Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:03, 26 April 2009

Template:AbortionAIDNom

Abortion B‑class

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

Philosophy: Ethics / Religion Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Philosophy of religion

Archives
Archive 1 (Apr. 2003 - Apr. 2007)

Hinduism and Sikhism Sections

The Hinduism and Sikhism sections have been appalingly edited, using, in the case of Hinduism, out-of-context references to abortion, and making no mention of the views of contemporary Hindus. Hinduism is a dynamic and changing religion, and the views of contemporary Hindus are of significant concern, as there is no set guidance for morality within the religion itself.

Also, the section about Sikhism was lifted VERBATIM from http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/sikhethics/abortion.shtml

The section indicated that abortion is prohibited according to Page 74 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, as that page discusses the beginning of life as being at conception. However, Page 74 makes absolutely no mention of it (http://www.sikhs.org/english/eg6.htm#p74).

Penciledition 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious groups supporting abortion rights

I have replaced the text deleted by RookZero and added citations as s/he suggested. Unfortunately I cannot figure out how to make the citations show up in the reference/notes section. Any help will be appreciated. TIA.

I reverted last edit by RookZero -- (a) The religious organizations here clearly do not support abortion per se -- they support abortion rights. Also, the text the availability of modern, medically supervised abortion has been agreed to in previous discussion on this page.

If its cited, then I won't delete the list. THe wording "legal abortion," that is, support for abortion to be legal, shows their position without violating NPOV (RookZERO 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Disputable tag on Judaism section

The first statement says "Jewish tradition holds life (including the life of a fetus) as sacred, and does not permit abortion on demand". Yes it holds life as sacred but the status of the fetus as life is an incredibly gray area in Judaism, with many contradictory laws. Ohalot 7:6, which is cited later in the section says that the fetus can be torn limb from limb from the mother and I read elsewhere that the fetus has the same status as any other appendage of the woman. We know from the Torah in Parashat Mishpatim that an unintentional killing of the fetus is, at most, a monetary issue (as opposed to unintentionally killing the mother which can result in capital punishment), but the tradition takes various positions on the status of elective abortions and I would like to see citations backing up a statement like Judaism "does not permit abortion on demand". --Valley2city 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to revise my revisions! HG | Talk 04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish text and tradition have consistently said that until the baby has come out of the womb, the mother can, and should, have an abortion if there life is in danger.

religioustolerance.org

Some sourced content was removed because of religioustolerance.org is not considered a reliable source. I'm familiar with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, but that guideline was never supported by consensus. If there is a specific reason why this information is wrong, or that it should be removed, I'd like to hear that, but removing content based solely on its source seems too simplistic.-Andrew c 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the proposal was rejected. I stand corrected then. The content should be restored. Darkfrog24 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've modified it to reflect the source.-Andrew c 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ReligiousTolerance.org is operated by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, who state that their goal is to research and write neutral, informative articles on a variety of topics, rather like Misplaced Pages. I don't necessarily see an issue with citing them, so long as they have done their homework, and cited reputable sources. -Severa (!!!) 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

While there may be some significant concerns regarding the lead, I believe the most recent changes are, not to be blunt, but simply poorly written. It should generally be avoided to refer to the article itself such as "this article" (the changes introduce this twice). The use of "It is worth noting, however" is simply unnecessary and does nothing except make the lead more verbose. Does anyone want to copy edit the recent changes? or maybe revert back to the old version until we can get a better written new version?-Andrew c  15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have gone ahead and modified it, hopefully addressing these issues. LotR 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried re-writing the lead again. Here are some problems with the prior version:

"Many religions have adopted specific stances" -- "adopted" implies some sort of active decision; some religious traditions don't quite work that way. In addition, not all religious views of abortion are "specific."

"regarding the morality of abortion" -- not all religious views of abortion purport to be about the "morality" of abortion; in some religious traditions, the permissibility of abortion is more a matter of religious law than religious "morality."

"Religious perspectives on this subject span a rather large spectrum." -- a spectrum can broad or wide, but not "large."P.D. 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "espouse specific stances." Of course, we'd also have to account for the non-specific stances. Darkfrog24 05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the latest version is acceptable. LotR 20:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of religions

Hi. I can see that the religions are ordered alphabetically. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Still, it might be better to use an analytical sequence. For instance, we could have a section on Abrahamic religions and another on Dharmic faiths. Plus, this might highlight where we need more balance and coverage. In addition, within Abrahamic religions, there would be a benefit in coordinating the writing of the sections, because some of the texts (eg Exodus) and concepts/reasoning overlap. What do folks think?

