Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RexJudicata (talk | contribs) at 12:35, 7 April 2005 (→Caution - do not violate the 3 reversion rule). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Start of discussion: Talk:Abortion (Archive 1) Talk:Abortion (Archive 2) Talk:Abortion (Archive 3) Talk:Abortion (Archive 4)

Paternal Rights

Major Rewrite Needed. Missing is a discussion of the father's rights in abortion. For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, why is this a unilateral decision. What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights?

Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, which is this a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years. If they decided to have unprotected sex, why would one party have 100% of the rights? Rex Judicata 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• For a discussion of this topic, please read Oklahoma Law Review, Abortions of the Paternal Prerogatives Of Unwed Natural Fathers, 2000. Rex Judicata 20:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Almost hopelessly NPOV =

With the exception of the 'medical' discussions, this article is almost hopelessly NPOV.

New sentence added about legality of US abortions

First off i'm not sure the reference is related to the site, and in fact it has already been added and deleted before (see above discussion)...it seems something that generally should be on the American site. Canada was chosen before i turned up on the Wiki, i would assume as an example, as having no laws because there is no law whatsoever concerning abortion. However if you looked further down the page (or it may have moved to the US page) you will find that there is no Doctor currently in Quebec that will do a third term abortion unless the women is about to die or there are genetic abnormalities---and the concern from what i can tell is not being sued...it ethical. Quebec is currently sending the few patients that need third term abortions to the US...which strongly suggests the service isn't available elsewhere in Canada (Quebec tends to be a very liberal province on "values" issues).

Discussion anyone? Otherwise i think moving the comment to the US page might make better sense. Although i'm not totally up to date on the Planned Parenthood case, at least until then under the Roe. v. Wade decision the government DID get a say to a certain extent in second trimester abortions (in a limited way) and a less limited (but not perhaps total) say in the 3rd trimester.

Also the US federal ammendment on "partial birth abortions" (i hate the term personally) has to my knowledge only been overturned in 3 states...so it would then actually be active in the other remaining states from what i understand although there is now good precendent if there are further lawsuits.

So unless there is some discussion i'm going to take the new addition out in a day or two--Marcie 02:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking the reference out today. Come to my talk page if you want to discuss it or put it up here.--Marcie 03:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abortion History (focusing on illegal abortion practices)

I noticed the following vandalism was just reverted: "In days of yore, unwed mothers were often hit, hard, in the stomach with a shovel, or kicked down a flight of stairs in an effort to abort the unwanted child." But it did get me thinking that there is not an "Abortion history" article focusing on the practices/myths of abortion prior to legalization. This should cover how/who/where these abortions occurred but also provide a more complete telling of the complications as a result. - RoyBoy 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When we talk about abortions prior to legalization, we have to consider the whole world and all of recorded history. That said, I was just thinking about the history of abortion myself, and how best to make note of it on Misplaced Pages. Would it warrant a whole article or just a section on the main abortion page? I know the ancient Greeks mentioned it on occassion, and there is a little talk about points of view before its legality in the U.S.A. in the article. It's an interesting topic. I will take your lead on this... - Chadofborg

Hmmmmm my lead... I can feel the power already, the creative juices flowing; opps, lost it in the dead end pages I've been hacking away at with a rusty machete and curling iron. Well since I got a vote of confidence and I concur with the necessity to have an article of global proportions... I'll create a stub! The format follows a historical timeline but will certainly evolve as the article gets a sense of itself. Future discussion on this should be made @ History of abortion. - RoyBoy 05:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MamaGeek's edit

MamaGeek made an edit labelled "Postabortion physical issues - remove quote from biased source, added statistical information". I'll explain why I have reverted it.

Essentially MamaGeek replaced this:

The Planned Parenthood website notes that "attempts to prove this theory, however, have failed," and in March 2004 Lancet published a meta-analysis of 53 epidemiological studies which concluded there was no ABC link. Nevertheless epidemiologic gaps remain in the research while the "ABC link" is still a hot campaigning issue in anti-abortion circles.

with this:

28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters. The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk or 160% increased risk of breast cancer among women who'd had an induced abortion. Nevertheless epidemiologic gaps remain in the research, and the "ABC link" is still a hot campaigning issue in anti-abortion circles. The best that one can definitively conclude is that more comprehensive studies by neutral objective sources are needed.

I'm prepared to be convinced on this edit, but it seemed a bit much to say that a "biased source" was being removed when two were being removed and one of those was The Lancet. I don't think a mere list of studies saying X out of Y concluded this or that is much. You need some kind of evaluation system; some studies are better than others. The statement that most of the studies were conducted by "abortion supporters" seems unnecessary and, frankly, sounds a little difficult to verify. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is factually accurate, but it lends itself indeed to second guessing (which I could rebuff)... but would be more trouble than its worth in my opinion. I've come across these cites and rationale before and it is anti-abortion arguments. (again... it *IS* factually accurate) Actually MamaGeek helped point something out to me. The reason I included the Planned Parenthood quote is because it was offset immediately by something else; which has been subsequently removed by someone. So if that is to remain removed, then I indeed feel the quote should be removed.

The kicker though... is essentially I'd probably end up replacing it with the same thing (just not a quotation); because it is important to note it is not proven... however it is equally important to note it isn't disproven... hence the initial balance I tried to strike in previous versions. What seems to be clear is that MamaGeek has not read the article yet, and come across the rationale of why the Japanese study has not been cited in the intro... or even in the entire article for that matter. But that's fine, MamaGeek was being bold and that isn't a crime. :-) - RoyBoy 10:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After some consideration I do think its appropriate to completely remove the theory not proved meme; because the article has been renamed to hypothesis that should make it clear it has yet to be scientifically verified. And if we are to keep the Lancet mention, then I'd replaced Planned Parenthood with something more general and less confrontational than MamaGeek's edit; but still indicating the majority of studies indicating a link. I think that would finally be a way to statisfy me on the intro; since I've been unsure of it ever since it was edited. It would go something like this...

... "vulnerable" cells than prior to the pregnancy; resulting in an elevated risk of breast cancer. The majority of interview based studies have indicated a link, but there is a debate as to how reliable they are given the (controversial/personal?) nature of abortion (mention response bias here?). In March 2004 '''The''' Lancet published a meta-analysis of...

I also skipped the disambig page for the Lancet... should "the" be capitalized in this context? What does everyone think on the wording? - RoyBoy 05:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lancet study

MamaGeek here: The Lancet's "meta-analysis" is hopelessly flawed. The analysis was conducted by UNFPA-funded scientists, and anyone doing a little research can see that the UNFPA is a big abortion backer. Furthermore, 15 published peer-reviewed studies were rejected from the analysis outright for unscientific reasons (i.e., they couldn't locate original authors of some studies). All of those studies concluded an average of 80% elevated risk of post-abortion cancer. In addition, these scientists included 28 new studies which were never published or peer-reviewed, which of course supported the no-link position.

I will not add my own text, but I will most certainly remove the PP and Lancet citations.

Hello MamaGeek. Your work is certainly appreciated and I actually share your concerns about the "Lancet" (I call it the Beral) study. However since you are new here you may not be aware of some of implications of your edits. For example this paragraph is also the introductory paragraph to the main Abortion-Breast_Cancer_(ABC)_hypothesis article which I wrote. In that main article in the meta-analysis section criticisms of the study (by Dr. Brind) are linked to. The reason I've agreed with Tony on letting that meta-analysis be in the introductory paragraph is because it is "recent news", and its prominence in the entry reflects its prominence in reality. Furthermore, I was not aware the meta-analysis was "UNFPA-funded" (I'm not even aware of who they are), but it hardly surprises me there are pro-choice conflicts of interest in the research. Could you please provide citations, ideally online citations, of the UNFPA funding and who they are so that it can be included in the main article further down.

However currently the meta-analysis will stay where it is until I can be satisfied this is the case. If it is then it will either be removed or re-edited to include the obvious conflict of interest. Also you can sign your entries with - ~~~~ which provides your name and the time of your message. Also I should note that there is a 3 revert rule where, if necessary Tony or I would seek arbitration as a result of continued edits. If you read my main article on the ABC link I think you can appreciate I have more than an open mind on the ABC issue.

If you also read the talk history I had a debate with Tony and Marcie about raising one study to the introduction above all others. I conceded the argument because the Lancet study is news, and should be reflected as such in the encyclopedia. But that doesn't stop us from being critical of it. (this has been cc'd to Talk:MamaGeek's) -RoyBoy 18:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MamaGeek Joy The UNFPA is the United Nations Population Fund. While they deny promoting abortion, evidence suggests otherwise. Here is an article from the BBC Beral et al, the authors of the Lancet study, were recipients of UNFPA funding.

Excellent BBC citation. I entirely agree the UNFPA have a bias in favor of abortion as an option for women, hence any funding provided by them would naturally be a conflict of interest given their objectives; which I happen to agree with. But that would not excuse them for funding and influencing "scientific" research, nor would it excuse Lancet or the media of glossing it over. So is there a reliable online citation of UNFPA funding for the Beral study, or would I find that mentioned in the study itself? Requiring me to head down to the library again. - RoyBoy 20:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Being Bold

I bolded the sentence in the article that i did (which pointed out that the women who had the most problems were those who already gone through trauma) because i thought it was an important point and it wasn't brought clearly to attention. To be honest i missed it the first few reads...and i read carefully. If it being bolded is objected to can we agree on some way of making it a bit easier to see among the quotes? If you go back i was concerned earlier...its in the rewording area although that was a while ago and i was still worried with it when i came across it later...it seems though that the sentence i wrote about dentists was pulled out (i don't think it was originally but who knows)...looking at it now i figure there isn't a problem in that area--Marcie 08:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mamageek changed that, I kept the change because an entire segment of a sentence being bolded isn't necessary to highlight a point which is fairly logical and self evident. I recommend if you still wish to emphasize the second part simply focus on the word "particularly" by making it italics/bold or both. I'm unsure which would be most appropriate. - RoyBoy 20:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An intro sentence

There's a sentence in the intro:

"Morning after" or "emergency" contraceptive drugs that are taken within 72 hours of sex interfere with the release of eggs from the ovary or with fertilization, and so are will be released anyway; in these cases, if conceptions occurs the zygote will implant successfully regardless of emergency contraception use.

I'm not sure what's meant by "and so are will be released anyway," and I didn't want to change it for fear of changing the intended meaning. Any thoughts? TIMBO (T A L K) 01:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Reference to Fetus in First Paragraph

Can I ask why no reference is made to a fetus in the introduction paragraph to this article? While we need to stay within our NPOV policy, this seems excessive. Even Encarta refer to it within their introduction:-

Abortion, termination of a pregnancy before birth, resulting in the death of the fetus.

Why do we refuse use this term or zygote until right near the end of the second paragraph? David Pendray dpen2000 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anybody refusing anything. Why don't you edit it? I suggest wording of the type: "...resulting in the death of a fetus, zygote or implanted embryo." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The word "death" begs the fundamental question which is at the root of the debate about abortion -- specifically, whether a fetus, embryo, etc is "alive" and whether abortion is therefore "killing". The present wording is more neutral, and superior to the Encarta wording. --BM 13:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "death" begs any question. The issue is not whether the fetus is alive (which it clearly is in the same way your organs are alive) but whether it is a human being. Also, the issue is not whether abortion is killing, but whether it is unjustifiable killing.

(Dunno who wrote the above)

I agree. The embryo, zygote and fetus are all living and are all killed by abortion. This isn't the issue in the pro- anti- abortion debate since most of us agree that in some circumstances killing is justified. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mmm... I think I'll do some research(of the history of this page and the archive of these talk pages) as this is one page that one is not supposed to jump into and change. If this sentence hasn't been the focus of debate before, I'll see what could be done to change it. This is just me personally though. If anyone wants to jump in themselves... David Pendray 82.42.81.187 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This first paragraph has been through a great deal of change. The current version has held now for a couple of months, however. If you are planning to get involved in editing this page, it would be nice if you registered as a member and got yourself a login-name, so that people can keep track of the players. --BM 21:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry that last comment with an ip address and my name should have been with my username - David Pendray dpen2000 22:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mistype

Second paragraph: "and so are will be released anyway". Don't really want to hack someone else's writing so I'll just mention it here.

Wording Change Needed

I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say: "Morning after" or "emergency" contraceptive drugs that are taken within 72 hours of sex interfere with the release of eggs from the ovary or with fertilization, and so are will be released anyway; --Sdfisher 17:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what it's trying to say either!!! Haha that's the third time that sentence has caused a talk page note. I guess someone should just be bold and change it. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I changed it. Have a look and see if it makes sense.  :) --Chadofborg 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. :) TIMBO (T A L K) 02:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Permisiveness and terrorism

I have removed the POV statemnent about the permissiveness of UK abortion laws, and added a little something about the terrorist murders committed by anti-abortionists, though a lot more info could ber given on this subject. --SqueakBox 18:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) I have also removed 2 anti-abortion statements from the opening because they were not relevant there. Put them in the debate on abortion section if you like but don't insert them unnaturally in the opening. have changed the title of abortion and feminism to The debate on abortion, as the section contains both sides of the argument, thus more NPOV. Finally it is completely wrong to have 15 pro-choice links and no pro-life links. This is blatantly POV. Women have a right to a free life! has, of course, been removed as blatantly POV. Even though I happen to agree with the sentiments a POV article will not help the pro-choice cause, or the famed neutrality of Misplaced Pages.--SqueakBox 15:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC) Actually the links section had been vandalised by 137.132.3.11, and his/her efforrts have been reverted.--SqueakBox 15:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

First and second sentences.

It's redundant. "... usage, refers to the voluntary or induced termination of pregnancy, generally ..." and then it goes to say that "... As a result, birth does not take place. ..." Isn't it obvious that a birth won't take place if there's a termination of the pregnancy? I don't want to edit it myself, as im sure this is a "heated" topic, but i think someone who frequents this topic should take a look at it.

Paulr 17:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right and have removed, "As a result, birth does not take place."

Links

I'm putting in a link to planned parenthood's abortion info. Although planned parenthood as an organization has pro-choice arms, this link is to decidedly complete and factual information. I think it's a shame to taint it by painting it as part of an agenda, so I'm putting it in the neutral links. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I disagree that that infformation is neutral.

Seeing the links that you've added to the article, I'm not too surprised. How, though, is it not neutral? I'm willing to entertain the possibility, though I really do think it is neutral. TIMBO (T A L K) 14:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, please note that in the past I've added pro-choice links as well. I've made edits against pro-life leaning language, etc. It's coincidence that I added those articles today before I made reply to your post here. I havn't changed the link to Planned Parenthood, because I can in fact see why you might believe it to be neutral. But the language used in their FAQs (ex. "anti-abortion laws kill women") is more than a simple presentation of "facts". Also, don't you think that an organization that provides abortion is inherently on the side of the pro-choice movement? Not that they shouldn't be, just saying...

Oh, I think Planned Parenthood is unquestionably pro-choice, which is why the general site link is in the pro-choice links. However, the perhaps non-neutral language is quite minimal, IMHO, and the abortion info is impeccably accurate (which is unlike most pro-life "abortion information" links I've seen). I think there is a need to have neutral medical information linked to up top, and I'd settle for changing the link to a comparably scientific, medical site such as JAMA or something. In fact, I think I'll look around right now. P.S. sorry if I (mis)characterized you. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV help: legislative effectiveness arguments

I'm about to add notes on the effectiveness of Prohibition on reducing admissions to hospitals for liver disease as a counter-argument/rebuttal, since I added information about legislative effectiveness arguments. Please help, folks from both sides of the fence. Sandbody 23:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of Sandbody's revert of 204.60.237.72's removal of reference of a statement of the beliefs of *some* people who are opposed to abortion.

Summary: 204.60.237.72 changed the following text:

Since 1972, the medical definition of pregnancy in the United States requires that implantation has already occurred. According to this definition, emergency contraceptives do not interfere with pregnancy. Some people believe the zygote is a human being with the same moral standing as an implanted embryo before pregnancy actually starts.

to

Since 1972, the medical definition of pregnancy in the United States requires that implantation has already occurred. According to this definition, emergency contraceptives do not interfere with pregnancy.

Sandbody's changed it back, with the edit summary "rv Some pro-lifers -do- believe that a zygote is a human being (article must be representing all POV)"

However, this statement when juxtaposed against the medical opinion only represents the beliefs of one faction in a moral debate--it's extremely POV. The morality of abortion is covered in depth in another article Morality and legality of abortion, where all significant moral views of abortion should be represented. A one-sided representation of human beliefs with respect to abortion (whether related to pre-implantation contraception or not) should not be presented here. Therefore I have reverted, with the edit summary "Revert. Juxtaposing the medical definition against the beliefs of *one* faction is POV. Leave the beliefs for the appropriate articles and cover *all* significant ones." The medical definition of pregnancy is given solely to explain why abortion is distinguished from contraception as a matter of medical classification. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with Tony Sidaway, --SqueakBox 15:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. - RoyBoy 00:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that - the question might well be asked, "Why not also juxtapose the belief that the unimplanted zygote is not a human being?" I do wonder under what circumstances the phrase was added so that I saw it when first I read the article. I know that you guys probably have a pretty elaborate understanding here; it helps to know what some of the particular points are. Thanks. Sandbody 16:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see that planned parenthood has been added to the politically neutral section again. I followed the link, and found statements like these: "Public opinion polls show that a strong majority of Americans favor preserving safe, legal abortions, but there is still a vocal minority that does not. They want to make abortion a crime, robbing women of the right to decide for themselves when or whether to have children." How anyone can think that is neutral with respect to the pro-life/choice debate is beyond me. This is vandalism, pure and simple. Vintermann 10:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Paternal Rights

Major Rewrite Needed. Missing is a discussion of the father's rights in abortion. For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, why is this a unilateral decision. What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights?

Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, which is this a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years. If they decided to have unprotected sex, why would one party have 100% of the rights? Rex Judicata 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• For a discussion of this topic, please read Oklahoma Law Review, Abortions of the Paternal Prerogatives Of Unwed Natural Fathers, 2000. Rex Judicata 20:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• • If you think something is missing from the article which needs to be there feel free to add it to the article. But please do not put up a NPOV sign before discussing it on the talk page with other people who maintain the article. The text in the article right now has no major POV problems in the issues it is discussing. If it is missing a discussion on something, it does not mean that the article violates NPOV. kaal 21:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is NPOV. With a minor exception, it is written from a gender-biased perspective. It is NPOV and needs a major rewrite.

• Reverted to prior edit - with addition of Paternal Rights. Rex Judicata 12:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

(reverted political hijacking - Caution! do not violate the 3 reversion rule.)

The entire non-medical discussion of abortion is hopeless NPOV as it is from a 100% female perspective.

Caution - do not violate the 3 reversion rule

This article need attention to eliminate the overt gender bias.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics