:Mid‑importance
967:Women's Health
964:
952:
951:
948:
947:
938:
928:
927:
920:Mid-importance
916:
910:
909:
907:
890:the discussion
877:
876:
873:Society portal
860:
848:
847:
845:Mid‑importance
833:
821:
820:
817:
816:
809:Mid-importance
805:
799:
798:
796:
779:the discussion
766:
765:
749:
737:
736:
734:Mid‑importance
728:
716:
715:
712:
711:
708:Low-importance
698:
688:
687:
680:Low-importance
676:
670:
669:
667:
631:
630:
614:
602:
601:
599:Low‑importance
587:
575:
574:
571:
570:
563:Mid-importance
559:
553:
552:
550:
533:the discussion
519:
507:
506:
504:Mid‑importance
498:
486:
485:
482:
481:
474:Mid-importance
470:
464:
463:
461:
435:
434:
418:
406:
405:
403:Mid‑importance
397:
385:
384:
381:
380:
373:Mid-importance
369:
363:
362:
360:
343:the discussion
329:
317:
316:
314:Mid‑importance
308:
296:
295:
289:
278:
264:
263:
245:
233:
232:
223:
221:
220:
217:
216:
204:
203:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5734:
5723:
5720:
5718:
5715:
5713:
5710:
5708:
5705:
5703:
5700:
5698:
5695:
5693:
5690:
5688:
5685:
5683:
5680:
5678:
5675:
5673:
5670:
5668:
5665:
5663:
5660:
5658:
5655:
5653:
5650:
5648:
5645:
5643:
5640:
5638:
5635:
5633:
5630:
5628:
5625:
5623:
5620:
5618:
5615:
5613:
5610:
5608:
5605:
5603:
5600:
5599:
5597:
5588:
5585:
5579:
5578:
5577:
5576:
5572:
5568:
5564:
5556:
5551:
5544:
5540:
5532:
5523:
5517:
5513:
5509:
5505:
5501:
5500:
5495:
5493:
5489:
5485:
5481:
5477:
5473:
5470:
5468:
5465:
5459:
5455:
5454:
5449:
5447:
5443:
5439:
5435:
5432:
5430:
5427:
5421:
5418:
5416:
5412:
5408:
5404:
5400:
5392:
5388:
5387:
5382:
5380:
5376:
5372:
5368:
5364:
5361:
5360:
5334:
5331:
5326:
5325:
5317:
5316:
5315:
5311:
5307:
5300:
5295:
5294:
5293:
5290:
5285:
5284:
5277:
5273:
5272:
5271:
5267:
5263:
5256:
5251:
5250:
5249:
5246:
5241:
5240:
5233:
5229:
5225:
5221:
5217:
5213:
5212:
5211:
5207:
5203:
5199:
5194:
5193:
5192:
5188:
5184:
5174:
5169:
5168:
5167:
5164:
5159:
5158:
5151:
5150:
5149:
5145:
5141:
5135:
5130:
5129:
5128:
5124:
5120:
5116:
5110:
5105:
5104:
5103:
5102:
5096:
5095:
5086:
5085:
5082:
5077:
5076:
5068:
5062:
5058:
5054:
5049:
5048:
5042:
5041:
5035:
5031:
5027:
5024:
5019:
5015:
5010:
5007:
5006:
5005:
5004:
5001:
4997:
4993:
4989:
4986:
4984:
4980:
4972:
4963:
4956:
4952:
4951:WP:COMMONNAME
4948:
4945:
4944:
4943:
4941:
4937:
4933:
4930:
4929:
4921:
4917:
4913:
4912:
4905:
4901:
4897:
4893:
4889:
4885:
4881:
4877:
4876:WP:COMMONNAME
4869:
4864:
4861:
4858:
4853:
4850:
4849:
4847:
4846:
4842:
4838:
4834:
4830:
4823:
4821:
4816:
4811:
4806:
4805:
4800:
4786:
4782:
4778:
4774:
4770:
4758:
4754:
4750:
4746:
4742:
4741:
4740:
4736:
4732:
4728:
4723:
4722:
4721:
4717:
4713:
4709:
4705:
4704:
4703:
4702:
4701:
4698:
4697:
4695:
4688:
4684:
4680:
4676:
4674:
4670:
4666:
4661:
4660:
4659:
4655:
4651:
4646:
4642:
4638:
4634:
4633:
4632:
4628:
4624:
4620:
4616:
4612:
4611:
4610:
4606:
4602:
4597:
4596:
4595:
4591:
4587:
4582:
4581:
4580:
4576:
4572:
4568:
4567:
4566:
4562:
4558:
4554:
4550:
4549:
4548:
4547:
4543:
4539:
4516:
4512:
4506:
4503:
4492:
4485:
4482:
4470:
4466:
4460:
4457:
4446:
4442:
4435:
4432:
4421:
4417:
4411:
4408:
4403:
4399:
4393:
4390:
4379:
4375:
4369:
4366:
4363:
4362:
4358:
4354:
4345:
4342:
4341:
4339:
4332:
4328:
4324:
4320:
4316:
4315:
4314:
4313:
4312:
4308:
4304:
4300:
4299:abolitionists
4296:
4295:
4294:
4293:
4290:
4289:
4287:
4278:
4274:
4251:
4247:
4243:
4239:
4235:
4234:
4233:
4229:
4225:
4220:
4216:
4215:
4214:
4210:
4206:
4202:
4197:
4194:
4190:
4185:
4184:hardly anyone
4180:
4179:
4178:
4174:
4170:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4159:
4155:
4150:
4148:
4145:
4143:
4139:
4138:
4137:
4133:
4129:
4124:
4119:
4115:
4111:
4107:
4102:
4101:
4100:
4099:
4098:
4094:
4090:
4085:
4084:
4083:
4079:
4075:
4070:
4066:
4063:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4053:
4049:
4046:
4042:
4038:
4036:
4032:
4028:
4026:
4022:
4019:"Because our
4018:
4016:
4012:
4008:
4006:
4002:
3998:
3996:
3993:
3989:
3988:anti-abortion
3985:
3981:
3980:
3979:
3975:
3971:
3966:
3965:anti-abortion
3962:
3958:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3951:
3947:
3943:
3938:
3934:
3932:
3928:
3924:
3915:
3911:
3908:
3905:
3901:
3898:
3895:
3890:
3886:
3883:
3880:
3876:
3872:
3869:
3866:
3862:
3858:
3854:
3850:
3846:
3843:
3840:
3836:
3833:
3830:
3826:
3823:
3822:
3821:
3820:
3819:
3813:
3811:
3804:
3801:
3798:
3797:
3796:
3795:
3793:
3789:
3783:
3780:
3776:
3774:
3771:
3767:
3763:
3759:
3752:
3748:
3744:
3740:
3737:
3733:
3732:
3731:
3730:
3726:
3722:
3717:
3714:
3713:
3709:
3708:
3704:
3703:
3698:
3697:
3693:
3692:
3684:
3682:
3680:
3676:
3670:
3665:
3661:
3657:
3649:
3644:
3637:
3633:
3629:
3625:
3622:
3621:
3618:
3614:
3610:
3606:
3603:
3602:
3599:
3595:
3591:
3587:
3584:
3580:
3576:
3572:
3568:
3567:
3566:
3562:
3556:
3552:
3547:
3544:
3543:
3542:
3541:
3538:
3535:
3534:
3532:
3525:
3522:
3521:
3518:
3515:
3511:
3508:
3507:
3502:
3498:
3494:
3490:
3487:
3485:
3481:
3477:
3472:
3470:
3466:
3462:
3458:
3457:
3456:
3452:
3448:
3445:
3441:
3438:
3435:
3431:
3428:
3427:
3426:
3425:
3421:
3417:
3413:
3408:
3403:
3398:
3397:
3394:
3389:
3384:
3376:
3365:
3361:
3354:
3352:
3347:
3342:
3337:
3336:
3331:
3329:
3328:
3324:
3320:
3312:
3308:
3304:
3300:
3296:
3294:
3290:
3286:
3280:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3267:
3263:
3255:
3251:
3247:
3243:
3237:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3227:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3211:
3206:
3197:
3193:
3190:
3189:
3187:
3179:
3175:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3168:
3164:
3160:
3151:
3143:
3138:
3135:
3132:
3127:
3124:
3120:
3116:
3115:
3111:
3107:
3101:
3098:
3094:
3090:
3087:
3083:
3080:
3076:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3052:
3047:
3041:
3040:Devshreebhatt
3036:
3035:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3021:
3020:
3019:
3017:
3013:
3009:
3005:
3004:Devshreebhatt
3001:
2991:Added changes
2990:
2982:
2977:
2974:
2970:
2964:
2960:
2956:
2952:
2947:
2946:
2945:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2935:
2932:
2927:
2926:
2921:
2920:Supreme Court
2917:
2916:anti-abortion
2912:
2908:
2904:
2900:
2893:
2889:
2885:
2884:
2881:
2877:on its head.
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2868:
2864:
2858:
2855:
2851:
2844:
2842:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2828:Right to life
2821:
2816:
2811:
2810:
2806:
2802:
2798:
2794:
2793:systemic bias
2790:
2786:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2729:
2725:
2724:systemic bias
2721:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2711:
2707:
2706:Gouncbeatduke
2702:
2699:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2682:
2681:
2678:
2674:
2670:
2663:
2662:
2659:
2655:
2651:
2647:
2642:
2638:
2637:anti-abortion
2634:
2630:
2626:
2623:
2621:
2618:
2605:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2590:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2565:be banned in
2563:
2559:
2555:
2551:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2527:WP:COMMONNAME
2524:
2520:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2501:WP:COMMONNAME
2498:
2495:
2491:
2487:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2452:WP:COMMONNAME
2449:
2445:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2392:WP:COMMONNAME
2389:
2385:
2381:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2348:"anti-choice"
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2328:WP:COMMONNAME
2325:
2323:
2322:anti-abortion
2319:
2314:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2299:Birth control
2296:
2295:Sex education
2292:
2287:
2282:
2278:
2277:WP:COMMONNAME
2274:
2271:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2098:
2097:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2081:
2080:
2076:
2073:
2070:
2067:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2053:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1979:
1968:
1965:
1963:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1950:
1946:
1935:
1933:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1915:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1880:72.224.172.14
1877:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1843:72.224.172.14
1835:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1804:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1781:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1686:
1681:
1674:
1671:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1609:"? How about
1608:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1550:In ictu oculi
1547:
1544:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1507:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1489:70.24.186.245
1485:
1482:
1481:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1442:
1441:
1436:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1365:
1363:
1361:
1359:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1334:
1332:
1330:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1309:
1307:
1305:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1289:Google Books
1288:
1287:
1283:
1281:Pro-abortion
1280:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1268:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1133:
1132:
1126:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:Discussions:
1058:
1051:
1050:
1034:
1030:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
986:
983:
979:
978:
974:
968:
965:
962:
958:
945:
944:
934:
930:
929:
925:
921:
915:
912:
911:
908:
891:
887:
883:
882:
874:
868:
863:
861:
858:
854:
853:
849:
842:
837:
834:
831:
827:
814:
810:
804:
801:
800:
797:
780:
776:
772:
771:
763:
757:
752:
750:
747:
743:
742:
738:
732:
729:
726:
722:
709:
706:(assessed as
705:
704:
694:
690:
689:
685:
681:
675:
672:
671:
668:
651:
650:
645:
641:
637:
636:
628:
617:
615:
612:
608:
607:
603:
596:
591:
588:
585:
581:
568:
564:
558:
555:
554:
551:
534:
530:
526:
525:
520:
517:
513:
512:
508:
502:
499:
496:
492:
479:
475:
469:
466:
465:
462:
445:
441:
440:
432:
426:
421:
419:
416:
412:
411:
407:
401:
398:
395:
391:
378:
374:
368:
365:
364:
361:
344:
340:
336:
335:
330:
327:
323:
322:
318:
312:
309:
306:
302:
297:
293:
287:
279:
275:
270:
269:
261:
257:
255:
251:
246:
243:
239:
238:
219:
218:
215:
212:
210:
206:
205:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
172:ScienceDirect
170:
167:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
134:
130:
124:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
5560:
5549:
5506:, but found
5496:
5471:
5450:
5433:
5419:
5383:
5367:Iwaqarhashmi
5362:
5321:
5299:Iwaqarhashmi
5280:
5255:Iwaqarhashmi
5236:
5220:my talk page
5173:Iwaqarhashmi
5154:
5134:Iwaqarhashmi
5109:Iwaqarhashmi
5072:
5055:Moved as an
5052:
5050:
5008:
4987:
4946:
4932:BilledMammal
4927:
4926:
4910:
4909:
4873:
4828:
4826:
4814:
4807:
4726:
4690:
4618:
4534:
4518:. Retrieved
4514:
4505:
4494:. Retrieved
4484:
4473:. Retrieved
4471:. 2021-10-26
4468:
4459:
4448:. Retrieved
4444:
4434:
4423:. Retrieved
4419:
4410:
4401:
4392:
4381:. Retrieved
4377:
4368:
4350:
4334:
4298:
4282:
4279:
4275:
4272:
4238:pro-abortion
4237:
4192:
4188:
4183:
4146:
4122:
4040:
4030:
4020:
4010:
4000:
3994:
3987:
3984:pro-abortion
3983:
3964:
3961:pro-abortion
3960:
3959:The uses of
3939:
3935:
3926:
3920:
3914:pro-abortion
3913:
3909:
3904:pro-abortion
3903:
3899:
3893:
3888:
3884:
3878:
3875:Pro-Abortion
3874:
3870:
3865:pro-abortion
3864:
3860:
3857:stigmatizing
3856:
3852:
3849:pro-abortion
3848:
3844:
3839:pro-abortion
3838:
3834:
3829:pro-abortion
3828:
3824:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3809:
3808:
3792:dictionaries
3791:
3788:Pro-abortion
3787:
3786:
3785:
3781:
3777:
3772:
3770:pro-abortion
3769:
3765:
3761:
3760:
3756:
3718:
3715:
3710:
3705:
3699:
3694:
3688:
3673:— Preceding
3653:
3642:
3623:
3604:
3590:PalauanReich
3585:
3571:PalauanReich
3545:
3527:
3523:
3509:
3443:
3429:
3400:
3359:
3357:
3345:
3338:
3315:
3278:
3259:
3235:
3208:— Preceding
3201:
3182:
3155:
3137:
3126:
3118:
3106:24.217.32.13
3102:
3099:
3095:
3091:
3088:
3084:
3081:
3077:
3074:
3045:
2998:— Preceding
2994:
2976:
2968:
2933:
2930:
2923:
2902:
2898:
2896:
2882:
2879:
2863:97.115.71.30
2859:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2830:. Thoughts?
2825:
2814:
2781:
2751:
2747:
2700:
2683:
2645:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2603:
2570:
2566:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2496:
2473:
2430:
2414:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2332:pro-abortion
2331:
2321:
2317:
2315:
2272:
2217:disparage me
2198:
2099:
2074:
2068:
1984:Background:
1973:
1959:
1954:
1953:
1949:no consensus
1948:
1919:
1839:
1814:
1810:
1808:
1754:
1700:
1690:
1679:
1665:
1630:87.79.47.181
1621:make a point
1613:grueling RFC
1610:
1562:
1545:
1524:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1483:
1439:
1415:
1397:
1392:
1373:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1236:
1232:
1214:
1209:
1201:
1174:
1149:
1143:
1137:
1134:
1103:
1085:
1067:
1061:
1060:
1028:
988:
941:
919:
879:
808:
768:
701:
679:
647:
633:
595:Reproductive
562:
538:Human rights
529:Human rights
522:
501:Human rights
473:
458:law articles
437:
372:
332:
292:WikiProjects
247:
207:
194:
188:
180:
174:
168:
162:
154:
146:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
5484:BarrelProof
5476:WP:SINGULAR
5228:BarrelProof
5202:BarrelProof
4820:move review
4771:What about
4193:Roe v. Wade
3916:community."
3609:Nat Gertler
3351:move review
3319:Cookiegator
2925:Roe v. Wade
2760:WP:RFC/AAMC
2607:otherwise.
2531:WP:POVTITLE
2523:WP:RFC/AAMC
2456:WP:POVTITLE
2431:in abstract
2396:WP:POVTITLE
2388:WP:RFC/AAMC
2370:BarrelProof
2303:Markbassett
2254:BarrelProof
2240:BarrelProof
2203:BarrelProof
2061:WP:SYSTEMIC
1923:Ttayloranne
1841:Movements?
1241:WP:RFC/AAMC
1158:Eraserhead1
444:legal field
31:not a forum
5596:Categories
5504:MOS:HYPHEN
5391:MOS:HYPHEN
5115:MOS:HYPHEN
4955:MOS:HYPHEN
4928:Relisting.
4911:Relisting.
4896:PassedDown
4665:NightHeron
4623:NightHeron
4586:NightHeron
4520:2024-03-30
4496:2024-03-30
4475:2024-03-30
4450:2024-03-30
4425:2024-03-30
4383:2024-03-30
4353:NightHeron
4319:NightHeron
4224:NightHeron
4169:NightHeron
4142:NightHeron
4106:NightHeron
4074:NightHeron
3970:NightHeron
3766:pro-choice
3628:NightHeron
3560:reply here
3392:(contribs)
3360:not moved.
3214:Psyche-D40
3119:References
2969:References
2764:Bondegezou
2756:WP:RFC/AAT
2752:status quo
2688:Meatsgains
2535:—chaos5023
2519:WP:RFC/AAT
2505:Instaurare
2460:—chaos5023
2400:—chaos5023
2384:WP:RFC/AAT
2352:"pro life"
2291:Euthanasia
2221:good faith
2194:tenditious
2011:pro-choice
1836:Name NPOV?
1787:—chaos5023
1741:—chaos5023
1645:—chaos5023
1461:—chaos5023
1420:—chaos5023
1379:—chaos5023
1374:five times
1116:discussion
1098:discussion
1080:discussion
431:Law portal
260:procedures
5512:WP:PLURAL
5458:WP:PLURAL
4745:Avatar317
4693:Avatar317
4557:Toughpigs
4553:Anti-life
4337:Avatar317
4285:Avatar317
3773:movements
3739:Pancho507
3721:Pancho507
3654:Why does
3530:Avatar317
3514:blindlynx
3447:Estar8806
3285:Willondon
3242:Willondon
3185:Avatar317
3051:Roscelese
3025:Elizium23
2951:Roscelese
2928:(1973)."
2801:Elizium23
2733:Elizium23
2650:Vanamonde
2589:Elizium23
2567:(almost?)
2448:WP:GLOBAL
2225:Elizium23
2166:Elizium23
2130:Elizium23
2085:Elizium23
1894:Roscelese
1862:Roscelese
1819:Roscelese
1811:movements
1759:Roscelese
1706:Roscelese
1617:forumshop
1529:Roscelese
1086:Not moved
1068:Not moved
895:Sociology
886:sociology
836:Sociology
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
5497:Move to
5472:Singular
5451:Move to
5438:Dicklyon
5384:Move to
4904:contribs
4712:Dimadick
3382:Material
3222:contribs
3210:unsigned
3059:contribs
3012:contribs
3000:unsigned
2959:contribs
2911:abortion
2669:Prcc27🎃
2575:Pincrete
2482:Ebelular
2356:Ebelular
2186:the edit
2152:contribs
2116:contribs
2027:pro-life
1945:WP:ANRFC
1902:contribs
1870:contribs
1827:contribs
1767:contribs
1737:POVFORKs
1714:contribs
1537:contribs
1457:WP:SPADE
1391:Please,
1295:233,000
1284:Sources
1150:not move
784:Politics
775:politics
731:Politics
655:Medicine
590:Medicine
348:Abortion
339:Abortion
311:Abortion
254:abortion
209:Archives
178:Springer
143:Cochrane
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
5522:CWenger
5508:Amakuru
5463:ASUKITE
5407:Amakuru
5371:Amakuru
5306:Amakuru
5276:Amakuru
5262:Amakuru
5216:Amakuru
5183:Amakuru
5140:Amakuru
5119:Amakuru
5026:DocZach
4988:Support
4962:CWenger
4947:Neutral
4916:Amakuru
4749:DocZach
4731:DocZach
4687:WP:POFR
4650:DocZach
4601:DocZach
4571:DocZach
4538:DocZach
4303:DocZach
4242:DocZach
4205:DocZach
4154:DocZach
4128:DocZach
4089:DocZach
4048:DocZach
3942:DocZach
3873:"Being
3853:hurtful
3810:Nowhere
3675:undated
3493:Colin M
3434:WP:NPOV
3046:spurred
2629:general
2625:Comment
2610:Timothy
2554:Comment
2480:). ____
2326:as per
2057:WP:NPOV
1955:Sunrise
1623:and to
1349:10,900
1322:21,100
1301:50,900
1292:11,000
1257:WP:NPOV
1154:WP:SNOW
1152:as per
1031:on the
922:on the
811:on the
682:on the
565:on the
476:on the
375:on the
282:B-class
5434:Oppose
5420:Oppose
5063:page.
5053:moved.
5009:Oppose
4992:Jorahm
4953:, and
4892:Pubmed
4874:– Per
4679:WP:RfD
4619:anyone
4189:wanted
3861:retire
3660:G'year
3624:Oppose
3605:Oppose
3586:Oppose
3546:Oppose
3524:Oppose
3510:oppose
3279:signed
3236:signed
3159:Zen916
2832:L32007
2748:Oppose
2641:unless
2613:Joseph
2550:Oppose
2286:Rights
2275:- for
2144:int21h
2108:int21h
1670:Powers
1666:Oppose
1582:Apteva
1563:Oppose
1525:Oppose
1502:Oppose
1484:Oppose
1444:Anselm
1402:Anselm
1355:2,100
1328:4,880
1298:2,540
1219:Anselm
1114:, see
1096:, see
1078:, see
288:scale.
166:OpenMD
136:PubMed
5323:Waqar
5282:Waqar
5238:Waqar
5156:Waqar
5074:Waqar
4829:moved
3387:Works
2907:legal
2474:a lot
2156:email
2120:email
2047:WP:OR
2039:WP:RS
1701:there
1164:: -->
1104:Moved
192:Wiley
84:Seek
5571:talk
5488:talk
5474:per
5442:talk
5411:talk
5401:and
5375:talk
5310:talk
5266:talk
5206:talk
5187:talk
5144:talk
5123:talk
5030:talk
5016:and
4996:talk
4936:talk
4920:talk
4900:talk
4890:and
4882:and
4841:talk
4781:talk
4753:talk
4735:talk
4716:talk
4683:WP:R
4669:talk
4654:talk
4627:talk
4605:talk
4590:talk
4575:talk
4561:talk
4542:talk
4357:talk
4323:talk
4307:talk
4246:talk
4228:talk
4209:talk
4173:talk
4158:talk
4132:talk
4110:talk
4093:talk
4078:talk
4052:talk
3986:and
3974:talk
3963:and
3946:talk
3743:talk
3725:talk
3632:talk
3613:talk
3594:talk
3575:talk
3497:talk
3480:talk
3465:talk
3451:talk
3420:talk
3323:talk
3307:talk
3289:talk
3266:talk
3246:talk
3218:talk
3163:talk
3110:talk
3082:???
3055:talk
3029:talk
3008:talk
2955:talk
2939:Talk
2931:Star
2888:Talk
2880:Star
2867:talk
2836:talk
2805:talk
2768:talk
2758:and
2737:talk
2710:talk
2692:talk
2673:talk
2654:talk
2646:that
2635:and
2616:Wood
2593:talk
2579:talk
2539:talk
2521:and
2509:talk
2499:per
2486:talk
2464:talk
2437:and
2425:and
2404:talk
2386:and
2374:talk
2360:talk
2307:talk
2297:and
2258:talk
2244:talk
2229:talk
2207:talk
2170:talk
2148:talk
2134:talk
2112:talk
2089:talk
2045:and
2043:WP:V
2021:and
2017:and
1996:and
1988:and
1962:talk
1927:talk
1898:talk
1884:talk
1866:talk
1847:talk
1823:talk
1815:That
1791:talk
1780:Main
1763:talk
1755:some
1745:talk
1710:talk
1649:talk
1634:talk
1628:? --
1615:and
1605:-- "
1586:talk
1571:talk
1554:talk
1533:talk
1516:talk
1511:Cirt
1493:talk
1465:talk
1448:talk
1424:talk
1406:talk
1383:talk
1325:180
1319:573
1237:just
1223:talk
1192:and
1162:talk
1160:<
248:The
185:Trip
159:Gale
151:DOAJ
73:and
4831:to
4727:not
4689:---
4123:not
3768:or
3291:)
3248:)
2934:HOG
2883:HOG
2754:of
2340:pro
2336:pro
2301:.
2199:how
1619:to
1210:not
1202:and
1110:to
1092:to
1074:to
1023:Mid
914:Mid
803:Mid
674:Low
557:Mid
468:Mid
449:Law
400:Law
367:Mid
199:TWL
5598::
5573:)
5541:)
5533:•
5490:)
5444:)
5413:)
5377:)
5329:💬
5312:)
5288:💬
5268:)
5244:💬
5234:.
5208:)
5189:)
5162:💬
5146:)
5125:)
5080:💬
5032:)
4998:)
4981:)
4973:•
4938:)
4925:—
4914:—
4908:—
4902:|
4865:→
4854:→
4843:)
4812:.
4783:)
4755:)
4737:)
4718:)
4671:)
4656:)
4629:)
4607:)
4592:)
4577:)
4563:)
4544:)
4513:.
4467:.
4443:.
4418:.
4400:.
4376:.
4359:)
4325:)
4309:)
4248:)
4230:)
4211:)
4175:)
4160:)
4134:)
4112:)
4095:)
4080:)
4054:)
3976:)
3948:)
3896:."
3881:?"
3867:."
3841:."
3745:)
3727:)
3634:)
3615:)
3596:)
3577:)
3499:)
3482:)
3467:)
3453:)
3422:)
3404:→
3379:–
3371:.
3343:.
3325:)
3309:)
3281:,
3268:)
3238:,
3224:)
3220:•
3165:)
3112:)
3061:)
3057:⋅
3031:)
3014:)
3010:•
2961:)
2957:⋅
2941:)
2890:)
2869:)
2838:)
2807:)
2770:)
2762:.
2739:)
2712:)
2694:)
2675:)
2656:)
2595:)
2581:)
2541:)
2525:,
2511:)
2503:.
2488:)
2466:)
2406:)
2390:,
2376:)
2362:)
2309:)
2260:)
2246:)
2231:)
2209:)
2172:)
2158:)
2154:·
2150:·
2136:)
2122:)
2118:·
2114:·
2091:)
1929:)
1904:)
1900:⋅
1886:)
1872:)
1868:⋅
1849:)
1829:)
1825:⋅
1793:)
1783:}}
1777:{{
1769:)
1765:⋅
1747:)
1731:,
1727:,
1716:)
1712:⋅
1651:)
1636:)
1588:)
1573:)
1556:)
1539:)
1535:⋅
1518:)
1495:)
1467:)
1459:.
1450:)
1440:St
1426:)
1408:)
1398:St
1395:.
1385:)
1352:6
1346:7
1225:)
1215:St
1178:→
839::
710:).
593::
54:;
5569:(
5537:@
5529:^
5525:(
5520:–
5486:(
5440:(
5409:(
5373:(
5308:(
5301::
5297:@
5274:@
5264:(
5257::
5253:@
5214:@
5204:(
5185:(
5175::
5171:@
5142:(
5136::
5132:@
5121:(
5111::
5107:@
5069:)
5065:(
5028:(
4994:(
4977:@
4969:^
4965:(
4960:–
4934:(
4918:(
4898:(
4839:(
4779:(
4751:(
4733:(
4714:(
4667:(
4652:(
4625:(
4603:(
4588:(
4573:(
4559:(
4540:(
4523:.
4499:.
4478:.
4453:.
4428:.
4404:.
4386:.
4355:(
4321:(
4305:(
4244:(
4226:(
4207:(
4199:(
4171:(
4156:(
4140:@
4130:(
4108:(
4091:(
4076:(
4050:(
3972:(
3944:(
3741:(
3723:(
3630:(
3611:(
3592:(
3573:(
3557:|
3495:(
3478:(
3463:(
3449:(
3418:(
3377:)
3373:(
3321:(
3305:(
3287:(
3264:(
3244:(
3216:(
3161:(
3108:(
3053:(
3042::
3038:@
3027:(
3006:(
2953:(
2937:(
2886:(
2865:(
2834:(
2803:(
2766:(
2735:(
2708:(
2690:(
2671:(
2652:(
2591:(
2577:(
2537:(
2507:(
2484:(
2462:(
2402:(
2372:(
2358:(
2320:/
2305:(
2256:(
2242:(
2227:(
2205:(
2168:(
2146:(
2132:(
2110:(
2087:(
2049:.
1964:)
1960:(
1925:(
1896:(
1882:(
1864:(
1860:–
1845:(
1821:(
1789:(
1761:(
1743:(
1708:(
1647:(
1632:(
1584:(
1569:(
1552:(
1531:(
1514:(
1491:(
1463:(
1446:(
1422:(
1404:(
1381:(
1221:(
1208:(
1118:.
1100:.
1082:.
1035:.
946:.
926:.
815:.
686:.
652:.
569:.
480:.
379:.
294::
214:1
211::
195:·
189:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
155:·
147:·
139:·
133:·
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.