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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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