Talk:Abortion/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Abortion Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 The table at Abortion Law was outdated, so I updated it thus: mother's life (yes), physical health (yes), mental health (yes), rape (yes), fetal defects (yes), socioeconomic factors (first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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beijing Platform for Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

214.13.4.151 06:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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

physical health section - not balanced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edited at the bottom of the page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that "not an official catholic organization" is probably the best annotation; "Excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church", in this context, is very biased. Are there any objections against "not an official..." ? --Benfergy 23:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ben, "excommunicated ..." is not biased (just like sentenced for this or that crime isn't), but it is still problematic since an organization cannot actually be excommunicated (I think), though all members can. "Not an official ..." seems allright with me, though the word "official is maybe a bit weak. Hence further suggestions are welcome. Maybe something like "... denounced by the Church". Str1977 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Research Collaboration

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

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

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

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

Choice as a controversial term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise the argument can be reframed as such:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I want to have a choice!"

"You had a choice!"

Two people talking about abortion. Lets do a word switch

"I want to have an abortion!"

"You had an abortion!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

Terms. (Law, Debate, Terminology)

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

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

Mole link

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

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

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

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

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

Polls

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

Abortion Debate Section Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like this paragraph I wrote for abortion debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

new sentence

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

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

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

Error in Map

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

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

the form of the alternatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Addition to Abortion Debate section

The following was submitted to the Abortion Debate portion of this page, but was outright deleted by Tznaki because he/she claimed it to be "Ameriocentric, overly simplified, and non-topical for a summary article"... Let's look at that real quick: Ameriocentric - The basic human rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution has served as a basis for basic human rights across the globe, it is the oldest surviving democracy on the planet (that hasn't been overthrown or radically modified), and many other countries have used it as an example to follow. Its basic guarantee of "Right to Life" for all men (human beings) is something that no person can deny the benefits of. Overly Simplified - Well, it's a summary of what it all boils down to, what do you want? Are you unhappy because it doesn't have a million big words that tend to confuse the average person like "dialation and suction curettage" or "misoprostol"? The addition was meant to serve as a general guideline for a question that we must answer, and once that is answered, at least in the nations that guarantee right to life to all human beings, abortion must be illegal or outright legal. Non-topical for a summary article - It IS a summary of the debate, which is a part of this article, how MORE topical can you get?

Here is the proposed submission:

In essence, if one believes that a human being has a right to life (as the US Constitution and many other nations guarantee), then the abortion debate boils down to one simple question. Is the unborn baby a human, or is it some other form of life? From the perspective of the United States, the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident... that all men... are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life... That in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." From that excerpt, we see that the document that formed the foundation for the United States (preceding even the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution), guarantees all men (human beings) the right to life, AND that in order to secure that right, governments are instituted among men. This means that if in fact the unborn baby is found to be a human being, the United States government must in fact defend that human's right to life by making abortion illegal and prosecuting those who kill that human being, except in the very very rare case to protect the life of the mother, when both mother and baby would otherwise die. If the unborn baby is found to not be a human being, then abortion must be legal in the United States because the government has no authority to regulate it (no human being's rights are being violated if it is found to be non-human).

Recognizing this, scientific debate has gone on from both sides of the argument. With the debate over evolution raging for years, people had originally believed that the fetus underwent an evolutionary change from a simple organism into a human being over the 9 months it was in the womb. This was disproven early in the debate, but not until Roe v Wade legalized abortion in the United States. As far back as the 1970's, groups of secular (non-Christian) scientists gathered to determine whether or not the unborn baby is a human being. Their conclusion, by a 95% majority, stated that "We can find no point between fertilization and birth that the fetus changes status from a non-human into a human [it simply is a human being from fertilization]." - Barwick 15:11, 5 November 2005

Alright. I'll break this down one at a time:

