Talk:Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Mid‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sleep

This article mentions comatose people wouldn't qualify as people under the "conscious" definition, but wouldn't this also apply to sleeping people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.215.55 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Sleeping people do not qualify as persons by Warren's characterizations. However when people are asleep and dreaming they may meet at least one of her characterizations of a person.

Pbk3rd (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)==Pro-abortion article== This article does indeed present philosophical aspects of the abortion debate, but almost exclusively from the abortion-rights perspective. The only pro-life philosopher it cites is Marquis, who is set up as a type of straw-man who can easily be refuted by feminist ideological objections. ADM (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that this article is written from an almost exclusively pro-abortion perspective is, quite simply, dead wrong. You suggest that the article's pro-abortion bias is reflected by the fact that it discusses objections to Don Marquis' position. But, in point of fact, the article also extensively discusses objections to Mary Anne Warren's and Judith Jarvis Thomson's positions. You suggest that the article is biased because it cites only one opponent of abortion rights (Marquis) but two supporters (Warren and Thomson). This claim conveniently ignores the fact that the article devotes three full paragraphs to the natural capacities argument against abortion. I strongly suspect that your real objection to the article is based on the fact that it does present a balanced discussion of the issues. You are, of course, entitled to your perspective, but please don't insult the rest of us by suggesting that the only neutral presentation is one that coincides with your viewpoint.

Your side has no case. If you can provide one "pro-life" philosopher providing a basis for the claim that a fetus is a human being, please add it. Traditionally, the debate in the West can be traced, via churchmen such as Aquinas and Augustine, to Aristotle's belief that it is the "animating principle" provided by the male at day 40 which turns the fetus from merely animal into a human being.The Church sometimes placed that animation event at conception, rather than quickening. Marquis's arguments all contain the unspoken assumption that the fetus is a human being. The West has a long history of philosophers defining the human in terms of reason. What's your side's argument? The only argument I have seen from the "pro-life" side claims that DNA allows us to define the fetus as a member of H. Sapiens. As far as I am concerned, the neutrality tag is an example of a logical fallacy known as poisoning the well, and should be removed. Ermadog (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add my name to the list of those who see this article as extremely one sided. Ignoring the fact (for the moment) that it uses inflamatory rhetoric and "framing" lables such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" instead of "Anti-abortion" and "abortion rights"... The dissection of Mary Anne Warren's premise is immediately flawed as it fails to recognize the fact that it is our biological bodies which qualify humans as having rights (see FindLaw.com) Not our "moral" or "spiritual" beings. Indeed, even a person in a coma with far less a chance for life than a fetus has,... still has a right to their life, and to the equal protections of our laws. --Chuz Life (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what the law says on any particular definition, rather the philosophical arguments. If you wanted to talk about the political arguments, then you would put that information on a political argument article. The question to whether or not murder is killing a biological entity or the psychological identity is up to debate. I believe your objection is largely due to the fact that you disagree with it. Instead of trying to actually make a philosophical argument, you only quoted a online legal dictionary to support a claim which was poorly proposed. -- Luke Emery 10:49 (-6 Central Time), May 23, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.104.93 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate

I noticed the change as shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_aspects_of_the_abortion_debate&type=revision&diff=711385690&oldid=707235538 and don't think it should have been done.

The removed text is not an explanation, but instead the inclusion of one important motive by which people assume abortion to be legal, that is: they don't agree with (and counter/oppose) the argument (more specifically some premise) used to criminalize it or to turn it into an anti-ethical action. Rhalah (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate. 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/20100816072853/http://homepage.mac.com:80/francis.beckwith/Thomson.pdf to http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Thomson.pdf

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) 23:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19-20 week brain birth is unsubstantiated

The idea that upper brain birth occurs at 19-20 weeks comes from a pro-life site and is unsubstantiated in scientific debate. Here's two papers, with one saying brain birth is 24-28. The other gives a few examples in an overview of the subject, with the lowest upper-brain birth estimate being 22-24. We should use these sources to substantiate the upper brain birth claims, not some extremely biased, non-scientific site.

First source (study, says 24-28): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375829/

Summary of the debate, lowest upper-brain birth is 22-24, with most estimates much higher: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377672/

Jasper0333 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]