Talk:Abortion

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

Discussion Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |

Empty archive (to be filled): 10

---

Abortion Map

Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

First off, great job Kyd, doing all this work. But Why is it "Left reasons?"--Tznkai 20:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It was well the two days it took to make. Oh, as for the "left reasons," I worded it thus so that it would fit within the legend. "Legal for left reasons" should be read as "legal for socioeconomic reasons and fetal abnormalities PLUS the reasons to the left of the graphic divider (rape, incest, and maternal life and/or health)." If it's too confusing, I suppose I could reword it.--Kyd 20:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest a rewording since "left reasons" means no sense to most people methinks.--Tznkai 01:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I had no idea what that meant either --Quasipalm 14:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Updated the abortion laws map. I hope that this version resolves the confusion. --Kyd 17:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The legal status in Switzerland has changed on 1st Oktober 2002, in Switzerland it is now legal to abort a pregnancy within the first 12 weeks, after week 13 its only allowed with a medical (physical or psychological) indication.

Updated. I coloured Switzerland to indicate "abortion on demand" because, as yet, the map makes no distinctions for gestational limitations. The table at Abortion Law was outdated, so I updated it thus: mother's life (yes), physical health (yes), mental health (yes), rape (yes), fetal defects (yes), socioeconomic factors (first trimester), on demand (first trimester). Correct? --Kyd 03:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I thought the united states law was on demand? Since when it is cicumstantial? I thought anyone who wanted to get one could. What is the source?--Tainter 11:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

As I recall, parental notification in the case of minors would probably qualify as "restricted", partial birth abortion acts are under heavy contest, and individual state laws may not have been overturned yet --Tznkai 20:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Tainter, that the US should be pink for "legal on demand". The restrictions cited by Tznkai are really not touching upon the exceptions cited on the map (and are rather periphery anyway.

As for Germany, the situtation is difficult: Abortion is "legal" only for rape and mother's health, but under certain provisions (obligatory counselling) it will not be punished if done during the first trimester. How to paint this? Str1977 18:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, Kyd's map agrees with the abortion law article. I'd like to reflect whatever they come up with. Btw Str1977, thanks for helping finish archive, my connection flakes out alot, so sometimes I forget to finish.--Tznkai 18:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I used the table at abortion law as a reference point (as well as the two external links that I added at the end of the article, this map from the Center for Reproductive Rights, and this one from Pregnant Pause). The table, crucially, lists "varies" under the "on demand" heading for the United States. The situation is very similar in Australia, in that laws vary widely from state to state, and thus it could be considered inaccurate to lump the entire either country under "legal on demand." --Kyd 19:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Strange, I was posting on your talk page at the same time. I also posted this on and have made the appropriate changes in the table, regarding the law in Germany. The last column is difficult to handle, but the data given at "fetal health" and "socio-economic" were wrong. At least, as much as legality is concerned.

As for the US: I don't think the few restrictions that might exist in some places do really change the overall classification. Partial birth abortion is only one procedure, and I doubt that there is no parental notification in all the other countries in pink. Str1977 19:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Changed the U.S. to pink for the time being. The table lists "varies," but, the file on the U.S. at the U.N.'s Abortion Policies: A Global Review says, to the question of abortion of demand, "yes." Also, the table at abortion law seems to have been pulled directly from there (the seven categories, although worded differently, are the same for both). The legal situation in America is complex, so I've begun making another series of maps to address the individual state laws. As for Germany, Str1977, see my response to yours at Talk:Abortion_law#Abortion_law_in_US_and_Germany. I appreciate you guys helping out; it's a lot of information for me to process and sort on my own. --Kyd 22:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Beijing Platform for Action

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

• The 2004 Fourth World Conference on Women's Platform for Action stated in paragraph 96 that "the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence." While ratified by 198 member states of the United Nations, the Platform for Action is non binding.

The above is what I have written because I thought this was a UN thing. It has 198 signitories.

There are 191 member nations to the UN, one observer state, and about a dozen other observers such as the IRC. I am bloody confused people. Can we sort this out so we can restore this interesting piece of information?--Tznkai 16:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am currently looking for such a list. I referenced the info from a news article; but, unfortunately lost it, and am now looking for another ten-year-old neutral reference (most of the sites that are returning hits are summaries of the event from feminist or pro-life interest groups). The number is actually 189 signatories, from my memory, so it appears that the source of your confusion might be a transposing of these last two digits (189 to 198). Here's the UN sie featuring the BPfA text to which I orignally linked: [Beijing Platform for Action]. --Kyd 16:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

that would make a great deal of sense. Unfortunatly the UN seems to have forgotten to note who ratified it. If you're sure about the 189 figure I or someone else can restore it.--Tznkai 16:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Side note, I am a moron. For some reason I said it was 2004 not, you know 1995!--Tznkai 16:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