1. Barwick, you are a well meaning newcomer, so I won't bite, but keep your attitude in check. This article has been around for a while, and you would do well to read the entire article and follow the links.
2. Also, remember to sign with four tildes ~~~~
3. "RAS": Readers aren't stupid. It is not our job to distill articles into what we think is the essential truth and spoon feed it. We provide netural information and let them figure it out from there.
4. Amerocentrism: Who cares if the US is the oldest surving democracy, Wikipedia is not a place for essays based on what we think is the best example is. In fact, as an intresting note, the US Constitution does not gurantee life, but provides structure for a goverment that can and cannot protect life at it sees fit, barring cruel and unusual punishment. The Decleration of Independance draws heavly on the writings of John Locke, which is put togehter from previous philophical thought, and heavily grounded in his own experiances. (I'm a polici major, I can keep going). So, if we put this philosphical justification in, bloating the article, have we proven in anyway that the US is a better standing point for summarizing abortion around the world? No! Abortions occur in all countries under various circumstances and governmental structurs. Furthermore, there is a the question of legal responsbility and moral responsbility. If you had read the debate section and the wikilink: here again abortion debate, you probably would've remembered that. This leads me into the next point
5. Over simplification: Several of the previously mentioned points, and a few more. Feminism, right of reproductive liberty, religious reasoning, eugenics, sex-selected infanticide, limit of government authority, lmit of personal authority, consequences of partial legalization, and a number of complex arguments detailed in abortion debate are felt by a number of other people as the "essence" of the problem. Defining secular as non-Christian doesn't help either, its non-religious. In fact, science itself is secular, having the absence of religion, not the denail. Fun fact. Moving on.
6. Non-topical: I probably could have stopped here, but its been a while since I went through all of the above, so maybe this will help ward off other well meaning, well written, but innappropriate edits. This article, abortion is a top tier summary article on the phenomeon. It covers the procedure, the provides breif summaries presenting an overview, leaving indeapth debate to the main articles. Those wikilinks I keep having, such as abortion law history of abortion miscarriage and the ever argued abortion debate

I think that about covers it--Tznkai 16:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible, in the interest of brevity, to accomodate all such angles of the debate. This is a short summary of the abortion procedure, statistics, laws, public opinion, etc. Basically, that which can be easily quantified. The abortion debate summary in this article is itself a hard-won compromise formed from the input of several editors. The whole point of a summary, however, is to keep it short -- otherwise it ceases to be a summary.

Tznkai's suggestions and criticisms are spot on. The Amerocentrism, as it were, was probably unintentional, and you can hardly be faulted for writing what you know (if you're American, that is, or even if you're not -- American politics are pretty prominent). My initial draft of the abortion law section mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Morgantaler case, and the Bubble-Zone legislation. Then I realized that I wasn't just writing for Canadians. Equating "secular" to "non-Christian," however, is the sort of edit that just won't cut it on any level. Would it, thus, be appropriate (or, moreover, acceptible) to describe Saudi Arabia in its respective article as a "secular" nation because it meets the definition of "non-Christian"?

The mention of recapitulation theory in support of your argument reeks of a strawman. Not to mention, too, the fact that scientists were discussing whether the embryo was human -- that is, a member of the species homo sapiens from conception, as recapitulation asserted an evolutionary progression from one-celled organism, to fish, to reptile, to mammal, etc. -- and not whether it was a person. There is a difference. To conclude that scientists have established fetal personhood in this manner (especially without a source) is fallacious. --Kyd 19:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Their conclusion, by a 95% majority, stated that "We can find no point between fertilization and birth that the fetus changes status from a non-human into a human [it simply is a human being from fertilization]." I wanna see the source for that. Sounds pretty outrageous to me. As a scientist, I agree that there is no simple point in a pregnancy that a fetus becomes a person, but it doesn't follow that a single cell zygote is therefore a person, with the same rights and responsibilities as us. Of course, this discussion is moot because your addition is at best original research and at worst a well-meaning rant. --Quasipalm 03:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 04:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Ok, you want the reference?

In October 1967 in Washington D.C. to decide this question. Medical professionals, biological scientists and authorities in the fields of law, ethics and the social sciences gathered together to settle the matter. This was the First International Conference on Abortion. The first major question considered was this: "When does human life begin?" And this is an important question, for we all know that we should not kill human beings. But when does an unborn child become a human being? At conception when the two cells unite, at birth forty weeks later, or at some point between the two?

Here was the decision of this group (composed of biochemists, professors of obstetrics and gynecology, geneticists, etc.):

"The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage [shortly after fertilization, when twinning might occur] and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six months fetus, a one week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation."—First International Conference on Abortion, Washington B.C., October 1967.

These scientists decided by a vote of 19 to 1 that the unborn child is a human being, just as you and I are, from the moment of, or just following the moment of, conception when the two cells unite.

Again, reminder to sign your posts using ~~~~

I dearly hope you know that fourty year old data on a still active debate is hardly adequate, not to mention we're still suffering from the previously mentioned Amerocentrism. This is probably an intresting tidbit to put into history of abortion however.--Tznkai 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 04:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC) thought I did sign it last time, sorry...

And on the contrary, a 40 year old study serves as an excellent basepoint, as even with the lack of knowledge (all they knew is that an unborn baby looks very little like a human when it's developing). That alone should have swayed more people towards the "it's not a human" side. However, nowadays with more knowledge we know for instance that from the moment of conception, the fertilized egg is a completely unique being with its own unique genetic code, never before in existence, and never again to be duplicated (I know, twinning and cloning, but you get the point).

Move along Barwick, we're digressing from writing the article.--Tznkai 05:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Your only source is a "study" from some obscure conference lost to the mists of time? I can find only one referrence to the "First International Conference on Abortion" online: here. It's an anti-abortion essay, and, given that you've quoted it verbatim, I'm guessing this is your primary "source." --Kyd 06:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I found two more, both of which are just a biased: [7] and [8]. I think it's clear that the addition of this "study" is out of the question at this point. --Quasipalm 17:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick is a well meaning conservative contributor; but I've already told him his research on the Ozone, Creationism and now Abortion isn't sufficient for Wikipedia. The individual nature of DNA does not necessarily mean an embryo is an "individual"; there is more to an individual than a unique DNA sequence. One reasonable criteria for being a human *being* is consciousness. No one can legitamitely dictate morality; especially when arguments are routinely based on equivocation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 17:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Well given that that's the most published finding, and one that hasn't been tainted by all the "it's a woman's right to kill anything living within her" crowd, I think it's a perfectly legitimate resource.

Does it really matter that it's posted on many pro-life webpages? The SOURCE is where the information came from, the pro-life webpages are the ones chronicling it.

Simply because it has a group of well-qualified scientists who disagree with people's "we should be able to have abortions regardless of whether or not it's a human" thinking, does not make it wrong.

And RoyBoy, then here, tell me... WHAT exactly is an unborn baby then? Hmm? What ONE event in the development of that unborn child makes SUCH a drastic change that it suddenly becomes a human being? Would it be when it develops a heartbeat? What about when it develops brain waves? What about when it develops eyes and a recognizable face? How about when it has teeny tiny hands? Or when it starts to practice breathing in its mother's womb? How about when it starts reacting to light and pressure? How about when it starts to recognize its mother's voice and react to it? Perhaps it's when it begins sucking its thumb? Maybe when it begins playing with its feet? Or maybe just when it's born? WHICH ONE IS IT?

There is absolutely NO clear answer besides conception. You cannot use heartbeat as a measurement. Is a heartbeat the sign of human life? What about the people whose heart has stopped beating on its own for an extended period of time? They're not human during that time? What about breathing? Maybe you're telling me that my Grandfather wasn't a human being for a few months because he wasn't breathing on his own during that time, then went on to live another healthy year and die of another completely unrelated cause? Brain waves? Consciousness? You're telling me that all those people who've fallen into a coma and then recovered, were they not human? The only thing that you might possibly be able to differentiate from a "real living person" and an unborn baby at some point is brain waves. Does that mean brain waves make one human? That's a pretty bad definition...

• If we knew some way that a brain-dead person would recover in 3 weeks, would we then make it acceptable to kill them 2 weeeks before they're going to recover, for ANY reason whatsoever? Unless by some implication we knew for a fact that that person was going to cause the death of another innocent human being, simply by his waking up (don't ask me how), then there is NO circumstances that we would allow that person to be killed.

From the moment of conception, as long as all NATURAL, involuntary processes take place (besides maybe the mother eating food and drinking water, which is voluntary), then that conceived being WILL develop into a human being. WHY is this ANY different from a brain-dead person whom we knew would somehow recover?

I don't pretend to know, neither should those doctors and neither should you! "Unborn baby" is presumptious language; I would call it a "developing human/human being/baby/child" whichever you prefer, but saying "fetus/embryo" is even better since it clearly indicates it is something different from what we usually associate with the words "human" or "baby". Leaving out the word "developing" indicates you are unable or unwilling of recognizing life is a spectrum of possibilities; not a simplified yes/no, true/false, Jesus/Satan religious construct. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 20:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC) There it is... rearing its ugly head, moral relativism. "There are no primitive people, only different cultures... murder may be wrong here, but not necessarily in such and such place..."

RoyBoy: This debate DOES boil down to one thing: Is it human? Any attempt to complicate it further is simply clinging onto something that can allow the horrific act to continue, and you to agree with the act and still have a clear conscience.

None of this "it's a developing human argument, big deal, you and I are still developing. Technically my not-quite-two-years-old-yet daughter is still developing. And short of being first conceived, then being born, there are no other major events in anyone's life that can define them as human. Then, do people think we should allow 8.5 month old babies to be aborted too?

Woman A and Woman B get pregnant on the same day, 8.5 months later Woman A gives birth to a near-full-term, completely healthy baby, throws her child in the trash can, and the baby dies. Woman B that same day goes in and gets an abortion. Woman A is tried for murder, Woman B goes home and watches Desperate Housewives. What is the difference?

There is none. This leaves only ONE singular defining moment in the life of a human being that makes them human, and that event is conception. There is NO other clear-cut line ANYWHERE. And since that conceived being is a human being simply in another stage of development than you are I, does NOT prevent it from receiving FULL rights as a human being. And the ONLY time it may be killed is in the ultra-rare situation where the life of the mother is threatened at high risk, and NO other medical intervention can save the life of the mother (usually a C-section or other medical intervention can save both lives).

Removal of discussion about addition to "Abortion Debate" section...

Tznkai: You *really* need to explain yourself a little better than you do. The section you moved to archive 11 was completely legit.

First, you tell me to "talk about this in the discussion section", then when I go and DO that, you move it to the archive. WHAT is the problem now? It's not a "message board"? When exactly did this get off topic? The ENTIRE point was to show that my points were completely valid and justified in being added to the "abortion debate" section of the "abortion" topic.

It needed to undergo some review to make a decision on whether or not we're going to add anything on it. Many points were made from both sides, and then when it was boiled down to the most simple matter with nothing else for the pro-choice crowd to stand on, you instantly move it to the archive, with a simple "this is not a message board".

It is absolutely disgusting that the ONLY POV that is allowed on the "Abortion" topic is the pro-choice POV. Any twisting of the issue to make it seem like it's more complicated than one simple question (is it human or not), is just clouding the issue and trying to justify abortion in people's minds. We've debated this back and forth, and nobody can deny the fact that abortion simply boils down to that one simple question. If you haven't seen the entire debate, look at it at the link at the top of my post (3 paragraphs back).

I will address this once and then let the others chime in.

We discuss to successfully find a way to write an article. Not to contribute independant analysis on what we think abortion is. Again, I will link WP:NOT and this time I hope you will read it. The archived conversation strayed far and away from the goal of writing an article and became a discussion on POV and personal opinions on abortion.

Move along--Tznkai 03:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. For the last time, sign your contributions on talk pages.--Tznkai 03:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Oh give me a break, I freaking write a bajillion things on here and every time type the stupid 4 tildes, but forget it once, so sue me... matter of fact, here, for the few times I've forgot... Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And a few others for later storage when I forget again... Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Barwick 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read WP:NOT, and I've already been over this, the ENTIRE point of it was to discuss why a portion of it belonged in the "abortion debate" section of the "abortion" article.

Ha, ha. But, really, it makes the discussion a lot easier to follow when everyone agrees to adhere to a few simple rules of format. You sign at the end of your post. That way readers easily know where the last user's comments ended and where yours begin. Also, it's wise to "stagger" your comment, if it's in response to a particular post, using a colon. Click "edit this page" and look at the code. See how I placed a colon at the beginning of each paragraph in my comment? Add an additional colon when you're replying to a reply, etc.

The dubiety of sites "tainted by the 'it's a woman's right to kill anything living within her' crowd" (Then is it immoral to kill anything living within you? Head lice? Tapeworm? Streptococcal bacteria? I disgress.) is no less than that of the RtF sites. But, whatever. The real problem isn't that it's a pro-life site: it's that no one has been able to unearth the ultimate source from which all these secondary sources seem to be citing. No transcript of the "First International Conference on Abortion," no news clipping from 1967, no in-depth account of this momentous occassion.

Did you play telephone as a child? Did you have, or know someone who had, a neurotic aunt or uncle who insisted that you wait at least an hour after lunch before stepping into the pool, but never could give you the reason why? Then you can know something of how secondary sources work - or, rather, don't. The writer assumes that the last link in the chain duly checked all the facts, and verified all the sources, and thus can be parroted without worry. It's not the second writer deliberately intends to pass on invalid or fallacious information — no more than my aunt intended to spoil many a summer afternoon with an Old Wives' Tale — but, rather, it is their unquestioning faith in the original author that lead them to propagate that person's mistakes. We want to avoid making a similar blunder, and, thus, we recommend a rigourous and thorough examination of all potential sources. See WP:RS for more.

You have given us your pontifications on the morality abortion, but, thus far, you have failed to establish why your contributions would benefit the article. I understand your feelings of ideological isolation; however, you're not the only pro-life editor here. Tznkai would not try to censor you because he is committed to the preservation of neutrality. So committed, in fact, that I'm still a little unsure of which side of the fence he falls. Not that it matters.

--Kyd 04:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so you're telling me that if I bring you references direct from the source, you're going to listen to them?

Barwick 14:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Found some direct quotes, people's names, you can contact them yourself if you really want to verify them.

The first international conference on abortion was referenced in a few published books on the subject of abortion, which I do not own copies of, but am considering purchasing just for the reference.

"It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg. When the sperm and egg nuclei unite, all the characteristics, such as colour of eyes, hair, skin, that make a unique personality are laid down determinatively." Dr. H. Ratner, Report April 1966.

"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.

"The birth of a human life really occurs at the moment the mother's cell is fertilized by one of the father's sperm cells." Life magazine, "Drama of Life before Birth," April 1965.

"A baby who has just been born is not brand new; he already has a life story. Human life begins when the sperm of the father enters the ovum or egg of the mother." The Life Cycle Library for Young People.

"When the sperm and egg fuse, the newly-formed cell has conferred upon it the degree of Homo Sapiens, with all the rights and privileges pertaining." (Note, "Rights and Privileges.") Peter Amenta, Ph.D. Professor of Embryology, Hahnemann Medical School.

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence, from conception to adulthood, and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes the termination of a human life." Dr. A.M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.

"I oppose abortion. I do so, first because I accept what is biologically manifest - human life commences at the time of conception - and secondly, because I believe it is wrong to take an innocent human life under any circumstances." Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology.

NOW... with the opinions of a number of scientists, do you not think it wise to put their scientific assessment that "life begins at conception" in the Wikipedia "Abortion" topic?

Barwick 14:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of the fetus. This means several things

1. When life and personhood begins is a complicated debate that has a number of scientists on either side.
2. While its disengenous to say that the zygote embryo fetus ---> is not a alive, that is a topic covered in pregnancy.
3. While this is ok research (it is the burden of the presenter of evidence to provide rigerous ratification, including links or paper sources the college located can look up on lexis-nexus, which prevents it from being excellent research) it merely proves that at various points in history, individual scientists of varying credibility and notability, thought that life, or some personhood, began shortly after a bit of friction and a pop. This does not belong in the main heading, nor in a summary. It may belong in the abortion debate section you say, so lets analyze:

Throughout the history of abortion, induced abortions have always been a source of considerable debate and controversy regarding the morality and legality of abortion. An individual's position on the complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological and legal issues have a strong relationship with that individual's value system. A person's position on abortion may be best described as a combination of their personal beliefs on the morality of induced abortion, and that person's beliefs on the ethical scope and responsibility of legitimate governmental and legal authority. Another major factor for many individuals is authoritative religious doctrine. See religion and abortion for more.

Abortion debates, especially pertaining to abortion laws, are often spearheaded by advocacy groups belonging to one of two camps. Those in favor of laws prohibiting abortion describe themselves as pro-life. Those against laws restricting abortion describe themselves as pro-choice. Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are loaded terms, designed to cast their position as advancing a general concept ("life" or "choice") that has broad support. Both terms are euphemisms designed to evade the use of the term "abortion", such as being "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion". Individuals are also usually classified or self-described as pro-choice or pro-life, despite the range of intermediate opinions.

In debate, whether friendly discussion or political positioning, the arguments on abortion usually seek to change either an individual's beliefs on the moral permissibility of an induced abortion, or on the justification of laws permitting or restricting abortion. Arguments on morality and legality tend to collide and combine, complicating the issue at hand.

You should notice the distinct and deliberate lack of quotes, positioning, or even more than a barebones whitewashing of opinions, with a nod to the fact that there is truly a wide range of opinions. This is because we are summarizing neutral information, not crystalizing. I have my own opinion on where this debate crystalizes and it is disctinctly diffrent from yours. Often as not part of why my position seems so obscure is that I do not feel the need to share it here, as it is original analysis. I have written an essay or two on the subject in my personal livejournal, but thats about it.

The agressive combative attitude, followed by a whirlwind of effort to bury your opponents in a deluge of information is typical of forum style debates, not discussions suitible for writing.

I invite you to take your submissions to abortion debate as well as pregnancy where the issues of personhood and individual human life are discussed. Here, we discussion the act of abortion itself, and summarize the fact that people are pissed off about it, one way or another.--Tznkai 16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Were we discussing whether the article should state "life begins at conception"? No, I don't think we were. I believe, rather, that we were discussing the merits of the Conference addition and the lack of sufficient reference material on the matter. Okay, so you've supplied us with an assortment of quotes on the subject of fetal development. Of course, being that some of the quotes date 1965, 1966, and 1967, I'm guessing that these aren't quotes from the Conference. Two of the quotes are from a Life magazine article and a children's textbook (which, itself, dates from 1969 - do you have a reference that doesn't pre-date Watergate?). Again, though, you're lifting the quotes directly from here, just like you borrowed and slightly modified The Two Heathers from Abortion TV for one of your earlier non-sequitur arguments. What we would be looking for is an independent, preferably detailed, referrence to confirm all these things. A write-up in the New York Times about historic, or at least notable, abortion-themed conferences? Of course, I'm just extending you the benefit of the doubt: the tidbit we're discussing is forty years old — which, in the world of some sciences, is close enough to ancient history to relegate such findings to the moot or trivia departments. You seem more prepared for a philosophical debate than for participating in the drafting of an encylopedia article. This isn't a forum for such debate and thus I'm not going to indulge in it here. --Kyd 18:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If we were discussing, say, slavery, would you say "Slavery in the United States was when mostly white people bought the rights to own a 'negro'. These 'negros' would work in fields or on farms or in houses for these mostly white people, and would often receive no pay for their work"...

OR would you say "Slavery in the United States was when one person bought the rights to own another human being, often a black-skinned person from the continent of Africa. These slaves would work in fields..."

Which would be an accurate description of the situation?

20:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you read beyond the first sentence of my last post? Nope. It was on to strategy #27: compare abortion to slavery. What's next? The Holocaust, right? I'm sorry, really, but I don't see how this by-the-numbers run-through of pro-life spiels is contributing to the development of the article and I don't think that it is even relevant to the topic at hand on this discussion page. You should find a discussion group or Usenet forum if you're looking for a place more appropriate for this kind of debate. --Kyd 21:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Niether. Try "Slavery is a mostly abolished practice where humans would procure ownership of another human being." If we're talking about slavery in the united states. "Slavery in the United States usually refers to the practice of enslaving forced immigrants from Africa and their descendants. Native americans were also subject to slavery by ruling caucasians." I still don't get your point by the way, but I'll make mine again. Readable, accurate, neutral, complete. In that order--Tznkai 20:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

From slavery's introductary paragraph

Slavery is a condition of control over a person, known as a slave, that can be enforced by violence or other forms of coercion against his or her will. Slavery almost always occurs for the purpose of securing the labour of the slave. A specific form, known as chattel slavery, is defined by the absolute legal ownership of a person or persons, including the legal right to buy and sell them.

This will be my last nattering on this subject before I let someone else shuffle this off to archives. There is no moral comnedmnation of slavery in the summary. There is no analysis of the rights and wrongs. Slavery is in fact still an issue in various places around the world. No analysis. Definitions, facts, clarifications on the major diffrent type in the introductary paragraph. Theres nothing new to argue. We're done.--Tznkai 21:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai: You want readable, accurate, neutral, and complete? I've just shown the facts, nobody has disputed them, and no scientist will ever deny that a fertilized egg is not simply a human being in an earlier stage of development than other human beings. If you want to read them, hit up Archive 11. Here's the accurate statement, no moral condemnation of abortion in thes ummary, no analysis of the rights and wrongs, no analysis. Simply definitions, facts, and clarifications on the major different types int he introductary paragraph:

---

An abortion is the premature termination of [pregnancy] resulting in the death of any or all carried human being(s), sometimes referred to as Embryo(s) or Fetus(es). In [medicine], the following terms are used to define an abortion:

---

If you can show me a majority of scientists who will specifically state that the above statement is false (that the fertilized egg is not a human being, AND that it is rather some other form of being, perhaps a fish, horse, toad, whatever they call it, show me thier reference), then please do so right here. Barwick 16:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, thats pretty easy. Human being may or amy not imply personhood, thats a problem having to do with the nature of defining a word in technical senses as opposed to common usage. Furthermore, as stated lower in the article abortions occur and can be performed in any mammal. (animal that gives birth is the terminology, but I can probably fix that later). The fact is an embryo and fetus is a stage of development in a human organism. All you have to do is click the wikilink to find out. Remember, readers aren't stupid. I find it odd you are willing to speak for all scientists on this point. A number of scientists also compare the blastocyst stage as a "controlled cancer". It would be, by your standards, completly factual to call an abortion premature terimination.... all carried controled cancers, and humans, a paracitic organism. These are legitimate comparisons when explaining, factual on a singular level, but in no way appropriate for a neutral enyclopedia article.--Tznkai 17:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. You are grasping at straws here. You can NOT deny that the unborn baby is a human being. And there is nobody (ok, maybe a few people out of a million) that comes looking up the topic of abortion, with the intended abortion to take place in their horse. And if they are looking for it, then make ANOTHER article for "Abortion - nonhuman".

And cancer is when your own cells grow out of control within your own body, not another human being's entire self growing rapidly. Don't make me play the wikipedia card on you... wait... here it comes...

Cancer is a class of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell division and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue (invasion) or by migration of cells to distant sites (metastasis).

Hardly a definition for an unborn human being.

To get back on point, you canNOT deny the fact that when a human being undergoes an abortion to terminate their pregnancy, they are ending the life of another human being. That is a plain and simple FACT, and contrary to your assertion, the average reader isn't "brilliant", and able to immediately recognize "Oh, when we're talking about human pregnancy, a Fetus and an Embryo is another term for human being". The average person out there thinks that an unborn baby is just a lump of tissue, not a human being. As such, the first line of the abortion article should read exactly as I have stated: "An abortion is the premature termination of [pregnancy] resulting in the death of any or all carried human being(s), sometimes referred to as Embryo(s) or Fetus(es)."

Barwick 19:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Human" is accurate insofar as the genetic and biological aspect of the fetus. "Human being," however, is a loaded term in this context, being that it is synonymous with "person." There is no way to scientifically prove a philosophical, spiritual, and/or moral concept like personhood. You can make laws, one way or the other, but that doesn't remove the fact that personhood is entirely subjective and thus beyond the domain of science. No one here has ever suggested that a fetus is not genetically human. Your suggestion that refusing to use the phrase "human being" is somehow equivalent to saying that the fetus is a fish, toad, or horse is nothing but another clumsy attempt to construct a strawman. You are whacking blindly at the proverbial Piñata and hoping that you hit something. No, Barwick, contrary to your beliefs, Wikipedia is not a pullulating nest of morons. There's a wonderful little thing called a "Wikilink," wherein the user can click a hyperlinked word within an article, like "fetus," and learn all about the marvel of life before birth. We don't to drag 'em around by the nose — especially not to your POV.

Kyd 20:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Kyd, I agree that personhood is not the subject of (natural) science, but that doesn't mean it's subjective. Also, NPOV goes both (or rather all) ways. Str1977 21:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What POV is this Kyd? Who's "dragging 'em around by the nose"? Do you not WANT to make it relatively easy for our users to come to a conclusion? Or is the point of Wikipedia to confuse readers by ONLY using scientific terms which 90% of people searching the internet need a dictionary to fully understand the meaning of?

