Talk:Abortion debate/Archive 3

Timing

Perhaps having a reference or two for this spectrum would help. I think the changes are overall an improvement. However, I have two small concerns. I believe it was helpful to point out the reason why some methods of BC were controversial (and using BC and contraception seems redundant, we should choose one or the other). And also, it seems odd not to mention the position that abortion should always be illegal. There are many, many people who don't care if a woman was raped (it isn't the baby's fault, so why should it deserve to die?), and possibly even people who care more about the life of the fetus than the life of the woman. -Andrew c 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In adding references, I have changed the list. Also, some of the sources are pathetic, viz from embryo to fetus. It is not supporting the position, just mentioning it in order to rebut it. Therefore, it shows the possibility of the position, but not the actuality of it. Feel free to improve the changes.—Red Baron 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

BC and contraception mean different things. Abortion is BC, and so is "emergency contraception", but neither are contraception.

I agree with the rape position,, but for the life of the mother part, it isn't that we "care more about the life of the fetus than the life of the woman", it's killing versus letting die. 67.149.215.55 20:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Halp

I've got a problem with this paragraph but I'm not sure what to make of it:-

The equality objection claims that Marquis’s argument leads to unacceptable inequalities.[35] If, as Marquis claims, killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a valuable future, then, since some futures appear to contain much more value than others—a 9 year old has a much longer future than a 90 year old, a middle class person’s future has much less gratuitous pain and suffering than someone in extreme poverty—some killings would turn out to be much more wrong than others. But as this is strongly counterintuitive (most people believe all killings are equally wrong, other things being equal), Marquis’s argument must be mistaken. Some writers have concluded that the wrongness of killing arises not from the harm it causes the victim (since this varies greatly among killings), but from the killing’s violation of the intrinsic worth or personhood of the victim.[36] However, such accounts may themselves face problems of equality,[37] and so the equality objection may not be decisive against Marquis's argument.

Here's my understanding of it (slightly simplified to save my typing fingers).

• Marquis says, "Killing is wrong because it deprives a victim of a future."
• Philosopher [35](?) says "Marquis implies that killing a 9 year old is worse than killing a 90 year old. This is counterintuitive... all killings are equally wrong... Marquis is wrong." <--- this is the equality objection
• Philosopher [36] says "Philosopher 35 and Marquis are both wrong (?) ... killing is wrong because it violates the intrinsic worth of the victim."
• Philosopher [37] says "Philosopher 36 is wrong because 35's argument applies just as much to that assertion of killing's wrongness as to Marquis' argument." <--- this is the equality objection again
• Wikipedia says "... so the equality objection may not be decisive against Marquis's argument."

I have only one philosophical question to ask at this point. Why? Why isn't it decisive? The equality objection seems equally valid when applied to the criticism of itself and to the original assertion by Marquis. And why no source for that last sentence? SheffieldSteel 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Position Statements

Moved from "Official" Positions up the page by SheffieldSteel 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In this article, the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice positions are delineated as being somehow official, yet there is not a single source. How can anything be official without sources? Also, after the first paragraph of each position, the content turns to subjects that are related to but not part of the abortion debate (i.e. sex education, genocide). Further, there seems to be a POV in the discussion of these additional, related topics—a straw man argument is used against the Pro-Life position in these paragraphs:

Introduction

Some pro-life advocates argue against comprehensive sexual education on the grounds that it encourages extramarital sex and thus sends mixed signals to teens, especially girls.

Building the Straw Man

Some pro-life advocates also say that there is a positive correlation between widespread comprehensive sex education in schools and an increase in teen sexual activity.

Seemingly refute the Pro-Life position by refuting the straw man

Claims that sex education results in a rising rate of teen pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases are not supported by empirical evidence.

I intend to do both of the following:

• change the section title from Official Positions to Position Statements—unless some type of referencing can be found; and
• limit the positions to the first paragraphs under each heading

Red Baron 16:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, remove the word "official". It is faintly ridiculous to see it there. There is clearly no "office of pro-life / pro-choice policy" to issue such statements.

I'd be far more hesitant about your other suggested edits. It's not a straw man if it describes the position that is taken. To be a straw man, we (wikipedia) have to be putting words in their mouths. By all means, request attribution to a reliable source, but I think deletion would be somewhat hasty.

SheffieldSteel 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that, with a view to building consensus, it would have been better to wait more than five minutes before making the changes you outlined above. Your edit has had the effect of removing all mention of sex education and access to contraception from the article. I think that declaring those subjects to be separate issues from the abortion debate is too big a step to be taken unilaterally. SheffieldSteel 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my quick change, and give notice that I reverted it. My position still stands. If it is felt that there needs to be some reference to sex ed in the abortion debate, then it seems to me that it should be done under a more appropriate heading. A quick switch to the page regarding the morality of sex ed seems to have good start toward a NPOV of the issue.—Red Baron 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious reply. I do think that some of your changes were warranted: making the sizes of the two pics equal was a good idea - well spotted - and I support your comment about the "official" position being a rather nonsensical concept.

I'd be interested to hear what other editors have to say regarding sex ed and contraception. Perhaps something (maybe in the intro?) could raise the issues, and direct the reader to other articles that cover those topics. SheffieldSteel 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious Groups: Judaism

In this bullet, there is a discussion of separation of church and state. Including this discussion under the heading of only one of the religions implies that it is not appropriate under the others. It should be removed from this bullet. Perhaps it could be included as its own paragraph under the Religious Groups heading since it seems that it can be applied to Judaism and the other religions.

Red Baron 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that separation of church and state is a concept that must be applied to all churches. However, after reading this section, I think that it is so intimately tied up with the position of jews living in secular societies that to remove it from the Judaism section - and to remove the Jewish perspective from the paragraph - would deprive it of any worthwhile meaning. SheffieldSteel 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My point does not dispute the accuracy or worthiness of the discussion currently within the bullet. I am concerned with POV, since the current arrangement suggests that Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims have no internal issues regarding the legislation of religious norms. This gives me the impression that Jews are above the others for being the only ones to practice this virtue.

I propose that there be a level 3 heading, like Church/State Issues, under Position Statements in which all points regarding the separation of church and state can be made. The particular Jewish interest in secular gov't (currently in the bullet) would be discussed here in the context of the church/state issues within all religions. Under this heading, distinction can also be made between pro-choice and pro-abortion: While to pro-choicers it is not the government's job to impose regulation on the use of abortion, some still find abortion itself to be unethical or immoral. These people are pro-choice and anti-abortion. Perhaps some other arrangement could be made to remove this slight POV.

Red Baron 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure no-one intended to give the impression that Jews were somehow superior to other religions; I certainly didn't take that from the piece. If you judge it necessary to balance the picture, you can always provide information about Christian, Buddhist or Muslim internal attitudes to legislation. Notable information from attributable sources is always welcome.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're making about the distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion viewpoints. The latter is a distinct minority position, and I'm not sure what its relevance is to this debate. SheffieldSteel 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please let us reason together. Perhaps you did not notice the POV, and perhaps the POV was not intended. Nevertheless, suggesting that I can only include notable info from attributable sources is not fair—very little in this article has references including the church/state discussion inside the Judaism bullet. If I am to be held to that standard, of only including attributed sources of internal conflict, then it is only fair that you remove anything that you cannot also attribute. I do not ask you to necessarily remove anything. I only ask that it be done the same for all noted religions.

When I followed the link to Religion and abortion, I found no information regarding the church/state issue—even in the Judaism section. Can there be any doubt that many Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists are pro-choice? I assume that, like you said, to be pro-abortion "is a distinct minority position." That would mean that to these religious people it simply is not the gov't's job to legislate on this issue. I have just given as much attribution as found in the Judaism bullet, and feel that the topic should be discussed in regard to religious observers of every faith/philosophy, or perhaps not at all in this article.—Red Baron 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Significant Issues

I think there is another issue to add here: judicial activism is an oft-forgotten tenet of pro-lifers, which opines that abortion law should be within the purview of legislators (not courts), whether federal or state or otherwise. Many of the privacy rights claims associated with abortion are made regarding drug use and prostitution (both controlled legislatively), but are rejected by conservatives (the usual pro-lifers) in all cases. I have not found this issue in any of the abortion pages, although it is given some play in the Roe v. Wade page. I would appreciate some help in forming the text that can then be placed in the article.—Red Baron 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some points

• democracy provides laws by the people (meaning legislation by their due representatives), not by judges
• part of the heat of this debate stems from disenfranchisement—people can have no influence over final judgments
• over-turning decisions like Roe would not ban all abortion, it would give the issue to the states
• just as with prostitution, some states would allow abortion as they did before Roe

Red Baron 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A different perspective?

I posit that the debate on when life begins can never be solved/agreed upon, since the operational definition of what constitutes life (eg. Nerve impulses, brain waves, a choice made, etc.) can only be chosen subjectively.

From this, I pose a question (or 2):

Would an argument concerning on which 'side' the burden of proof of this life (or lack of) should be placed upon, be sufficient in supporting one side or the other?

A seperate question: Would such a question be as futile as the abortion debate?

Remember, if such an argument were to place the burden of proof on side X, than side X could not fairly say anything about the issue of life (or laws and other similar things concerning abortion, since they are based on ideas that would need to be supported only when the burden of proof is fulfilled) without first.

ps. I understand that much of what I said could be cleaned up. Please give me lot's of charity (in the argumentative sense), and stick to the issue:). If someone understands what I am saying, and can do so, please rephrase it accordingly (maybe ask me first?).

