Talk:Abortion/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Abortion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Votes for/against "Totally disputed" tag

I think this article does not need this tag. It is informative on how abortion is done. Views of Pro-life or Pro-choice people does not matter in defining how the procedure is done. If you are disputing the procedures please discuss it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Granted it is a contraversial issue (and the tag for it exists on this page). Lots of moral and ethical issues are involved. This article does not question either sides. It provides how moral and ethical issues. It also provides what health risks are involved (just like any medical practice). I don't hold views either way. I do see both sides moral and ethical issues. To discuss those there is a seperate main article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hence the vote (please sign your vote with --~~~~:

For (remove the tag)

For --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Stereotek 06:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For downgrading the tag, the article has improved. Spaully 16:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vote here

Against (keep the tag)

Vote here

Neutral (???)

Vote here

Comments

At this point, I don't want to remove the tag, but I think we're getting there quickly. Thanks to everyone for their very hard work.--Tznkai 16:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

m: Don't vote on everything. If you want to remove it, do so, and someone will put it back if they disagree. Much quicker and saves a lot of divisive voting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

I apologize in advance if I'm doing this incorrectly - I'm new and not 100% confident as to how discussions are organized/edited. My question is in regard to this sentence: "Abortion rights advocates often argue that abortion needs to be widely available because some women become pregnant due to rape or incest (estimated at 2% of pregnancies)" under the "Rape, incest and health" debate section. It seems to me that 2% of all pregnancies being due to rape or incest is very high, and I'm wondering if it's meant to say that 2% of abortions occur because the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. I tried briefly to find the statistic online with no luck. Can someone clarify (and let me know if this is the wrong way to go about checking)? Thanks! /Icefyre 21:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two small changes

I made two small changes to the descriptions of both the pro-choice and pro-life viewpoint. I feel that my changes promote accuracy and neutrality. Most importantly, it is true that many who are pro-choice privately find abortion distasteful even while maintaining that women have a right to it. Secondly, there are many convincing philosophical arguments on the pro-life end, and pro-lifers should not be stereotyped as basing their beliefs on this matter upon religious convictions.

I'd also like to point out to the supporters of both that it is vitally important for this article to portray this issue as accurately and neutrally as possible.

These changes got lost in the revert. Would someone who's got time do me a favor and try to fix the POV bits to reflect the less extreme views on the subject? I really think that better representing the more moderate views would add a great deal to the article.Bill Mutz 13:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

baby vs fetus

We all know that a fetus is a potential baby. When a woman has a spontaneous miscarriage she may mourn her unborn and unknown baby that never was. However, in the context of abortion, the vast majority of fetuses are pre-viable and in this context, for a "neutral" encyclopedia article, as for a medical textbook, it is misleading and deliberately inflammatory to insist that they be called "babies." Yes, people use different words in different contexts for the same thing. Fetus is a perfectly good and accurate word when the intention is to describe the process of abortion neutrally. It doesn't mislead or conceal anything and doesn't sound so self-righteously sermonizing. Baby is a good word to use in a sermon or a political polemic, but that is not what this is supposed to be, right? alteripse 03:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yucky intro, it won't last long. Mentioning America twice is overkill, probably unnecessary to mention it at all given its an acknowledged systematic bias. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Why yucky? Just the American comment? The article is extremely American-centered, so why not acknowledge it? If the American obsession and acrmony over this topic is not unique, someone should put other perspectives in as well. alteripse 04:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I was coming to clarify that... its certainly a more informative intro with the terms and such, but the composition is long and awkward to me, especially in comparison to previous leads. Simply put abortion is controversial around the world; specifying America stands out as inaccurate (saying America is more divided on the issue than other western countries is clearer). Putting further perspectives (making the lead even longer) isn't necessary if America is just removed. I guess keeping the acknowledgement is fine, but its not just social (as the lead eloborates) and its not the "primary" focus... the primary focus is (or should be) Abortion; which the lead is elaborating. That results in a little confusion IMO, the lead ends up redirecting the focus in the last sentence. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Much better... I'll do some tweaks and see what you think. Initially I didn't like "without survival," but its quite accurate, I think it was the novelty of the phrase that troubled me; and that it does seems to repeat termination. But I'd certainly agree we should err on the side of clarity. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

defending the intro

To the anon contributor: You have removed useful and accurate definitions from the intro. You have made it less precise and accurate, since the word truly applies to both natural and induced abortions, even if you are only interested in one type. You have introduced unnecessarily POV terms: when there are various terms used for something, choosing a less precise term that is used only by one faction of a controversy is by that fact arguing only one POV. To argue otherwise is simply dishonest. The place for making it clear that some people prefer the terms baby and death is in the section on opposition to elective abortion. Both terms (baby and death) are used in many ways and in many contexts, and they are not the best choice for the intro to this article because the choice of them would already place the article on a single side of the controversy. Finally, all of us would appreciate it if you would sign in as a user and reassure us that you share the purpose of this project, which is to produce an accurate article that reflects the range of perspectives on the topic rather than a single view. Thanks. alteripse 12:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC) PS, perhaps it is worth explicitly acknowleging both POVs in the intro, with the words deired by both. Does that satisfy?

Wasn't me. All that I did was add content to the POV sections, so there must be some other anon user. I generally try to make a habit of mentioning any changes I make on the discussion pages and usually discuss major changes to introductions before making any actual changes. In spite of what my own changes might have reflected, though, I'm actually very pro-choice. Odd, eh? In any event, in order to prevent future mix-ups, perhaps I'll follow your request and log in before adding more content to this controversial subject. Oh, and how do you go about putting your nick at the end of a posting?

......oh, you mean like this, right?Bill Mutz 13:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, then I wasn't talking to you and what I said doesn't apply to you. Look at the history and you will see the list of anon IP changes of the last 8 hours. That is what I was addressing. Also, you sign with four tildes-- here are two ~~, adding two more makes it a signature with time stamp: alteripse 13:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Medical definition POV ?

STR1977, see above for the problems with your preferred paragraph: it is inaccurately narrow, omits useful terminology, and uses terms used ONLY by one side of the controversy, signalling the reader that a single POV will be presented. Is that your intention? I am not trying to exclude your POV; it is presented very strongly in the second paragraph, and you can elaborate more fully in the appropriate section of the article. The first paragraph is definitional, using the same language as would be used to describe any other biological or medical event or procedure. There are no terms in the first paragraph not used by both sides of the controversy. Thanks for understanding. alteripse 15:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Alteripse, but "the use of surgical procedures or drugs to end a pregnancy, associated with the death of the human embryo or fetus." is a medical definition taken from Webster's (see above) and it is not POV. All that's in the sentence is fact. Nothing more, nothing less. And it is straightforward, clear, intelligible language, whereas "without the survival" is awkward unusual and, though not actually wrong, whitewashing to further a certain POV. This is the only change I made, the "baby-fetus-embryo" change was someone else. Where am I omitting terminology? (PS. Written partly before reading preceding post by Alteripse) Str1977 15:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thinking the medical definition of induced abortion should go first is a POV Str1977. I don't necessarily disagree with that, since the word "abortion" is generally understood to be exactly that. But, Wikipedia is not a dictionary... medical or otherwise, so we need not prioritize that definition. Without survival is awkward... but it is an accurate inclusive definition of "abortion" which is elaborated on immediately after. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I know that pro-choice advocate don't like the mentioning of death in this context, but a fact is still a fact. This paragraph is not about the moral issue and death is not a moral term. However, if this fact is constantly denied (or if it is claimed, that there are two kinds of death), one is amazed how far some people will go to justify their POV - even though that POV has its rightful place further down in the entry. Str1977 15:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you for the response. I am opposed to abortion, but can understand the other side and I am trying to make this article neutral at someone else's request, to my great regret. Nonetheless, please see my point. If you start by defining abortion as the deliberate killing of a baby, you are signalling to the reader that at least the intro is being written from a POV so extreme that it only uses words and concepts acceptable to one side of the controversy. Is this your intention? The additional logical problem is that your words already implicitly accept only one conclusion to the controversy. And my first paragraph is far more a "medical definition" in any sense of the term. alteripse 15:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Alteripse, I see your point and I concur with you on fetus/embryo. (changes there were not from me) I also see the effect you are considering. However, I think the "without survival" is really awkward (and I know why others are more comfortable with it) - it'd make sense only if the death was some side-effect of the procedure, but it's not. Consider, whether you'd describing beheading someone like this: "severing head from the body at the neck, without survival of the subject"? I don't think so. But thanks for your consideration. Str1977 15:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well we are getting to the point where they could survive if put in stasis and had the capability to reconnect the head. But I'm siding with you on this one... it should be reworded to "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of the fetus." Saying death is the result is clear and doesn't take sides. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, guys, it's a living thing. Our ability to distinguish between one living thing and another does not make the severence of its life something other than death. "Abortion usually refers to the intentional destruction of a placental mammal's foetel offspring at some point prior to the event of birth. The effect of doing this is that a pregnancy is 'aborted,' hence the name" would suffice as the beginning of the intro, and "The source of the controversy is that such abortions necessarily result in the death of the fetus, and many, understandably, do not completely reconcile this with their morality" or something roughly similar would work well enough as an intro to the dispute. For that matter, let's put the dispute in a completely seperate article, hopefully allowing us to stick to purely non-POV subject matter here in the main article on abortion. It's worth a try, at least Bill Mutz 17:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am persuaded & changed to death. Help me defend this against our anonymous reverter who isn't willing to discuss or compromise. alteripse 16:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

How about "destruction of an embryo or fetus"? --Nachtrabe 22:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's odd, overcomlicated language for stating the obvious. Str1977 22:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing "odd" or "overcomplicated" about it--the word "destruction" has an intuitive meaning here that is absolutely correct and that does not carry the social stigma that the word "death" can convey. --Nachtrabe 16:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Destruction is not intuitive; it has odd violent connotations; and complicates matters since it is non-specific and begs the question how was the fetus destroyed? Which isn't the point (the point is the fetus is dead), and has complicated answers. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Expulsion... now that's a quality word. It clarifies that the fetus is not necessarily dead yet; but is not in the womb anymore. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fetus is certainly dead if her dismemberment began with her tiny head! You may remember that the wording used to include "....associated with the death of the embryo or fetus" - which covers the various ways the preborn human meets her death. 214.13.4.151 10:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, but other causes of abortion may not kill the fetus until its expelled... your wording does make more sense though. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Str1977~, et al: How is death a FACT? I do not think it is a fact - I think it is untrue - to me, and countless others, including biology textbooks and those in the medical field, see the fetus/embryo as a bunch of undifferentiated cells - that are NOTHING - they are not ALIVE - therefore they CANNOT DIE - they have the POTENTIAL to become something but are not - I still consider death EXTREMELY POV - I am willing to see your viewpoint, but you have to be willing to see mine, as well. --Nadsat 05:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also, alteripse - I feel stupid for ever having involved you in this, I'm sorry, but thank you for the original NPOV quest, I suppose. --Nadsat 05:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nadsat; a fetus and even undifferentiated cells are alive by most definitions, please stop wasting time. If you wish to define alive as strictly as multicelled organism with complex systems like a brain etc etc, go right ahead. But anything biological that is taking in energy and doing something, be it growing, differentiating, moving, is also alive. It has to be alive to give rise to a life; except if we are talking about abiogenesis; but that's a rare phenonmenon and another facinating discussion by itself. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A cell is alive - until it dies. A sperm cell is alive until it dies. An ovum is alive until it dies. Whatcontradcits your claims about biology and medicine is that the doctor will consider that he has two patients as long as the mother tells him she does not want an abortion. Are you really that ill-informed as to not know that even die hard pro-abort medical professionals admit that after a few weeks the cells begin to differentiate and by the 8th week (the point after which almost ALL abortions are performed) there is no dispute as to whether there is full differentiation. Science is on the side of the fetus! SO sad that your paradigm blinds you to the science. Many people who have been part of an abortion have a hard time letting go of the paradigm you hold because it is a comfortable paradigm ("its just tissue or cells") that allows one to avoid any admission of responsibility for anything more than a removal of unpleasant cells. 214.13.4.151 12:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151 15:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is what abortionists have to say about death and fetuses and babies and children:

Reporter: "Let's talk first about whether or not the fetus is dead beforehand...." Haskell: "No, it's not. No, it's really not....In my case, probably about a third of those are definitely are [sic] dead before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not." "Dr". Martin Haskell, being interviewed about his "partial-birth abortion" practice

"And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . .In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective." "Dr". Martin Haskell, inventor of the "partial-birth abortion"

"[A]bortion is an integral part of family planning. Theoretically this means abortions at any stage of gestation. Therefore I favor the availability of abortion beyond 20 weeks. . . .after 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there. I think, 'Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.'" David Grundmann, medical director for Planned Parenthood of Australia

OKAY, sure - I was being stupid. I do apologize; I was mad, not thinking straight. Let's hope I can think straight now. I will disagree with 214 though - science does not say that differentiation has occured in the first trimester - when abortion - the main type spoken about on this page - not partial birth - etc. - so when MOST of the usual abortions occur is in the 1st trimester - differentiation has not taken place! The embryo is still a mass of undifferentiated cells - they have the POTENTIAL TO BECOME SOMETHING - to be given a designation - but at that point they are not anything. Just a bunch of cells. So the only scientifically valid argument those who oppose abortion and choice can make is that the fetus has rights because it has the POTENTIAL to become a human being. But at the point of abortion it is just a bunch of undifferentiated cells - nothing actual - the mother is actual - the embryo, you ask...it just has potential.

I guess my main problem is that death sounds POV - I've never heard abortion in a biology textbook etc. describe abortion as the death of the embryo or fetus - when I read that I immediately think ...oh so it's the death of a baby? Which I think people might come read the definition and suddenly think that is what an abortion is - killing a baby. When really that is what is under "debate" - does that make sense? I'll try and explain better at another time if you would like. --Nadsat 00:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It may sound pov, but I can personally assure you its not. The problem could be with pro-choicers avoiding those words as an understandable overreaction to pro-life attacks and concepts. As to biology textbooks, what language do they use (non-viable?), or do they simply describe the proceedure and neglect the outcome to the fetus? Needless to say, Wikipedia isn't a biology textbook, and we precisely say an embryo or fetus is dying in the sentence. If it didn't die then it would be premature birth, so I don't see a way around it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I provided this definition earlier - from The American Heritage Dictionary - abortion: induced termination of pregnancy before the embryo or fetus is viable.

I found this neither misleading nor POV - and from pretty much every definition I have seen - including say dictionary.com etc. when speaking of abortion the fetus is referred to as nonviable. What do you not like about the definition I have provided? - since nobody has told me any reason why they do not like it yet. --Nadsat 05:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I also found this one from the Oxford English Dictionary:

abortion

• noun 1 the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

--Nadsat 06:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nadsat,

I think there is some confusion between abortion being death and an embryo/fetus being non-viable.

That abortion results in the death of the embryo/fetus is a fact

- the debate above is not really about that, but about how to "classify" the "living entity" brought to death - is it merely (that's the important word) bunch of cells or is merely that but a person with rights.

That it is a (biological) human being in the first stages of development is also a fact.

As for viable, it depends on the stage of pregnancy the abortion is done.

An embryo is not viable, since it cannot even barely survive outside, but a fetus can be viable (as in the cases of people who - after medical intervention - have survived their own abortion), because it can survive.

That's what viable means and hence it is not part of the definition of abortion in general to say, that the fetus is non-viable. This entry is about induced abortion in general (including partial birth abortion or other late term abortions) hence it makes no sense to put non-viable into the defintion. Sometimes the fetus is viable, sometimes it isn't. And hence the American Heritage Dictionary defintion is clearly wrong.

And I'm also sorry the OED now takes part in hiding facts behind words - though it at least only leaves out facts, rather than stating obvious falsehoods (unless the defintion was in some way qualified beyond the words you quoted (e.g. in the first trimester, abortion is ...)

Str1977 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as the reasoning cited by Nadsat:

"abortion as the death of the embryo or fetus - when I read that I immediately think ... oh so it's the death of a baby? Which I think people might come read the definition and suddenly think that is what an abortion is - killing a baby."

That's a reasoning the wording "death of the embryo ro fetus" might provoke, yes, but unfortunately (from my POV) it doesn't provoke that nearly often enough. People can still think for themselves and even shut themselves off to the consequences.

However the statement you cited is completely factual and if it triggers such a reasoning, it might be because it is most reasonable deduction from these facts.

This should lead you to not disputing the facts (and these are facts) but to reevaluate your reasoning.

But even if you don't do that, you should at least acknowledge the facts.

There would be not debate about this all, if abortion were not associated with the "death of embryo or fetus".

What the debate is actually about is, whether the embryo/fetus is a person, and flowing from that, whether it is permissibile to kill the embryo/fetus more than it is permissible to kill a born human being (I mean exceptions like self-defence, which pre-birth would be the "life of the mother" exception).

Str1977 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You, Str1977, are citing your VIEWS as facts. "People can shut themselves off to the consequences..." Well that is ridiculous! It is not a FACT that it is a BABY - so I do not think I or anybody else thinks they are shutting themselves off to the consequence - since I do not believe that is a consequence - I will recognize that belief of yours and maybe in the future it will be proved correct - but as of now it is not a proven fact that it is a baby that dies - If it was there would be no debate. The debate is wehther a bunch of undifferentiated cells dies or whether a human being dies. I believe the former, and will highly dispute the latter.

Also there is already an article in Wikipedia about Partial-birth abortions, so I would say the main purpose of this article is regular abortions - those that occur in the first rimester. Also, when giving the definition of abortion we are speaking of that, NOT partial-birth abortions; as that definition is entirely different.

I also regret to inform you that I believe the OED and the American Heritage Dictionary over you, my friend. I've never been a fan of Webster's anyways - it is not all that accurate - not 100% accurate at least, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others.

You are a closed minded human being. There is no hiding of facts - can't you at least be reasonable - and realize we do not know the absolute truth - that your beliefs are not yet FACT - they are theory - or perhaps not even theory, perhaps a step below. Non-viable is a fine term to be used when describing the embryo etc. - I have found many dictionaries that support this fact - you have only given one extremely POV definition that doesn't.

Also, I will try to get my hands on a biology textbook to see how it is spoken of there, this might take me awhile though. --Nadsat 23:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the OED definition - stating the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy - well that to me does not offend either viewpoint - since it pretty much says the only thing that is 100% certain of an abortion - that a human pregnancy is terminated - the rest is not FACT. --Nadsat 23:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly an empassioned response, reminds me of days past... those were the days. Anywhoooo... I'm pretty good with words, understanding their nuances etc etc; I'm not so good at putting them together, poor grammar and all that jazz. But "terminated", as I previous argued against "destroyed" is a non-specific word that combines expulsion and death of the fetus. It does not clarify what an abortion is in plain language... actually expulsion is a bit advanced come to think of it... may have to change that if a candidate comes up.

As to non-viable, there could be an argument made for that, but I see it at best being included with death... so "death of the embryo or non-viable fetus." The problem is; as medical technology advances when a fetus is non-viable could get tough to nail down. For example if a fetus is pre-mature in, uh, Siberia with very poor prenatal facilities it would die and be non-viable. But that very same fetus in California with top notch tech could be saved. Furthermore linguistically "non-viable" implies that the fetus is not viable prior to the abortion; I'm pro-choice and that doesn't make sense to me if its healthy and developing... seems viable to me. Those dictionaries might be making a politically correct decision, and as a result committing a similar mistake to pro-lifers... confusing potential with actual. The fetus becomes non-viable when its aborted, not necessarily prior (although for miscarriages it usually is non-viable prior to actual abortion). I know I've changed non-viable from how they use it; but how they use it is counter-intuitive. Simply use "non-viable" in other contexts; this plant is non-viable; this car is non-viable; your plan is not viable; that says to me its broken, not working and/or will die. That hasn't happened for a healthy embryo/fetus yet.

I know its not the best example because there is pretty good handle on when a child can survive outside, and abortions done around this grayzone are called partial-birth etc etc... but to say non-viable is to assume we could not artificially save the fetus. While true today; may not be true in a decade. Anyway, I ultimately see death as a factual compromise with pro-lifers to maintain embryo/fetus in the lead; and I think that's preferable to trying to control the tone of the entire article. Because if pro-choicers try that, pro-lifers will be even more perturbed than they already are. So that's the political reasoning added for good measure. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the end of week 8, the embryo is a fetus with many organs fully functioning (which means mega-differentiation has already occurred, folks). See the Webster's Medical Dictionary definitions posted below. Regardless, the embryo and fetus is human and alive, and must be killed for there to be an abortion, according to the medical definition of induced abortion (the main topic of this article). The biology here is not at issue. A living human organism exists. Abortion is the killing of that organism to rid the mother of having to carry it. Why is there an attempt to hide that medical fact? 214.13.4.151 17:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Webster's Medical Dictionary: alive = "having life : not dead or inanimate" 214.13.4.151 17:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A vast majority of abortions are done at the fetus stage, fetus is defined in Webster's Medical Dictionary as "a developing human."

Webster's Medical dictionary:

Abortion 1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation: b : induced expulsion of a human fetus 214.13.4.151 17:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OKAY first of all 214 you are just infusing your anti-choice (pro-life) mantra into this debate - if you want to spew filth - spew it in your on time, not mine. All the above you said about major differentiation and the human fetus being human and alive, well that is YOUR belief - and the belief of the right wing - and those who do not know what they were talking about. Did you skip simple biology in high school? I'm sorry but the things you said are FALSE FALSE FALSE and I feel sorry for misinformed individuals such as yourself.

Royboy - are you making fun of me...with the "empassioned response" comment? I hope not, but you do seem to be fighting against me which doesn't really make sense since we seem to be on the same "side".

I was noting that you seem to be putting a lot of emotion into it. That can be very draining and ultimately frustrating.

Also, with regards to the term non-viable - we're not talking about 10 years from now this article is happening in the year 2005, we are talking about today. Non-viable just means incapable of surviving on its own - and I read through what you said, but don't really understand - I mean I don't see how it can be disputed that the fetus cannot survive on its own when aborted -I've never heard of that - I mean in talking about the marjority of abortions - first trimester - the organs haven't fully developed and all that - even artificially I don't think it could be kept alive - hence it is non-viable. Please clarify.

