Misplaced Pages

Dear 216, there would be so much to reply to your post but it would be too much and futile anyway. Let's consider what you wrote "science fiction". A tilde is that: ~ - if you put four together you get your signature. It's useful, even if you are an anon by marking the end of your post. Str1977 13:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have selected a suitably science-fictional handle. In olden times (not yet over, actually), each human culture often thought it was so much better than neighboring cultures that killing humans outside one's own culture was simply that, killing, and seldom murder. The Incas possibly thought that way about the Spaniards, to their cost. Certainly the Spaniards thought that about the Incas! Science fiction is most valuable when it looks far ahead, considers consequences of choices, and offers a chance to learn to make better choices. In the fictional TV series "V", the aliens were quite powerful enough to do to humanity what the Spaniards did to the Incas. That the series had a fundamental technical flaw, which is that for aliens from another star-system, water and other compounds (carbon-based) needed for life-support are far cheaper and easier to obtain in the Oort Cloud than from deep inside both the Sun's and the Earth's gravity wells, is par for Hollywood. The social-interaction lesson remains, that humans had better not be so stupid as to think they are the pinnacle life-form in the Universe, and killing any of the others can never be murder. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy..." Consider the whales, for example. I'm sure you know that there are arguments regarding whether or not killing them should be called murder. Those arguments are based on two simple facts: The brain of a whale can be several times more massive than a human brain; and Nature is thrifty: biomass that isn't actually used, in any species, atrophies. The paleontological record clearly shows that whales are descended from land animals, and that their hind limbs were used seldom enough over millions of years that they atrophied into oblivion. But since their brains didn't atrophy, and instead grew as whales evolved, what are they using them for? They certainly don't need as much brainpower as they have just to do sonar; a brain the size of a bat's can do sonar just fine, while managing expert flying at the same time, thank you. We humans have no idea what the answer is, to that question. Will we someday discover that we have been murdering whale-beings for centuries? To be determined, in a non-science-fictional future. Now let's consider a different non-human for a bit, clinically thinking about a mystery labelled God. To call God fictitious would offend many people, but to call God fact would offend many others. I am not looking for a religion-oriented debate here; there is another place in Misplaced Pages for that. Here I only want to ask a simple question, "If you could imagine God to be killable, and somebody went and did it, then would that killing be murder?" The hypothetical killing of a non-biological non-human is being discussed here! --(in accordance with widely claimed traits for God, but yes, ignoring the immortality claim, because that one is equivalent to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine, see?). If your definition of murder is the simple "killing of human life" (which the New Argument shows cannot be valid), or even the more complicated "killing of a human being", then killing God could not possibly qualify as murder. If you disagree with that logical conclusion, and think that killing God would still qualify as murder, then you must come up with a definition of "murder" that meets the criteria I described in my prior post. Especially if you happen to think God to be more factual than fictitious -- or if you think that killing whales is murder. (Because once you start thinking about any sort of murderable entity besides human, then why should that be called the definitive end of the possible list?) Finally, here is why I am pressing you on that issue: I expect you will fail. I am confident that any definition of "murder" that can apply to human beings and certain non-human beings, but not to other non-human creatures like the housefly, is never going to be able to also apply to offspring so undeveloped that they have no significant brainpower-equivalent. You are welcome to try to prove my confidence misplaced. Good luck! Until then, abortion can be called both not-murder and morally-permissible! V

I don't want to provoke you, but I think you are close to exhibiting flight-of-ideas. My talk page. Sodium 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that's funny. If I choose to be provoked by what you just wrote, it will be entirely due to the fact that you still have chosen not the answering of previously asked questions nor the debating of previously-made points, but instead you hint your way to the desperate attack-the-opponent tactic once again. As another person on your side of the debate has indicated, your efforts will be futile, and here is why: Have you ever encountered this quote before? "You can't do just one thing." The interconnectedness of things, throughout the Universe, guarantees the truth of that quote, of course. But that same interconnectedness means that a topic like abortion cannot help but be linked to a number of other things. I've been thinking about those connections for twenty years, and finally am in a position to dump the results upon unsuspecting anti-abortionists as they deserve. They deserve it, see, because they didn't follow the connections themselves, and reach the inevitable conclusion that their argument is nothing but a house of cards build upon soggy sand in an earthquake zone. Their dilemma can be traced to the simple fact that they have been told from childhood that certain things are true, and so are trying to prop up arbitrarily made statements that are millenia old, and which turn out to actually be mostly false when investigated thoroughly, by following the connections! V

===================

And now to obliterate the next chunk of "foundation" upon which anti-abortionists base their argument:

One of the foundations upon which opponents of abortion build their argument is the claim that human life has inherent value that should be respected. But is that a true statement? How is "value" determined, anyway? Answer: value is actually never an inherent quality of anything; the value of something is always defined in terms of associations with other things. Here are some items of supporting evidence:

First, the Law of Supply and Demand studies the association between a single item and a group of items of the same type. How large is the group? Given constant demand, then the larger the group (the supply), the less-valuable the individual item is declared to be, and vice-versa. And does the Law of Supply and Demand apply to humans? In a restricted way, YES. Human labor is very much subject to this Law. It is quite well documented that when labor for a particular task is plentiful, humans who demand high wages for doing that task tend to find themselves unemployed. And certainly when only a few humans can do a particular task, they are often both well-paid and also given the task of training more humans to do it...thereby eventually and obviously diminishing the value of their labor! --Which in turn leads to a conundrum, because human life must be sustained in order for it to continue to yield labor. The claim that human life is inherently valuable should thereby and obviously be bolstered by actions everywhere ensuring that a minimum wage exists for labor, such that that wage is always at least enough to sustain human life. However, the fact is, a great many people who have time-and-again acted to oppose a minimum wage also happen to claim to oppose abortion on value-of-life grounds. Well, if "actions speak louder than words", then the actions of those people falsify the claim.

Second, throughout history numerous attempts were made to "fix" the price of gold, to make it a monetary standard. This never worked over the long term, and today not only does the price of gold "float" in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand, so do the relative (associative) values of practically all the world's currencies. Similarly, human life has time and again been assigned associative values, especially in times of extreme struggle. "Women and children first!" is a motto embraced by all cultures that have survived the long haul, simply because children are the future of a culture, and women can both teach and make more children -- consider the possible culture-recovering/growth speed of two groups of survivors, one group consisting of ten men and one woman, while the other group consists of ten women and one man. So, if the lives of adult human males are assigned a low relative value in times of struggle, when it is traditional for them to sacrifice themselves to ensure women and children survive (for an extreme example of this, study the history of Paraguay, its wars, population level, and changing male/female ratio), then by no means can it be claimed that human life has some inherent fixed value.

Interestingly, it might be noted that if children can be considered more valuable than adult males, then a fetus also might be considered more valuable than an abortion doctor. However, such a conclusion fails to take into account the specified/associative magnitude-and-type-of-struggle. Abortion might indeed be utterly prohibitable when cultural survival is at stake -- or abortion might actually be declared an essential part of an overall effort to prevent an overpopulation-caused Malthusian Catastrophe. The history of Easter Island proves that humans are indeed as subject to the observations of Thomas Malthus as any other animal; it is just that with Island Earth being so much bigger, the crux takes longer to reach. Also, there are two other reasons why a fetus can be assigned a low value. One involves associating them with the quantity of biological resources that have been "invested" in them -- the older they are, the more resources have been invested (including patience of the mothers), and this investment only increases after birth and throughout childhood -- while when young-enough for a morning after pill to be effective, the quantity of invested resources is trivial. The other reason notes that aborted or miscarried fetuses are generally easy to replace (not necessarily by the same women, admittedly), and the current Malthus-challenging global population explosion, in spite of the number of abortions performed annually worldwide, is proof enough of that statement.

Third, almost every life-form has a built-in survival instinct. This is a simple consequence of the obvious fact that failures at survival tended not to pass their genes (and associated behavior patterns) on to the next generation. Humans are in the unique position of being able to make choices different from those dictated by instinct. Thus while perception of the survival instinct is common among humans, and frequently that perception leads to survival-promoting choices, often enough the perception is ignored in favor of other desires. Skydiving for fun is an example of that. Nevertheless, skydivers do take precautions to promote their survival, and often enough those precautions are adequate. The point here is that whenever a human chooses to act in a way that promotes survival of the body, even if only by taking precautions prior to skydiving, that human is acknowledging an association between that body and the mind making the choice. The existence of the mind depends on the continuing life of the body, so obviously it behooves the mind to value the life highly enough to take the precautions!

That entirely subjective perception and valuation is typically extrapolated, thanks to another unique trait of humans. The ability of one human to mentally place self into a situation being experienced by another human is something no animal can do. And therefore most humans expect other humans to value their own lives in a similar way. Nevertheless, that valuation remains entirely subjective and is not at all objective, as is evidenced by many troubles in History, which have been caused by humans who valued their own lives, but not the lives of others. Isn't it logical to deduce that if human life was objectively valuable, there would have been fewer historic cases in which that value was ignored (fewer murders and more ransoms)? Instead, the millenia-old slavery trade simply proved that humans value other humans subjectively, since slave auctions existed to get the most from whoever subjectively valued slaves the highest -- and it was not really the slaves that were valued, anyway, but what those slaves could do (labor) for their owners.

The ability to put self in another's place can, like any other ability, be misused. To mentally put oneself in the physical situation of a horse is not to naturally interpret that situation in the same way as a horse, after all -- so abusing the ability in this instance would involve incorrectly claiming to fully understand the horse's mentality. And, by extension, the magnitude of misuse only increases as the mentaltiy of the other creature diminishes. When the creature has practically no mentality at all, such as a several-month's-old fetus, it would be pure folly to claim it has any understanding and valuation of its own existence. And it happens that not even the staunchest defenders of a fetus make such a claim. Instead they make the equally erroneous claim that human life has inherent/objective value. Even though the evidence is entirely against them.

I intend to post the preceding to the main article. And as before, it may be edited first, based on feedback. Let 'er rip! V

I just wanted to put my two cents on the whole thing. I'm writing a paper in school on Father's rights to protect their children. Any school text you read will say that life begins at conception- in all animals, including humans. A report from Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

So that should settle the whole "when does life begin" arguement.

I completely agree that the fertilization process (note species not specified) can yield a distinct and new human life, just as it can yield a distinct and new fish life, or dog life, or snail life.... Why don't you tell us why the new human life, a mindless single-celled organism, MUST be valued more highly than the others? Prejudice is not allowed, of course. And there is no requirement in Nature that potentials be fulfilled. V

Another thing to analize is the 14th Amendment itself. Has anyone done this yet? Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is the basis for Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion in general:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It specifies "persons born". No fetus qualifies. Simple. Also, see a little further below, where the Census is mentioned (one of the Sections of Amendment 14 is to modify the Constitution's description of census-taking). V

Specifically in the wording "immunities" protecting a women's right to govern the matters of her own body concerning pregnancy. But after examining various other words that come up later in Section one, especially after reading SJC S-158, 1981, we see words like "shall not deprive any person of life (the child), liberty (the child, and the father), without due process of law (fathers have cases thrown out when trying to stop their uinborn child's mother from aborting their unborn children), nor deny to any person...equal protection of rights (there is inequality because only the mother has rights, the father and the child do not).

First, the word "child" is inapplicable to any unborn human. However much you may wish otherwise, the correct term for an unborn human, during most of a pregnancy, is "fetus". Next, the ovum outweighs the sperm by 100,000 times. And every single atom that is added, after womb-implantation occurs and major growth begins, comes from the mother. So suppose you were a woman who invested $100,000 in a boat, and some man invested $1. Also, you-the-woman made all other payments for maintenance and improvements in the boat, while the man directly contributed nothing. If that man claims a half-ownership of the boat, do you think the claim will stand up in court? Then why should a man's claim of half-ownership in a fetus be recognized? V

And that's that- Legal Abortion is bogus. In a country that strives for egalitarianism sees how much further we fall short after studying the above. -Chris Lawrence, 25 FRCC Colorado

Your conclusion is bogus, since it is based on invalid data and bad logic. For more details about why the 14th Amendment doesn't grant rights to fetuses, see below. V

The Roe vs. Wade decision referenced the 14th Amendment as being able to invalidate the decision IF the word "person" was defined to include unborn humans. It is interesting that throughout the Constitution, the word "person" is used often, but the word "human" is not used at all. (No wonder those beings in that TV show, "Alien Nation", found the US accommodating!)

Anyway, the 14th Amendment, Section 1, gives rights to "all persons born", and says nothing about the unborn. But Section 2 is what I want you to think about here. This Section specifies counting persons, so that the States' Representation in the House can be figured (it modifies earlier wording of the Constitution). You may be aware that the purpose of the once-per-decade Census is to do that counting. UNBORN HUMANS HAVE NEVER BEEN COUNTED. If they were considered "persons", then they should have been getting counted since 1790. And do note, please, that the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution, were mostly alive to specify what qualified as a "person", for that first Census of 1790.

Thus the precedent, per ACTUAL IMPLEMENATION of the Constitution, long long before Roe vs. Wade, is that THE UNBORN DON'T COUNT; they have NEVER been considered to be persons worth counting. (A rather high rate of natural miscarriages may be one reason why; it would be like counting chickens before they hatched.) And even though the 14th Amendment altered certain aspects of Census-taking, those who wrote that Amendment, about 140 years ago, never used it as an excuse to count fetuses as persons. The legal precedent set by the Founding Fathers stands, therefore.

And that's OK! Per scientific measurements, unborn humans are not mentally more capable than ordinary animals. Even just-born humans are not mentally more capable than an adult cat or small dog. If we want "persons" to be generic enough for "Alien Nation", but restrictive enough to always exclude the demonstrably animal, like cats and dogs, then NO WAY can unborn humans EVER qualify as persons. V

The proposed entry is very long. Perhaps you could suggest a much briefer entry? The article is overlength as it is. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggest move

To Abortion debate. I like this title very much, but simpler is often better. What do people think. Also, beginning a Template:Abortion to consolodate related articles in a box. Might be nice if we took care of a template:Pregnancy first though. -St|eve 01:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this suggested move. Rolling up the moral and legal debates into one is not always helpful, especialy when one considers that a legal code is uniform within a state, unlike morals. Markb 10:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree w the move. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Major edit

I made a major edit, overhauling about 1/2 of the article. I noticed a near complete absence of discussion of violence, abortion clinic bombings, assasination of abortionists, and so forth. That, and some of the more extreme protest tactics should be elaborated on, likely producing a new section. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Original Research Tag

I have tagged this article with OR, because of the final two sections, "Against moral permissibility, regardless of personhood" (mostly latter half), and "Personhood", which are heavily original research (not to mention super-kooky). Sdedeo 16:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/statistics.asp

I changed the title of the above URL (in External Links) to "Abortion experience questionnaire of a self-selected sample".

The original description of the link - "Survey of which women have abortions, and why" - was misleading at best: the survey sample is a "self-selected sample of the those who had a 'bad experience'". Would have removed the link outright, considering how little relevant information the report contains, but I am new and this debate is scary. Also, it is apparently used to back up claims in the "Polarisation" section, but I don't see how it relates. Shoryuken 01:45, 01 September 2005 (UTC)

216 Original "research" essay

I removed the most obvious original research. It had grown to almost 3,000 words (the rest being 7,500 words). Str1977 19:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

History

The following quote appears at the head of the History section: "Many societies historically considered abortion a crime against nature." Can anyone provide any object evidence for this claim? Further down in the History section is the claim that the United States and India are among the countries where women are forced to have abortions against their will. Can anyone offer any evidence for this claim? Rick Norwood 21:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward to defend or support the statements mentioned above, I am removing them. Rick Norwood 14:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

drawing on the bible

The most recent edit makes two claims that I would like to see evidence for. The first is that more Christians opposed abortions than did those of other religions of the time. (The word "pagan" is prejudicial.) Second, that in opposing abortion Christians drew on the Bible. Rick Norwood 17:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward to defend or support these statements, I am removing them. Rick Norwood 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Kudos, well done. KillerChihuahua 16:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

sounds like religion to me

"Pro-life advocates generally argue against sexual education on the grounds that they send "mixed signals" to teens, especially girls. They also note that there is a correlation between widespread sex education in schools and an increase in teen sexual activity, resulting in rising rate of teen pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases. Instead they advocate a strong family and community advocacy of abstinence until marriage."

Hmmm...What exactly does ANY of this have to do with abortion? All of these things mentioned seem like religious issues and do not pertain to abortion unless one wants to make the point that the only people who are disqusted by abortions are realigious which I highly doubt. What evidence is there that most (weasled into the article as "generaly") pro-lifers advance any of the above opinions, all of which are conspcuously religious? What about the argument that just as easy to put a baby up for adoption as to abort it?207.157.121.50 06:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

"Pro-choice advocates regularly argue in favor of sex education in high school, contraceptive use, and greater involvement by parents in the lives of their teens as the three best ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore the need for abortions. They note that teens who have participated in "abstinence-only" sex education are less likely to use forms of contraception should they have sex, and therefore are more likely to become pregnant and develop STI's."

Again absolutely irrelevent to the topic. And since when was a teen with an unintended pregnency in "need" of an abortion?207.157.121.50 06:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Let's not be obtuse here: Contraception and sex ed are deeply related to the abortion issue for the simple reason that no women has ever gotten an abortion without first getting pregnant. You can argue with the word "need", but it's a simple fact that abortions are motivated by unwanted pregnancies, so anything that prevents these also prevents abortions. Social policies that affect pregnancy are therefore relevant to the abortion debate. Alienus 17:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Very Strange Phrases

In reading this article, I have come across what seem like some very strange phrases, such as:

• The abortion debate is part of a large banana: Who do we protect?
• the arguments on abortion usually seek to french toast the change

I have never heard of "french toasting" change, nor have I heard the word "banana" used to mean "question" or "debate". I would just change these, but I am puzzled as to why someone else has not already done this. Is the Misplaced Pages inserting random nonsense these days in order to catch people who use it without giving attribution?

DrDeke 17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I also feel that the line "The pro-life side of the debate is driven by the strong attachment most people feel toward babies, without which the human race would have died out long ago." is a fairly obvious statement to all and is not needed in what is meant to be a serious article.

The "banana", etc., is vandalism, and should be reverted as soon as it is detected. On the other hand, the emotional attachment people feel toward babies, while obvious, is also fundamental to the debate -- without that attachment there would be no debate. Rick Norwood 22:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, love of babies is something that is used by these people to sell their stance, but I'd question whether it is what fundamentally drives it. After all, this stance is politically linked with opposition to welfare and other programs that ensure that babies are fed and cared for. I would suggest that the underlying drive is related more closely to an opposition to feminism. Alienus 17:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Alienus edit

Alienus makes some good points, but I think he attempts too much. In particular, his point about identical twins seems spurious.

Also, I note a claim in the article that sex education increases teen sex. I have seen no evidence for this. Claims should be supported by evidence. Rick Norwood 15:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback. On the twin issue, let me explain what I was trying to say. Those who wish to trace personhood to conception like to invoke the fact that a fertilized embryo has unique DNA from the moment of conception, and that this DNA is different from that of either parent alone, hence it's not merely a part of the woman's body and subject to her whims. I feel that this argument has a number of flaws, so I brought up identical twins to highlight one of them and crossing over to highlight another.

The relevance is that, if uniqueness of DNA is what makes the embryo a separate person, worthy of life, then one of each pair of identical twins is redundant and may be eliminated. In some cultures, this is exactly what was historically done, with one of newborns summarily infanticized. Other cultures kill both, just in case, since only one has a soul. Hopefully, this explains what I was getting at. Any ideas on how I could make the text clearer?

Was the crossing over point lost too?

As for the claim that sex ed increases sex, from all the research I've done, this is entirely false. In the original text, this fallacy was repeated without comment. My edit was to tone down the claim to emphasize that it really is what certain anti-abortion groups say, even though it's just not true. Does this need further changes?

You said that, in general, I overreach. That may well be the case, so are there any other areas where you can offer specific comment?

All of the above is open to response by anyone, not just Rick. Alienus 16:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understood your point about the twins -- I just think it is splitting hairs, and doesn't belong in the article.

It is hard to know what to do when reporting a claim, like that about sex education, that is contrary to fact but is in fact a claim that is made. I hope you, or someone, can find a way to deal with this problem.

By and large, I liked your edits. My comment about "attempting too much" would have been better phrased, "don't attempt too much at one time". Edit a little, wait for a reaction, then edit a little more. Rick Norwood 16:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

These are fair criticism. My method for determining scope was basically to read through and fix bad stuff. In other words, I didn't try to rewrite, just change a word or add a sentence. Still, you're right that I could have planned out my changes and implemented them piecemeal, to give you and others more of a chance to respond at each point.

Anyhow, I've made another round of changes to fix the twin problem, and I'll see if I can add a parenthetical remark on the issue of sex ed causing pregnancies. Feel free to criticize or fix.

"extra-marital sex friendly sex education"

A recent edit describes sex education as either "abstanance only" or "extra-marital sex friendly". This seems very POV to me. What do others think? Rick Norwood 23:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is included in a passage presenting one side's argument. Hence A oppose this because they consider it to be X is all right, in my book, though it shouldn't be repeated over and over again. Str1977 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your latest edit improves on mine. Thanks. Rick Norwood 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I was too cautious in editing it down. Alienus 00:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Religion

No mention of anything but Christian? Islam at least is easy to find sources for. This entry is biased - I will try to find time to come back and fix, but if someone else can please do. KillerChihuahua 01:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly important. I do not have the knowledge necessary, but I hope that someone here does. Rick Norwood 15:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam:

• Islam & Abortion
• Abortion from an Islamic Perspective from Fatwah bank at IslamOnline
• Islam & Abortion from CrescentLife

Buddhism:

• Buddhism and Abortion from About
• What is an attitude of a Buddhist towards abortion? from the Questions and Answers at BuddhaNet

Several:

• Summary of Sacred Choices from The Religious Consultion. Covers Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Protestant Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American Religions, and "The Chinese Religions, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism" all lumped together.
• Religion and Abortion Has LOTS of urls for lots of info.

Now you have resources. I hope this helps. KillerChihuahua 16:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PSA

as it seems a some people on this page are arguing the issue, rather than making relevent suggestions for improving the article, I provide the following links as a public service announcement. Please take your debate thoughts to these sites, and keep your article improvement thoughts here:

• Forum on eHealth
• Forum Maple Leaf
• SpeakOut forum

I hope this helps!

Official positions?

How exactly are we getting official prolife/prochoice positions? Is there an international comitee regulating pro-life/prochoice registration, kinda like a political party that I am not aware of? Smart assery aside, a possible suggestion. Split the article, either literally or just by organization into abortion debate arguments, and abortion debate advocacy.--Tznkai 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sex Education

There should be no mention of sex education on this page - it has nothing to do with abortion, or the abortion debate. Tiki2099 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1) There already was mention of sex ed in both the pro-choice and pro-life summaries, so you can't just remove one and leave the other.

2) Sex education and birth control are hugely relevant to the abortion debate, and there is a clear correlation between views on abortion with those on sex ed and birth control. This is not my own opinion alone, but the consensus of the editors.

3) What I'm really annoyed with is your blatant disregard for NPOV. Terms like "unborn baby" and "mother" are too loaded to be used neutrally. Alienus 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

you are right - they should be removed from both. Correlation of people who have the views has nothing to do with the issue itself. It is particularly distorting here, since by claiming that science happens to be on the side of one view, it impacts negatively on the other without actually discussing real debate. Also, terms like "unborn baby" are prefectly appropriate terms to use in a section actually explaining a particular POV. What this section should do is clearly articulate why those terms are part of the pro-life vocabulary. Simply using the pro-choice vocabulary tilts it too far in the other direction. Tiki2099 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

just to clarify my earlier comment, I propose to A) remove the tangental stuff about sex education and B) in each pro-life/pro-choice section, talk about the vocabulary each positions uses, and why they use it. Explaining the vocabulary actually goes most of the way in explaining the position, and I think it is the most neutral approach to a sensitive subject. There is probably some redundancy that can be eliminated elsewhere as well. Tiki2099 19:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that, were it removed from one, it ought to be removed from the other. I disagree with your contention that sex ed and contraception are tangential. However, I do support any NPOV clarification of terminology. Alienus 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I regard them as tangential because this is a page discussing abortion itself, not ways to reduce abortions in general. That is to say, a desire or methodology to reduce the total number of abortions is an outcome of this discussion, not a data point while having it. I also don't necessarily agree that being pro-life makes one anti sex-ed. That may be true for certain conservate Christian circles, but there are plenty of non-Christians who are pro-life, discussed elsewhere in the article. The whole "best way to reduce the number of abortions" debate should be handled somewhere else. Tiki2099 21:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

People who are pro-abortion are not by default in favor of sex education. People who are anti-abortion are not by default in favor of abstinence only programs. The article states the correlation as fact. As such, it is factually incorrect and should be removed. Rubikcube 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This is obviously an unstable article, and thus does not meet the criteria. --Tothebarricades 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"whom do we protect?"

sounds pretty pov in a cheesy lifetime channel kind of way. come on, we can do better than that paragraph.

I agree that the paragraph is completely worthless Rubikcube 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New section?

It is worth mentioning the issue of parental/spousal/biological father notification/consent - regardless of a person's view on the right of the mother, many feel the father should have a say in the issue as well. On the Abortion page, I have added the following:

"Debate also focuses on whether the pregnant woman should have to notify and have the consent of others in distinct cases: a minor her parents; a legally married or common-law wife her husband; or a pregnant woman the biological father. In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondants were in favour of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favour."

I was finding it difficult to incorporate this into existing sections here - perhaps there are suggestions? DonaNobisPacem 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added this to the "Rights" section. DonaNobisPacem 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent news

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10853178/

U.S. conservatives step up overseas activities

Joseph d’Agostino of the Population Research Institute, a Virginia-based anti-abortion group. “But with the Bush administration, pro-lifers feel there’s a real opportunity to stop the U.S. government from promoting abortion and sex education and population control in the Third World.”

There is a lot more - I will leave it to the more active editors of this article to determine if there is a place for this here. KillerChihuahua 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

South Dakota ban?

I'm a bit confused how a state court could rule against federal law? --Tothebarricades 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposed state constitutional ammendment would ban all abortions in South Dakota, but keep in mind if passed it would obviously spark a series of lawsuits attacking it's constitutionality on the federal level, so the ultimate goal would be to have the Supreme Court review Roe V. Wade and possibly overturn the original ruling....thus the South Dakota law is simply a springboard to the ultimate goal of eradicating all abortions.

As it currently sits, the citizens of South Dakota collected enough signatures to force a ballot measure for the proposed ammendment, which means the voters will decide the fate of the proposition - and if it is voted down nothing will become of it. If it is passed, then the lawsuits will most likely follow suit. At the end of the day it really isn't about saving lives but rather about making a name for a few select politicians. Based upon local surveys it is very clear the legislature is not following the will of the people and thus there is a high probability the proposition will be defeated....stay tuned until Nov 06 for the results. 151.151.21.104 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)CostnerM

Movement Choice

I feel that the use of the title Pro-Life contests neutrality because the antonym of Pro-Death is inaccurate. I feel this is just a method used to villify opposing views through suggestion. It would be better suited to stop using the movements self proclaimed Pro-Life title because it goes deeper than that. Anti-Choice might be a better title as that is the basis of the movement, taking away the choice of abortion and the choice of a mother. It would be more objective to place both movements on equal footing by keeping the argument Pro/Anti Choice. Fear The Ether 17:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be an even worse violation of POV than the current usage. If you wanted something more accurate, you would use pro- and anti- abortion, as each side would probably view that as a positive description of their own movement. --tjstrf 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that suggestion violates the wikipedia naming convention of respecting self-identity. Second of all, most pro-choicers don't like abortions and aren't "pro-abortion" (and I think there is a reason that pro-lifers object to being considered anti-abortion, but I can't remember it). Third of all, both pro-life and pro-choice movements deal with other issues besides abortion, such as stem-cell research and euthanasia on the life side, and contraception and womens health issues on the choice side. Like I said above, self-identity is the most neutral way to go. It is not our place as wikipedians to try to correct the 'wrong' or POV titles of these movements.--Andrew c 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant within the context of this particular article, where we are dealing specifically with abortion supporters and abortion detractors, not the larger issue. However, self-identification is probably the best way to go simply because they are best known by those names regardless. I was just replying because I noticed no one had ever addressed this after I restored an IP editors deletion of it here anyway, so don't mind me. --tjstrf 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alterman?

I'm confused why Eric Alterman's opinion book has a section in this article? It seems to relate remotely to the topic, further Alterman's explanation of pro-choice bias is dubious at best- how could those who support the status quo (legal abortion), be "reformist"? In my thinking this section should go, any thoughts?

This section should be deleted unless someone can explain how the issue of media bias has entered the abortion debate. Even then I cannot see that media bias would deserve its own section. Either way it should not remain as a separate section. --Algernon1980 11:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section Media Bias should be removed entirely. It should be moved to its own page (a book review), or to Media Bias.—Red Baron 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Abortions Ban

How can a US State ban all abortions if it clearly violates the right to privacy? I am currently studying AP Government in High School, and I thought that the states could not infringe on the right to privacy that is implied by the Bill of Rights. I thought that this would violate the privileges and immunities of Section 1 of the 14th amendment. Could anyone please clarify this?--BorisFromStockdale 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I am asking abot the South Dacota ban.--BorisFromStockdale 20:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement on whether a right to privacy really exists per se or to what extent it exists. If abortion was protected simply by a "Right to Privacy", then so would, for example, drug use. Conservatives believe in a "strict constructionist" model where only clearly stated rights are protected, U.S. liberals believe in a "living constitution" that the courts can reinterpret as the jurist deems appropriate...JE

When the Bill of Rights was first being debated, some people were worried that later on, someone might think that only the rights listed in the bill were protected. That is why Amendment 9, which explicitly says that listing some rights does not mean you do not have others, was included. Thus a "strict constructionist" who says only clearly stated rights are protected is like a "fundamentalist Christian" who does not take every sentence in the New Testament seriously, i.e. these people are using their favorite parts of a text to give authority to their positions. DanielCristofani 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but what about the Supreme Court case ruling in the Roe v. Wade decision. Wouldn't South Dacota's ban contradict that decision? --BorisFromStockdale 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, South Dakota's law is in contravention of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It seems that South Dakota simply wants to provide an opportunity for a lawsuit that would ask the Supreme Court to overturn those decisions, which would simply make the issue one for the states to decide individually. Oh, and actually there is general consensus that the right to privacy exists, ask Robert Bork. Would you agree that states can ban contraception, which was at issue in Griswold v. Connecticut? One can support the right to privacy and also think that abortion should be a state issue, I support such reasoning myself and it is a view strongly advocated by others, including The New Republic. - Jersyko·talk 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Historically, yes, states could ban contraception, this is the point of the 9th and 10th ammendments, namely states retained powers not enumerated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, Griswold V. Connecticut was the precursor to Roe. V. Wade and was based on the flimsy theory of "economic substantive due process", originally and ironically, embraced by conservative business interests in the Slaughterhouse cases and later in Lochner V. New York, Oliver Wendell Holmes dissent in Lochner would be the underpinning of the constructionist/federalist point of view on the matter. Again, modern liberals will disagree but there is not a consensus on this matter. JE

Body after death v. fetus before birth

Alienus changed an example to: we don't limit terminally ill people with only nine months left to live to the rights of a corpse. IMO the edit is a great improvement in terms of explanatory power. His point (see edit summary) about original research also seems well taken to me, in the sense that the article is underreferenced (although the article's history leads me to believe this will not be too difficult to remedy). But I am wondering about the new example. I find it hard to believe that anyone has ever made this point in the abortion debate in the real world, given how crude and loaded the language is and how off-putting its message (juxtaposing a corpse against a fetus) must sound to the people it seeks to convince. Alienus or anyone else, please provide one or more citations per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE to show that your edit is not original research (i.e. an example created by you and/or part of an argument created by the editors responsible for its earlier incarnations) and that it provides notable information. AvB ÷ talk 14:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In trying to source this myself I soon came across the author of this juxtaposition - Leonard Peikoff. So I've answered my question re sources. I still have objections to the example; e.g. the juxtaposition (POV that fetus & corpse should have the same personhood/rights status) is deemed quite invalid by many (including quite a few pro-choicers); it's loaded language from an extreme POV which states that personhood and human rights are only acquired upon birth; at the very least it should be ascribed to its source; it was certainly not part of an attempt to explain, it was meant to condemn, arguing from an impopular viewpoint. Other editors may want to consider the example I provided. It does not rely on loaded language, and also occurs elsewhere in the article (see the version changed by Alienus). If we're using euphemisms throughout the article, this extreme example from the pro-choice fringe is not what we need posited as a generally supported pro-choice argument. AvB ÷ talk 15:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. It's not that this section of the article is under-referenced, but that much of it seems to be written without any attempt to consult sources. It's the sort of original research that is an error of comission, not omission.

I think I did not miss your point. That's why I limited my agreement to the part with which I agreed, and explained where my opinion differs from yours. The same observation, different explanation. Policy should save the day here over time. Citations are needed.

In short, I don't want to support the text I added, I want to remove it and most of the text around it. The entire "Overview" of "Modern Arguments" section has grown from a brief summary to an OR essay that cannot be repaired.

Interesting. I'll look into it and see if an opinion emerges.

As it happens, I got the phrasing about unkilled corpses from a Latin American abortion advocate whose name I'm fairly sure of, but just because I can cite it doesn't mean I should. If I did, it would be the only cited item in the entire section! I suggest we rewrite the overview so that it lives up to its name. Alienus 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say I was amazed to find that the point had actually been made. Should teach me some humility I reckon.

(The next section was written after an edit conflict)

Purely out of curiosity, could you show me where Peikoff said this, because I certainly didn't hear it from him; it wasn't even in English. Granted, as is typical for libertarians and obligatory for Objectivists, Peikoff is pro-choice, and I suppose that my source might have been inspired by or even paraphrasing Peikoff, so having some idea of when he said this might help establish priority.

Coming up

On a side note, I think the whole point is that "unborn child" is exactly as loaded a term as "unkilled corpse". Both try to describe a thing in terms of a future state so as to bias us to ignore the present state. In short, both are examples of framing an issue in a way that is misleading. The only difference is that "unklled corpse" is intentionally bad, conjured up to highlight the bias in "unborn child". Alienus 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that both terms are quite loaded. And I also think there is a valid argument in there somewhere. I just found the example unnecessarily graphic.

I appreciate your openmindedness. AvB ÷ talk 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Peikoff citation: http://www.peikoff.com/essays/abortion.htm. I Googled abortion adult rights corpse and picked the first non-Misplaced Pages link which was http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2404 Abortion Rights are Pro-Life by Leonard Peikoff (January 23, 2003). Googled up some in-depth info (such as confirmation that the quote is often ascribed to Peikoff and older source text) using "undead corpse" abortion. AvB ÷ talk 19:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Peikoff's not very good with language, is he? Unborn means not yet born, but undead doesn't mean not yet dead. Rather, it refers to zombies and such; the dead which nonetheless walk the earth, presumably looking for brains to eat. Moreover, being born and being killed are fully parallel, but there's no such thing as "deading" someone. To make dead is to kill. Whereas an unborn baby would clearly become a regular baby once it's born, it's an unkilled corpse that just needs a little killing to become a regular corpse. And speaking of needing some killing, let's see how much of a consensus there is behind killing the "Overview" of "Modern Arguments" then bringing it back to the semblance of life as an undead replacement of itself. Alienus 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The analogy corpse/foetus is more then corect,it's an other isue if it don't hears charming.Modern medicine had set a series of criteria to determine if some one is brain dead.So,since the foetus is clasified as brain dead,prior to a certain date,he has the same rights as a corps.This is plain logic, you can say that it sounds ugly but you can't disgurd it just for esthetics.If you are a pro-life and want to consistent with your self you should also consider that "brain dead peopol" are alive,and so transplantation should be regarded as mutilation or murder.--Ruber chiken 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Overview of Modern Arguments section

Alienus wrote: The entire "Overview" of "Modern Arguments" section has grown from a brief summary to an OR essay that cannot be repaired. I'm not so sure that I accept Alienus' OR verdict but the section has certainly become too unwieldy for an encyclopedia article. I am leaning towards agreeing that it needs to be pruned back to a brief summary or deleted altogether. I'd like to gauge the opinion of other editors on this. AvB ÷ talk 22:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The "Overview" section is in no sense an overview, it lacks focus and structure, and it tends towards OR. At the least it should be pruned drastically, but I would not object to it being deleted entirely. I think it should be replaced by 2-3 paragraphs summarising arguments commonly encountered in the popular (as opposed to academic philosophical) debate over abortion. This would then fit in well with the following section that does focus on the philosophical debate. --Algernon1980 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now replaced this section with a much briefer version.--Algernon1980 09:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This needs serious cleanup. Not the least of which is a clear definition of the subject of the article. My understanding is that this is an article about the ways in which abortion has been debated. As such clear points of contention, dimensions of argumentation, etc. seem notable but we need to be careful in almost every part of the article not to cross the line to original research. We don't want users who stumble across this article to think that this is a debate between wikipedians over abortion. Rather this is an article about the abortion debate. savidan 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To save the life of the woman

Isn't it worth noting that there are no medical conditions in which abortion is a medically recognized treatment? Also, it is important to note the difference between performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman and an abortion; the two are not the same. Don't give an Ameriflag 06:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that your statement is accurate. There are a wide number of life-threatening conditions whose treatment that cannot be performed upon a pregnant woman without endangering the fetus. For example, if a pregnant woman is diagnosed with aggressive cancer, she needs immediate chemotherapy to have any chance of survival, but these medicines would likely kill the fetus. Therefore, before such a treatment, an abortion is indicated on medical grounds. There are also other examples where an abortion is needed as part of treatment to stop uterine bleeding after, say, a car accident. In short, I suggest that you research thing further before making any changes to this effect. Alienus 18:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul of "Philosophical Arguments" Section

I agree with others that the whole article needs a major overhaul. However, my own expertise (such as it is) is with the philosophical debate, and I propose progressively to overhaul each section in the "Philosophical Arguments" section, beginning with the section on Thomson, in an attempt to bring greater structure, clarity and neutrality. (Wish me luck!) Does anyone object to this? --Algernon1980 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, I have overhauled the Thomson section. Others to follow in coming weeks/months.--Algernon1980 13:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of support, I have reverted those edits. Overall, I approve of what you're trying to do, but please be more specific here on talk and go in smaller bites - this is a contentious issue and edit wars are common. In specific, please spell the word "fetus" not "foetus" - foetus is a late addtion and is generally not recognized by anyone but the British press (the British medical community spells it fetus also.) thanks much! KillerChihuahua 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: That section is way too long - any suggestions you make here regarding trimming it down and making the writing more professional in tenor would be strongly supported by me. KillerChihuahua 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My first comment about your additions is that there is no need for you to code HTML. The only code you need is wikicode. Paragraphs and breaks are automatically coded. You can use the * to code unordered lists. etc. I think this is good information, and could be used in it's own article, but it seems way to bulky for this article. Perhaps create A Defense of Abortion and put your text there. Then have a main section link in this article pointing there, and summarize the position and the rebuttles here?--Andrew c 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is my case for change in a little more detail, although I do not know what to do if it is again met with silence. I hope somebody will agree. Anyway, the current section on Thomson contains four paragraphs. Paragraph (1) states: "Her most famous case is that of the violinist", as if Thomson had lots of other (less famous) cases where one is "suddenly attached to another, adult human being". She doesn't. The paragraph also fails to bring out the crucial point in Thomson's argument, which is that the right to life does not entail the right to life support or the right to use another's body.

Paragraph (2) contains a nonsensical opening sentence -- I don't know what the objection is supposed to be here and it is certainly not found in the literature. Similarly for the claim that the violinist could unplug the woman -- what is the objection supposed to be, and where is it found in the philosophical literature? Is it being suggested the woman could NOT permissibly unplug the violinist? Also, the claim that the analogy is "imperfect" because the pregnant woman voluntarily had sex is POV and has been strongly challenged by writers such as Boonin (A Defense of Abortion, 2003).

In paragraph (3), the claim that the analogy works only for rape is again POV. The rest of the paragraph is unprofessional in tenor and fails to make reference to any philosophical literature.

The objection in paragraph (4) makes no reference to any philosophical literature and is extremely unclear. Is it to be suggested, for example, that we must ALWAYS provide a person in need (a fetus, a starving child, a beggar) with whatever "ordinary care" we can give them? Both sides of the debate would find this implausible; and yet, if this is not the claim being appealed to, then how is the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary care supposed to support the claim that one has a duty to support the foetus but not the violinist?

My conclusion is simply that the whole section needs to be rewritten, making far greater reference to philosophical literature, being far less POV and making the whole thing more professional in tone. In addition, reference should be made to the fact that Thomson's argument has been defended against various criticisms. All of this is what my edits were designed to achieve. However, I am inclined to agree with Andrew that a summary version with a link to a new "A Defense of Abortion" page would be appropriate. What do others think?--Algernon1980 14:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a POV split, which is against policy. KillerChihuahua 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. That is like saying having an article on Pascal's Wager is simply a POV fork of Existence of God. If a topic is big enough to warrent its own article, I see no reason why it shouldn't exist, if it is presented in a NPOV manner (such as the criticisms section for Pascal's Wager, or the rebuttles to Thomson).--Andrew c 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A child article is not the same as a POV split. A "defense" faces an "opposition" in this debate. To have child articles covering one side or the other of this debate is ipso facto a POV split. KillerChihuahua 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this a bit? I'm not yet convinced you're right here (i.e., that Pascal's Wager is a child article rather than a POV split, whereas an article for A Defense of Abortion would be a POV split rather than a child article). After all, the "Existence of God" debate has two sides as well, but that doesn't make Pascal's Wager a POV split. Also, the article would not merely cover one side of the debate, but both sides, since it would describe the argument AND objections to it. I think a separate article for A Defense of Abortion would be just like Pascal's Wager or the Chinese Room (both of which list a famous philosophical argument together with criticisms). Keep in mind that a Defense of Abortion is (said to be) the most widely reprinted article in all of modern philosophy and contains one of the most famous thought experiments of all time. That seems to give added support to the view that it deserves its own article.--Algernon1980 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To Algernon1980: Please edit one para at a time then, starting with one? if there are objections or phrasing issues we can hash them out here. As I said, overall I support your effort. Please try to trim the length if at all possible. Use only wikicode - let me know if you have any problems with style or formatting. Start w/para 1? Thanks! KillerChihuahua 15:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't have a chance for a few days, but I will indeed go one paragraph at a time for the Abortion Debate article.--Algernon1980 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and created A Defense of Abortion. I converted the table to be more readable, removed the HTML, added wikicode, etc. I think some POV issues need to be cleared up, and I would appreciate any help in making this new article even better. I am going to work on converting the citations to <ref> tags. --Andrew c 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh! You meant an article about the paper only, not the concept? My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the concept, which would have been a POV fork. KillerChihuahua 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! --Andrew c 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Confusion solved. Andrew, thanks for your excellent work in creating the article and making it Wiki-compliant!--Algernon1980 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Second the kudos, and again apologies for my misunderstanding - gratz for allowing me to be obtuse without becoming aggravated. :P KillerChihuahua 10:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all -- and I appreciate your kindly demeanour!--Algernon1980 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the first paragraph on Thomson to bring out the key point in her article (which is that the right to life does not entail the right to use another person's body). The paragraph is slightly longer than the previous version, but I think this will balance out because the current fourth paragraph can be deleted entirely (IMO).--Algernon1980 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The para starting "A response to the Marquis argument is..."? KillerChihuahua 10:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the second and third paragraphs on Thomson (dealing with objections to her argument) with a single referenced paragraph. I also added a final paragraph regarding responses to objections. The next task will be to delete entirely what is now the third paragraph (ordinary vs extraordinary care), since it is unreferenced OR -- I have never seen that objection anywhere in the literature on Thomson. I would support anyone who wishes to go ahead and delete that paragraph immediately; otherwise I will do it myself in a day or so.--Algernon1980 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Modern Arguments" Overhaul Complete

I have finished the major changes I wanted to make to the "Modern Arguments" section. Hopefully the quality has been improved somewhat, but if people have concerns then by all means raise them here. The length of this part of the article is about 3,300 words, which I think is reasonable considering it's about half (7,000 words in total wouldn't be against policy, would it?). I'm now wondering if anything can be done to improve the first half of the article, which is currently unreferenced and rather piecemeal. I myself would be less confident about making changes there, though I'd like to help where possible.--Algernon1980 11:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also getting involved in working on this page; I have a few issues with the section you worked on (thanks for doing so much work, by the way) but I'm working my way down from the top first. I'm not sure if the parts I take issue with are your writing or not, but I'll definitely post details here when I get to them. In the mean time, please let me know if you (and anyone else too, of course) have any issues with my changes. Thanks, romarin 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fetal Pain

I think there really needs to be a section on the argument over fetal pain. Does anyone know enough about that to contribute? MamaGeek Joy 11:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Only if a NPOV view is taken, and counter arguments presented: For example, a pro-life person could point out that Leprosy is a disease that often leaves adults with the inability to feel pain, and they still have right to live. CobraA1 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding minor edit warring

The senete joint resolution is 1983. The Planned Parenthood v. Casey case is 1992. Why not include both? The fact of the matter is that a number of states restrict post-viability abortions. It is false to say that "a woman obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy". (Unless that includes interstate travel). Just read Abortion in the United States. It mentions the Human Life Amendment but goes on to say "there have been subsequent court decisions, and numerous state laws, addressing the underlying right to obtain, or affecting access to, abortion." I'd just be worried about overlapping content from this article and that one. I think including the quote (already included in the other page) is going too far. Perhaps we can size it down some?--Andrew c 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I included it because viability is really not a consideration for the legality of abortion in the U.S. The only regulations the states can place on it are matters of parental consent or notification for minors, waiting periods, etc. There is no legal restriction due to viability at all. MamaGeek Joy 18:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you need to refresh the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. From the article:

"the plurality overturned the strict trimester formula used in Roe to weigh the woman's interest in obtaining an abortion against the State's interest in the life of the fetus. Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely."

And then maybe review the state laws of say Kansas, Ohio, Alabama, Tennessee, etc just to name a few. Viability was covered legally by the supreme court, and it is mentioned in state law. Saying "is really not a consideration" is false.--Andrew c 20:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Andrew, and I think that the additions here are misleading. Besides, the citation is from 1983. A lot has changed in the mean time, and these sentences do not reflect those changes, but rather make it sound as though this is how things still stand. That simply is not the case. romarin 00:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So where do we stand? Does anyone want to try to edit the paragraph in question to reflect some of the issues brought up here?--Andrew c 04:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the debate in the United States

what this have to do here?wikipedia is not just usa.It should be moved.--Ruber chiken 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

natural selection

All the debate is turning in circules.In general the isues it's about arbitrary distinctions of thing that trensform gradually.we pass from white to black thrue all the scales of gray,and then we attemped to set a clear dinstinction for when white became black.But if you see the isue from a extremly technical side the problems desapear.In nature,natural selection makes it's best to increas the efficiancy of it's organism(acording to technical limitations).So for humans ther's instincts that ame to optimise the reproduction ,in a optimum balace of quantity-quality-self preservation(of the parents).So in the human population,peopol by peopol some instincts are more present than other's(to abort or not to abort),but on average they balance them selves to fit natural selection requirement's.That seem's a very hacked solution but nature does that all the time.So what i am saying is that the debate is rendered unsolvable in purpess because natural selection is interested primarly on the average result.So i'm saying that we schould take a decision acording to purely technical isues since aure emotions(insticts) were tempered with(biased) to accomodate other needs.--Ruber chiken 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph a bit misleading

"Political sides have largely been separated into absolute extremes — either seeking to make all abortion illegal, or to permanently remove laws restricting all forms of abortion. However, most citizens have more moderate or nuanced views than those espoused by pundits and politicians."

Emphasis mine. I realize this could be interpreted several ways, but the first interpretation that comes to mind is that the pro-choice movement wants to eliminate all abortion laws, including the ones forbidding, say, end-of-third-trimester abortions. I've showed this excerpt to a few friends of mine, and all but one (out of 7 that happened to be around at the time. Strategy game night) initially understood it to mean that. As the paragraph doesn't seem to say much which isn't stated by the previous one, I suggest it be removed. 82.166.53.176 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, so I removed it. Al 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some sneaking POV

I'm sure that most wikizens are liberal and pro-choice, but that doesn't excuse letting the article lean in that direction. Clearly, people are trying not to do that, but there are a few places where this still needs to be addressed:

"The majority of both pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe that the values underlying the pro-life position are derived from religious beliefs. Many pro-choice advocates, however, believe that any resulting morals, ethics, and laws built upon religious values are predicated upon an inherent religious bias, in contrast to values derived from scientific fact and unbiased logical reasoning which they believe lead inevitably to morals, ethics, and laws consistent with their own position."

This paragraph glosses over the fact that some atheists are pro-life, and also makes the entire pro-life camp look anti-science.

Since this is a controversial issue, I didn't want to just make the edit, but how about this?

"The majority of both pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe that the values underlying the pro-life position are derived from religious beliefs. However, there do exist pro-life atheists, who contend that abortion is a moral and political issue rather than a religious one---but these are relatively rare. Many pro-choice advocates do argue, however, that since anti-abortion ethics are largely built upon religious values, they have no place in a secular society."

Here's another place that seems a little left-leaning as well:

"One aspect of the issue involves defining at what point an embryo or fetus qualifies as a person, and gains the legal and/or moral right to life. Even if that could be agreed upon, that right would still need to be weighed against the rights of the woman."

While strictly true, something about this last sentence seems to suggest that proving that a fetus is a person would be grossly insufficient to challenging abortion, but it wouldn't. It's a major factor---if not the major factor---in the debate.

Here's my suggestion:

"One aspect of the issue involves defining at what point an embryo or fetus qualifies as a person, and gains the legal and/or moral right to life. Since it is generally considered wrong to end the life of a person intentionally, proving that a fetus qualifies as a person would pose a strong argument against abortion. However, it would still be necessary to weigh this argument against the rights of the woman, and many pro-choice advocates (e.g., Thomson) maintain that personhood is not enough to make abortion immoral."

Just my two cents; trying to preserve NPOV on an issue where that's especially hard. -Patrick N.R. Julius 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the timing section

This section on the whole is good, but it's really short, and it doesn't cite sources who hold these particular views or present any (even brief) arguments regarding each. -Patrick N.R. Julius 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Babies

Why do we want any more? 87.242.143.17 00:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"emotions" section

reading this over, i agree that it not only has neutrality and sourcing problems, but think it may not belong in article at all. that both sides have strong feelings is common sense, but how it has been presented in this section is speculative, biased OR. (with the pro-life "feelings" set up as a straw man for a separation of church and state argument, not opposing "feelings.") ...and what does it really add in terms of "light" to the debate to say that it is sometimes an emotional one? without neutrality and sources, section should stay out. "underlying values," section also. if adequate sources can be located to explicate values/emotions, that combined subject probably only needs a sentence and can be worked into the pro-con pro-life/pro-choice arguments sections. Cindery 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Both sides of the abortion debate argue in terms of science, morals, logic, religion, and law. But they would hardly be drawn into the debate at all were it not for the very strong emotions involved.

The pro-life side of the debate is driven by the strong attachment most people feel toward the life of an infant or fetus. It is also driven by attitudes about sexuality, feminism and the rights of teenagers.

The pro-choice side of the debate is driven primarily by the strong feeling most people have that they have a right to make decisions about their own bodies and their own lives, represented in this debate by women who desire to make the ultimate decision regarding the termination or full gestation of their pregnancy.

Concerns with poverty, privacy, and the lifelong commitment that comes with bearing children are also topics which relate to pro-life and pro-choice ideas, and are used in defense against what some perceive as invasive regulation by government and religion.

I think that the vast majority of pro-lifers take nothing but an emotional stance on abortion. They see a fetus or a zygote as a fully vested member of society. I don't think anyone that uses logic could see a cluster of cells without a nervous system or a gender as human. But that's why I didn't write in the article; I'm too biased. - Kritish

Actually, it could be argued the other way very reasonably: Genetically, a fetus or zygote has a gender, even if the organs aren't developed yet. Full sexual maturity doesn't occur until the human is around a dozen years old. Same with the nervous system: It starts developing in the womb, and continues to develop outside of it. CobraA1 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

="Underlying value systems" section

The majority of both pro-life and pro-choice advocates believe that the values underlying the pro-life position are derived from religious beliefs. Many pro-choice advocates, however, believe that any resulting morals, ethics, and laws built upon religious values are predicated upon an inherent religious bias, in contrast to values derived from scientific fact and unbiased logical reasoning which they believe lead inevitably to morals, ethics, and laws consistent with their own position. Consequently, many pro-choice advocates believe that government regulation of abortion stands as a violation of religious freedom and the principle of separation of church and state which are central tenets of many free societies.

Biased picture

someone deleted this:

image as "biased".

I like Reductio ad absurdum so I will aks you: Is this: ]

picture also "biased"? No, it is not – there is a fact shown on this picture. Just like on "unborn childs grave" - you can be antiantisemitic but you can denied that there was such cover of german newspaper, and most of all you can't tell that this image is "biased" (bacause in few days some nazis will tell that Jews terryfying pictures from Oświęcim are also "biased" (because they show only one point of view). But actually this pictures shows facts – fact that Der Stürmer put extremly antisemitic article on cover, and fact that there is an unborn childs grave in Bytom - nobody tells if this facts are good or bad - but they exists, and "biased" is to trying to make them not exist by deleting them. Szczur Zosia 06:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts. Images still have to conform to the NPOV policy, and verifiability. I could not find anything about this site on the internet. I serached for "Unborn childs grave" and "dzieciom nienarodzonym". I know the internet isn't everything, but this raises both notability and verifiability questions. On top of that, because of the supposed lack of significance of this image, are we giving the position held by the makers of the grave undue weight? --Andrew c 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your nazi picture was in the way of our discussion so I commented it out. --Chris Pickett 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Basic biology

What in the world does because they allege that a fetus is a part of a woman's body mean. Is the fetus secretly not part of a woman's body? Is the giant lump that grows inside of a woman's body simply an illusion, and the fetus floats around in some autonomous zone outside of the woman's body? I'm not trying to be smart, but I don't see how this simply statement is an 'allegation'. What am I missing? Is the phrase "part of" controversial? Could it be changed to something else, because adding that 'alleged' part seems very odd, and possibly overly critical/skeptical simply because the statement is associated with the pro-choice position (comparatively, when pro-lifers point out that fetuses have the genetic make up of a homo sapien, should we word this as a simply allegation? of course not. Biased positions can mention basic biology without the need for qualification, no?)--Andrew c 06:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the pro-life argument is that a fetus, while it develops inside of the woman's body, is genetically distinct from her, and thus should not be considered "a part of her body." Perhaps we could edit the sentence to establish that the pro-choice argument is not, generally, "a fetus is a part of a woman's body," but, "Women have the right to control their bodies. Fetuses develop inside of a woman's body, and, thus, women have the right to terminate a pregnancy." -Severa (!!!) 06:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I understand. I guess I was right about the 'part of' being the disputed phrasing. There is something implied that a woman 'owns' everything inside of her body, while this idea is disputed. I think an alternate wording could work, but I'd like to see imput from Ross, or anyone else.--Andrew c 06:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Real encyclopedia vs. Misplaced Pages

A real encyclopedia (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) has absolutely no problem describing Thomson's thought experiment as "striking and effective". Why is this so problematic here on Misplaced Pages? -- Cat Whisperer 12:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be described as such with appropriate citations, but in the article about the essay. This article is about the abortion debate, not about a particular, admittedly influential essay that just so happens to discuss the abortion debate. The fact that the article devotes text to the essay at all indicates its importance to the debate. Why further bolster the prominence of the essay in this article? And like I said in an edit summary, why not use "oft criticized" instead of "striking and effective" to describe the essay here? The choice of one set of potentially objectionable descriptors over another is where the NPOV problem appears. I added "well-known" to its description because I thought it would satisfy everyone and not be objectionable, though frankly that's not even necessary, since it wouldn't be included here if it weren't well-known. But, again, it all comes down to the appropriate place to describe the essay, which is in the essay's Misplaced Pages article. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't know it was well-known before I came here, and in fact that was one of the reasons I removed "celebrated" and "famous" in the first place. Michael Jackson is well-known, George Bush is well-known, but I've never celebrated A Defense of Abortion, and reading about something that is "well-known" without having known about it before makes me as a reader feel like part of the out-crowd. Now, if you want to have "well-known within the field of modern philosophy" that's fine, but there's already a quote about that in the intro of the article, and it's too wordy for this page. And finally, I'd disagree that well-known is a neutral adjective: it's leaning towards renowned and notable (would you say it was a good or bad thing to be well-known?). If anything, why not put "controversial", since that implies well-known and also implies many pro/con arguments all in one word. Or is controversial too negative for you? Do you see why it's a POV issue? Adjectives, even if justified by some quote somewhere (btw, 128 citations in Google Scholar is not a whole bunch; I know of papers with 10,000 citations, and they aren't even in Misplaced Pages), still don't really contribute anything; it's better to aim for dry scholarly brevity and relevant non-obvious facts (it's obviously well-known, since it has a highly-edited article and section in this main debate page; it's also obviously written in English; it's also obviously written by a female author; etc. etc.). It might not be as entertaining for some people to read, but you're far less likely to annoy others who are trying to get to the meat of the article. --Chris Pickett 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't think "well-known" is even necessary, and was proffering it merely as a compromise. In any event, agree with the sentiment that it's best to simply not have any characterizations of the essay in this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was mostly replying to Cat Whisperer and not to you. --Chris Pickett 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm obviously in the minority here, so I will leave it to you all to remove any and all adjectives that you find offensive. -- Cat Whisperer 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Try assuming good faith every once in awhile. Really, it helps. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I fully believe that your given explanation of why you are so dead set on removing what I consider to be highly useful and informative adjectives is your true motivation. In other words, I am assuming good faith on your part, and I do not believe that you have some "hidden agenda", or whatever else might constitute bad faith. I just disagree with you, and I honestly believe that your edits in this vein are making the article less informative and less useful to potential readers. How does this go against WP:AGF? -- Cat Whisperer 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But "I will leave it to you all to remove any and all adjectives that you find offensive" is a little more than mere disagreement on the facts, no? (i.e., it assumes that we are editing because we find something "offensive", though I don't, for what it's worth) I'm happy to drop it there, though, if you are. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's drop this then. -- Cat Whisperer 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. 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. However, such accounts may themselves face problems of equality, 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 (?) 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 says "Philosopher 35 and Marquis are both wrong (?) ... killing is wrong because it violates the intrinsic worth of the victim."
• Philosopher 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
• Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Call for nuetral 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)

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)
• Fetus 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)

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)