Talk:2009 Brazilian girl abortion case

Quote by politician

Obviously, a person can say whatever s/he pleases, but the statement "Moraes expressed gratitude to the Archbishop for the excommunication, which, he said, had drawn attention to Brazil's restrictive abortion laws." This seems to have nothing to do with anything, since the law allowed what he did.

A lot of the last part seems non-WP:TOPIC. The people who are involved need to say whatever they need to say to justify themselves and is relevant. Most of the stuff in the last section is political posturing and has little to do with the incident itself. Student7 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with your removing Ipas - obviously women's rights organizations will object to this sort of thing, it's not news, dog bites man, commenters gonna comment. I think Moraes's comment is probably more suitable for inclusion - he is clearly an involved party. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of the second doctor's comment might be thought meant to put across a certain slant, since, even if he was excommunicated - what the CNBB called mistaken was the Archbishop's judging what depended essentially on the doctor's internal attitude - the same canon law that excommunicated him (if it did) obliged him to continue to attend Mass and pray. Just a remark.

I think the comment by Moraes can stay, changed perhaps to "... had drawn attention to what he considered to be Brazil's restrictive laws": in his mind the laws are restrictive in not authorizing him to carry out abortions more widely than in cases of rape and risk of the mother's death Esoglou (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's unnecessary. The laws are obviously restrictive - many people just happen to think that's a good thing. Your analysis of canon law is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally, "restrictive" is obviously a relative term. Laws that for Moraes are restrictive in not letting him abort at will, regardless perhaps of, for instance, stage of pregnancy, are for others lax. There is no absolute point at which a law becomes or ceases to be restrictive. I took it that the ", he said," was sufficient indication of the subjective character of the use of the word "restrictive". Student7's understanding of it, confirmed now by your declaration that in this context "restrictive" is to be understood in an absolute, not a relative, sense, calls for a clarification in this article. Therefore, if Student7 adds the clarification, I will support it. Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Just rm material that may not have received agreement. If so, my apologies and please revert. The item was an appearance before a women's rights organization.

I do not have a clarification of the statute. I agree that it may need one. Student7 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted the removal - also note that it was a medical convention on women's health, not a political meeting. By clarification of the statute, do you mean that you would like to know what it is that the law permits and forbids? We already mention this in the lede, though if you think it is necessary maybe we could mention it again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Medical challenge

There is nothing wrong with title of the article and some of its contents. Disputants have every right and are within the realm of notability for supporting or criticizing the archbishop for his decision. But let's be clear that the argument (so far) is mostly about woman's accessibility to abortion in Brazil.

I don't think we have any documentation about why, physically, the abortion was a medical challenge to either the girl (material to the article, BTW) or the doctors. Some details of why the abortion was truly a "medical necessity to save a child's life" is needed. With WP:RS.

Note: 9 year old has child in Mexico. So it is possible. I found this article without any difficulty. Doubtless, there are others.

• 12 year olds "routinely" have children in the US. Agree that isn't nine.

The body of a nine year old who can have children does not substantially differ from any other nubile woman. As far as "size" goes, pygmies have childen every day. Less often do midgets give birth, but they are often to normal size babies.

I am not advising this! The psychological damage of sex at eight or nine is probably a good deal worse than childbirth.

So let's save the "applause" for the doctor(s) which has not been shown to be germane to anything but political posturing, for when the medical need has been demonstrated. Looks like an ordinary abortion to me. Student7 (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be asking other editors to justify the abortion to you. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. According to the sources, her youth, small size, and the fact that she was pregnant with twins contributed to making the pregnancy or childbirth dangerous to her life. If we want to elaborate in the article with those reasons, that's one thing, but the other cases are irrelevant to this one because she is a different person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This makes media headlines, but does not justify itself as an encyclopedic article on that account alone. The media has its own axe to grind.

I am asking for the height of the girl, the estimated length of the pregnancy, and named factors justifying "medical threat" to health. I would not be surprised if these very basic facts are totally missing since the media was so intent on criticizing the archbishop, that it "just forgot" and never reported them.