• When defining Hemmorhoids, which is the better introductory sentence?

• Hemorrhoids are varicosities of [veins] in the [rectum] and [anus].
• Hemorrhoids (also known as haemorrhoids or piles) are varicosities or [swelling] and [inflammation] of [veins] in the [rectum] and [anus].

You tell me. You are trying to make us define abortion with a sentence much like the first, by supplying only the purely scientific terms (like varicosities) and not the commonly understood terms (like swelling and inflammation). I am trying to define Abortion with a sentence like the second one, with both the scientific terms AND the commonly understood terms, so that situations like the multiple accounts listed below don't happen to our readers from a lack of information.

Barwick 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to include real-life women's testimonies on the "facts" they were given on abortion:

• • • • The Doctor just said it's a tiny lump of tissue (abortion took place around 1999)
      • Of course my mother told me that it was not a baby yet (at 10 weeks). It was just some tissue, no beating heart yet. I didn't know. (testimony given in 2001, no date on abortion procedure given)
      • I was told that what the doctor would be eliminating from my body was only a lump of tissue, not a baby. This was told to me by not only the clinic, but also by Planned Parenthood from whom I had sought help. (Abortion testimony from 1969, old but this belief still exists today)
      • I was involved with my boyfriend. I asked my doctor for counseling on what to do about my unplanned pregnancy. He sent me to Plan[ned] Parenthood. They told me it was just a simple removal of "tissue"... ...I felt like I was deceived into thinking of tissue - not the reality of my child. I remember seeing a woman six months pregnant being turned away because they only did up to twelve weeks - thinking how awful - that's a full developed baby. Little did I know I had a full developed but smaller baby in me." (unknown date)
      • "Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'" --Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28
      • “I was told I had ‘caught it’ at a great time because it was just a tiny mass of tissue (4-6 weeks). Boy, was I deceiving myself! What ignorance I was in.” - Lisa and Will Widnham, Torrance, CA
      • Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?" "No" the counselor assures her. "It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)... - Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four "A Walk Through an Abortion Clinic" by Carol Everett ALL About Issues magazine Aug-Sept 1991, p 117

As you can see, the common understanding about abortion by those who undergo the procedure is NOT that it is a human life, but rather a mass of tissue. That is KNOWN to not be the truth, and ANY reluctance on our part to put that truth in the title page of this article is blatantly hiding facts from the public. Once again, refer to my updated version of the introductory sentence.

Barwick 20:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Much heat, little light. 1) Most fertilized eggs abort spontaneously. Elective abortion does not greatly increase the number of aborted embryos. 2) Few scientists would describe a cluster of cells that lacks a brain as human. What makes us human is our ability to think, to sense, and to feel. Potentially human is not the same as human. 3) Every time a fertile woman refrains from having sex with a man a potential human being is destroyed. Rick Norwood 23:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Down once more to the dungeon of non-arguments.

1) Spontaneous abortions have no bearing on the ethical issue Barwick is concerned with. All people die at one point during their lives. But that doesn't condone killing them. To say, elective abortion doesn't contribute much is quite absurd given the abortion figures.

2) No scientist not blinded by interest would agree with your point. You might think "our ability to think ..." makes us human, but that is merely your own view. Is someone who is unable to feel (for one reason or another) any less human?

3) Your last point is inconsistent. Either you consider an embryo only "potential human life", but than you shouldn't ignore the difference between the embryo on one hand, and egg and sperms stored within someone's body. That would only be the potential of the potential. Or you say that the latter are potential for human life, but than the fusion would bring about human life. The second version is more scientifically sound, but anyway you chose, you cannot equate non-conception or contra-ception with abortion.

Str1977 23:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

1) About 78% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, usually in the first few days of pregnancy. The number of elective abortions is far smaller. 2) Yes, I would say that someone with absolutely no feelings was less than human. (You ignore the point about no brain yet formed.) 3) I would say that potential for potential is the same as potential. I can't think of a case where it wouldn't be.

Actually, I hate the idea of abortion after the foetus becomes an embryo. But I hate the idea of the government getting involved even more. Rick Norwood 00:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)