From the mouth of the horse? Or, at least, the U.N. web site. This is a summary of Beijing 5+, the follow-up conference in 2000, that mentions the 189 figure from the Fourth World Conference on Women: ["Background of Beijing 5+"]. Also, a break-down of the various U.N. women's conferences that mentions the same number: ["Key conference outcomes on women and gender equality"]. The jury's still out on who actually signed, though. --Kyd 17:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why the non-binding PFA, which is steeped in controversy and uses purposefully murky and undefined terms, given equal wieght in this articel as the binding OSA instrument? 214.13.4.151 16:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, as the paragraph notes, there isn't a lot of international binding agreements that are actually binding anyway. Its not really given equal wieght its just a fact and a point of intrest in the study of international law concerning abortion.--Tznkai 17:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why is the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentioned in the article (with your blessing, no doubt, because you're the one who added it)? Surely, its implications for abortion, either way, are mooted by the very fact that it is nonbinding? You are splitting hairs, 214. This distinction, nonbinding versus binding, is not the real reason you object to the inclusion of the Beijing Platform for Action. The reason we must give the BPfA "equal weight" with the OSA document is because it would be POV to do otherwise. It's not your position to reject the BPfA out of hand for the reasons you have stated (other than the whole nonbinding thing, but I thought Tznkai and I resolved that by noting the difference). I'm not objecting to the ACHR being presented (although I do question the whole interpretation/speculation thing). But I do object to a slanted presentation of information; if there is no reason to present the BPfA, then I cannot see a reason to present the ACHR. --Kyd 17:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, earlier you had mentioned that binding instruments/laws would be the criteria for inclusion. Now you we have a different (yet amorphous) crieteria, I guess. The PFA is a pipedream, and many signatories have signed having been assured during the conference proceedings that its language does NOT guarantee the right to abortion. As such it will never be recognized universally as guaranteeing that right. The OSA document has no such murky language or history. 214.13.4.151 17:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer binding laws, but, this being a Wiki, things get amorphous rather quickly. The ACHR has a got a wonderful loophole as well, "generally". Right now these two are our best examples of internationa laws and conventions representing the range. Hopefully as time passes, we will get better ones. Right now, both are reasonably relevant.--Tznkai 17:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Precisely. "Generally" could be interpreted in a manner that would be compliant with the coexistance of Roe v. Wade and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in the U.S.: the unborn have a right to life, insofar as protection from acts of violence (i.e. an assault on a pregnant women that results in miscarriage or stillbirth), but the "generally" leaves wiggle room for individual nations to determine if abortion constitutes a similar violation. Apparently, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights already considered this implication of Article 4 of the ACHR, according to this article, ["International Human Rights Law and Abortion"] by Human Rights Watch (see the "Right to Life" section). I used this article as a reference point when researching the BPfA. Very infomative even if you don't agree with its conclusions. --Kyd 18:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

All 4 international documents will be referenced in like fashion. What is the reason for citing the Declaration on Human Rights first and in a different manner than the ones cited later on? 214.13.4.151 04:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The ACHR, the CPoA, and the BPfA reference either "a right to life from conception" or "reproductive rights" -- which, to me, seem directly applicable in the debate over abortion legislation. The UDHR, on the other hand, does not contain anything with such an explicit applicability. You can interpret "right to life, liberty, and security of person" in a fashions that are favourable to either the pro-choice or pro-life ideology -- but it is a far greater stretch. So, to me, grouping it with the other three documents would be more along the lines of editorializing than fact-presentation. I liked Tznkai's solution of linking it to discussion of philosophical basis for abortion laws. We could rework it if the article would "flow" better with the UDHR mentioned in the international law paragraph/section/list/whatever. --Kyd 05:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Mostly agree with your analysis. I agree that the other three are more relevant - but I also thought my edit did point out that the UDHR did not expressly speak to abortion or fetal rights. Your "rework it" suggestion is a good one. 214.13.4.151 07:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Including a short summary of each document's relevance to the discussion is essential - otherwise their inclusion is not helpful and can be misleading. Edit the explanation of you think it is POV. Right now the explanations simply contain facts. If you think other facts need to be added for balance, find the facts and add them. Don't simply erase the facts you don't like. 214.13.4.151 08:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

• The nonbinding (fact) 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states in Article 2, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." The language of this instrument does not specifically address abortion (fact) or the "right to life" of humans prior to their birth (fact); this instrument has been adopted by at least 171 countries at the United Nations, most recently at the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in June 1993.

• The partially-binding (fact) 1978 American Convention on Human Rights states, in Article 4.1, "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception." The Convention is considered binding only for the 24 of 35 member nations of the Organization of American States who ratified it.

• The nonbinding (fact) 1994 Programme of Action states, in paragraph 8.25, "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. . . Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process. In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe." This document was adopted by at least 179 countries at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt.

• The nonbinding (fact) 1995 Beijing Platform for Action states, in paragraph 96, “The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.” The language of this instrument does not specifically address the "abortion rights" of women who are pregnant (fact) (and attempts to add language that did so were defeated) (fact) ; this instrument has been adopted by 189 countries at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China.

214.13.4.151 06:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I understood this horse to be dead. The UDHR has no place here as it does not address reproductive rights, a right-to-life from conception, or anything else that could be construed as having direct bearing on abortion law without resorting to speculation and wild fancies. Making note of this fact does not make it any more relevant to the section. I can't disagree that the BPfA doesn't specifically address or create a right to abortion. But I'm removing "and attempts to add language that did so were defeated" until this claim can be substantiated. But, as we're in the mood for qualification, souldn't we also note that the words "in general" in Article 4 of the ACHR leave a big, gaping loophole in which signatory countries are free to legislate abortion howsoever they see fit? The Inter-American Commision on Human Rights seems to have reached such a conclusion. --Kyd 23:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

physical health section - not balanced

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The debate is about medicine. Medicine very often concludes on one study-- especially if it is well planned and executed. The reason is-- it is hard to justify repeating an experiment where one is almost certain to harm patients. Also, meta-analyses are the way things are done. I have the feeling a few people here are not familiar with The Cochrane Collaboration.

LOL, so it was well planned and executed? You say that as if you know what your talking about. Right off the bat I have cause to revert anything you do, because you appear to think an ABC study showing no link was "well conducted". That's the implication I'm getting from this first paragraph... "about medicine" indeed! Meta-analyzes are one way things are done, and they can be subject to selection bias... as many people noted for Brind's meta-analysis (which he worked on with pro-choice researchers). I see no reason to use a double standard here; others disagree, which is fine since it clarifies to me where they are coming from.

Familiar with the results of the Women's Health study? It is a huge study where they fed women the sex hormones (estrogen and progesterone)-- result... breast cancer rates were quite similar. It casts doubt on the physiologic reasoning behind the ABC hypothesis.

If its the same as this one then yes. Have you gone throught ABC article yet? And I'm unclear as to how that casts doubt on the ABC hypothesis, since it relies on hormones making physical changes... which as I understand it the WHI study unintentionally confirmed.