Some of this is needed to justify the nearly-Nobel Prize winning status granted the abortioner at a Woman's Rights conference. Otherwise, this "applause" is mere posturing and political. If it really involved complicated medical procedure, let's document it. Student7 (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to look for more sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm hoping that Student7 will comment on the talk page, as the POV tag requires, but since he expressed a reason for it, I may as well begin the discussion myself. Anyway, I find it rather amusing that he has stated that doctors/public health experts are a biased audience who have no business commenting on a medical issue! Obviously that's not a very good argument. I pointed this out earlier, but perhaps he has missed it - this was not a political meeting, but a medical convention. Now that this misunderstanding is cleared up, hopefully Student7 will remove the unwarranted tag. (Or are you suggesting that only supporters of abortion rights support or specialize in women's health? That doesn't seem very generous towards the anti-abortion position.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Rm. Student7 (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad we managed to clear up that confusion without animosity! :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Still among the missing

One of two items are required to have an abortion in Brazil: 1) rape or 2) woman's health.

The mechanics of how this was done is missing here. Apparently, the doctors got the mother (child a minor) to sign a declaration that her daughter had been raped. Apparently all the doctors had to do at that point was to check box "b" on some form saying that the child's life was endangered (covering all their bases). None of this is obvious from the article other than by inference.

I agree that if a court order were required to "prove" rape, the babies would be three years old in a First World Country. Probably adults in a third world country.

"Taking the doctors word for life threatening condition" is not a given in most First World countries. Medical tissue would be inspected by a neutral "Tissue Committee." DNA would automatically be taken for legal authorities, to identify the father. The hospital would pass judgment on the procedure. For example if the patient died in a First World Country, a court would probably eventually be asked why the procedure was necessary, and someone might have to demonstrate cause to an court. There's none of this here. That is fine, but whatever process is being used, you say "doctors word only" (fine) but why can't that be made explicit? Student7 (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how much of this is speculation about the process involved and how much is from sources you've found that aren't in the article. Can you clarify? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, what many or most people would call "the patient" (the nine-year-old girl) did not die, although her twins did. There was no inquest other than, we can suppose, routine oversight within the hospital. It is idle for us to debate whether an inquest into the legality, not the morality, of the doctors' action would or would not have declared it justified on one or other of the legal grounds for abortion in Brazil. Dr Moraes told the press that in his hospital they carry out abortions on grounds of rape twice a month on average. For all we know, the hospital may carry out abortion on grounds of danger of death at least as frequently. It is doubtless a routine matter for Dr Moraes, who would like the legal grounds for abortion in Brazil broadened, and for other doctors there. Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In the USA, it's done with a wave of the hand. In this article: Abortion in the Republic of Ireland, you will find the history and details of a first world country that takes abortion seriously and has had many "discussions" over it. In Ireland, you can't just wave your hands and declare rape or medical necessity. It has to be real.

I'm not suggesting that Brazil change, but whatever they do, or did in this case, be documented, if available. And I concede that the information may not be available. Student7 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's worth remembering this is an article on a specific case, not an article on abortion in Brazil. That being the case, the details it will cover will be restricted to this case not general commentary or criticism of abortion law in Brazil or how it is enforced. And since there doesn't seem to be anything particular unusual about the case from a medical or legal standpoint, there's a fair chance such details have not really been covered. (The primary thing which may have been covered is what happened to the alleged rapist.) In terms of the earlier point, it's fairly common the first world countries that abortions on the grounds of a medical reasons are rarely challenged and legally may be difficult to challenge by anyone but the government who does not always have interest, so in fact the opinions of the doctors treating the case are normally accepted. In fact it's probably more common in third world countries that abortions are challenged particularly when the patients are poor and the hospitals are public or cater to the poor. And while I expect DNA would often be take to establish rape in first world countries, this most likely would make little difference to the doctors as even if it turned out the alleged father was not the father, this wouldn't suggest they did something wrong provided they did whatever was necessary under the law which may have simply been having good faith reason to believe the girl was raped. Similarly, if this is found out to be the case, in most first world countries there would need to be strong evidence that the mother was aware for her to be guilty of anything. In other words, in most first world countries, the purpose of any DNA test would primarily be to establish who the father was with the view towards possible criminal prosecution of that person, establishing the basis for the abortion would be a minor or possibly even no concern. BTW, any peer review would most likely make little or no consideration of any tissue samples as they do not seem relevant to the case. The article does not suggest any extant deformities or other problems with the fetus were a concern, instead simply the mother's age, size etc. So these details and the medical evidence for the validity of the assessment of them posing a risk would be what would be considered. That said, there doesn't seem to be anything unusual or that went wrong in this case, so a review is unlikely unless this is normal or required for all abortions which may not be the case. Nil Einne (talk)