I understand how non-viable is defined medically; and I'm explaining that is a counter-intuitive definition; and that viability commonly refers to how healthy/normal something is. Keep in mind we are not (nor should we be) in a position to dictate the Abortion article should have medical terminology; and that medical terminology is "correct" or NPOV.

Also, you speak of perturbing the pro-lifers, heck - I AM PERTURBED! The way the beginning of this article is worded perturbs me - and I'm not going to let something I think is factually incorrect and wrong and POV pass just so I don't "perturb" the anti-choice people; I'm upset by this, too.

Stop being upset, cause it will get you nowhere... it will certainly make you write a lot.

If anything I said comes off as rude, I apologize, for that was not my intent. --Nadsat 05:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Same here. :'D - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ALSO, even if the embryo is healthy and developing - that doesn't make it viable at the time of the abortion - if it's in the first trimester - as most abortions are, for example - it COULD BECOME viable - but it isn't at that time.

VIABLE MEANS IT CAN LIVE WITHOUT THE MOTHER. This cannot be disputed! I think I can safely say that there has never been a first trimester birth of a living fetus in the world - there has never been a birth that has taken place after three months where the fetus has lived and developed into a regular baby etc.

A better medical definition is "live unassisted". You would be correct in your statements; but a fetus' medical viability could be dramatically changed in advances in medicine.

There is no viable life! The embryo has no independent function! If it is argued, "well what about third trimester abortions" then I would respond that perhaps a definition could be attached on the article stating that third trimeter abortions are different but when the definition of abortion is given we are speaking of the majority of abortions, which are first trimester. --Nadsat 06:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I reiterate that in the context of Wikipedia there isn't a requirement we follow medical terminology; nor does something need to be medically viable in order for it to die. On the issue of "death" there is no rational grounds to remove/change it. If it troubles you, I suggest you read fewer medical texts and more literary and philosophical texts. (not to change your opinion on abortion, we are on the same side, but to appreciate the differences in language aren't as stark as you perceive; just because death/died aren't in medical texts does not make it incorrect) The issue I'd like to continue to explore is whether non-viable should be included in the lead. I have copied this paragraph to the main discussion page, please follow up there. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give the dispute its own article

I think that giving the dispute its own article would allow the editors of the main article a better chance to offer users a chance to find valuable, factual information on the subject of abortion itself, especially to the extent of providing women who are considering abortion the most complete understanding of the subject that we can offer them. Pro-life and Pro-choice both have articles of their own, so it's not really a terribly radical idea. Bill Mutz 17:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa. There seems to be a bit of a hole in my head, for I did not realize that there was already a main article for the debate. In any case, I think that the discussion on the main page should remain as clinical as possible. Sorry. Bill Mutz 17:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of 'constitutional' from law-section

The reason given by the IP are: not all states have constitutions, US-centric.
It's been 'discussed' above, the same IP has not given a reason for deletion.
All states have a constitution. Not only the US. It's really US-centric to believe only the US has a constituition, I might add.--Fenice 12:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

All countries DO have a constitution. The UK does have one, and it IS written (that it isn't is a common misconception) - it's just not codified. See British Constitution. I have rewritten it in a way that will hopefully stop the squabbling. Proto 14:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It's sloppy to use the term "constitutionally" in this context. I've had another go at rewording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Why should it be sloppy? It's the typical content of most European constitutions, and of the American constitution.--Fenice 16:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony's edit summary regarding UK:
constitutionally protected removed. Inappropriate. eg: UK it's protected by European Rights Act which is not a constitution. "recognised to some extent" is more accurate
According to British Constitution and this source (Department of Health) the Human Rights Act (I assume that's what you mean) has recently been made part of the British Constitution.--Fenice 16:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was wrong. The Human Rights Act doesn't protect self-determination. In any case it's unhelpful to use the term constitutionally protected or anything resembling it in the context of UK law. In effect, Parliament can set aside any UK law by a simple majority vote. The legislature is sovereign, and the government exercises Crown Prerogative. The judiciary has a limited ability to review such legislature and no defense at all against its repeal. There is no UK constitution -in the sense that Americans use the term. Even separation of powers does not apply in any meaningful sense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess this wording: "...is recognised by most countries, usually in the constitution." would cover that then. --Fenice 17:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I did some more clean up - removed the gender language to make it neutral and it seems that human rights is the best term. I have some expertise in international human rights law, and it really falls in that category. "American nations" is also awkward since it could imply indigenous peoples ("Indian" or "Native American" nations) to some; countries is a word all people can understand in context. Also, it is not "limitations on", but really the "extent of" self-determination that is the neutral way legal sholars look at the mattter. "Extent of" covers all circumstances: a theoretical state having zero limitations or one with severe limtations.user:214.13.4.151

I reverted most of what IP changed after this 'statement' above:

You tried to distort the gender relevance: If the text is about women's right to self determination, women needs to be mentioned, believe it or not, IP.
You tried to distort he local character of the OAS-agreement by erasing 'American' - reverted.
- - Its not local, its international - and use of American is redundant, given the name of the Convention ("American COnvention on Human Rights"214.13.4.151 08:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

25 American nations signed the contract. None of the most important European nations did, not Germany, not France, not the UK. That is local, its even americano-centric.--Fenice 09:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You tried to claim the right to personal freedom is a relative thing, a weasel term. The core issue is 'limitations on', that is well known. The human right is there first and foremost (as it is usually in the constitution, which is higher ranking than ordinary law) and then the limitations can be discussed.--Fenice 06:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- - Please stop the personal attacking. I elevated the text to read "human right" and eliminated unnecesary gender reference. The core issue in your POV is limitations. It is neutral to speak of the extent of this particular right exists, but inerently POV to speak of "limitations" imposed on it.214.13.4.151 08:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Unnecessary gender reference" in an _abortion_ article? Is this supposed to be a joke? I don't think its funny. And then of course as always: "unnecessary" is no argument, just some random valuation on your part. You do understand that you are supposed to argue to the point. That is, to be absolutely clear: you are supposed to argue why abortion law is not gender specific. I am very curious as to what your answer on that one could be. --Fenice 09:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you think philosophy of law is pov, tell them, not me. I did not invent that or anything, I am just writing about it.
It is neutral to speak of the extent of this particular right exists - I didn't oppose to you writing about human rights, come up with a decent text and leave the rest of the text. This is no argument to delete something else. --Fenice 09:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Postscriptum: if you have taken a course in international law you know that it actually consists of treaties, not (codified or case) law in the sense we know it. There is no such thing as a world constitution which could be applicable. The term "human rights" is much broader and less concrete than the term constitutional. That is why I insist on constitutional - so we have a clear basis, the lowest common denominator. In addition to that, I do not oppose lenghthy explanations of human rights and so on, if it is written and researched well, but better in the main article Morality and legality of abortion.--Fenice 08:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - You insist on your POV, thats clear. Constitutional is not a universally applicable term, but human rights is. I really think that at this point you are being disagreeable just becuase you don't like me. You certainly are not interested in a diversity of views. Human rights exist prior to any constitution recognizing them - or when a constitution is lacking or ignored. Constitutional rights are a recognition in the foundational law of a state (nation) of those human rights. 214.13.4.151 09:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Human rights exist prior to any constitution recognizing them - or when a constitution is lacking or ignored. Constitutional rights are a recognition in the foundational law of a state (nation) of those human rights.

That is absolutely right. So I seriously wonder where your comprehension problem is?--Fenice 09:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, your entry makes no sense given that constitutional rights are not even listed in the wiki entry on philosophy of law - as I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring; the line needs to fixed if it is to be included.214.13.4.151 10:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, as always, I am really curious as to what your arguments for the deletion of that sentence possibly could be? Start listing the single joke site that claims that the sentence is somehow not true or anything the like? And saying that you have given arguments doesn't make the (oh how surprising) fact that you haven't given any arguments any less true, does it? --Fenice 12:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sentence in question has just been added again by some IP. I advise you (214.13.4.151) stop nonsensical deletions of content that consists of such banal, well known or easily researchable facts that you yourself are at this much of a complete loss of arguments for the deletion. If someone cleans up after you stop the disruptive reversions without real factual arguments.--Fenice 12:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed that sentence. Fenice, with the compromise amendments made by Tony Sidaway, 214.13.whatever it is, and others, the sentence The limitation of constitutional rights is one of the core issues of the philosophy of law is now redundant, with no relevance to an article on abortion, and is best left out. Please make a cogent argument on your own part if you wish to restore it. Proto 15:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, Fenice and 214.13.4.151, you're both teetering on the brink of the WP:3RR rule, so please calm down, and discuss on the talk page before embarking on a lame edit war. Proto 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proto: Tony's version is
The limitation of the right to self-determination of women is one of the core issues of the philosophy of law
I guess you got a little confused during your research.--Fenice 16:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... amendments made by Tony Sidaway, 214.13.whatever it is, and others ... - not just Tony's version. Proto 08:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And also Proto, if you have serious doubts if clashes between civil liberties and criminal law could be a core issue of philosophy of law see here.--Fenice 16:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not having doubts about that. My only point is that the above sentence is not at all relevant, and is best left out. Proto 08:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And also Proto, since you're having serious doubts about whether abortion could just be a problem of the Philosophy of Law see here.--Fenice 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those are not my doubts, again, my only doubt is that one sentence. Proto 08:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explain

I don't fully understand what this paragraph wants to say. Can someone explain?

There is one shared belief among both the pro- choice and pro-life movements that makes their debate possible and at an impasse- that a woman might choose to have an abortion. It it were recognized that women more often feel forced to make such a choice as their only available option for lack of viable alternatives, then more meaningful debate could be facilitated.

Str1977 17:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I don't understand either and was about to move it here. In any case, it cites no sources and should therefore be deleted.--Fenice 17:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but can someone explain it anyway? There are three issues I sense:

1) That abortion mostly is a choice (with the exception of the mother's life being in danger while she is unconcious)

2) "feel forced to make such a choice" - yes, some feel that way, but feelings are not always correct.

3) "then more meaningful debate could be facilitated" - though sometimes debaters bash their heads and there is more to the issue than just "legality etc", does that mean that the "legal"/"moral" debate is meaningless.

Str1977

The writer is probably trying to say that the underlying assumption that women choose to abort (instead of being forced to) makes the controversial debate possible in the first place. But the writer thinks that women mostly don't choose to abort out of their own free will.--Fenice 17:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if that's what he was trying to say ... but I think he's wrong, though of course there are cases where a woman is forced, not only in China, but other cases where she is "just" pushed more or less. I'm not willing to discard free will. Str1977 18:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To do List?

What the heck is that for? Seems entirely unnecessary. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's to talk bout Abortion cause some people think its murder, but i dont really think that, cause The Fetus/Embro not even really human!

I fail to see how a to-do list addresses anything we aren't already aware of; and have been discussing/reverting for months/years. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Pre-born?":

The statement "the deliberate killing of an [sic] pre-born human is considered tantamount to murder of any other innocent human" seems to reveal a pro-life viewpoint ought to be changed to reflect a neutral viewpoint. The phrase "pre-born human" is, I believe, a phrase used exclusively in pro-life literature, and therefore likely to be objectionable to readers who have pro-choice sympathies. Also, (since the phrase is not standard medical terminology) it could be confusing to people who are not familiar with the terms of this debate in America (e.g. younger readers or readers from foreign countries where abortion is not debated in these terms). I believe the statement "an abortion of a fetus is considered tantamount to murder of an innocent human" is more neutral way to state this. I have made this alteration. (Dkostic 20:14, 6 June 2005)

Why is this up top? Are you affected by the 32k limitation? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm a newb. Sorry! :) - Dkostic 16:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would have been nice if STR1977 (or whoever reverted my edit) would have EXPLAINED why (s)he did so. I still contend that the phrase I mention above violates the NPOV for the reasons I've outlined, and I don't want to get drawn into an edit war. Dkostic 16:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problemo, on the up side it forced me to archive a bunch of stuff. It is STR1977; who's position (playing devil's advocate here) I think would be that when discussing the pro-life position the use of "pre-born human" is appropriate within that context. I'd agree, although I'd put it in quotes or something like that. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was me. Sorry for not explaining my edit. Roy is right I think pre-born human is not only factually correct (which is not the question here), but also NPOV in this context, since the section portrays the pro-life view. If you want to use quotes it should be around the whole sentence, not just around pre-born human (I'd object to that). Also, how would the pro-choice section be changed if we apply the same principle, given that "reproductive rights" are mentioned. Another thing: The previous "deliberate killing of an pre-born human ... murder of any other innocent human" shows more clearly that the pro-life position is basically treating the unborn equal to the born and not actually making abortion a special "crime" (hence exceptions for the life of the mother). Str1977 20:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I think "pre-born human" belongs in quotes is because its not factually correct, and its misleading. It's not a fact the pregnancy will be successful, pre-"born" implies this (although still-born works, but does not cover other circumstances); and "human" is misleading since it can mean our species (true), but in common usage it also means a human being (false, at least for the first trimester) since its a human forming. The rest of the sentence is fine since it is stating the position of pro-lifers and I understand "pre-born human" is how they perceive the fetus; but saying and maintaining it is factual doesn't strike me as justifiable. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now I understand what your problems with "pre-born" are (though it can be justified, since the normal, natural course of events results in birth). Maybe unborn would be better. It is more common anyway. As for "human" - no, it's not misleading - a human being is a human being is a human being. Str1977 00:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for your understanding; although I prefer inutero, unborn is certainly better. As to human forming = human being; well obviously I strongly disagree... hence our respective positions on abortion, and hence it not being factual. Understand? (Although changing to unborn makes me unlikely to force quotes, but I predict it will continue to be a point of contention; and justly so.) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roy, I understand that you disagree and that there is (and always will be) contention. I don't agree however that "hence it not being factual". Facts are facts, even if people disagree. But that doesn't exclude looking for a more commonly acceptable wording, as long as it is not downright wrong. Str1977 08:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Facts are facts. LoL. A true yet vacuous statement; I'll surmise you do not understand. Don: But, you would agree that Paris is the capital of France. Chris: Well, yes. Don: Good, so we're back in agreement. - The Kids In The Hall, Brain Candy Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was that the facts stay the same, even if there is disagreement about them, as your "well obviously I strongly disagree ... hence it not being factual" seemed to imply. Str1977 20:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can distinguish between my beliefs and facts; others choose not to make that distinction. As you and I pointed out; it's difficult to disagree about facts, and I don't make a habit of doing it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I make that distinction too ... and I didn't mean you were. The quoted passage just had "a bit of a ring". Str1977 22:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I'm dancing around is that what constitutes a human being is a matter of opinion; despite your circular mantra implying otherwise. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase 'pre-born human' is indeed potentially objectionable, and so should be placed directly in speech marks (if included at all). Proto 10:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Unborn" seems to be both neutral and concise, it certainly is the standard used when defining fetus (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetus ).

Agreed. Proto 12:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's celebrate! Disco... disco inferno! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm happier with the current edit, but I think we should add that phrases like "unborn human" are pro-life terminology. Say, the following: "For pro-lifers, the deliberate killing of what they call an unborn human is considered tantamount to murder of any other innocent human." Any objections? Dkostic 16:07, 11 Jun 2005

Yes - I object. Physicians use the word fetus and also the terms unborn child, unborn baby, unborn human, etc. If terms are going to be described as belonging to one camp or the other, then the terms that the pro-abortion industry uses also need to be labeled as such. (214.13.4.151 07:45, 12 Jun 2005

I agree with 214...,

Also, if it really is pro-life terminology it is quite suiting in this context, since the section described the pro-life position.

... and please, could you all sign with four tildes.

Str1977 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, "human" as I've explained is a non-specific (and IMO misleading) term since it can mean homo sapien but is understood to mean human being. The rationale that physicians use these terms has no bearing on its standing in this article; it is an argument from authority and has no validity. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might disagree, Roy, but only because of your POV that distinguishes between homo sapiens and human being. That is your POV and your are entitled to it (though you might reevaluate it), but that doesn't mean that you're right in face of the usage by physicians.

Don't be ridiculous; and uh YEAH, I'm aware my POV is involved. Now I could into how your entitled to your opinions, but that would be a waste of time since that's not at issue actually. (What's important here is acknowledging that when a human being comes into being is POV; our POV's be damned.)

Also I don't think an argument from authority invalid. There are experts in certain fields and they know more than we do. And I guess they could argue their case/usage.

Then find their argument and paste it here; and just to clarify; arguments from authority are not only invalid; but are very very lame and lazy excuses for "discussion". They don't KNOW jack! Why? The answer is quite simple, why are you so confident I'm using a POV in this discussion? Because there's no such thing as KNOWING and proving when a "human being", a person etc. etc. is created. That's the point! And that is why even in the pro-life context we may have to make that clear. Having a doctorate doesn't make you immune to philosophical unknowns. As to my POV on when something is a human being, I actually don't have a position on that... although certainly I'm leaning away from arguments that rely on a soul.

I wasn't referring to a soul in any way. We don't know when there is a soul.

You say it is POV when a homo sapiens is a human being? That might be the case, we cannot know - there are two views, but the one is quite straightforward, simple, cnclusive, while the other view goes to great length to dinstinguish between homo sapiens and human being. You don't have to be a scholar of latin to see the link. For my part, I am opposed to any of this "dehumanizing" business.

Str1977 23:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you mentioned a soul; I was clarifying I would use things other than religion for my opinion. And I'm not arguing of a lack of a link; indeed there is a link since one eventually turns into other; but I'm clarifying one is not necessarily equal to the other. It is not "dehumanizing", it is "deindividualizing"; since an embryo is human in one sense of the word (species), but not immediately human in another sense of the word (a member, a person, an individual). This is why a while back I said you don't understand; you're not seeing the disconnect between them. And no, a genome is not only thing that makes an individual, that is the foundation... like for a home essential for a beginning, but it is just that, a beginning. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you say that a "homo sapiens" is not a "human being", hence not I call that dehumanizing. I very well see that there might be a disconnect, but the alternative (also a might be) is more reasonable. A genome is not the only the thing, that's right, but also drinking is not the only thing either and I think I was human when I learned to drink. Conception is the beginning, the beginning of something new, as the genome proves.

Str1977 16:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is it more reasonable? You may recognize I'm attempting to explain why my position is more reasonable; you've just labelled your position as more reasonable as if it were a fact. And I entirely agree, the genome is some-thing new, not some-one new. I consider my position more reasonable because unborn humans in their early stages are entirely dependant on the mother to survive and form. During these early stages it is not an individual; as to drinking... I don't know where you're going with that. And to be perfectly honest with you; based on our conversation thusfar you're a nice moral person; but do not strike as the best judge of what is reasonable. (re: argument from authority) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, in this section it is of least importance to be "POV hygenic", since it gives the argument of the two sides. The pro-choice side has "reproductive rights" and "right of a woman to choose to have an abortion" and "privacy rights" and "gender equality". Str1977 16:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a great point! As Dkostic offered those are opinions and should be framed as such. This isn't about being POV hygenic, but labelling POV as POV; in order to clarity to EVERYONE what is fact and what is not. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I was looking at the article again and it does start the sentence with "For pro-lifers", was that always there? Anyway I won't/can't push the issue if that remains. Apologies if that's been there for a while. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason a doctor can't be pro-life, and (s)he might use language of the pro-life movement when discussing abortion, even in a professional context. This appeal to authority is unconvincing.

The sentence "For pro-lifers, the deliberate killing of an unborn human is considered tantamount to murder of any other innocent human." adopts a central tenet of the pro-life movement without identifying it as such--that a fetus at any stage of pregnancy is a living human. Many people, myself included, do not believe that a small, palm-sized fetus with underdeveloped nervous, digestive, respiratory, reproductive, etc bodily systems can be considered a "living human being" under any reasonable definition of the term. It is, of course, everyone's right to disagree with me on this matter; and any opinion on the subject is necessarily a POV. Indeed, the definition of "life" itself suffers from some ambiguity--see [1]--suggesting that it is a POV, even if it is widely accepted. Whether a fetus is alive or not is one of the most important questions of the whole abortion debate, and this sentence seems to presume it one way.

Biologically and medically - without question - a human fetus is an organism, is human, is alive, and is unborn - regardless of the value you choose to ascribe to it. What you mean to say is that there is a debate as to the "personhood" of the fetus, not whether it is alive. Clearly you don't ascribe personhood to the fetus. That does not mean the fetus is dead. What is more, even if you pretend the science does not exist, the reader understands that the sentence discusses the POV of pro-lifers. You have the law on your side (for now) but the neutral science - when forced to deal with it - is clearly on the side of pro-lifers. 214.13.4.151 15:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I meant exactly what I said, and I repeat it again for emphasis: I do not think a fetus in early stages of pregnancy can be considered alive under any reasonable definition of the term. Your discussion of "personhood" is redundant (if a fetus is alive, what organism could it be except a person--a giraffe?) and utterly beside the point. You cannot automatically conclude--certainly not "without question"--that a fetus, which may only vaguely resemble a developed human being, whose circulatory system functions quite differently from that of a developed human (see [2]), which cannot even survive outside the womb, is a person. You are perfectly free, of course, to believe that a fetus retains some quality that gives it life (by whatever definition you choose), but you should also recognize my right to believe otherwise. (Dkostic 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Dkostic, 214... was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you obviously insist on adhering to a contrived, illogical view, at least it seems so. 214's conclusions "without question" are absolutely correct on the medical and biological field. You are putting forth new, invalid criteria for being human: If a human gets into an accident and is seriously maimed but not dead - is he a living human being? If you get old and weak and are unable to walk from your bed and thus cannot feed yourself (and thus not survive) are you still a human being? The question about personhood is not beside the point - it is the actual question, if you cloak it in biological terms. And the alternatives are a person or not a person - no giraffes involved here. Str1977 23:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I decide that I'm unable or unwilling to care for granpa, I can ask my cousins to help or pay a live-in nurse or use his social security to place him in a home or one of many other options that do not require his death. If I decide that I'm unable or unwilling to carry a baby to term, the only options require the death of the fetus. Therefore your comparison is invalid because a fetus depends on one specific person for support (and thus in my opinion it is only that person's decision to carry it to term) whereas an invalid depends ultimately on society in general for support, much as each person in the society does at some level. Therefore the invalid is simply another member of society - just another person - whereas a fetus is not. --Laura Scudder | Talk 02:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that an individual may refuse aid but society as a whole may not? I'm no big fan of Kant, but this goes against the "categorical imperative".

And if Grandpa required your help at the moment urgently, let's say to make it to the hospital where others can care for him, would you refuse, since he "depends on one specific person for support" - both this situation and pregnancy are temporary.

"If I decide that I'm unable or unwilling to carry a baby to term, the only options require the death of the fetus." That might be the case, but does that mean that you have the right to kill the fetus? - or does that mean that your unwillingness must yield to the child's right to life?

It is apalling to equate someone's humanity, someone's personhood, someone's right to life with membership in society or being accepted as such by society. Those "unacceptable" may perish? We heard this before!

I could go on about this, but this is not a discussion board.

Str1977 09:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

STR1977, the supposed counterexamples you provide are instances where the bodily functions of a normal human have been obstructed by external phenomena (serious illness, accidents, affects of advanced age, etc). I'm trying to point out that a normal human being (like me) has physical characteristics and bodily activities quite different from that of a fetus undergoing normal development (and the earlier in the pregnancy, the greater the differences). A human who has endured (and survived, presumably) the unfortunate maladies you describe retains a sufficient similarity to a normal human (e.g. the victim can presumeably still think, eat, breath, sleep, digest, excrete, etc although perhaps with difficulty) and reasonable people will understand that had this victim not suffered bad luck, he would be considered a normal human. A fetus, during its normal development, cannot perform many of the bodily tasks we associate to a normal human. I'm comparing normal things; you're comparing a normal thing to an abnormal thing.

I am still waiting for someone to answer my objections and explain to me how a zygote, or even a fetus a few weeks into a (normal) pregnancy, is--"without question"--the same thing as a living, breathing (normal) human being. I am not asking anybody to adopt to the views I have put forth, only to accept that a reasonable person might agree with me, and that this is cause for modifying the sentence to state explicitly that an "unborn human" is not a generally accepted concept (say, by substituting it with the less controversial term "fetus"). If no such explanation is forthcoming, I ask that we make the edit and move on to other matters. (Dkostic 21:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

The above sentence should be modified to reflect the neutrality found in, for example, the sentence "The cornerstone of the pro-choice movement is the issue of reproductive rights, which its proponents argue encompasses the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion." which appears in the preceding paragraph on the positions of the pro-choice movement. In this sentence, by way of contrast, it is made clear that only pro-choicers contend that "reproductive rights" (which also encompass less controversial activities as the right to purchase contraception, the right to have children, etc.) cover abortion. I think we can all agree that the sentence "The cornerstone of the pro-choice movement is the issue of reproductive rights, which encompasses the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion." would not be NPOV, even in a context intending to describe pro-choice positions. The edit I am suggesting would eliminate this contrast. (Dkostic 00:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

You are assuming way too much. Many people consider the very term "reproductive rights" to be manufactured, false, and a euphemism for "abortion rights" - and also consider that there are no such "rights" to have sex without incurring its natural consequences. This may be novel to you, but it was mainstream until the 1950s, and is still held by many. In sum: the term "reproductive rights" is POV all by itself. 214.13.4.151 15:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, "rights" may bring consequences. My right to speak may carry the consequence of unpopularity, my right to a judicial trial may carry the consequence of a conviction, etc. This does not in any way suggest that these are not rights. I absolutely agree that "reproductive rights" are POV, but the concept of reproductive rights isn't controversial at all--if you accept that there are certain sex-related behaviors (for example, incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, and maybe abortion) that our society may legally outlaw, and other sex-related behaviors (for example, conception within a church-sanctioned marriage) that our society may legally protect, then you too believe in some concept of "reproductive rights" (even though it may be very different from what I call "reproductive rights"). My point was that the statement I quoted (in the paragraph you responded to) made clear that pro-choicers believe "reproductive rights" (which means many things to different people) encompass abortion--the statement doesn't assume (incorrectly) that reproductive rights must contain a right to abortion. Similarly, I would like the statement in contention ("For pro-lifers, the deliberate killing of an unborn human is considered tantamount to murder of any other innocent human.") to reflect that the concept of a fetus as an unborn human is one that is generally accepted by pro-lifers, but NOT pro-choicers. (Dkostic 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Well done on finding a solution. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Herbal / Traumatic abortion

Some loon inserted sections on 'herbal abortion' and 'traumatic abortion'. Both have been culled, as the first is plain BS, and the second is technically 'induced miscarriage'. Proto 14:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks do not help your position. What you refer to as 'plain BS' has sources cited, which is more than I can say for the rest of this article. As to your second point, I refer you to the opening paragraph: When an abortion occurs naturally or accidentally it is called a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), but if the development of the fetus or embryo is deliberately aborted it is an induced abortion. Also, Proto, please observe the three-revert-rule or you risk suspension. Eyeon 14:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That sentence needs clarifying to confirm that deliberate aborting refers to surgicla or medical means. Please consider discussing the addition of these (IMO) dubious items here before doing so. Proto 14:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such a change would not be a clarification, it would be a redefinition. In reference to 'dubious' - my sources are cited. Or should this article only include methods that YOU find acceptable? Eyeon 14:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon, your input might be better appreciated on the feces, masturbation and anus entires where you have recently been at work are editing. Your information is extremely fringe, and IMO does not belong on the abortion page. I suggest you place it at the end with a link to a page started for odd-ball abortion methods that are and never will be medically recommended. I find myself laughing at this, becuase I don't find surgical abortion any less barbaric than doing the deed via herbs or trauma, however the entries here are supposed to reflect information that is generally useful to the population. The info you would like to include does not fall under that category, IMO. 214.13.4.151 15:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't try to divert attention from the issue at hand with talk of feces and masturbation. You have violated the three-revert rule, and you are being referred for suspension. IMO. Eyeon 16:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An attempt that would fail. Cited or not you are going against a quickly building consensus Eyeon. I'd be willing to take your side if you weren't attempting to force the issue on a controversial topic. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with the Yoda-talk; do you have an opinion on the question of whether or not to mention unusual methods of abortion? Eyeon 17:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At this time, I do not. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The description of traumatic abortion as another method is misleasing IMO and carries the risk of people being influenced by this article to do so. I have made changes to the wording so it does not seem it is treated so much as a viable alternative to the others. Also changed the link for the original Washington Post article Spaully 15:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but saying the "abortion rate is low" doesn't make sense to me grammatically. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Had another go. Might make more sense now. Spaully 15:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Herbs are not proven to be abortifacients. I edited accordingly. Also, a link to for-profit hebalist websites containing false information about herbs as abortifacients is simply an advertisement and does not belong in this entry. 214.13.4.151 08:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information was cited properly and I have restored it. Eyeon 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am going to keep in my information about knitting needles, as it is just as relevant as the other trauma information. Knitting needles stabbed into the uterus and fetus would without doubt cause an abortion. No outside link is needed to validate this fact. 214.13.4.151 08:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a source, I will revert. Eyeon 13:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have gone and done a mass reversion of the edits of 214.13.4.151 for several reasons. First, the most recent change was a clear vilation of POV. Legality is also dependant on nation, area, and enforcment. Mass labling of illegal is pretty silly. Using herbs to induce an abortion was cited and also passes occam's razor (if herbs can do anything at all, they can probably induce abortions, the same way a herb can be used to poision a person.) The rest of the changes were questionable, and I decided that 214,13,4,151's edit history was too suspicious and I revereted for saftey's sake. skepticism about herbal and trauma is fine, but I'd like to move the article AWAY from the dispute tag, not towards it--Tznkai 18:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr. 214's intentions may have been good to start with, but his edit history suggests he can't understand NPOV. Frustrated, he's getting a little paranoid and turning into a troll. Eyeon 13:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon (masturbation, anus and feces): there is no proof that herbs can actually cause an abortion. Citing a for-profit herballist website is not proof. Please find a scientific study that demonstrates your claim. The fact the peoplehave written about it for a long time does not make it so - some Chinese eat rhino horns (in vain) to treat impotence and have been doing so for millennia - it does not prove rhino horns are a remedy for that malady. This entry is supposed to be factual - not speculative. My wording reflects the facts. It makes no sense to list the specifics of a home-remedy that is not proven to cause the desired effect. And I changed the title to one that is appopriate "Self-induced abortion" - which is quite approrpiate and not at all "POV". Such fringe information does not deserve several headings, etc.214.13.4.151 15:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

214, please avoid inflammitory statements. In fact, while we're at it, could you please get a log on so we can make discussions easier?--Tznkai 15:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what was inflamatory - the list of bathroom words is simply a list of the entries that Eyeon has spent most of his time editing lately. 214.13.4.151 18:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was completely irrellivant. The only purpose it can serve is to be inflammitory.--Tznkai 18:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Health Risk Fact checking

For the sake of simplicity, and increasing NPOV, I'm going through the article top to bottom and NPOVing and fact checking as I go. I am making minimal edits without discussion of course, and will discuss as I go. To make life easier, please put citations for all of the health risk complications of abortion, both mainstream methods and non here so we can all have a better, factual neutral article--Tznkai 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External Links

There are many external links. For the sake of a good encylopedia article, I suggest we cull some from the herd. Please choose those you think are vitally needed, and those you think must go and leave comment here--Tznkai 18:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did the pro-choice links, could a pro-lifer please cull their links. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User 214.13.4.151

The conduct of user 214.13.4.151 is under review. [3] Eyeon 18:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon spends a good deal of time editing the entries for anus, masturbation and feces. 214.13.4.151 18:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

exised

U.S. political parties

The official platforms of the major political parties in the US are as follows:

The US Republican Party's stance:

"Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment. We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life." (Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000)

"Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action. Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services." (Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000)

The US Democratic Party's official statements:

"Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." (Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004)

"Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right. Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing." (Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000)

Gnaargh. This is important information, but the article is huge, and where it was made the organization messy. Any way we can make this more brief, or just keep it in a seperate article?--Tznkai 19:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Simple and easy: Does this article still need the NPOV flag? If so, what sections are under contest?--Tznkai 20:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it does. There are still many parts of the article that are contested (see the rest of this page). Unfortunately, it's probably going to have an NPOV tag for a long time :/. (Dkostic 00:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

It will be a permanent fixture. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self Induced Abortion

There was an edit to add the information of Self induced Abortion. I suspect this is not a mainstream term: A google search for "self induced abortion" returns 3650 hits [4] A google search for "induced abortion" and "spontaneus abortion" return 109,000 and 164,000 hits respectivly [5][6]

I have removed refrences to it and am going to dispute self-induced abortion as well.--Tznkai 14:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Total Dispute: How can we fix it?

I flagged this article as totally disputed, since we can't seem to come to any sort of agreement whatsoever on almost anything. I propose a top to bottom review of this article, primarly fact checking, accuracy and reduction of point of view statements. Then, balance issues (mainstream versus not) then trim for length. Either way, this article is quickly becoming useless.--Tznkai 16:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overall problems: globally limited. All most all of this article is US-centric, especially talk about legality issues In my opinion, we should also strive to use clinical terms. Trauma instead of violence or pressure for example.

Introduction: Fine as it is. if Self-induced abortion becomes a consensus accepted term, restore it at the end with a "also known as..." verbage.

Methods of Inducing abortion: This could probably be spun off into its own article. If not, what headings do we use? I think reasonably neutral would be the larger headings of "Medical" abortion and "alternative" abortion. Medical describes methods used by the medical community accepted as medicaly safe. Alternative covers everything else (herbal, trauma, etc.) Several of the health risks can be rolled into these descriptions as well, and then another section of "general health risks" can cover the psychological and psychatric issues involving abortion. ABC hypothesis goes in general, as well as risks of premature birth. CITATIONS are a MUST!

Abortion law should reflect what is currently true around the world, which it seems to.

Paternal rights, politics should be rolled into the debate on abortion section of the article. That may end up being spun off into is own article which can also detail the history of the abortion debates and issues.

Pro Life links still need to be culled.--Tznkai 16:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for methods of abortion being spun off into a separate article - each method currently has its own page, so why place another page between the user and the methods when all it would be is a page of links? If a more accepted term was found for self-induced abortion, the article you have requested for deletion could be moved and edited to accomodate this. Spaully 19:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

do all herbal and traumatic abortions qualify as self-induced? I seem recall a very sad case in Michigan where some kids got into trouble. That wasn't really "self-induced" nor was it done within a clinic. And looking, you're right, each method has its own page, then we need to have "for the main article..." links on each. As for the VfD, it seems I am probably wrong about the article itself, but I still doubt it as a useful classification of "types" of abortions, rather it seems to be an accepted term about a problem in the ongoing abortion crisis/debate. --Tznkai 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trimming.

I am going through and trimming information from the pro-choice pro-life sections. Theres no reason to bloat this article with it when theres a seperate article for it.--Tznkai 14:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is a reason, people come here... especially anon's and add links to their pov in order to achieve visual dominance in the article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well now they get 4 lines each. I'm tempted to mass delete all the links, but I have work to do first--Tznkai 16:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The links are gone; in case you need to be told, don't do that. Better too many than no links whatsoever. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strange, the links, related topics sections show up in the edit window, but aren't showing up for me when I display the article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deleted nothing. The article seems to have a formatting error thats making it go a little nuts for some reason.--Tznkai 18:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, improper comment from Coolcat I think. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, my fault, sorry--Tznkai 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty. I disagree WomenonWaves needs no comment; because I didn't know what it was when I initially saw it; and the rationale "just go to the link" can apply to all links, but we put comments to be helpful especially for people unfamiliar with the subject or the organizations. For example if The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a research arm of planned parenthood, perhaps that should be mentioned. (I saw it was removed when an anon placed it there.) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At this point, I removed all commentary aside from official catholic doctrine since who the hell understands latin these days anyway. WomenonWaves has more than just abortions where illegal information, and looks more like a general prochoice site to me. I'm just cutting like mad, and I'm doing it pretty viciously. Someone can put them back later, just hopefully they'll select only the best--Tznkai 05:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dropping off

I generally think much of the trimmed fat was properly trimmed. However, these stats are an integral part of understanding abortion in our world. 214.13.4.151 18:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.31 million abortions in the US in 2000, and cases of rape or incest accounted for 1.0% of abortions in 2000. Another study revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing 
7.9% Want no (more) children
21.3% Cannot afford a baby 
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job  
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy 
2.8% Risk to maternal health 
3.3% Risk to fetal health 
2.1% Rape, incest, other

Source: Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries." International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998

Moving this into its own section on why women have abortions, give me 3 mintutes and 40 seconds--Tznkai 14:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Waahhhhgggg Havn't gotten a chance to write this yet. Sticking it on to do unless someone else takes care of it--Tznkai 16:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Section created. Going to remove this section of the talk page if there are no objections. (or someone can archive since I can't/won't figure it out)--Tznkai 21:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self induced aboriton (take two)

Ok. The article has been reorganized. Where can we put a blurb about the problems of self-induced abortion? Not sure where to stick it, but important highlights is, circumstances for abortion suck in a lot of places, and are leaving to serious problems where medical care is illegal, unavailable, or expensive--Tznkai 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)