If this is good enough, we could add it into the article^_^.

Hey. Thanks for your post, which raises some very good points. To make it easier for us, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Then your IP address (or your username, assuming you register, which is easy) will be displayed automatically so we all know who we're talking to.

As to the points you've made... I personally don't think it would be productive to discuss the question, "when does life begin?" in terms of burden of proof, because assigning the burden to one side or the other violates wikipedia's principle of neutrality. I think you have summarised the problems very well when you ask if such a question would be as futile as the abortion debate. I think it would be exactly as futile, because it would be equivalent to moving the debate to a different arena: the entrenched supporters of each side of the debate would simply move to different sets of trenches.

The most important point I'd like to make is that we can't just add our own opinions to wikipedia. We have to either get them published, or find a published source that already says what we want to include in the article. So, you can't say, "When life begins is an important question," but you can say, "Source X says that when life begins is an important question." Your source can be any reliable source - see WP:RS for guidelines. Now, wikipedia does make an exception for statements that are so widely accepted that it would be perverse to disagree with them, but in general (and particularly in the case of disputed topics like abortion) you need to be careful to find a source to back you up.

Thanks again for your contribution. SheffieldSteel 15:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sex Ed, etc

I just revised the page by changing the location of this topic. I moved it from Position statements to Reducing abortions. Please see the talk section Official positions for earlier discussion on this topic.—Red Baron 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Contraception" subsection

Not sure when this section was introduced, but now that attention has been drawn to it, I would advocate that it either be deleted or extensively rewritten. The statement, as it stands now, is incorrect. A correct statement would be: "Roman Catholic dogma forbids all forms of artificial contraception, but does accept natural methods of birth control", but, of course, such a statement is marginally relevant to the article. So unless someone comes up with some alternatives, I will moving to delete this subsection. LotR 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am open to complete removal.

But as to the origin of the subsection: On 5 April, I cleaned up the Position Statements section by taking some related info—sexual education (mostly), contraception, parental involvement—and moving them to their own section. My FIRST thought was simply to remove the related topics altogether, but I was challenged in that determination (see Talk:Abortion_debate#Position_Statements). So I changed my goal to restructuring, and I tried to unite SUMMARIES of each topic under a new title: REDUCING ABORTIONS. I allow that the "clean-up" could use some work, but I think content should always be focused with the following priorities:

1. Focus on the page's main issue of abortion
2. Limited focus on how life/choice groups coordinate other related issues with the main issue.
3. Removal of the positions of individual churches regarding the related topics to pages like Religious views on birth control.

The contraception subsection follows these priorities by referencing contraception only in the context of reducing abortions (specifically in teens). Maybe the title of the subsection (or the section) should be changed to better acknowledge this narrow application.—Red Baron 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for providing context on the origin of this section. I am not opposed to having it, as the Section on "Reducing Abortions" may be relevant to the debate, but it would need to be corrected. The issue is just more complicated than how it is currently being presented (including the text underneath "Reducing Abortions"). It may be difficult to avoid mentioning the positions of churches, since among pro-life advocates it is mainly Roman Catholics who would voice opposition to contraception as a means of birth control. I am going to attempt a quick fix for now, open to further iterations. LotR 14:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking good, but I don't think many, if any Pro-life organization promote FA as a way to prevent promiscuity. The placement of FA in that sentence is odd, and also seems to give undue weight to a minority view (they don't teach FA in abstinence only education programs). If we need to mention FA, we could have a sentence about how pro-lifers believe that hormonal forms of BC cause early abortions, so they promote FA methods to straight, married couples. But I think the section would be find with simply removing the reference to FA.-Andrew c 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fertility awareness is promoted primarily by Catholic pro-life organizations as the alternative to contraception within marriage. I introduced this because the original text was making some sort of claim about "pro-life advocates accepting only abstinence as 'contraception'," which is simply incorrect. We can rework it if it seems to be implying, as you say, that pro-life organizations promote FA to reduce promiscuity, which was not the intent. But because Catholic pro-life organizations are not a minority view, I still wish to see mention of FA, as an alternative to contraception, remain. LotR 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We have now removed the contraceptive subsection completely. Any mention of it should now definitely be placed in the birth control page I have already cited. I agree with Andrew, the FA citation does not fit with promiscuity. As you stated, LotR, FA is contraceptive for married people, not a solution for unwed promiscuity.—Red Baron 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent selective removal of Wikilinks

I do not, as a rule, engage in edit wars, so I am willing to discuss the matter here, although it I won't be saying much more than in my edit summaries, namely: There are Wikilinks everywhere on this page (as well as at Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, etc.), and nobody disputes them being there. The terms infant, as well as mother, have biological meanings, every bit as much as zygote, embryo, fetus, viability, fertilization, etc. (not to mention the numerous other links in the article, including political parties, religious groups, ideologies, etc.). I understand that the Wikipedia MoS suggests that Wikilinks not be overdone so as to not detract from the flow of an article, but these additional 2 links (out of dozens others) do not suddenly disrupt this article. LotR 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't object to the addition of the word "infant" after newborn, but it seems a step too far to make it a wikilink, and then put another wikilink on the word "mother." It look like a subtle but distinct attempt to introduce emotionalism and anti-abortion POV into the article - particularly given that, in this section, the use of those words is being called into question.

What is gained by making them wikilinks?

Are they really there so that readers of the abortion article who don't know what "infant" and "mother" mean can look them up?

The [Manual of Style] has plenty to say about wikilinking, and a lot of the guildelines can be summed up as "probably best not to, unless it's important."

SheffieldSteel 18:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If one link (each) to mother and infant is POV, then you need to remove the 10 (total) linked references to embryo, fetus, and zygote in this article as well. Also, human, brain,cerebrum, and personal identity are each linked at least twice. My point being that even self-evident links cannot reasonably be removed. All in all, this article is wanting in much, and requires some major simplification and re-structuring.—Red Baron 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Throughout this article (as well as Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, etc.), links to zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. are generously provided. By the same line of reasoning, exclusively using these terms, and providing wikilinks to back them up, may also be considered a subtle attempt to introduce pro-choice POV into these articles, as pro-lifers prefer humanizing terms like "baby," "unborn child," etc., as opposed to what sound like lab terms. However, I, for one, have no issues with these terms precisely because they are biological, and thus have specific meanings that can be verified by following the link. It is for this same reason that I want mother and infant linked to. Including these links attains just the opposite of what you are objecting to -- they actually are an attempt to enhance NPOV on the page. LotR 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I can't understand the dispute over the terms "mother" and "child", since "child" can mean "offspring". 67.149.215.55

Call for neutral terminology

As per the section just above, there is no end to the POV terminology used in the abortion debate. Also, I become fatigued while reading this article because I have to read "...embryo or fetus..." every few sentences. Is there any one term that can be used to describe the "unborn" throughout the whole gestational period? Please see the use of the term "unborn" as a play on the vampire term of "undead" instead of any POV I have toward the argument. I am looking for an NPOV term that is capable of replacing the current embryo/fetus method, and can head off the potentially more oppressive (yet more inclusive) zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/human/child/infant/etc./etc. method.15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on this. While I am not a subject expert, I think that "embryo or fetus" may be the best neutral term available. I don't mean to give the impression that I'm being 100% negative with respect to change; I just don't have a better suggestion. Perhaps someone else does...? SheffieldSteel 21:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing, really, as completely neutral language, especially in such an emotional debate. Using technical language such as fetus and embryo represents a technical, medical POV. Also, there is overlap between the technical terminology and the pro-choice lobby due to how technical language sounds sterile and inhuman. However, I've also heard comments from the pro-choice lobby such as "blob of tissue" or "clump of cells", so there is a spectrum of terms used. I personally feel that on most of the WikiProject Abortion articles, we've reached a happy medium, and tried to describe medical procedures using technical terms. It gets harder when we stop describing medical procedures and start describing a political debate where framing and language is a big factor (pro-life/anti-choice/pro-abortion/pro-choice etc). I think the Pro-choice and Pro-life articles do a sufficient job in describing the term controversy, and I do not believe we should try to develop new, so-called 'neutral' language such as "unborn". I guess what I am getting at is, I don't believe anything is broken, so if it ain't broken, don't fix it ;) Specifics dealing with this article may need addressing, but I do not think it's time to starting a new wiki-wide naming conventions discussion (though it would be good to actually come up with a naming convention manual of style for WikiProject abortion which has been thrown around in the past).-Andrew c 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To begin, I thank you both for your input:) It is both sound and civil, two attributes that are often missing from comments by other editors. I have some replies. I see that "unborn" was kind of a stillborn idea, and I don't mind that. As to being broken, I think "embryo or fetus" is bad. We should use one or the other, otherwise we make that difference paramount (undue weight) in the debate. In the Timing section, there are seven crossing lines, or differences, that are considered to be the most important. Changing from embryo to fetus is only one, and not nearly the most widely held—I couldn't even find a reference espousing that POV, just an argument against it. The most prevalent views seem to place paramount difference between gametes and zygote (the anti-abortion crowd) and between first and second trimester (Roe v. Wade). So, I think we either we need to use one term, or choose the most prevalent two terms. However, any two-term version advances the corresponding POV. I think using "embryo or fetus" is just as ridiculous as using "zygote or blastocyst" or "first trimester fetus or second trimester fetus". If we could simply say "embryo" or "fetus" I think that would improve this article.—Red Baron 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fetus" is better than "embryo," is as it seems to be becoming a generic biological term encompassing all the other terms (e.g., the term "unborn" redirects to "fetus"). LotR 18:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we had to choose one, I would choose "embryo" for accuracy sake. According to the 2003 Abortion Surveillance statistics from the CDC, 77% of abortions were embryonic, meaning that the occurred before the fetal stage had started (which is generally defined as starting after the 10th week gestation, counting from LMP). The reason why we use both embyro and fetus is because technically speaking, there is a difference between the two. I'd also like to point out definition 1. b. that gives a generic definition "An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching." where the answers.com definitions for fetus are not generic enough to encompass embryos. However, I acknowledge that in general language, the terms are sometimes confused, and sometimes both used generically to refer to any point during a human pregnancy. I do not know of a single medical term to cover all stages of development. So using both is a little clunky, but I think using both in certain contexts works alright.-Andrew c 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of the CDC reference is that the percentage of abortions at the embryonic stage is more like 61% (Wikipedia defines the embryonic stage as <= 8 weeks). The terms "embryonic" and "fetal" are indeed defined to indicate distinctive stages of development in the womb. So I had always resigned myself to the cumbersome task of saying "embryo or fetus," or employing constructs such as "the zygote/embryo/fetus," when discussing abortion. However, I empathize with the original call to find a single terminology, as, within this context, the particular gestational stage matters not. Pure pro-choice is about the right to abortion at any time during pregnancy, and thus, seeking NPOV, we are always forced to use awkward constructs such as "the zygote/embryo/fetus." LotR 13:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually... you are wrong ;) Wikipedia, and wikipedia's sources define the fetal stage at starting after the 8th week after fertilization. Gestational age us counted from the last normal mensutral period (LMP) which occurs 2 weeks before ovulation and hence there is a two week difference between the two age counting systems. It can get confusing. 10 weeks past LMP gestation equals 8 weeks past fertilization/developmental age.-Andrew c 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see. I find it a bit odd to count the 2 weeks prior to a fertilization event as part of a gestational "age" of an embryo, but hey, that's just me... Irregardless, I would still object to using the term "embryo" to signify all stages of development in the womb. I would hold that this term be used only to reference that particular stage. LotR 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see only three instances of "embryo or fetus" (one reversed) in the article, none of "embryo" alone, and several of "fetus". The two terms refer to two distinct/exclusive stages of development (early and later-than-early, respectively). It seems appropriate that the article use "embryo or fetus" when referring to both, and only one when being specific. Any erroneous use of either term should be corrected, of course, but I guess I don't see the need for one term that covers both. Demong 00:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see 10 or 11 places where it would be good (according to me) to replace "embryo or fetus" with "embryo" (choosing this term based on Andrew's research). The examples are found as follows:

• two definite times under Significant issues allowing debate regarding "zygote, embryo, or fetus"
• four times in Rights
• three times in Polarization
• once in Pro-choice

—Red Baron 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct on the count; user error on my search, sorry. I maintain that while "embryo or fetus" is awkward, for accuracy's sake it should be minimized rather than removed/replaced. — Demong ^talk 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested terminology

• Unborn After following the link, I feel it is probably our best bet. It can be applied throughout the gestational period, and it redirects to fetus. Red Baron 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Retracted Red Baron 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have a single term to use, but if "unborn" redirects to "fetus" then why not use "fetus"? "Unborn" feels non-neutral to me; it implies an entity which is lacking only insofar as it has not yet been born. SheffieldSteel 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• No change "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"
• Fetus "it seems to be becoming a generic biological term encompassing all the other terms"
• Embryo per the Answers.com definition (1b)

I added the preceding terms as they were hinted at in the discussion above—Red Baron 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Unborn" sounds like someone who was sucked back into their mother's uterus, like "undead".67.149.215.55

Edit justification

I have made a terminology edit. As I stated in the edit summary, I made "embryo" the default. This means that I replaced a number of stand-alone fetuses in addition to removing the 10 combinations. The instances of "fetus" that I left were times that were specifically being used to make plain the difference between the two (this is about 3 or 4 times), and when the context lended best to it (I think only 2 times). These were in the Islam section describing quickening and later about viability, both of which occur after the 10th week. I am open to further edits, if someone feels that I should have left specific examples alone.—Red Baron 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say that reading the changes, the word "fetus" seems more natural, even if 'embryo' is technically accurate in these cases. So should we use less common language for the sake of accuracy? I also found out that according to the NIH Fetus means the product of conception from implantation until delivery. Sorry to make things more confusing after I initially brought up the technical definitions. -Andrew c 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Fetus seems to me to be the most neutral since, per Andrew c, it is technically defined broadly to encompass all the periods in which abortions take place (unless one counts the "morning after pill" and such as possibly happening before implantation -- in any case, that's not what people commonly mean by abortion). --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Marvin Diode 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This was my thought also -- however, before a consensus was reached an editor edited the article to use "embryo" as the generic term. I think these edits should be re-edited to use the term "fetus" instead -- this is the term I am accustomed to hearing within the context of abortion. LotR 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that embryo was inserted prematurely. I says that the first instance we use "embryo or fetus". And perhaps examine each case individually to make sure the context is clear, and then perhaps use "fetus" as a generic term in certain places. If a specific context is obviously referring to an embryo, we should be carefully not to use 'fetus', but if the context refers to any gestational age, fetus is the more common term.-Andrew c 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposition. LotR 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Andrew has now found definitions for both embryo and fetus that are inclusive of the whole gestational period. So, again we are left to decide between two words that can basically mean the same thing. Andrew's other argument, that most abortions are performed on embryos, is correct. By this, while "fetus" many feel better, I have to conclude that embryo would be more accurate to the discussion.—Red Baron 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If we want accuracy, then we should go back to employing constructs like "embryo or fetus," "zygote/embryo/fetus," etc., and be done with it, for this is the only biologically accurate way of discussing this in the context of abortion. The fact that more abortions are performed on embryos over fetuses does not justify the generic use of "embryo." The only reason I advocate "fetus" as shorthand over "embryo" stems from the fact that, while both biologically refer to something rather specific, I have only heard "fetus" used in a generic sense. But I cannot demonstrate this usage, so I would just as soon return to using "embryo or fetus" if we are really shooting for accuracy. That's why I believe Andrew's proposition is about the best we are going to do if we want to introduce (NPOV) shorthand. LotR 23:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I don't think we will ever have a single term that is NPOV and acceptable to boths sides of the debate. The pro-life/choice sides are going to prefer one over the other. I think using embryo/fetus is the closest that we are going to get.Balloonman 21:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete restructuring

This page is bloated, and I have been part of the problem. Looking at the TOC for the page, it seems that section 6: Modern arguments is the the heart of the topic, yet it is last. Also, there are three overviews: the lead section, section 1: Overview, and section 6.1: Overview. This is way overboard. I propose that:

1. All the "overviews" be combined into the lead section, based on a job well done in the Abortion debate section of the Abortion page.
2. The arguments (a.k.a. the debates) and the Significant issues be combined in the beginning
3. All arguments be divided into themes, like ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, legal, etc.
4. The History section be completely removed—it can be put in See also, and it is referenced in Abortion
5. Position statements and Reducing abortions (my own addition) be removed unless they can fit into the "arguments" sections
6. A Terminology section be made out of the current Polarization section

—Red Baron 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with these suggestions. Re 3 above, it seems to me the basic division in this article should be between the political and legal debate (comprising the first part of the article) and the philosophical debate (comprising the 'modern arguments' section). I think the article as a whole could be made more logical and less piecemeal by introducing this division. --Algernon1980 10:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes detailed in the steps above. I also reduced the million-book references section to only those books, etc. that were cited by themselves at least once (books that were always cited with others were omitted). While it would have been easier to simply change the whole article all at once, I made separate changes for each of the bullets. This way, you can compare each section separately. Unfortunately the software did not do a very good job of linking those parts that I left. It looks like nothing is in common where there is a lot that is —22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC). Please take some time for review instead of criticizing me outright or reverting. Thanks.—Red Baron 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All-in-all, it's a pretty good rewrite, because it succeeds in pulling together a formerly loose structure into something more cohesive. However, there are a few points of concern for me, mainly regarding the "U.S. judicial involvement" section, which is dealt with in its own thread below.

• "Abortion opponents" and "abortion supporters." I generally think "opponents" makes the pro-life movement sound too antagonistic, while "supporter" implies that pro-choicers are advocates of abortion itself.
• "Some argue that abortion is wrong because an embryo is an innocent person with a right to life. Some argue that the designation of an embryo as a person is incorrect. It is accepted that an embryo is innocent and biologically human, but it is debated whether...." A human genome is an objective fact, whereas what what constitutes "innocence," exactly, is open to discussion (consider the concept of original sin), and so "innocence" should not be presented as an objective ("accepted") fact in this case. It would be different if this view were attributed to a specific person or organization.
• "According to the author of this list, an embryo is not a person..." It would make the text clearer if the list in question and its author were named, because, as it stands in the article now, this reference is confusing.
• There is a rather a lot of italicization throughout, and I don't think most of it is required for the points to be understood.

Thank you for you taking the time to address this article. Hope you don't find my review too nitpick-y! -Severa (!!!) 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the praise and heartily accept the criticism—the more nitpick-y the better! I submit to the charges first (already changed), third (it is awkward) and fourth (I have accepted that I am punctuation-happy although I am similarly concerned with all the quotation marks recently put into the Terminology section) without consternation. Please do as you will. As to "innocence", it would be a stronger claim if attributed, but I don't think that Christians are going to dispute an embryo's innocence by referencing original sin. Besides, I think it only applies after birth. Nevertheless, if others agree that embryonic innocence is not "accepted", then change away.—Red Baron 16:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I added quotation marks to the "Terminology" section simply because this is what I am grammatically accustomed to seeing when a term is being discussed as a term (From The Orient: "The term 'Orient' is derived from the Latin word oriens..."). -Severa (!!!) 05:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. judicial involvement

• This article is intended to summarise the abortion debate on global level, and, having an entire section dedicated to one particular aspect of the debate limited to the United States — judicial involvement — decreases worldwide perspective. If you feel a section on government involvement in the abortion debate would be an appropriate addition to the article, feel free to research, write, and add one, but please ensure that this section includes examples from more than one country. Specific aspects of the U.S. abortion debate, such as judicial involvement, are more appropriately covered in Abortion in the United States.
• "While Roe allows for regulation after the first trimester, Doe v. Bolton (ruled concurrently with Roe) and other decisions remove all legal barriers to abortion on demand." This statement, in light of such state-level legal developments as waiting periods, parental consent, required counseling, and the PBA Ban Act, is debatable. It is also supported by a non-neutral source, "Abortion Questions and Answers: Love Them Both." The articles Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton should contain enough background on these cases that we shouldn't have to rely on summaries from partisan sources.

-Severa (!!!) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

a response:

• I admit that my awareness of the Abortion issue is limited to the USA. However, it seems to me that the debate is particularly vehement there because of the judicial monopoly on abortion law. I have tried to expand the scope of the article to the whole world by removing references to people/places where points of debate are probably common across the world. I felt that this section was warranted because this is a point in the debate that is NOT common across the world. I think it may be common with Canada, I found sources from their Supreme Court about "judicial activism", but I have no actual knowledge about it there. To end, this is a BIG part of the debate in the US, and as such it belongs somewhere on the "Abortion debate" page.
• I admit that the quote in question is cited to a website of questionable reliability. However, page 38 (of chapter 8) from the website is actually making a quotation credited as follows: Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149, June 7, 1983, p. 6. The Senate Judiciary Committee is not a "non-neutral source". At first I had cited the quote per the preceding italics, like in Abortion in the United States where I found the quote, but referencing guidelines say to cite the actual website where it can be found. I could not find the original and didn't think it was a good idea to cite Wikipedia, but I found a number of sites where it can be found. Unfortunately, they are all pro-life and seem to be carbon copies of the linked chapter. But I believe that the Senate did actually make the quoted statement no matter how biased the website.

—Red Baron 16:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The legal landscape in the United States has changed a lot since 1983, so, I don't think we can base this article's summary of the current situation in the U.S. on a 24-year-old statement. Besides, this text is in direct conflict with Abortion in the United States, where it is stated:

"The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. States have passed laws to restrict late term abortions, require parental notification for minors, and mandate the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to treatment."

I will try to edit the "U.S. judicial involvement" section to harmonise it with the Abortion in the United States article. -Severa (!!!) 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly don't want to replicate historical memes here when they would feel more at home on region specific articles. So what would be the focus of U.S. coverage in this article? An abbreviated summation of Red Baron's section, or a focus on current proposed abortion legislation; or change/create a section summarizing Judicial involvement or Legal precedents around the world? And the ebb and flow of national/international laws, precedents and challenges as they impact the abortion debate worldwide. Roe certainly did that, but of course the U.S. was behind in the debate as other countries had their precedents; including Canada if I remember correctly... but then again we followed the British quite a bit.

On a side note, four columns... I'm unsure of optimal visual aesthetic for reflists. Maybe I'm in the minority here, as I recognized many of the refs are indeed short. Shrug, no biggie. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of four columns results in the minimum scrolling length (the time it takes to skip it). I feel the critical characteristic for an aesthetic NOTES section is its diminution.—Red Baron 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Biologically Human?

I have noticed that the article shows two seemingly contradictory statements, although I am not well-versed in biology; perhaps this could be addressed by an expert or two. At one point, a statement is made that "It is accepted that an embryo is innocent and biologically human", and later in the article it is stated that critics of the deprivation argument argue "that humans are not biological organisms". It would seem to me from these statements that either some do not accept that an embryo is "biologically human", or critics of deprivation are being misrepresented. I would suspect the former is true (though I am not sure), and in that case I suggest the addition of the word "generally" to make the first passage read: "It is generally accepted that an embryo is innocent and biologically human". Suggestions? -Ryan @ 67.168.70.93

The problem is people confuse the words "human" and "person". Junulo —Preceding comment was added at 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction - 3rd and 4th sentence

The placing of the sentence about Canada and Nicaragua in the introduction immediately after the sentence 'Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position' jars badly and implies that the respective positions on abortion in these two countries have been arrived at simply through direct action by two clearly defined groups, rather than by the respective process given in Abortion in Nicaragua and Abortion in Canada. I can see why these two countries were chosen to show opposing stances, but because of their polarity, they appear to me to be rather weak examples to cite in an article focused on the abortion debate. Mighty Antar 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hunting analogy

I remove the following. It is currently not cited, nor established as notable. Please consider wikipedia policy, and bring the text up to standard before re-adding. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

.Christian theologians Kreeft and West have posited an argument that would deem abortion morally irresponsible on the grounds of defining personhood. The argument is as follows:

Abortion is morally licit if and only if we know that the embryo is not a person with rights; four possibilities flow from this. 1) The fetus is not a person and we are privy to this fact; in this case abortion would be utterly amoral and a matter of personal choice. This is, however, utterly unknowable according to the line of reasoning put forth in the argument. 2) The fetus is not a person but we are not privy to this fact; in this case, abortion would be immoral, because it is supposed that we ought to always err on the side of life. A corollary to this is the story of the hunter who hears a rustle in the bushes and opts to shoot at he knows not what. It might be a deer, it might be his hunting buddy, but regardless, not knowing and firing is morally irresponsible. 3) The fetus is a person but we are not privy to this fact; this case is the same as the second point, except instead of luckily hitting the deer, the shot fired hits the hunting partner. One acted irresponsible, and human life was lost.

4) The fetus is a person and we are privy to this fact; in this case abortion would be gravely immoral.

I'm sure the original contributor would argue that the links provided do constitute valid source citations. However, as I understand it, self-published material and advocacy groups are not generally reliable sources for anything other than their own opinions - and they may still not be sufficiently notable for their opinions to merit inclusion. That may be an overly strict intepretation of the WP:RS guidelines though. Either way, a better source for this material would be a published philosophy thesis or paper that discussed and interpreted those arguments. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So it's inappropriate to publish the original authors, but appropriate to publish someone who wrote about the original authors? Stanselmdoc 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the spirit of the guidelines on secondary sources, yes. I'm sure there's a better link about what defines primary, secondary and tertiary sources, but I'm afraid this is the best I can find. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding inappropriateness: If the original author is just some random person with a blog or website, then it is generally inappropriate to cite them, because the source is considered self-published. However, if we are citing the author's work, as published in the journal Nature or in a monograph published by the Oxford University Press, or something along those lines, then it is appropriate to site them (though care needs to be taken when citing primary sources to avoid original research). The links that were added with the "hunting analogy" section were just links to two guys websites/blogs. There wasn't even information about their views on the abortion debate at these links. Furthermore, these links were self-published sites, which goes against our reliable sourcing/no original research policies. Hopes this help explain things better. If you have questions about general policies, you are welcome to contact me on my talk page. Now, is there anything else that needs to be discussed to progress on the "hunting analogy" topic?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I consider myself a pretty informed person on the abortion debate, but I'm finding the whole Personhood section under Ethical Debate really confusing. I think it's the wording of things maybe? I don't know, I just...really don't understand like...any points trying to be made in this section. Is it possible for us to try to rewrite/reword some things in there to clarify positions and stuff? Stanselmdoc 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

UK Developments

Nadine Dorries MP and Dr Evan Harris MP have been involved recently in debating abortion and the issues surrounding abortion. There has been a lot of press coverage of this in the UK. Perhaps we could update the wiki page to include this? Squid87 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, here is an article that sort of covers the debate.[1] I wouldn't recommend actually using this as a reference though because the Daily Mail is a tabloid, and there are surely more reliable sources out there (plus, just look at the headline).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There was some coverage of this at badscience.net (it's a blog, but it provides links too). Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the badscience blog - we could use the Online Guardian version couldn't we? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/27/1 (Unfortunately, the links don't appear on the Guardian version and the badscience blog also has follow-up articles - could we cite the Guardian article and also point out that it's been blogged at Badscience dot Net??) Squid87 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking this information would be a more appropriate fit over at Abortion in the United Kingdom. In my opinion, this article should focus on the abortion debate on a global level, and should leave coverage of debate on a national level to the country-specific sub-articles. Anyone think that the "U.S. judicial involvement" section currently in this article should be moved to Abortion in the United States? -Severa (!!!) 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Severa on moving the UK- and US-specific info, but add one caveat - I think there should be a link to the wiki page on UK Abortion debate at the top of the abortion debate page (until Severa mentioned it, I didn't know there was one). Squid87 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of just linking to one of the many country specific pages, perhaps we should include Template:AbortionbyCountry somewhere in this article?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a great idea, Andrew c! Perhaps we could work toward building a "Regional issues" section for this article. This would briefly summarize aspects of the debate which are limited to a specific region and thus help to improve global perspective. -Severa (!!!) 06:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)