Even if one doesn't want to believe Beral-- (which is published in one of the top 4 medical journals)-- there is broad agreement that women that are older when they bear their first child are at a higher risk of breast ca.

[1] [2] That is one reason to doubt the ABC hypothesis... --women that abort bear children later. Women who don't have children at all are at higher risk for breast ca than women that have had children. How do we know the increased ca risk isn't just from delayed childbearing/not having children?

You are aware scientists use controls in their studies to account for confounding factors, delayed child rearing is only one. Again I ask, have you read the article yet?

Another reason is that the socio-economic status of women who have abortions are quite different than ones that don't [3]... and this has a multitude of impacts on cancer risk. Describing the faulty physiologic reasoning with out a counter-argument is not presenting both sides. Women that abort tend to be more likely to be abused and have a lower education, eat less healthy, smoke more often and tend to suffer more from mental illnesses. Who is to say that one of those isn't the cause... if a difference exists above and beyond the one associated with childbearing and age of the mother when the first child was born?

This is beginners stuff, don't waste our time. But as to describing the reasoning without a counter-argument, there is no counter argument insofar as physiology is concerned. The Beral study, nor any other study I've seen has "countered" or disproved the argument. They just argue it doesn't exist when they don't find an ABC correlation; not the same thing. I think that position is given with the NCI workshop opinion.

Beral's paper disputes the reasoning -- if the ABC hypothesis reasoning were true spontaneous abortions and elective ones would be assoc. with higher breast ca. rates. Interestingly, the opposite appears to be true.

Spontaneous abortion differs from elective abortion in their hormone characteristics. Interestingly you don't seem to know that. Again, read the article.

The mainstream medical community dismisses the ABC hypothesis as junk-science. The proponents haven't managed to come-up with convincing evidence that shows causation. No scientific organization with any credibility supports the theory. Nevermind the fact the main proponent's background makes him suspect for his religion trumping his science.

Some people, notably fervent pro-choicers call it junk-science, the mainstream medical community does not. I entirely agree Brind's background is suspect, but that can cut both ways if you bother to see bias knows no idealogy (be it pro-choice or pro-life). Showing "causation" isn't necessary for something to be occurring, and the Russo and Russo rat studies do elaborate on a likely cause. Of course that doesn't count for humans, but it does provide a line of reasoning for causation which has yet to be discounted or even properly examined.

Why delete the part about causality? For anything in medicine-- and this applies to science as well-- correlation does not mean causality. Causality is A causes B; it is very different from correlation. I can give you a beautiful correlation for shoe size and intelligence ('cause little babies don't know a heck of a lot). In medicine, there are strict criteria for causality (see above link) and the ABC hypothesis doesn't come close to fulfilling them. I think the removal of causality makes the article poorer because causality is really central to the whole issue.

You make a decent point while at the same time insulting my intelligence, bravo! Causality is central to making or breaking the ABC hypothesis, however not finding it does not defeat it, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Especially if the association is weak, which can be because of poor science, or because the association is ACTUALLY weak, particularly with women who are fortunate/smart/decisive enought to get an abortion early on. To say no cause has been found is to incorrectly imply there is no cause, and that there isn't even a consistent theory as to what the cause could be, which there is. And because a cause as not been confirmed, it remains a "hypothesis" instead of "theory" or "link".

Response bias and recall bias are different. I don't think it is so much that women that have abortions forget they have had them (that's recall bias). Beral's criticism [4] is response bias -- why incorrectly represent the counter-argument? Also, isn't possible that the people who are surveying people for a link between breast cancer and abortion might have an agenda -- and that might lead to response bias? Nephron 22:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've seen recall bias and response bias used interchangeably, in both pro and anti choice articles and scientific studies. But it makes sense that response bias is the better term. Changed. PS: Further discussion on this topic should be made on the talk for the ABC article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

edited at the bottom of the page

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

"not an official catholic organization". I changed it for "not a catholic organization". If you check the canonic code, you'll see that no one can call their own group "catholic" without having permission from the vatican and this organization does not have it (they were excommunicated). "I'm not entering this discussion (on the rest of abortion)... I was just skimming the text and found that... Believe me, I would change the article almost completely (to start with, the definition of abortion...) but it's no use here on wikipedia anyway. User: 200.42.177.66 01:24, 10 September 2005

You need to be careful about the difference between "catholic", "Catholic", and "Roman Catholic". Anyone can call their organization an official (lower case c) catholic organization. That just means they consider themselves universal rather than local. With the upper case C, the Episcopal church, for example, is a self-described "Catholic" church, but not a "Roman Catholic" church. Rick Norwood 12:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

But in this case, the group member claims to the group to be Catholic a.k.a. Roman Catholic. Str1977 13:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am reasonably sure that: 1. The Vatican does not control the legal usage of the word catholic, capitalized however you wish and 2. readers will generally not have the foggiest idea that the above is true.--Tznkai 18:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

What the general public thinks does not excuse a lack of care in Wiki. If the Episcopal church can call itself Catholic, and it can and does, then you need to say "Not an official Roman Catholic organization. Rick Norwood 20:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Now the description reads, "Excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church". A step in the right direction, but not the question that arises is whether an organization can be excommunicated. I was under the impression that only individuals could be excommunicated, not organizations. Rick Norwood 20:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rick, the point of mentioning the public doesn't know its true is to point out the need to use wording that is accurate and communicative.--Tznkai 01:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Research Collaboration