Incidentally, I've added the the Judaism section. Let me know when the time might be right to spin-off Judaism and abortion, which I'd like to do eventually. Thanks! HG | Talk 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, HG, for giving this article some much-needed attention! I think that you've done a very good job expanding the section on Judaism.

I generally order items in an article either alphabetically or chronologically. I do see a logical basis for dividing material in this article along the Abrahamic/Dharmic line. I can see this structure posing an issue, however, if a section on a religion with a different origin altogether were added. I suppose any religion which fits in neither the Abrahamic nor Dharmic category would most likely fall into the Taoic or Pagan/Neopagan categories. This is essentially the framework in place at Religion and homosexuality.

Regarding the creation of religion-specific sub-articles, if the deletion of the article Abortion and Evangelical Christians has set any precedent, I think it's that denomination-specific sub-articles might be a step too far in that direction. I do think that creating a series of spin-off articles for each religious movement would help to refine the focus of this article, though, as detailed coverage of topics only relevant to a particular faith could be migrated (the practice of mizuko kuyo and the Vatican's position on pro-choice politicians are two examples which come to my mind). I think the "Religion and homosexuality" article series could again serve as our guide.

The basic hierarchy proposed below would be Religion family -> Religion -> School or denomination. The inclusion of religions not currently covered by this article in the section tree is not intended to suggest that it would be necessary for us to fill in all of these gaps. It's just intended to show what the general layout of sections would be. -Severa (!!!) 03:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section tree

• Abrahamic religions
  • Bahá'í
  • Christianity
    • Denomination 1
    • Denomination 2
    • Et al.
  • Islam
  • Judaism
    • Denomination 1
    • Denomination 2
    • Et al.
• Dharmic religions
  • Buddhism
    • School 1
    • School 2
    • Et al.
  • Hinduism
  • Sikhism
• Neopagan religions
  • Ásatrú
  • Wicca
• Taoic religions
  • Confucianism
  • Shinto
  • Taoism

Hi, Severa. Thanks for your kind comments. Smart suggestion to look at the Religion and homosexuality model. They do have the Abrahamics in the conventional chronological order, not sure about Dharmics (with Jainism after Sikhs). I'm surprised that Catholicism doesn't have its own main article, but maybe that's reflects the randomness of editors and their interests. Certainly, if some folks come along to help out, the Jewish view is complex and diverse enough that it would benefit from a separate piece. Hmmm, if I want collaborators, it might be best to spin-off the piece soon -- or at least tag this as a WP:Judaism project. Will you implement your outline above? You might as well be bold WP:BRD. Adieu, HG | Talk 04:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered that there is a host of denomination-specific articles for Christianity in the "Religion and homosexuality" series. I get the impression that the LGBT Studies project is much more organized than WikiProject Abortion (we've really only got two or three active members at the moment). I'd certainly like to implement the above outline, as well as the proposal for a spin-off series, but, frankly, I don't think I have the ambition to take it on single-handedly. I'd prefer to call in a few experts in each subject to lend a hand in putting everything together. I suppose if I wanted to get the ball rolling I could ask around at each of the religion-specific WikiProjects, or perhaps even at the LGBT Studies project, as the people who assembled a series of articles on how one heavily-debated topic is approached by various religions are likely to have information relevant to religious views of another heavily-debated topic. I think, in any case, we should probably start by expanding/spinning off the sections we already have (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, & Sikhism). -Severa (!!!) 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and links

I came to check the neutrality. I removed a number of links under "Religious Organizations that oppose abortion". None of them were religius orgs. I question the inclusions of the geocities "Pagans For Life" page. What do others think? Also, the intro cites an ABC poll stating "50%" of those who oppose abortion. The source says "52%" approve and 43% think it should be illegal. I'm going to change the stats to reflect the source and continue through the article. Phyesalis (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Entire "Christianity" section is unsourced

The several paragraphs directly under "Christianity" are unsourced. I'm going to try to source some of it, but the parts I can't, I move we quickly delete them.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe we could fact tag them for a few days, see if others can find sources. Otherwise, I'm OK with it. If there are any disagreements, the material can be sourced and reintroduced. Phyesalis (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Judaism section revisions

Hi. User:IronAngelAlice had concerns with some of the Judaism section. Here's a diff showing our differences. Here's some of my thinking on this.

• (a) Subheading refers to the Bible not the Jewish "Tradition" because this subunit deals more narrowly w/the Biblical verses and "tradition" would also cover the later subunits on rabbinic literature.
• (b) This text had been deleted as weasel wording: "there is no unambiguous position on abortion. On the one hand, the Bible is understood to exalt the preservation of human life as a paramount value. Homicide is denounced and forbidden, except in cases of rescue and self-defense (see rodef). On the other hand, the Biblical texts say little about the status or treatment of the embryo or fetus. " The notion of ambiguity in the Biblical text is quite common in Judaism; more importantly, this view is not mine but rather from the major (Jewish) scholars on the subject, eg Feldman. These scholars note the tensions between forbidding killing and the valorizing life, while not necessarily focusing on or including the fetus. The specific propositions here are also supported by (Jewish) scholarly analysis of the Bible, including the relevance of self-defense (which plays a major role in rabbinic interpretations, as noted in subsequent sections of the article).
• (c) Another disputed text here is this: Do we say "Talmudic texts say little about the status..." or 'Biblical text...." Two reasons to say Biblical. First, as noted above, this is a subunit about the Bible. Second, it is only the Bible that says little, the Talmud actually says much more.

Thanks. I look forward to feedback. HG | Talk 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks H.G.:

• • (a) Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be the "Torah and Talmud." What are your thoughts?
  • (b) The section you site above was not entirely deleted because of "weasel wording," though some sections seem to be editorializing, lack of sources and lack of a global view.
  • (c) The "Torah" in most contexts is the entire "Jewish Bible" (http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm) (http://en.wikipedia.org/Tanakh#Oral_Torah)

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, glad to see your response. I hadn't seen it (while the database was down just now). (a) I already reverted on adding Talmud; as explained in my edit summary, the Talmud (contra Bible) does say alot about fetus etc. (b) well, the sources are there but they aren't cited because I didn't expect much of a challenge on this, it's pretty well accepted. Not sure what you mean by lack of a global view. Explain pls? (c) Sure, we can use Torah, though I think it would be less familiar to most readers of this article. Thanks very much for doing this via conversation. Pls come back at me with more concerns, etc., as you have them. thanks. HG | Talk 23:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to just throw out the wiki phrases "editorializing, lack of sources and lack of a global view". Here are links with regards to those issues: Original Research/Editorializing, WP:Evidence/Sources, Global View--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm somewhat familiar with these matters. I've responded above on sources and editorializing. In what particular way does the text reflect systematic bias? (In Judaism articles, there's sometimes a tendency to ignore the varieties of Judaism, but here we have not only the major modern movements but also Philo/Hellenistic.) Thanks. HG | Talk 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Order

The organization of religions seems odd with Christianity 2nd (kind of POV-y). I propose that we order them chronologically - Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc. Phyesalis (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was bold,a nd went ahead and did it - any issues? Phyesalis (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The previous order wasn't POV. It was alphabetical. I have a slight preference for the old order, but this matter doesn't seem that important to me, so unless there aren't any other objections, and your desire to re-arrange is that strong, I don't mind the change. -Andrew c  15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's far better to keep alphabetical. Otherwise, we'll waste time with origins/timing disputes, esp if we pick up more religions. My 2 cents. HG | Talk 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Both chronological and alphabetical are equally defensible and expandable, though chrono makes more sense (to me) in that it follows logically - seems weird to talk about Christianity before Judaism (you're right it's not POV - just seems arbitrary in the face of a chrono development). This way you can follow the development of ideological positions, each section becomes an intro to the next, giving a nice historical perspective. I also think the chrono is more self-evident. I don't think there's very much dispute as to what order the religions developed, particular dates, maybe, but that's not an issue here. I have a strong preference for this but I don't want to make an issue out of it. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that alphabetical is better. Chronological order creates problems - there are disputes about the ages of both the Hindu and Judaic religions. It's clear under each denomination that it is laid out in historical order. It's not confusing to have the denominations in alpha order.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to assert exactly how old they are, there's like 4,000 years between Vedic Civilization and the covenant of Abraham. I don't think there's too much confusion as to which one came first. :) How is the chronological order made clear under each section if the sections are in alpha order? Also, please note that if there was consensus, Andrew c said he didn't mind, HG opposed and I supported - that seems to indicate the consensus was for moving to chrono, which I did and they accepted it. Would you mind discussing your points for alpha order? -Phyesalis (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

State the foundational principles, not the political polls.

I believe that if possible the foundations of these religions should be stated, rather than the present popular/political opinion. This can be done by researching the core values or holy books pertaining to these religions. Although you cannot find any direct results of searching through the bible, the Qur'an, or Talmud for the word abortion, each has much to say about life, innocence and purpose. In the section regarding Sikhism, this has been done by stating a underlying principle found in the Gurū Granth Sāhib. Buddhism has it’s foundations and those foundations have opinions in regard to life and the purpose of life. Hinduism sounds like it would be difficult to find their scriptural opinion, due to the fact that there are so many. It is insulting to these religions to do polls from people who claim to be from them and not the foundations of the religions themselves regarding life, innocence and purpose or in other words the matter of abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotvision (talk • contribs) 10:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Didache

The Didache contains a specific reference to abortion. I think it should be added somewhere in the Christian section. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nuns and abortions

This is somewhat controversial, but the article should maybe mention those rare cases of nuns supporting abortion or actually having an abortion, for instance in places like Bosnia, Southern Africa or in advocacy groups in industrialized countries ADM (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life Muslims

I found some information here at the Society for the Protection for Unborn Children about some Muslims who are pro-life. There is a notable anti-abortion minority within Islam, it is maybe not very large, but it is fairly significant anyways. ADM (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Satanism and abortion

It would be interesting if we could write about the relationship between Satanism and abortion. I would suppose that many Satanists are pro-choice, since they might view abortion as a ritual offering to the devil. ADM (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that sure sounds like a recipe for violating neutrality, as it's based on a Christian boogeyman view of Satanism that's out of touch with reality and would serve largely to reinforce groundless biases. So feel free to try, but don't be shocked when your changes get rejected. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an interview with Peter Gilmore on wikinews, but you may be disappointed when you read it (and read about the difference between Satanists and devil worshipers).-Andrew c  13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Go find some neutral and reliable sources. You may also want to read the Satanism article, which has a number of interesting things to say on the subject of Satanists.--Tznkai (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Witchcraft and abortion

Another interesting issue is the historical link that is sometimes made between witchcraft and abortion, the notion that medieval witches were among the early promoters of birth control practices such as contraception and abortion. There is an interesting article here written by canonist Pete Vere that presents information on this topic and argues in favour of such a link. ADM (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mother

Ok, Shrandit, this is your big chance to make your case for calling a woman a mother just because she's pregnant. If you don't make a strong case and gain a consensus, I will report you for edit-warring and POV-pushing. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then...the phrase "life of the mother" is an accepted term in use. A quick google search found this legal research publication by the well respected centrist Pew Research Center, in the text of this bill put forth in South Dakota and a pro-abortion group quotes the term in Irish law here. The word "mother" and the term "life of the mother" is widely used when debateing the morality of abortion across the spectrum of standpoint, a few bring mentions are here and here. The term was also used by Standford University, the BBC and by encyclopedia.com. The term is even being used by our President. If you believe it to be necessary I can take the time to find more and even better examples.

I think the term "pro-choice" is a text book example of issue framing. Organizations like planned parenthood have spent millions of dollars to brand that word as something I firmly believe it is not. But much as I lament that, they have accomplished their goal. I think the term "pro-choice" is ultimately disingenuous and deceptive but I cannot honestly deny its usage and if a politician describes them self as "pro-choice" that is how they are described on this encyclopedia. - Schrandit (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that with this edit, it was actually TruthIIPower who made the change from "mother," which had been in the article for a considerable period of time, to "woman." That seems to me to be a POV edit, considering the term's accepted usage. 98.243.129.140 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is obligated to be neutral, whereas the rest of the world is not. A woman who is pregnant is simply a woman who is pregnant. If she had given birth in the past then she is coincidentally a mother. Otherwise, she is not. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Question- What do you call the person who impregnated the woman? The only term I've heard is father. By analogy, the woman is the mother. Secondly, what makes you say mother is not a neutral term? As Shrandit mentioned above, the pro-choice Barack Obama uses the term mother. Different sources will use different terms, but that does not make one term preferred over the other. The term mother establishes a relationship between the woman and the fetus. This makes the term mother more descriptive. Words should be used to describe something as accurately as possible.98.243.129.140 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Word. "Life of the mother" is a neutral phrase in use by folks as liberal as President Obama. - Schrandit (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I agree with Schrandit. The phrase "life of the mother" is a well-known colloquialism that remains accepted terminology, even among pro choice advocates. The Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion uses the word "mother" 43 times with reference to a pregnant woman, and that's just in the majority opinion.

Additionally, dictionaries and other reference books often use the word "mother" prenatally, e.g.:
MedicineNet.com (defining placenta as a "temporary organ joining the mother and fetus");
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (placenta permits "metabolic interchage between fetus and mother", and also defining quickening as "signs of fetal life felt by the mother");
Encyclopedia Britannica Concise ("nutrients and oxygen in the mother's blood pass across the placenta to the fetus");
On-Line Medical Dictionary, Department of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne ("movement of foetus in the womb perceived by the mother");
Medilexicon (defining quickening as "signs of life felt by the mother as a result of fetal movements");
Wordnet, Princeton University ("mother first feels the movements of the fetus");
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary ("motion of a fetus in the uterus felt by the mother").

The idea that perfectly normal English words should be banned from this article because they've somehow become contaminated by being used on one side or the other of a political controversy seems misguided to me.

Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) said: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." Note that the very pro-choice Faludi uses the term "mother", whereas removing it from this article would give the deliberate impression that motherhood does not begin until birth or later.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The pregnant woman is allowed to round up because it is her choice that will make it become true. In fact, motherhood does not begin at fertilization, else we'd consider many, many more women to be mothers, particularly since the majority of fertilizations do not produce babies. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Cites?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For which? TruthIIPower (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For what you said at 20:54.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was common knowledge. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The first of those two links does not mention the word "mother" or any variant of it. The second merely says that miscarriage does not end the chance of motherhood in the future. Neither seems to support the argument you were making at 20:54.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I linked these to support the biological fact that most fertilizations do not lead to live births. Please stick to the topic. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And, incidently, that quote does support my logic. If miscarriage does not end the chance of motherhood in the future, it means that merely having a fertilized egg which self-aborted (or failed to implant in the first place) does not suffice for motherhood. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I read it wrong but site number 1 said that 50-60% of first pregnancies end in miscarriage and site number 2 said 1 in 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage. - Schrandit (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should do a more careful reading of these two articles, then read some more until you understand the issue. For example, http://miscarriage.about.com/od/onetimemiscarriages/p/chemicalpreg.htm cites a 70% figure, but most just say "more than half". TruthIIPower (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

TruthIIPower, I'm aware that most fertilizations do not lead to live births. You said much more than that at 20:54. You said that a "pregnant woman is allowed to round up" and "motherhood does not begin at fertilization". Do you have cites for those assertions, per WP:RS? Also, losing a baby due to Infant Death Syndrome or a variety of other causes does not necessarily end the chance of motherhood in the future; that fact does not imply that motherhood did not occur in the past.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Ferrylodge, please read what I wrote. Even the quote YOU CHOSE supports my contention. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote I chose at 21:22 was quoting you. You are not a WP:RS. I'm simply asking if you can cite a WP:RS to back up your statements that I quoted: "pregnant woman is allowed to round up....motherhood does not begin at fertilization". I've not only been reading what you write, but also following the links that you provide.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The second cite I gave said "A miscarriage is a natural occurrence in most cases and is in no way a end sentence for the chances of motherhood." and this is what you paraphrased. I explained how this tacitly recognizes that motherhood requires more than pregnancy. What part of this remains unclear to you? TruthIIPower (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources often discuss women who have had children wanting another chance at motherhood."But as we talked more, he could see how much I yearned for another chance at motherhood. I know he has made a massive compromise for me — but then he knew how much having another child meant to me." Just because a woman has had a child in the past does not mean she cannot have a chance of motherhood in the future. Anyway, I would hesitate to consider your source reliable, especially given that it incorrectly says "a end" instead of "an end".Ferrylodge (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try this again. Consider that pro-choice advocates have been known to use the term "anti-choice" to refer to pro-lifers. While a strong argument can be made in favor of this usage and it is quite common, it is not sufficiently neutral for our needs. TruthIIPower (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (identity)#Self-identification: "When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." That applies to self-identification, not to everything else under discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, political terms like "assault weapons" are acceptable when in common usage. Our "Pro-choice" President uses the term "mother". What higher form of cultural acceptance is there? - Schrandit (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less, because what we're talking about here is neutrality, not cultural acceptance. TruthIIPower (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article has recently been a target of biased changes by Catholic/anti-choice partisans. Remember, Misplaced Pages is obligated to be neutral, so these changes will be removed. TruthIIPower (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class Abortion articles
• Unknown-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles
• Unassessed Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Unassessed ethics articles
• Unknown-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• Unassessed philosophy of religion articles
• Unknown-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles