This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Abortion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2010) Archive 2 (2011–2016) Archive 3 (2016–)

This edit re-added Mother Teresa and Rona Ambrose as 20th century examples, which are being discussed above. But should we have a section in the article devoted to 20th century examples of pro-life feminists? Before saying yes, I would like to see that such a list was published in a reliable source, otherwise the section would be a synthesis of sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be listing people who are not exemplary of the topic, who are not expressly said to be examples of the topic. Such people might be Lindy Boggs, Rachel MacNair and Marjorie Dannenfelser. If we are stretching the WP:SYNTH guideline to try and shoehorn a particular biography then we are not serving the reader. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Certainly Mother Teresa and the Canadian politician Ambrose do not seem to fit the bill. Meters (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And switching the header to "21st-century feminists" from "20th-century feminists" does not eliminate the problem. None of the sources listed for Ambrose call her a "prominent pro-life feminist", and the four citations supposedly supporting this do not appear to reliable sources. There are two opinion pieces, a blog, and a PR release from a group that has "a goal to create a groundswell of support for federal abortion legislation." Meters (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meters,

1. Numerous scholarly sources such as Barbara Kay from the National Post, Malika Bourboun from the Fulcrum (the newspaper of the University of Ottawa and member of the Canadian University Press), and Naomi Lakritz from the Calgary Herald, describe Ambrose as a pro-life feminist. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). None of these sources are blogs. They are two major Canadian newspapers, a Canadian University Newspaper, and a pro-life advocacy group website. Furthermore, Huffington Post Canada's Ottawa bureau chief, Althia Raj, also describes Ambrose as a pro-life feminist. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

2. Prior to her work as Minister of Status of Women, Ambrose participated in community service with organizations working to end violence against women; including the Status of Women Action Group, the Victoria Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse Crisis Centre, and the Edmonton Women’s Shelter.^[1].

3. Her undergraduate degree from the University of Victoria is in women's and gender studies. ^[2]

4. Ambrose self-identifies as a feminist. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

5. Ambrose sponsored a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly, which passed, creating the International Day of the Girl Child. ^[3]

6. Ambrose voted in favour of Motion 312 that would have directed a Commons committee to revisit the section of the Criminal Code defining at what point human life begins. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

7. Ambrose also voted in favour of a bill that would make it a criminal offence to injure or kill an unborn child while committing an offence.^[4]

8. Ambrose has been an outspoken opponent of sex-selection abortion. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

9. Ambrose has received praise from pro-life groups. ^[5] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Ambrose is that, when the topic of pro-life feminism comes up, she is not given as an example. If we are going to list any such examples then they should be women who are widely seen as pro-life feminists. Above, I suggested Lindy Boggs, Rachel MacNair and Marjorie Dannenfelser. Your insistence on Ambrose makes me think you have a special interest in seeing her elevated to this status. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Binksternet,

The sources quite clearly describe Ambrose as a pro-life feminist. I'm still waiting for you to respond to the reliable sources that I posted on March 30th, where I quoted the articles (Barbara Kay from the National Post, Malika Bourboun from the Fulcrum, Naomi Lakritz from the Calgary Herald, and Mike Schouten from www.weneedalaw.ca) in full. Do you deny that these sources describe Ambrose as a pro-life feminist? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media commentary (media-labels) is not good sourcing for statements of this nature (in fact should avoid media at all times in my opinion...media is a very poor source for information). When making a list of this nature we are looking for people that exemplify and /or are recognized as part of the culture..as in a well know advocates of the topic....ones that speak for this demographic. --Moxy (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references describing Ambrose are more appropriate to her biography article than this article. Nobody ever mentions her when they are describing someone who is important to the topic of pro-life feminism.

Ontario Teacher, it's clear by now that you are less interested in serving the reader than in pushing a viewpoint about Ambrose. Twice I have suggested some names to fill your notional section of examples of people who are pro-life feminists. You have not reconstructed your section with these names in it, to serve the reader who is interested in pro-life feminism. So if you are not here to serve the reader, why are you here? Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moxy and User:Binksternet put it very well. This material is more appropriate to Ambrose's biography. She's a politician, not someone who is notable as a pro-life feminist, and thus is not a suitable example for this article. I'm not going to check the new references since I don't think she belongs in the article. If you can provide a reliable source where she is listed as a notable 21st century pro-life feminist the please point us to it. Meters (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I will take a quick look at these sources since one of them apparently supports her being called a "pro-life feminist".

• !, 2, 3 and 4 have already been discussed above and on Ontario Teacher BFA BEd's talk page (two opinion pieces, a university student paper, and a PR release from a group working "to create a groundswell of support for federal abortion legislation."
• I had hopes for 5 since it supposedly supports the claim that she has been called a pro-life feminist. It is a Huffington post article. I'm not sure that is considered a reliable source, but even if it is I don't see where that source supports the claim that Huffington Post Canada's Ottawa bureau chief, Althia Raj, describes Ambrose as a pro-life feminist. All I see is Ambrose responding to a question from a reader/listener/whatever, and replying "If a feminist means that you're pro the equality of men and women and the complete potential of women to reach, or the empowerment for women to reach their full potential, then I'm happy to call myself a feminist, although some people think of it in a pejorative way."
• 6 is her official bio. Seems like a fine source and confirms her previous involvement in Women's issues.
• 7 (CBC) is a reliable source, but is a bit wishy-washy on the statement it is being used to support. It says her "her education at the University of Victoria and the University of Alberta reportedly included an undergraduate degree in feminist studies." Not exactly a solid source for Ambrose's education. I don't disbelieve it, but if the CBC can't be more definite than that we can't use it.
• 8 is fine. She self-identifies as a feminist.
• 9 is a dead link so I can't comment on it.
• 10 is a copy of the opinion piece 1.
• 11 is reliable source. She voted for the legislation, but so did lots of other MPs, and there is no mention of any of them being called pro-life feminists as a result.
• 12 is another copy of the opinion piece 1.
• 13 as a press release by another lobby group, this one "involved in political action and advocacy for legal and cultural change in Canada with respect to protecting human life and the family."

So, some of these sources are usable, but none of them support "pro-life feminist". (In fact, I don't believe any of them even used the term "pro-life",) None of them support the inclusion of Ambrose in this article as someone who is notable as an example of someone who is known as a 21st century pro-life feminist. Meters (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.chatelaine.com/living/the-chatelaine-qa-opposition-leader-rona-ambrose/ I have, my whole life, called myself a feminist. Not sure why both terms need to be in the same context. She is certainly the best known feminist in Canada, although she may knot be known as a feminist, it's my opinion that the term is passe now anyhow. I'm not participating the discussion, but wanted to offer the non-dead link that I used with a little-known tool called the "Google search engine". I suspect it's going to be a big thing one day. Cheers. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/08/question-period-all-women_n_9412346.html is another. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP...thanks for the links. somewhat TOPIC. If your interested in famous Canadian feminist I suggest reading up on Emily Stowe, Joy Langan, Doris Anderson, Rosemary Brown (politician) and The Famous Five (Canada) ..To move the overall topic along ..we are here to build content...we need articles on Margaret Fulton (1922-2014) and Sherrill "Shay" Cheda, renouned feminist of their eras....as for modern we need article on Bonnie Brayton.--Moxy (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is mistaken. I did not say that the Chatelaine link (#8) was dead. I said "8 is fine. She self-identifies as a feminist." I said link #9 was dead so I couldn't comment on it. As for "why both terms need to be in the same context" please read WP:SYNTH. Meters (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you think I'm mistaken. I was simply providing links that were not dead, not responding to you, well, until now. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP 208.81.212.224,

1. Are we in agreement that the National Post, the CBC, the Fulcrum (the newspaper of the University of Ottawa and member of the Canadian University Press), the Calgary Herald, the Huffington Post, and the websites of NGOs such as: www.lifecanada.org, www.prowomanprolife.org, www.campaignlifecoalition, and www.weneedalaw.ca are reliable sources?

Meters believes these sources are unreliable due to a suspicion of bias.

In accordance with Wikipedia's No Original Research Policy, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Wikipedia's Neutrality of Sources Policy states "Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view." Wikipedia also provides examples of Reliable Sources, which specifically include major newspapers, accredited university publications, and political groups.

2. Meters has also confused what WP:SYNTH is. It is part of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Meters is arguing that while these articles describe Ambrose as both a feminist and pro-life, in the same articles, they do not include the term pro-life feminist verbatim. Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not clearly states, "SYNTH is not a matter of grammar... SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources: it's about what the writing says, not the grammatical structure of how it says it.". Therefore, it is completely irrelevant as to whether the term "pro-life feminist" is used or not. The fact of the matter is, these articles describe Ambrose as a feminist who holds pro-life views.

For instance, the Naomi Lakritz article from the Calgary Herald states, "Ambrose hasn’t stopped upholding Canadian women’s rights. Her support for a bill that is concerned with fetal life... means she has serious concerns about the life of the unborn... Unafraid, Ambrose spoke for herself. That, to me, is the most basic definition of a feminist."Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I don't understand your point. Clearly the response was to my analysis if the links, and clearly you were mistaken that I had said the Chatelaine link was dead. The snide comment about using the little known Google search engine to find a working version of the link is simple bizarre, since you simply gave us the identical already working link. Meters (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Teacher please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I did not state that the all of these sources were unreliable because of bias. I simply raised the possibility of bias in the case of the two press releases by lobby groups. I don't know what their reputation for fact checking is so I don't know how reliable the groups are as sources for simple facts, but their bias means I would be very hesitatant to use them as reliable sources to support a label sych as "Prominent pro-life feminist". As for WP:SYNTH, I was responding to the IP's lack of knowledge about the concern about both terms being used together. SYNTH says "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I was simply doing a cursory analysis of the various sources for the purpose of seeing if any of them are sufficient to include your edit in this article. In my opinion they are not. Some of them are adequate for what they say, but none are sufficient to justify the inclusion of Ambrose as an example of a prominent pro-life feminist in this article. Most people outside of Canada would likely not even know who she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:17, April 30, 2016‎

This edit has been undone 6 times by 4 different editors. You need clear consensus on the talk page that the edit is justified before it can go in. I do not see such consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:17, April 30, 2016‎

Anyone active on this page care to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Wave Feminists and the possibility of redirecting New Wave Feminists here?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: I had moved this page to Pro-life feminism because that is what groups discussed in this article call themselves. It is also more descriptive, as at least some of these groups understand themselves to be advocates for a broader consistent life ethic beyond merely the issue of abortion. The present article title reflects the naming of their detractors. I believe that in general, we should allow groups to define their own names and categories. Do you disagree, or do you merely want discussion prior to this move, or was there an earlier discussion I am unaware of? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus on Wikipedia to use the more neutral term anti-abortion to refer to such movements or positions. This is also the terminology used by a considerable portion of reliable sources, and suggested in various journalistic and medical ethics guidelines. At the very least discussion is warranted. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POVTITLE. CFCF is correct. "Pro-life" is a POV term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Prolife" is a euphemism and "anti abortion" is more descriptive. Prolife sounds like they would be against war, capital punishment, and weapons which does not appear to be the case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that pro-life sounds like a broader category than opposition to abortion, so I think it kind of depends upon the intended subject of the article and groups in question. So here's my take on some of the relevant organizations (in the order named in the article):

• The first organization listed says in some literature that they "oppose all forms of violence, including abortion, child abuse, domestic violence, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia and capital punishment, as they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, non-violence and non-discrimination," which certainly sounds more "pro-life" than "anti-abortion" – but most of their focus seems to be on abortion.
• The next on the list, Susan B. Anthony List, seems to be straight anti-abortion.
• Next in the list is an anti-violence group that says, "we're anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-torture; and we extend this philosophy to our earliest moments of existence by also being anti-abortion....Look, we don't work to make abortion illegal. We work to make it unthinkable and unnecessary. And we do that by getting to the root of the need for it." I think that "anti-abortion" is a pretty inaccurate label for that POV.
• The fourth one named in the article is Students for Life of America, which the Wikipedia article describes as being opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide, which is somewhat bigger than "anti-abortion" but also somewhat smaller than the broadest definition of "pro-life", too.

I think that reasonable people could go either way in this case; there's a whole range of organizations covered.

So I'd go back to the other question: What do you intend to write about here? If this is focused on feminists who are anti-abortion (e.g., SBA List), would you accept a separate article on the overlapping but non-identical subject of feminists who are actually pro-life? Or who don't care about abortion but do care about other pro-life issues?

I don't know the answer to this question; only the editors who are interested in building the article are really going to be able to explain their intentions. Since I'm a mergist at heart, I'd personally move it back to the broader topic and add everything – the anti-capital-punishment feminist groups in India, the many feminist critiques of euthanasia, and feminist opposition to war, which is a red link and which shouldn't be, as the subject is as old as feminism itself. The original Mother's Day Proclamation in America wasn't about giving your mother flowers or breakfast in bed; it was an anti-war statement.

In the end, my analysis ends up being little more than a re-statement of the policy at WP:AT: decide what you want to write about, and then give it a name. And if you decide that this article's about the narrow subject of abortion, then let's write another article about the other aspects of pro-life feminism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra.kinsey, CFCF, Doc James and WhatamIdoing, I don't feel strongly about this topic, but it does seem that pro-life is the prevalent term for those who consider themselves pro-life. I also see that there is debate about the terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick check for relative prevalence in Google News, and the sources ran about 4:1 in favor of "pro-life feminist" versus "anti-abortion feminist". But I didn't spend enough time to determine whether those stories were mostly about people who are opposing abortion, or if they were profiles of, say, a group of feminist nuns who protest against the death penalty on Monday, nuclear bombs on Tuesday, abortion on Wednesday, hunger on Thursday, domestic violence on Friday, etc.

(I think that there is something to be said for self-identification, but it could be taken too far.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to come across a single case where pro-life is not meant to be synonymous with or include anti-abortion sentiments. It is the defining characteristic of the the movement, and is an euphemism as James says. Neither does it matter what they call themselves, that is not what dictates what Wikipedia call them. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF, I was simply trying to assess what the WP:Common name is. It seems that WhatamIdoing was doing that as well with her Google search. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-abortion feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027042315/http://www.sba-list.org/about-sba-list/our-mission to http://www.sba-list.org/about-sba-list/our-mission
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/obeirne200601230842.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-abortion feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115020035/http://www.sba-list.org/site/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4137649/k.A53B/Early_Suffragists.htm to http://www.sba-list.org/site/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4137649/k.A53B/Early_Suffragists.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" as this is the agreed-on neutral terminology here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the sentence and citation since the citation did not support the added content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The views and goals section predominantly cites the research of Laury Oaks, who is not herself a pro-life feminist. The prose here would be more appropriate for a "Criticism" section - while directly citing mission statements of pro-life feminist organizations would better sum up their views + goals. 2600:4040:4018:C700:D022:7CD4:58B0:CEFC (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission statements may be ignored in practice. We should always look to the highest quality sources for the views and goals of the anti-abortion groups. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, preferring them in most cases to primary sources coming from the subjects themselves. Uninvolved observers are preferred because they interpret the issues or confirm the facts. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As well as that the arguments section seems to try to rebut most of what few arguments are given. This wouldn't happen in a page about pro-choice feminism and yet more evidence of Wikipedia's bias. --2001:BB6:7ADA:2458:D9B0:29EF:E68:6AEB (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]