Intrinsic evil of abortion

Roscelese reverted my edit to the Canon Law section where the two previous popes identify abortion as "intrinsically evil" because it wasn't "specifically relevant" to this case. No, JP II did not say anything specific about this case because he died 4 years before it happened. But the section on Canon Law also says nothing specifically about the case, so should it be removed as well? If that section remains, then my edit is relevant because the section subtly seeks to interpret Canon Law as saying that anyone "coerced by grave fear", or having "necessity", etc. is not subject to punishment. But they leave off the rest of the clause which states an exception for "intrinsically evil acts". I included the missing excerpt, and then a famous encyclical from JP II and a quote from Benedict which say that abortion is an intrinsically evil act. Hence there is no refuge to be found in this section of Canon Law. Without this information, readers are left with the wrong impression of the laws/mores of the Church, so the existing section should be removed or my changes reinstated. Jaeran (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's true that the poor organization of the article could be restored to a previous version, but it does seem that people involved cited these particular parts of canon law. Is there evidence that they also cited the parts you wished to insert? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In their own source it says: "The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: ... 4\ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls" The section stands alone from the sentence near the bottom of the page where some bishop/conference says that this excerpt alone is reason not to apply Law 1398, and I don't see that we have to pare down the full text of the canon/section in question just to accommodate the assertions of some priests without embarrassing them. The "unless the act..." part is not logically separated from the rest of it in any fashion. The quote doesn't even restrict itself to the very small portion that this bishop/conference referred to.

Here's an equivalent example: Imagine Republicans in Congress were contesting Obamacare before the Supreme Court, and we wrote an article about it. Imagine one of them asserts that it was illegal because it was passed in the 111th Congress, which opened on January 3, 2009, which is prohibited by the Constitution under Article 1, Section 4, which states "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December". The full section actually states "... the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day." The situation we've got here is equivalent to creating a section called "Constitutional law" which quotes the former section and implies that the Constitution says the 111th Congress was illegal.

On top of that, math articles don't need to cite a textbook for something like "2 + 2 = 4" or even much more complicated results, for very good reason, yet I would say we have a similarly immediate logical implication here. A papal encyclical by the very same man who promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law at issue explicitly designates abortion as "intrinsece malum" (intrinsically evil); many other sources/popes can be marshaled to establish this point. There is no dispute that the girl/her mother/the doctors performed an abortion. The girl is obviously excused, as a different section of the same title says the logical equivalent of "A person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age is not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept." There is absolutely no dispute that she was younger than 17 at the time. By the same token, anyone who indisputably/admittedly performed an abortion is not protected by the above section of Canon Law, because they committed an intrinsically evil act. They may still be found innocent (or at least judged innocent) by some other means, so it's not appropriate to do original research and conclude that they are subject to punishment, but we absolutely can point out all relevant factual information, which would lead one to conclude you're not logically covered by *this* section. Jaeran (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You're definitely going into original research territory here. Again, can you identify sources specifically related to this case which discuss the parts of canon law that you wish to include? Alternately, take it up with Esoglou, who is the one who's super determined to argue that nothing really happened here, not me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Inadequate lead" and "confusing" tags recently added

This article is very confusing and difficult to follow in terms of content. The lead does not summarize the content well. The lead mentions what seems to be an off-the-cuff statement in an interview regarding excommunication. But after reading the entire article, I’m still not clear if anyone was excommunicated or not.

Additionally, it seems the lead should be rewritten in lead format such as:

“The 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case is a case where a nine year old Brazilian girl and her mother may or may not have been excommunicated for an abortion that was deemed medically necessary”. ....or whatever this article is actually about, because honestly, after reading the entire article, I’m still not clear what this article is actually about. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the reason for this is, as I explained above, that Esoglou is very, very invested in demonstrating that the church totally is gentle and nice and totally didn't excommunicate people who took care of a small child, and I don't have the time to deal with every time someone tries to use Wikipedia to push a point of view. I would ping him if I were you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese and Esoglou (and anyone else involved in the writing of this article). I would like to suggest the following rewording of the lead, to help readers understand what this article is about, if it accurately reflects this case, as I said before, I'm not clear on the case, but after rereading several times this was the best summary I could come up with:

The 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case is a case where a nine year old Brazilian girl became pregnant with twins. After the girl’s mother obtained an abortion for the girl, Archbishop Jose Sobhirho said automatic excommunication applied to the girl’s mother and to the doctors who performed the abortion, prompting national and international criticism. Later, the National Confernece of Bishops of Brazil said that no one involved in the case was excommunicated.

Does this accurately reflects the case? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The summary should end with something like: "His statement won no support from other Church authorities, being contradicted by the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil and deplored by other bishops and canonists." Esoglou (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but "deplored" doesn't seem neutral enough for the lead. How does this sound...

"The 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case is a case where a nine year old Brazilian girl became pregnant with twins. After the girl’s mother obtained an abortion for the girl, Archbishop Jose Sobhirho said automatic excommunication applied to the girl’s mother and to the doctors who performed the abortion, prompting national and international criticism. Later, the National Confernece of Bishops of Brazil said that they didn't support Sobhirho's statements and that no one involved in the case was excommunicated." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The archbishop's opinion was disagreed with by more than the episcopal conference alone. The article shows that the Church as a whole wasn't neutral about it. Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of a concise and meaningful way to incorporate "the Church as a whole wasn't neutral about it" into the lead. Do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions on how to word this? Also, are you sure it really needs to be in lead? It seems the last sentence as proposed makes clear those higher up in Church hierarchy did not support Sobhirho. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not suggest that the words "the Church as a whole wasn't neutral about it" be put in the lead. I do disagree with your presenting the attitude of the episcopal conference and of what you call "those higher up in Church hierarchy" as a matter of "didn't support". They contradicted the archbishop's statement, called it unChristlike, lacking in compassion. That's not "didn't support" or being neutral.

The following is surely objective and clear: "In a 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case, outrage followed the statement by Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife that a woman who had an abortion performed on her nine-year-old daughter, pregnant with twins, and the doctors who performed the operation had all incurred automatic excommunication. Within the Catholic Church, the archbishop's statement was contradicted by the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, and it was faulted for lack of compassion by the Vatican newspaper." Esoglou (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, and opinion, there is no such thing as being just "not neutral." I mean to say that you're either neutral or you choose one side or another. In this case here, leading with it seems like it would be a bad idea. Present the various opinions then incorporate who took what side, and rather than saying "not neutral" depict exactly the belief while trying to be delicate. I don't know if the best route is to call it 'unchristlike' or what have you, but if there's a political or certain name for the position they took, I would use that. "They were of the WUG opinion, thus responded like a WUG in..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing the bad idea of putting the words "not neutral" in the lead. The proposed lead gives Sobrinho's opinion. It also gives that of those who reacted against it, and it is delicate enough not to quote the "un-Christlike" description applied to it by people who like Sobrinho were Catholic bishops ("of the WUG opinion"?). Esoglou (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion has died down, so I am making bold to act on its basis. What is the article about? What must the lead summarize adequately and clearly? Surely, the archbishop's statement and the reaction it provoked. I have therefore altered the lead in line with the above and removed the tags that complained of inadequacy and lack of clarity. Esoglou (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted updated lead and removal of tags because there doesn't yet seem to be consensus on new lead, and the article is still confusing; although, I agree discussion had died down, so it was reasonable in that respect. My main concern with your new proposed lead is it doesn't seem neutral enough and it leaves the readers (or at least leaves me) with the impression that this whole case never really warranted the controversial press coverage it received. "Outrage" seems to imply over-reacting. I agree the Church position should be adequately represented in lead. Would you be comfortable with the version I suggested earlier with a brief addition regarding the statement that Vatican did not support Sobrinho? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

To me "outrage" means "very strong criticism", not "excessive criticism", as you seem to understand it. What would you prefer in its place? Just plain "criticism"?

Would you please write out again your proposal in the light of the discussion. For my part, I don't think that "The 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case is a case where a nine year old Brazilian girl became pregnant with twins" is an adequate opening sentence. For all I know, every year there may be one or more such cases that lack the notability required for a Wikipedia article. It could be argued that the bishop's statement about excommunication was notable, but even that is doubtful, since I wouldn't be surprised if every year some bishop somewhere makes a similar statement. What was decidedly notable was the publicity and controversy that arose around what that particular bishop said about that particular abortion. You want the lead to avoid giving "the impression that this whole case never really warranted the controversial press coverage" - surely that's not why you wanted the article to present what the bishop said, not as something that the Church contradicted and decried, as it did, but merely as something it "didn't support", thus giving for controversial press coverage broader grounds than a mere expression of view by a single bishop. For my part, I think it enough to report that there was controversial press coverage, and I see nothing wrong in reporting the coverage as strongly negative, as expressing outrage. Esoglou (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bolding is against MOS for articles with descriptive titles instead of actual names. As for non-MOS style concerns, we should first state what happened first, and secondly state what happened second. Writing the outrage first is strange. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my personal preference concerning bolding the opening words. To eliminate the strangeness that you discern in mentioning the outrage early (and to eliminate the word altogether because of the problems BoboMeowCat finds in it), it is enough to change the text to something only slightly less neat: "In 2009, Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife in Brazil told an interviewer that a woman who had an abortion performed on her nine-year-old daughter, pregnant with twins, and the doctors who performed the operation had thereby all incurred automatic excommunication. His statement was widely condemned and was declared unfounded by the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, as well as being faulted for lack of compassion by the Vatican newspaper." Of course, if you require that what happened even before the archbishop's statement, be mentioned first, that can be done also. Did you mean that the abortion came first? Or did you mean the impregnation by, it seems, the stepfather came first? Whichever you and BoboMeowCat agree on, I will accept. I don't see any particular order as obligatory. Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of the MOS convention regarding articles with descriptive titles. I also tend to prefer that the lead be presented in chronological order. What do you guys think about this:

"In 2009, a nine year old Brazilian girl became pregnant with twins. After the girl’s mother obtained an abortion for the girl, Archbishop Jose Sobhirho said automatic excommunication applied to the girl’s mother and to the doctors who performed the abortion, prompting national and international criticism. Later, the National Confernece of Bishops of Brazil said they did not support Sobhiro and that no one was excommunicated. The Vatican clarified by saying automatic excommunication did not apply in this case because they acted to save the girl’s life.”

I also think the article could benefit from a “Background” section that comes immediately after the lead that contains the information on how the mother came to find out girl was pregnant, the suspected abuse of the step-father, and the medical concerns raised by doctors due to girl's small size. Such a background section could replace and expand on the section currently titled “the abortion". I think readers might be interested in such background information prior to info on the abortion laws in Brazil, which is how the article is currently laid out, but I’m interested in others thoughts on this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why "later"? Wasn't the press conference called by the body of the Brazilian bishops also part of the national criticism? Why still falsely present it as a neutral reaction ("did not support"), instead of taking account of observations by other editors, as I have modified my proposal in view of your observations and Roscelese's? What source can you cite for what, according to you, "the Vatican" said? I hereby state that my reaction to this proposal is no mere "did not support", but an "opposed". Esoglou (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that “later” is kind of bad. I worded my lead based on the sources I was able to read (the ones written in English). I have no English language source for does not support, but you indicated they didn’t support in the above discussion. The criticism referenced was specifically toward the Catholic Church's stance on abortion, as it applied to this case. It seemed to me that the Conference of Bishops was trying to give the public a more accurate position of the Church view to stop the criticism they were receiving. The source I used for the Vatican is this one: [[1]]. How do you feel guys feel about this rewording:

“In 2009, a nine year old Brazilian girl became pregnant with twins. The girl’s mother obtained an abortion for the girl and afterward, Archbishop Jose Sobhirho said that automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church applied to the girl’s mother and to the doctors who performed the abortion, prompting national and international criticism. The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil disagreed with Sobhirho and said that no one in the case was excommunicated, and the Vatican clarified by saying automatic excommunication did not apply in this case, because those involved acted to save the girl’s life.” --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not interpret the Osservatore Romano article as so conclusive but, since many Wikipedia editors would say that one should follow what the source you cite says, I will not voice objection. However, you must change the attribution: not "the Vatican" but an individual official. The bishops conference did not say no one was excommunicated. You must correct the spelling of the archbishop's name. When used as an adjective, "nine-year-old" is hyphenated. Some other things also need fine-tuning or copyediting, but perhaps Roscelese will object to your proposal, making it useless to suggest changes to it. Esoglou (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems Roscelese and you are more familiar with the sources for this article than I am, many of which are not in written in English. Do you guys think this neutrally reflects the sources:

“In 2009, a nine-year-old Brazilian girl became pregnant with twins. The girl’s mother obtained an abortion for the girl and afterward, Archbishop Jose Sobrinho said that automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church applied to the girl’s mother and to the doctors who performed the abortion, prompting national and international criticism. In response, the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil opposed Sobrinho’s statement and Vatican bioethicists said automatic excommunication did not apply in this case, because those involved acted to save the girl’s life.”

However, I'm not sure "opposed" is best here. I think "did not support" seems better but can live with opposed if those more familiar with the sources think it's better.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I speak Italian and French, but not Portuguese - the Portuguese sources I had to run through Google Translate and supplement with my knowledge of other Romance languages, so if there's something you think I got wrong, definitely bring it up. Looks fine to me, and I also think "did not support" is preferable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"CNBB desautoriza iniciativa de bispo" does not mean "did not support". "Autorizar" means "to authorize". "Desautorizar" literally means "to dis-authorize", "to de-authorize", the direct opposite of supporting. It means "to reject", "to disapprove", "to deprecate", "to disavow", indeed "to debunk". Italian equivalents would be "sconfessare", "smentire" (notice the initial "s-", corresponding to "des-" in Portuguese and Spanish, "dés-" in French, "dis-" in English. In French, you could translate "desautorizar" as "désavouer" or simply, with regard to a declaration, "nier". Do you need help to understand what the Secretary General stated: "A mãe da menina não está excomungada" (Italian: La madre della ragazza non è scomunicata? French: La mère de la jeune fille n'est pas excommuniée)? It means: "The girl's mother is not excommunicated" - the direct opposite of what the archbishop said. By now you can surely understand that "A Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil (CNBB) anunciou nesta quinta-feira (12) que ninguém foi excomungado no caso" means that the episcopal conference declared/announced that "nessuno è stato scomunicato nel caso", "personne n'a été excommunié dans le cas", "nobody was excommunicated in the case". These examples are surely enough to show that the episcopal conference did not just refrain from supporting the archbishop. Quite the contrary. Esoglou (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That was patronizing and unnecessary. As I stated, I read the sources with the help of Google Translate and my knowledge of Romance languages. You have a different opinion, but you are not better informed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I just explained the meaning of the newspaper reports to someone who states she doesn't know the language, with the aid of parallels in languages she says she does know. You say you have a different opinion of the meaning. I presume that, in good faith, you are not just acting on the basis of "I dislike it, so I refuse to accept it." So state your opinion of the meaning of "CNBB desautoriza iniciativa de bispo", "A mãe da menina não está excomungada", and "A Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil (CNBB) anunciou nesta quinta-feira (12) que ninguém foi excomungado no caso". Wikipedia has facilities for deciding who is right. The years in which Portuguese has been my daily spoken and written language afford me full confidence of the result. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Roscelese's intervention distracted me from commenting on BMC's latest proposal, which was inaccurate in its account of the content of the Osservatore Romano article. It was inaccurate also in speaking of excommunication from the Catholic Church. Excommunication does not place a Catholic outside the Church: the excommunicated person remains a member of the Church, while being deprived of some rights such as access to the sacraments. I have removed these two points of confusion from the text that BMC has placed in the article. Is my adjustment acceptable? Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Does BMC still find the article as a whole "confusing"? In what way? Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the non-discussed non-neutral changes made to lead. Esoglou, above you appear to have agreed to everything but the "from the Catholic Church" part when you wrote I did not interpret the Osservatore Romano article as so conclusive but, since many Wikipedia editors would say that one should follow what the source you cite says, I will not voice objection. However, you must change the attribution: not "the Vatican" but an individual official. The bishops conference did not say no one was excommunicated. You must correct the spelling of the archbishop's name. When used as an adjective, "nine-year-old" is hyphenated. . All of your requests were incorporated in the lead, so I was surprised by the undiscussed significant changes. Regarding "from the Catholic Church", I think it's important to make clear this excommunication applies to the Catholic Church, as other churches also excommunicate. Any suggestions on how to word this? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Immediately above this, I explained that I did not agree with what you thought was a consensus text, but had been distracted by Roscelese's intervention.

BMC, in what way do you think it non-neutral to say the Vatican newspaper article "deplored" Sobrinho's statement? Didn't it quite clearly deplore it? And who were the unspecified "Vatican bioethicists" you wrote of, and when did they contradict the usual teaching of Catholic moral theologians, who do not say that, if the purpose is to save a girl's life, automatic excommunication doesn't apply? Esoglou (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou, this is confusing because there was only one minor content change to the lead since you said you would "not voice objection", and that was the minor addition of specifying the excommunication was from the Catholic Church. However, you voiced objection to content you specifically said you would not voice objection to and then changed content of lead beyond that in a way that seemed non-neutral. Perhaps you are referring to one of the sources not written in English, but to answer your question, nothing I've read or seen others interpret makes it clear the Vatican "deplored" Sobrinho's statement. Honestly, it's not clear how being "distracted" by Roscelese, after saying you would not voice objection, would cause objection to previously un-objected to content. Also, I linked the source used for the Vatican bioethicists above regarding excommunication not applying because of saving the girl's life, but here is that source again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002415.html --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not having given a timely response to your edit of 15:51 on 1 July, and having instead attended to Roscelese's of 15:57 on the same day. I should have been more attentive.

You may indeed report The Washington Post as saying that the Vatican's top bioethics official said the two Brazilian doctors "do not merit excommunication". But it would be false to report it as saying that a number of Vatican bioethicists said automatic excommunication did not apply. Not even the bishops conference said that - only that there was insufficient evidence to declare them excommunicated. In fact, even the Wikipedia article's account of Fisichella's comment (which the lead is supposed to summarize) says he spoke of the excommunication as automatic, while complaining that the focus placed on it showed a lack of compassion. What else was this but deploring? You can get a full English translation of Fisichella's comment towards the end of another press commentary on it here. Of course, if you want to report remarks made in that other press commentary, you must also report them as remarks by the journalist, not as Wikipedia-guaranteed facts. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice lots of undiscussed changes to the lead. I have multiple concerns regarding the changes, but it's probably best to do one concern at a time, so let's start with "contradicted". Esoglou, Roscelese and I preferred "did not support" but allowed your preference of "opposed" which you have now changed to "contradicted". Did the Bishop's conference say automatic excommunication did not apply to the mom and the doctors, if so, it seems we should just write that, if not, it seems we shouldn't say "contradicted". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it did. "A Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil (CNBB) anunciou nesta quinta-feira (12) que ninguém foi excomungado no caso" means: The National Conference of the Bishops of Brazil (CNBC) declared this Thursday (the 12th of the month) that nobody was excommunicated in the case. That is the opening sentence in this reliable source's report, which runs as headline: "Para CNBB, ninguém foi excomungado em caso de aborto de menina de 9 anos", which means: According to CNBB, nobody was excommunicated in case of abortion of nine-year-old girl. That surely is clear. Another report on the episcopal conference's statement on the matter even says the CNBB "protested" against Sobrinho's initiative. I'll be back tomorrow to see what other questions you have. Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The addition of 1. gratuitous quotation and 2. attempts to undermine reliable sources were both mistakes. BMC's version is better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese that quotes are not good for lead. The lead is best short and to the point. Quotes can be used in body of article for more context and further explanation. Additionally, Esoglou I don't quite understand your objection to the Washington Post article. Are you arguing that the Vatican bioethicist did not actually say the doctors didn't merit excommunication, because they acted to save the girl's life? Also, the addition of "Catholic teaching on abortion cannot change" seems WP:Coatrack. How does that statement change the Church teaching on abortion? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It was media interpretations such as that of the Washington Post that made it necessary to issue the statement that no, the Church had not changed its teaching that it is immoral in such circumstances to use direct killing one human life as a means towards saving another human life. If you want to include the Washington Post interpretation, you need to include also the Vatican denial of it.

I pointed you to where you can find a complete English translation of the Osservatore Romano article. You obviously have not yet read it. If you had, you would see that the author did not in fact say that, because the doctors acted to save the girl's life, they didn't merit excommunication. Please read at least these paragraphs:

Carmen [the name the writer gives the girl, not her real name] has brought one of the most delicate moral cases back to light; treating it hastily would not do justice to her fragile person, or to those who are involved in the matter in various ways. Like every individual, concrete case, it deserves to be analyzed in its specificity, without generalizations. Catholic morality has principles that cannot be ignored, even if one wanted to do so. The defense of human life from the moment of its conception is one of these, and is justified according to the sacredness of life. Every human being, in fact, from the first moment bears imprinted within himself the image of the Creator, and for this reason we are convinced that the dignity and rights of each person must be recognized, and first among these is its inviolability.

Procured abortion has always been condemned by the moral law as an intrinsically evil act, and this teaching remains unchanged to our day, since the beginning of the Church. Vatican Council II, in "Gaudium et Spes" – a document very open and attentive toward the contemporary world – uses unexpectedly unequivocal, extremely harsh words against direct abortion. Formal cooperation itself constitutes a grave sin, and, when it is carried out, automatically puts the person who committed it outside of the Christian community. Technically, the code of canon law uses the expression "latae sententiae" to indicate that the excommunication is applied at the very moment in which the action is carried out.

We maintain that there was no need for so much urgency and publicity in declaring an action that takes place automatically. What is needed more at this moment is a testimony of being present to those who suffer, an act of mercy that, while remaining firm on principle, is capable of looking beyond the juridical sphere in order to attain that which the law itself sees as the purpose of its existence: the good and the salvation of those who believe in the love of the Father, and of those who welcome the gospel of Christ like the children whom Jesus called to his side and embraced in his arms, saying that the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who are like them.

The short quotation from the third of these paragraphs that I gave was to let you see why I changed your text, which through my fault had not been discussed here before you posted it in the article. That short quotation has achieved its purpose and is no longer needed, and so I have removed it. You certainly can't give the Washington Post interpretation of the Osservatore Romano article without also giving its rebuttal. I don't think the lead is the place for going into the interpretation that certain media placed on it and the Holy See's subsequent denial of their interpretation, and so I have removed that also. I think the place for that is in the body of the article, where it is already dealt with. You could, if you wish, insert a link to the Washington Post article as an example of the "press coverage" to which "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded ... calling it manipulation and exploitation".

You obviously won't object to the description of the Osservatore Romano article as a "rebuke" to Sobrinho himself, although that is a stronger expression than my first proposal about "deploring" the archbishop's statement, which you deleted. The Washington Post calls it not just a rebuke but "a frank rebuke". Esoglou (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case. 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/20140223153757/http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso%2Ccnbb-desautoriza-iniciativa-de-bispo%2C338133%2C0.htm to http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso%2Ccnbb-desautoriza-iniciativa-de-bispo%2C338133%2C0.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316160505/http://www.zenit.org/article-20441?l=french to http://www.zenit.org/article-20441?l=french

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) 10:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)