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Ok, for all the long standing article editors as well as news, I'd like to celebrate having a computer by starting a research collaboration. The health risks section is in serious need of work. Before we start editing and proposing changes though, I'd like to see everyone do their best to bring current and notable research to the table. Lets not only have brilliant and neutral prose, but rigerous research backing it up!--Tznkai 18:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Am I supposed to be heeding this? (cut ABC explanation until necessary) As to premature birth, we can stipulate as Lucavix pointed out... that the study is uncorroborated, and its findings have not been adopted by abortion providers and/or medical community... although the latter more difficult to establish, since conservative medical associations may have adopted it. Further research/studies is good, but it will likely be inconclusive studies from the past calling for more research... which will be slow in coming. Just don't want you to get your hopes up. :'D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't mind contributing. Don't know how much help I can be, though. --Kyd 21:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I was just saying if eveyrone can just pull as much data on abortion's health effects, that'd be great. I'm thinking we'l llikley collapse the entire health risk section and put a "health risk" paragraph in each methodology subsection. ABC will likley get its own subsection, or just be put in the "see also" to conserve space. We can take a straw poll on that after we hammer out general format issues.--Tznkai 20:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Choice as a controversial term

Latest comment: 19 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

I think I'm missing the argument with "choice" here. How is the word controversial? Can we lay out the arguments and try to come to consensus please?--Tznkai 17:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The word isn't, by nature, controversial. Choice isn't singular: the "right to choose" includes the choices of abortion, adoption, and motherhood. Thus it would seem inaccurate to suggest that abortion is the only choice indicated in terms like "pro-choice" and "a woman's right to choose." --Kyd 19:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not much of an argument, 214.13.4.151 is once again showing great command of the english language by informing us of its conclusion of what the word "choice" means and implies. It dislikes abortion so much, it seems to want to accuse pro-choicers of being pro-abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry guys, but it happens to be true that "choice" in this context is used as a euphemism for abortion or "abortion rights" . Hence NARAL's renaming itself "Pro-choice America". "Choice" in this context is concealing what is chosen here (and M. Sanger's grandson castigated the "pro choice" movement for that) - the other possible choices no one disputes, so if e.g. the Democratic party enshrines "choice" or "the right to choose" this is neither baout adoption nor about motherhood, but clearly about abortion. Str1977 22:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Words are used to communicate. Pro-choice means exactly that, a woman's right to choose what to do, as opposed to the state passing laws telling her what to do. Conservatives want to pretend that people who are pro-choice are pro-abortion, but it just ain't so. We believe that a woman's body is her body, not the government's body. Rick Norwood 23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

If "life" or "unborn" - words that "are used to communicate+, as you put it - are controversial, then choice is, too. Its folly that this is even a debate. 214.13.4.151 07:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Eloquently put Str1977, but the implied political realities with the use of the word "choice" do not override the fact that when it comes down to it; it is a choice a woman has to make. "Choice" does not force nor imply she have an abortion, simply that is an option. I acknowledge "choice" is about abortion politically, since things get polarized quickly in that sphere which is highly publicized at times... but that does not translate to common usage. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "pro-choice" as "in favour of upholding a woman's legal right to choose whether to have an abortion". It says nothing about adoption, etc. As Str1977 points out, the term "pro-choice" conceals what is chosen. That's why those who oppose abortion often object to the term. Choice is a transitive verb, and therefore needs an object. I'm going to choose (blue curtains, chocolate icecream, abortion)? When someone says, "I'm very pro-choice", he or she does not mean "I think parents should be allowed to choose what school their child goes to" or "I think pregnant women should be allowed to put their children up for adoption". I agree that many pro-choice people are not pro-abortion in the sense of liking abortion, or thinking that it's a good thing. However, I think you'll find that every single mainstream pro-life organization objects to the term pro-choice, therefore, whether editors here like the term or not, it is controversial. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have to hand it to you, you're making a decent case; but at the same time I'd be obstinant and say "tough cookies". Not only because I'm initially stubborn to changing my position, but also because the original edit (and the others as far as I know) did not frame it thusly... meaning it is controversial for pro-life groups etc. More to the point, there is little effort to state what "pro-life" conceals. I'd rather have neither on the page, since putting them on can lead to yet another point of future contention. Call me old'fashioned. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

At best, "choice" used in this context is a euphemism. It is clearly controversial, as even Germaine Greer, famous feminist and abortion advocate, notes:

"Abortion is the latest in a long line of non-choices that begin at the very beginning with the time and the place and the manner of lovemaking."

Germaine Greer, feminist author and advocate of legal abortion, quoted in The New Republic, 10/5/1992 - 214.13.4.151

Uh, what does that have to do with discussion? Her point is about the lack of choices women generally have (had?) for their reproductive lives; not (necessarily) on the appropriateness or meaning of "choice". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Semantics: it's a fierce and bloody war. Let's not go undoing the progress we've made by opening the floodgates of POV. Opinion is opinion and must be presented as such. I think that's something that we can all agree on at least, right? --Kyd 08:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Roy, of course no one can keep you from being "obstinant" but I would appeal to you to be sensible in the light of a "decent case".

"More to the point, there is little effort to state what "pro-life" conceals."

What is it that "pro-life" conceals. It is fairly obvious what it means, namely: that the right to life is the most essential human right and can be legitimately only overriden by another human's right to life.

Don't resort to "but what about war, death penalty etc.", as it does not follow that all pro-lifers advocate these things. Some do, and there is some inconsistency to some such positions (I'm a Catholic and I think the Catholic position is reasonable and consistent), but the inconsistency is even greater with those who are "pro-choice" and anti-death penalty". But please don't resort to this as it only affects whether a pro-lifer is consistent in his views - an "argumentum ad hominem" - and not about the actual view.

Kyd, I have no intention "undoing the progress we've made" - I agree that pro-choicers should be called pro-choicers, since it's their adopted naming, as long as pro-lifers are called pro-lifers (and not some absurd inventions like "anti-choice"), but I'd also be happy with pro- and anti-abortion. But turnaround is fair play. Str1977 11:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

While "life" is certainly a clearer term than "choice"; I needn't resort to the above arguments to make a case. Most plainly it obfuscates that "life" only really counts if its human; what of the life of other species being decimated from overpopulation? Being pro-human life has concequences for other life on the planet which in no way is consistent with a generally "pro-life" position. However, since that is a side effect (major for developed nations because of their consumption, but minor for developing nations) of being pro-life it can easily ignored. Also, some believe the Bible allows for this destruction by saying we have dominion, and to be fruitful and multiply.

But what I was initially getting at is it conceals the politics and motivations of those who support it. They (the powers that be) set doctrine that happens to coincide with acquiring more worshippers and political power for themselves at the expense of a historical underclass with few choices (as outlined by 214), women. The fact the Bible hints at "knowing one in the womb" allows for a great deal of interpretation which leaders can and have taken advantage of. There is no theological basis from the Bible to outright ban abortion. It is a political decision consistent with policies of other politicians, but veiled in religious self-righteousness and vague Bible verses. I have no objection to people following their conscience; but to feign being morally correct and absolutely justified in their position makes me write long responses like this. In one way or another we are all political pawns; I just happen to realize it from time to time. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I never suggested chucking "pro-choice" and "pro-life." They're concise, fitting, and largely accepted in mainstream use. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are also appropriate -- but stripping the terms of their philosophical context makes it seem that the only thing at issue is the abortion procedure itself, not the implications of banning or allowing it. I suppose "abortion-rights/reproductive-rights" or "right-to-life" would also work. All I'm saying is that objections to the term "choice" itself should be presented as view of some pro-lifers, etc., and not an established fact. And the current revision seems to do that. As per my thoughts on the "objectionable" nature of "life" in the context of "pro-life": it has been my observation that one class of pro-lifers would be more aptly described as pro-birth. They're opposed to abortion, want to prevent them from happening, but don't care much about what happens to the kid after its birth. For them, it's less about preserving the sanctity of life than it is about excercising a measure of control over women. Of course, the majority of pro-lifers aren't like this; the abundance of "pro-life counselling centres" proves it. And my opinion is just that: an opinion. The sort of thing that drags out talk pages. --Kyd 16:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The relevant points are the following: "choice" is a term adopted to hide the term abortion [evidenced by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) working hard to convine people that its name is now "Pro-Choice America"]. Choice is warm and fuzzy, abortion is cold and bloody. Certainly the term is worthy of comment in this section.214.13.4.151 14:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Again the political motivations to change to fuzzier language does not change what that fuzzy language means. If a pro-abortion group changes to a pro-choice, that does not change what pro-choice means; more importantly perhaps the change more accurate reflects what they are in the first place, pro-choice. Or do you actually think an organization with the word Abortion in it is defacto pro-abortion? Your perception is they are hiding behind choice, my perception is they are more accurately labeling themselves now that Abortion Rights are semi-secured. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'm having a hard time tracking these arguments, but the runing theme seems to involve the term pro-choice, counter pointed by pro life. The advocacy phrases are dealt with seperatly in the abortion debate section. I have not seen a convincing argument that saying the word "choice" in an abortion argument without the additional qualifier "woman's" or "pro" is baised. Choice seems to be unambiguous. Heres a mock argument

Person A: "A woman should have a right to choose! (whether or not to have an abortion)"

Person B: "An unborn child doesn't get to make a choice! (whether or not to be aborted)"

Likewise the argument can be reframed as such:

Person A: "A woman should have a right to choose! (whether or not to bear her child)"

Person B: "An unborn child doesn't get to make a choice! (whether or not to be born)"

Choice implies a choice concerning the topic at hand. It does not imply the choice is always to abort, likewise one makes the choice to allow the child to be born. The choice of inaction and the choice of action are the same.--Tznkai 03:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Lets analyze the logical argument that the naked term "choice" is an accurate term (and not misleadinng or imcomplete, or a manipulative euphemism). Assuming that logic is true, then the term would be equally apt for use in a discussion about school vouchers (allowing tax-funded vouchers to be used to pay for private or public schools, at the discretion of the parents). The advocates of such laws describe themselves as favoring "choice". But that term "choice" (even with a descriptive qualifier such as "school choice") is often not accepted by the "unbiased" media as it is considered misleading or euphemistic by many. Why? Because the naked term ignores what choices are at stake (just like "pro-choice" ignores abortion). In this case, one of the choices is controversial to some - using tax-funded vouchers for private schools. Its no different with abortion. There is only one choice that is contorversial or at risk of being illegal - abortion. There is no need for advocates for the right to choose to bear a child. That right is secure - and is not going away any time soon in the West. The issue the advocates concern themselves with is being free to choose to abort the child. The other choice (being able to carry the baby to term) is not at stake - and has never been the issue. Choice will alays be a controversial term in this debate. All laws take away our ability to lawfully make certain choices. Choice=Abortion only in the minds of activists. 214.13.4.151 13:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

But it can be maintained, to say one is "pro-choice", is to allow for action; to allow for abortion. While the actual choices for the women are the same, or rather equal as I maintain above; the meaning of the word choice in a political sense is to protect the choice of abortion, and abortion alone. Does that mean we have to make note of it? Meh, not really. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Funny, but I don't think you would buy this parallel argument:

But it can be maintained, to say one is "pro-life", is to insist on life; to be against killing the innocent. While the actual value of everyone's life is the same, or rather equal as I maintain; the meaning of the word life in a political sense is to protect the lives of both mother and child. Does that mean we have to make note of it? Not really. 214.13.4.151 13:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps its a parallel insofar as I was sloppy enough to say abortion vs. adoption are "equal" choices for someone, just as you're sloppy enough to maintain every(one)'s life is equal. (my instinct is every(one) may not include the unborn, since they aren't yet (one) person) Ironically we probably pity each other, you me, since I'm sinning and permitting murder, and I you, since your beliefs put you in a position of exquisite sorrow. Also doesn't this article clarify the pro-life position? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

REWIND. Eveyrone is missing the point. 214, I will kindly remind you that this is a discussion on hwo to write the abortion article, not about school vouchers and what other people will buy or not. If someone can find me a word that choice is confused with (life and personhood are often confused) then I'll understand whateveryone is talking about.--Tznkai 20:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Alright. I think I'm starting to track the argument here. Someone is asserting that in debate, choice=abortion. I would disagree.

"I want to have a choice!"

"You had a choice!"

Two people talking about abortion. Lets do a word switch

"I want to have an abortion!"

"You had an abortion!"

Make sense so far, right? Lets take what they were actually talking about!

"I want to have a choice whether to have an abortion!"

"You had a choice whether or not to have unprotected sex!"

Choice is always about choice, responsiblity, and free will here. Its not always about abortion, but it can involve the events leading up to abortion.--Tznkai 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think "pro-choice" is what is being discussed, not "choice". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

if it is, it shouldn't be. Language has been fixed for this article in the terminology and debate sections. improvments are always welcome, but further debate as to what the group *should* be called should be moved onto a diffrent article's discussion page.--Tznkai 21:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The article at the moment is very neutral and I don't think we should change that. The words pro-choice and pro-life are correctly identified by the article as rhetorical, in that they are used to subliminally persuade. I think that an ideal article would identify those terms with their respective groups and use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion exclusively. However, I think that the article explains the matter sufficiently.--Rubikcube 22:56, 21 September 2005 (CDT)

Question

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I think str1977's "question" is legitimate in the context of a discussion of the abortion debate. Rick Norwood 22:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Assuming that this refers to my revert/reinsert of the "choice" question, I obviously agree with you. However, this was not my question but rather what Tznkai posted in his section overhaul and which someone deleted, calling it "tempering some extereme and absolute language". Str1977 22:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

my inclusion of it was an attempt to achieve a compromise. As a future note, I will gladly accept improvments to my prose, but lets all do eachother a favor and stop just removing/deleting when we can? We're all guilty of it, so lets all improve.--Tznkai 05:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Terms. (Law, Debate, Terminology)

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have tried to create a reasonable compromise for the debates that have been going on recently. The terminology section in the beginning of the article is primarly for words that have multiple and hidden meanings because of the ambiguties of common parlance, and other things that need to be settled before even discussing abortion itself. The law section is for discussing laws, civil or criminal penalties, laws restrict or prohibit. The debate section refers to pro-choicers, pro-lifers, and terms that find use primarly during debate. This should allow everyone to make their points in a neutral fashion.

In summation: Put it in the right section, keep it general and neutral, and everything should be fine.--Tznkai 23:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Mole link

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed what I termed a mole link posted by User: 61.246.40.19 into the pro-life links section. It clearly doesn't belong in there as it is shockingly pro-abortion. The first paragraph reads

"Abortion is the spontaneous or induced (therapeutic) expulsion of the products of conception from the uterus before fetal viability (fetal weight < 500 g [17 5/8 oz] or gestation < 20 weeks)."

This is not only factually incorrect ("before fetal viability"?), but the wording is ghastly beyond what I could have imagined.

I don't know how this link entered this section, but maybe it was an honest mistake. If so, 61.. may post it somewhere else. Str1977 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Already removed it once, and the link is not good enough to include anyway.--Tznkai 05:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Polls

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Poll info has been listed for a long time. Quasi removed it and replaced it with a poll he liked. I reverted and added links to the sources (2004 and 2005 polls done by Zogby, ABC and CBS). 214.13.4.151 18:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Abortion Debate Section Issues

Latest comment: 19 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

In the section entitled, "the abortion debate", paragraph starting, "Political sides have largely been separated.." Isn't the sentence, "However, public opinion is much more moderate." a little ambiguous? The following polling data doesn't represent what a moderate point of view might be. In addition to that the polling data is very contradictory. It's my opinion that you can skew the results of a poll by the phrasing of the questions. I realize the polls are from reputable institutions, but should they really be included? Rubikcube 04:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with not having any polls on this page. That's the easiest solution... I realized when editing this section is that the biggest problem is that wikipedia is international. And I found it quite difficult to find world-wide abortion opinions online. That's why you see the last little line saying the bit about the UK and Ireland -- I was at least trying to throw other english contries a bone. But it still says nothing about Australia, Canada, or anything about the billion other people that speak english as a second language.

This all being said, I think that if we are to include some polling information:

1. We need to find a consistent way of finding abortion polling stats in a number of contries, (preferably world-wide) not just the US. Otherwise it belongs on Abortion in the United States.
2. We need to settle on a poll, or a group of polls, that we can all agree on. (Ugh, THAT should be fun.)
3. We have to update polls as new information comes available. That is to say, if we're going by Zogby, then when they have a new poll out -- out goes the old one, even if you don't like the newer results.
4. It'd be great if we can avoid polls that just use terms like pro-life and pro-choice; these names mean different things to different people (as you can see reflected in the polls).

"However, public opinion is much more moderate." -- I added that because the section had been butchered by both sides, and a number of the polls on that page show that most people are in the middle. That is to say: only a small minority of americans think that abortion should always or never be legal. The vast majority are in the middle, saying that it should be legal but harder to get, or that it should be legal in cases of rape or incest. That's what I was trying to point out. Before I edited, it basically said: "America is pro-life" which the vast majority of polls conflict with, and as the polls show, a lot of pro-lifers think that abortion should be legal some of the time, just as many pro-choicers think that abortion should be harder to get and very restricted. My two cents. --Quasipalm 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree with Quasipalm. If one listens to the media, the talking heads are almost always fanatics, because fanatics sell more soap. If one reads the polls, they overwhelmingly agree with Quasipalm's statement, "Public opinion is much more moderate." This is no surprise. Every statistician and pollster knows about the diversity of populations, and that opinions tend to cluster around the mean rather than at either extreme. Rick Norwood 13:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Public opinion being more moderate has been in that paragraph since I overhauled the section a month ago. Every now and then someone decides to change the polls, change which questions, or modify the conclusion. This is par for course over this entire article. Here is all I want to get across:

1. Advoacy groups tend to take extreme positions. No abortion, no restriction.

2. The general publics that I am aware of (US, Canada, large swaths of Europe) tend to be closer to the middle.

Actually, the general public in the US tends to think that abortion should be legal in very limited situtions - only in case of rape, incest, life of the mother, or physical (not mental) health of the mother. That means that in fact, most Americans - whenever the poll has the courage to ask - would outlaw 95% of the abortions committed in this nation. No matter how you slice it, abortion is not a product the general public will buy unless the word "abortion" is kept off the wrapper - and will certainly not buy unless the truth that abortion is largely used as birth control or for convenience is kept hidden. Outlawing 95% of the abortions (the mainstream view) in the US is not moderate at all - it is radical. But at the same time it is mainstream, and therefore the term moderate could apply. The word moderate is not a very good word to use since it is misleading. "Public opinion varies" is a gem of concision. 214.13.4.151 10:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

214, I agree with what you're saying, but not your conclusion. This is really a case of "spin". The facts we agree on. If we take pro life as complete criminilzation and pro choice as complete liberilization, I'd say rape, incest, disability etc is certainly a midpoint. You'd say its closer to pro life. That is all interpretation. The point we need to get across is that the extremes are rare.--Tznkai 15:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

214, I respect your opinion, but all of this depends on which polls you look at. It's actually quite difficult to say what "most americans" think. Why? Because they contradict themselves at every turn. Looking at the numbers, it seems quite possible that someone calls themselves Pro-Choice, but oppose all abortion, but supports Roe v Wade. Also, if you look at one question, you can find the numbers you like, but look at another question, phrased differently on another poll and you'll see they came to competely different conclusions. Because of these polling variations and just the wish-washy nature of public opinion, I think it's quiet difficult to say what America thinks at any given point. --Quasipalm 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am very confident this is true. The way I see it, we can either go into detail, listing questions as the current format shows, or we can just say "most individuals take a more moderate position" and external link a bunch of reputable polls.--Tznkai 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a consensus here, over a long period of time, that the sentence should stay in, with only the people most polorized themselves wanting it out. Rick Norwood 20:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The sentence is a concise way to sum up the abortion debate. I think that the results of a particular poll depend on the ___location or manner in which it is conducted. If you do a poll of Texas, you're generally going to find more pro-lifers; if you do a poll of, say, California, on the other hand, you're going to find a lot more pro-choicers. If the sample is smaller, too, then the margin of error will be higher, because the likelihood that you might by chance call up more supporters or opponents than exist in the general population is increased. Things tend to even out when you look at things from a wider perspective, though, and thus the truth in the statement, "However, public opinion is much more moderate." If possible, we should lean toward polls with the broadest geographical and numerical samples. The Abortion in Canada article contains information on Canadian opinion polls that could be easily incorporated. --Kyd 22:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I rolled the polling info into a "public opinion" sub-section and incorporated some of the Canadian data (I chose the Gallup polls, because they had the broadest questions). It's all nice and bulleted for future inclusions, like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. I hope that these changes are satisfactory. --Kyd 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Public opinion varies from poll to poll, and by country" is neuTral, universally applicable, concise and accurate. Certainly any poll that uses euphemisms is suspect as we have no idea what the poll respondents mean by their answer to the question asked (as others stated, we should avoid poll data about euphemistic terms (such as pro-choice, pro-life). 214.13.4.151 10:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I like this paragraph I wrote for abortion debate:

In spite of these polarising absolutes, most people hold a position divergent from either of the partisan camps. They feel that abortion is acceptable in the case of rape, incest, disability of the child, or for the health of the mother, but not for the sake of convenience (age, finances or other circumstances of the mother, the primary causes of abortion).[5][6]

Sam Spade 11:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be a reasonable compromise. --Tznkai 15:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think this is good too. However, we should note something like, "In most western countries..." or something. There are countries where it seems (but I can't find facts right now to back this up) that abortion is more or less ok as a form of birth control. We also might find a way of noting that opinions vary depending on the procedure at hand (opinions about RU486 can be much different than partial-birth abortion for example) and how abortion is defined (some people consider anything that keeps the fertilized egg from growing into a baby abortion -- some don't). Then again maybe I'm splitting hairs here. --Quasipalm 16:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine w the "most western" caveat, has anybody found a poll of opinions on abortion from say... Saudi Arabia? How about China? Clearly opinions vary according to culture ;) Sam Spade 16:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

A suggestion has been made that might point to a way to end the abortion debate once and for all: First, create a definition of "person" that is Universally accurate, regardless of physical nature, to distinguish persons from mere animals. It is possible that some humans will claim that the human body is not an animal body, but such a claim has no evidence to support it. In zoological fact the human body is indeed 100% animal. Yes, it has a few minor differences from all the other animals out there, but to claim that those differences suffice to declare the human body to be non-animal is akin to declaring that the body of a zebra, because it has a few minor differences from all the other animals out there, must be a non-animal. Therefore it must be concluded by everyone that the qualities that allow humans to be called persons are distinct from the animal body. It is those qualities that must be incorporated into a Universal Definition of Person. For example, IF God exists, has a non-biological or even non-physical nature, and is a person, then God is a person because {--put definitive criteria here--}. SO: After creating a Universal Definition of Person so accurate that even sufficiently advanced Artificial Intelligences could qualify, the only thing left to do is, quite simply, determine how unborn humans are (or when they become) so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too. Because then it will logically follow that, to the extent/duration unborn humans are not persons, abortion can be allowed, and to the extent/duration that they are persons, abortion can be prohibited. Any remaining argument will be focused on the ___location of the dividing line, and not on the killing of a mere human-animal body (because it is generally accepted that mere animals do not have any special "right to life").

new sentence

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"*The choices at stake: the woman's choice to abort the fetus vs. the rights of the fetus to self-preservation." This is certainly an improvement over the sentence it replaces, but it still isn't quite right, since "self" preservation is not what we are talking about, but preservation by others. How about: "The choices at stake: a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion or not vs. the right of an embryo or fetus to be carried to term and be born." I'll leave this here for comment until tomorrow. Rick Norwood 20:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I changed it to "self-preservation" in a quick edit over the previous version, which was certainly more POV. I too am not completely happy with the word "self" and like your suggestion much better. --Quasipalm 23:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'll make the change, if you haven't already done so. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Error in Map

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't abortion legal in Puerto Rico? I thought since it's a Commonwealth of the US, it would be. Anyone with info? 70.34.243.44 04:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing this out. I updated the map. I must have failed to edit Puerto Rico when I changed America. --Kyd 02:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

the form of the alternatives

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

By now, several people have made an effort to phrase the alternatives in a neutral way, and while the current version is certainly an improvement on the earliest version, it still seems to me to contain hidden ambiguities. For example, the "right to life". There is no such right. I destroy living cells every time I scratch an itch. The question is not right to life but right to be born. Please note that I am not objecting to the NAME "right to life". People can NAME their movement anything they like, and "right to life" is the name that has stuck. But in describing the alternatives, they ought to be described in a meaningful way. Rick Norwood 18:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I'm sorry you can't see the difference between your POV and reality. Nonetheless, the questions are phrased in a way that make clear what the alternative standpoints are. And this way is meaningful. If you don't agree then I can only object to "right to choose ..." or other stuff. Str1977 18:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

When you assume your POV is "reality" and my POV isn't, there is a problem. Everyone agrees on what the reality is. The paragraph under discussion is on the subject of how the words used to describe the same reality can influence the argument. What I object to is "Here are the words I use to describe your view of the reality and here are the words I use to describe my view of the reality." What I want to see is, here are the words actually used by one side and here are the words actually used by the other side. Rick Norwood 20:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rick, I agree with your last sentence. Let both sides frame and word "its alternative".

What I was referring to with POV vs. reality was your, IMHO, untenable point about scratching being somehow equal to killing a human being.

Goodday, Str1977 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to explain my point. People talk about the "right to life" but avoid the question of which life has rights, and why? Nobody wants a right to life for crabgrass or skin cells. Everybody wants a right to life for living, breathing human beings. But there is a large gray area in the middle, that a lot of people think is black and white. Some animal rights activists believe that every rat has a right to life. Roman Catholics believe every sperm has a right to life, and consider masterbation a mortal sin -- at least, they did when I was growing up -- I do not know whether they still do. Some fundamentalists join Roman Catholics in believing that birth control is a sin, which means that every potential human being has a right to life even before it is concieved. Some believe that any fertilized egg has a right to life, even though most fertilized eggs never emplant. Some believe that the right to life begins with an emplanted egg, even though about 75% of them abort spontaneously in the first week of pregnancy. Some believe that a fetus has a right to life as soon as it acquires brain cells. And many believe that a third trimester fetus has a right to life. The Bible is silent on the subject. So everybody who says the KNOW what is right and what is wrong mistake their opinion for certain knowledge. It is a legal question, and my personal opinion is that the original formulation of Roe v. Wade was a wise one. First trimester, up to the woman. Second trimester, up to the state. Third trimester, no abortion except in cases of rape or incest or where the health of the woman is threatened. But that's just me. I know that I don't know the answer, and would never presume to try to force somebody else to accept my views. Rick Norwood 20:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You're right, they are your POV, and it's good that you keep it out of the article, many here would not offer the same courtesy--WwJd 03:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Abortion related to the disabled community

Latest comment: 19 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Reverted this addition which referred to a disabled women's experience with a forced abortion:

Throughout history, disabled women have been forced — at times — to have abortions or to be sterilized. To this day, even in countries that specifically outlaw sterilization, disabled women are coerced into abortions.[7]

While this subject is certainly notable, the addition needs to be toned down a bit. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but how so? I could use a little more direction. --Jacquelyn Marie 12:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Pretty much remove the personal experience, which I have done above along with tweaks in the formatting. Is this acceptable to you? If you want to go into personal experiences and periods in history you can start a sub-section in History of abortion, preferably after Post-industrial. If done well and in detail it could become its own article in due course. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Roy -- this has been extremely helpful. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks!

You're welcome, and I would like to thank you for bringing up disability rights; which is a hidden and troubling aspect to abortion that is rarely discussed and usually overlooked. It is an outstanding example of what makes Wikipedia great... so upon reflection I will give you a Wikithanks and copy this to your talk page for others to see. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Either we should move this next to sex selected infanticide, or vice versa. Also, claim removed until backed up with some sort of source or refrence. Its a strong ambigious claim and we need to avoid those like the plague.--Tznkai 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It originally had a source, which somehow disappeared in the edit: http://www.newint.org/issue233/fruit.htm

--Jacquelyn Marie 03:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The article this links to is so powerful, that I think the paragraph should be expanded slightly and made more specific -- not "some countries" but name names. Rick Norwood 15:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

But which country would you out? China? As I understand it doesn't outlaw sterilization; and to use anecdotal evidence to point the finger at a country would be unfair and unencyclopedic unless we could provide solid evidence it is a more widespread problem than elsewhere. Yes, China comes to mind... and I guess that would be okay; but I'm concerned it would lead to further countries being added... and it could be a significant list when all said and done. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's an op-ed piece with a few anecdotes about sexuality and disability. The only direct reference to an abortion — specifically a forced abortion — is in a quotation from a poem and some insufficiently substantiated claims about China. It's a legitimate, noteworthy issue; but is this an appropriate source? --Kyd 15:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I hope Jacquelyn Marie can come up with some specifics. Rick Norwood 18:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply