![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
We should have a picture in the lead. The one I placed there is as good as any that we have. If someone prefers another I am sure I would have not great qualms. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Throughout most of this article's tumultuous history it has existed perfectly well without any lead image. Recent attempts to add a lead image have not achieved consensus and have only lead to dispute. I would like to propose that the current image be removed (as it is neither an accurate illustration, nor NPOV) and that no other images replace it until consensus is shown for one. This should keep debate on the talk page (where it belongs) rather than turning the article itself into a battleground. Kaldari ( talk) 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
1. Changes should be made to "Medical" section. Current says:
Medical
"Medical abortions" are non-surgical abortions that use pharmaceutical drugs, and are only effective in the first trimester of pregnancy. [citation needed] Medical abortions comprise 10% of all abortions in the United States[17] and Europe.[citation needed] Combined regimens include methotrexate or mifepristone, followed by a prostaglandin (either misoprostol or gemeprost: misoprostol is used in the U.S.; gemeprost is used in the UK and Sweden.) When used within 49 days gestation, approximately 92% of women undergoing medical abortion with a combined regimen completed it without surgical intervention.[18] Misoprostol can be used alone, but has a lower efficacy rate than combined regimens. In cases of failure of medical abortion, vacuum or manual aspiration is used to complete the abortion surgically."
Proposed:
Medication
"Medication abortions" are non-surgical abortions that use pharmaceutical drugs administered by a physician, and are only effective in the first trimester of pregnancy. In the United States, medication abortions accounted for 13% of all abortions in 2005, and for 22% of abortions occurring before nine weeks’ gestation. [17] Combined regimens include methotrexate or mifepristone, followed by a prostaglandin (either misoprostol or gemeprost: misoprostol is used in the U.S.; gemeprost is used in the UK and Sweden.) When used within 49 days gestation, approximately 92% of women undergoing medication abortion with a combined regimen completed it without surgical intervention.[18] Misoprostol can be used alone, but has a lower efficacy rate than combined regimens. In cases of failure of medication abortion, vacuum or manual aspiration is used to complete the abortion surgically. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone (marketed in the U.S. as Mifeprex, and in Europe as RU-486) for use in the United States in September 2000.
2. In the "Surgical" section, adding "of pregnancy" to the first sentence so it reads as the following:
In the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common method.[19]
3. The main "Incidence" section currently reads:
Incidence
The number of abortions performed worldwide has deceased between 1995 and 2003 from 45.6 million to 41.6 million (a decrease from 35 to 29 per 1000 women between 15 and 44 years of age).[3] The greatest decrease has occurred in the developed world with a decrease from 39 to 26 per 1000 women in comparison to the developing world which had a decrease from 34 to 29 per 1000 women.[3] Of these approximately 42 million abortions 22 million occurred safely and 20 million unsafely.[3]
The incidence and reasons for induced abortion vary regionally. Some countries, such as Belgium (11.2 per 100 known pregnancies) and the Netherlands (10.6 per 100), had a comparatively low rate of induced abortion, while others like Russia (62.6 per 100) and Vietnam (43.7 per 100) had a high rate. The world ratio was 26 induced abortions per 100 known pregnancies (excluding miscarriages and stillbirths).[62]
Proposed:
Incidence
The number of abortions performed worldwide declined between 1995 and 2003 from 45.5 million to 41.6 million (a decrease from 35 per 1000 women to 29 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44).[3] The greatest decrease has occurred in the developed world, from 39 to 26 per 1000 women, in comparison to the developing world which saw a decrease from 34 to 29 per 1000 women in 2003.[3] Of these approximately 42 million abortions, 22 million occurred under safe conditions and 20 million in unsafe conditions.[3]
The incidence and reasons for induced abortions vary regionally. The lowest rates in countries where abortion is legal, such as Nepal and South Africa are 5 abortions per 1,000 and 6 abortions per 1,000 women, respectively. The highest rates in countries where abortion is legal occurred in Cuba (57 abortions per 1,000 women) and Russia (45 abortions per 1,000 women). Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions. [62]
In the United States, 1.21 million abortions occurred in 2005, the most recent year for which complete data are available. The U.S. abortion rate is 19 abortions per 1,000 women. Nearly half of all U.S. pregnancies are unintended, and four in 10 of those end in abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. [64]
4. The "By gestational age and method" section currently reads:
By gestational age and method
Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2003, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 88.2% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks, 10.4% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. 90.9% of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation), 7.7% by "medical" means (mifepristone), 0.4% by "intrauterine instillation" (saline or prostaglandin), and 1.0% by "other" (including hysterotomy and hysterectomy).[63] The Guttmacher Institute estimated there were 2,200 intact dilation and extraction procedures in the U.S. during 2000; this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year.[64] Similarly, in England and Wales in 2006, 89% of terminations occurred at or under 12 weeks, 9% between 13 to 19 weeks, and 1.5% at or over 20 weeks. 64% of those reported were by vacuum aspiration, 6% by D&E, and 30% were medical.[65] Later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries.[66]
Proposed:
By gestational age and method
Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2006, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found 88% of abortions were performed in the first trimester of pregnancy with the majority (62.0%) obtained at less than 8 weeks' gestation; only 5.0% of abortions were obtained at or later than 16 weeks' gestation. Approximately 3.7% were performed between 16-20 weeks and 1.3% were performed at 21 weeks’ gestation or later. 87.6% of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation), medication (nonsurgical) abortion accounted for 10.6%. All other methods accounted for a consistently small percentage of abortions (0.4%-1.7%). [63] Similarly, in England and Wales in 2006, 89% of terminations occurred at or under 12 weeks, 9% between 13 to 19 weeks, and 1.5% at or over 20 weeks. 64% of those reported were by vacuum aspiration, 6% by D&E, and 30% were medical.[66] Later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries.[67]
5. Under "By personal and social factors," the last sentence of the first paragraph currently reads:
The Guttmacher Institute estimated that "most abortions in the United States are obtained by minority women" because minority women "have much higher rates of unintended pregnancy."[70]
Proposed:
The Guttmacher Institute estimated that a broad cross-section of U.S. women have abortions. Women obtaining abortions are most likely to be in their 20s, never-married and not living with a partner, below the federal poverty line, to already be mothers, to be white, have at least some college education or to be religiously affiliated. But certain groups of women – those in their 20s, black women and poor women are overrepresented among abortion patients. [71]
6. Within the section entitled, "Abortion law," there is a number of bullet points that follow the third paragraph, which reads, "Many countries in which abortion is legal require that certain criteria be met in order for an abortion to be obtained, often, but not always, using a trimester-based system to regulate the window of legality:"
Currently, the first bullet point describing the case in the United States says:
In the United States, some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require that parents be contacted if their minor daughter requests an abortion.[95]
Proposed:
The court ruling of the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, significantly weakened the legal protections previously afforded women and physicians in Roe v. Wade by giving states the right to enact restrictions that do not create an “undue burden” for women seeking abortion. Some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require parents to give consent or to be notified if their minor daughter requests an abortion. [95]
7. At the end of the "Abortion law" section, additional text is proposed so the last paragraph of the section reads as the following:
In the US, about 8% of abortions are performed on women who travel from another state.[103] However, that is driven at least partly by differing limits on abortion according to gestational age or the scarcity of doctors trained and willing to do later abortions. There are currently 1,787 abortion providers in the United States. Eighty-seven percent of all U.S. counties lack an abortion provider, and 35% of women live in those counties.
8. In addition to the textual changes, certain reference citations should be updated because of new data available from the Guttmacher Institute. The citation list should remain the same except for the following citation changes:
17. ^ Jones RK et al., “Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1):6–16.
62. ^ Sedgh, Gilda, Henshaw, Stanley K., Singh, Susheela, Bankole, Akinrinola and Drescher, Joanna . (2007). Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends. International Family Planning Perspectives, 33 (3). Retrieved 2010-06-16. 63. ^ Pazol, K., Gamble, K. S., Parker, W. Y., Cook, D. A., Zane, S. B., and Hamdan, S. (November 27, 2009). Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58 (SS08), 1–35. Retrieved June 16, 2010. 64. ^ Finer LB and Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90–96.
95. ^ Guttmacher Institute, Parental involvement in minors’ abortions, State Policies in Brief, 202010, < http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf>, accessed June 16, 2010. Guttmacher ( talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC):— Guttmacher ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I noticed that the introduction mentions and links to the "Pro-Choice" thing. The name "Pro-Choice" is a deliberate misrepresentation and fallacy that encourages people to mistakenly believe that abortion is a women's rights issue when really it's totally unrelated. Referring to the opposite of "Pro-life" as "Pro-Choice" is akin to saying that Common Era is purely a political correctness measure; the name political correctness immediately conveys other suggestions and prejudices to the reader. I would say that all references to "Pro-Choice" ought to be removed from the article, in accordance with WP:NPOV, except where a specific mention is made that it's almost exclusively the "Pro-Choice" people themselves who call it that, just like the names Republic of China etc. ( Huey45 ( talk) 04:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
(undent) We need to reflect the best quality literature. If people are serious in improving this page, grab a recent review article ( email me if you need a copy of anything ) and start improving the article. We are not here to direct science but reflect science. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I find that simplistic labels are just that, simplistic. OK, one could argue that Pro-lifers are the absolute, extremist, anti-abortionists, believing that abortion is never, ever justified, no matter what. Many are not Pro-life beyond the abortion debate. There are those who support the death penalty, and those who support "just" wars. (Some possibly support unjust wars.) Those are anti-life activities. Back on the abortion issue, apart from the aforementioned absolute, extremist, anti-abortionists, there is a continuum of opinions, ranging from those who strongly oppose abortion in almost all circumstances but believe it justified in certain rare situations, to those who believe the mother should always have a choice, no matter what. I'm not sure which of those people are covered by the term Pro-choice. There are those who are strongly opposed to abortion but don't believe governments should be telling them, or anyone else, what to do on a moral issue like abortion. Given that spectrum of opinions, and the inaccuracy of the terms Pro-life and Pro-choice, I don't like seeing them used in an article like this, unless we're simply describing specific organisations that use those terms in their names. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The article says that "abortion rates" are the same in countries where it is legal and illegal. But there are two ways of measuring the abortion rate: the number of women per 1000 per year who have abortions, versus the abortion to live birth ratio. If you're pro-choice, you'd see the "abortion rate" as being the rate at which women are affected by abortion, but if you're pro-life you'd see the abortion rate as the rate at which embryos and fetuses are affected by abortion. Why does this article A) measure the incidence of abortion in pro-choice terms, and B) not even say that this is how the incidence of abortion is being measured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Nedved ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "Abortion does not impair subsequent pregnancies, nor does it increase the risk of future premature births, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage" is junk. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) While the risk to subsequent pregnancies is relatively low, abortion decidedly does impair them. - Schrandit ( talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm sure I can find more sources if needed but right off the bat from google the Mayo Clinic, the American Medical Association and the United States government all say that abortion can impair subsequent pregnancies. Why do we say it can't? - Schrandit ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The Mayo Clinic reference ( [1]) does not state that abortion increases the risk of subsequent miscarriage. First, it completely exonerates medical abortion of any such effect (you seem to have skipped that part). Secondly, it states that surgical abortion can rarely result in uterine scarring which can lead to infertility or miscarriage. Of course, carrying a pregnancy to term and having a C-section can also lead to uterine scarring. The Mayo Clinic piece does not suggest that abortion increases this risk over the baseline associated with pregnancy, unless I'm missing something?
It might be most accurate to say that the results are conflicting; in fact, that's exactly what PMID 20362515 says - it points out the methodologic limitations of published studies, including recall bias, poor controlling for confounders, and the problem of choosing an appropriate comparison group. The authors concluded: "In summary, despite two systematic reviews and several primary studies, the evidence supporting the effects of IA on subsequent reproduction is sparse and conflicting." MastCell Talk 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
According to ACOG ( [3]): "Most doctors agree that one abortion does not affect future pregnancies." (...and, on an earlier topic, "The risk of a woman dying from giving birth is at least 10 times greater than the risk from an early abortion.") MastCell Talk 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This article could be a good source for the article, particularly on abortion practitioner trends and training in the U.S. - Roy Boy 18:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Art serves to humanize the abortion issue and illustrates the myriad of decisions and consequences it has. One of the earliest known representations of abortion is in a bas relief at Angkor Wat (c. 1150). Pro-life activist Børre Knudsen was implicated in a 1994 art theft as part of a pro-life drive in Norway surrounding the 1994 Winter Olympics. [1] A Swiss gallery removed a piece from a Chinese art collection in 2005, that had the head of a fetus attached to the body of a bird. [2] In 2008, a Yale student proposed using aborted excretions and the induced abortion itself as a performance art project. [3]
The Cider House Rules (novel 1985, film 1999) follows the story of Dr. Larch an orphanage director who is a reluctant abortionist after seeing the consequences of back-alley abortions, and his orphan medical assistant Homer who is against abortion. [4] Feminist novels such as Braided Lives (1997) by Marge Piercy emphasize the struggles women had in dealing with unsafe abortion in various circumstances prior to legalization. [5] Doctor Susan Wicklund wrote This Common Secret (2007) about how a personal traumatic abortion experience hardened her resolve to provide compassionate care to women who decide to have an abortion. As Wicklund crisscrosses the West to provide abortion services to remote clinics, she tells the stories of women she's treated and the sacrifices herself and her loved ones made. [6] In 2009, Irene Vilar revealed her past abuse and addiction to abortion in Impossible Motherhood, where she aborted 15 pregnancies in 17 years. According to Vilar it was the result of a dark psychological cycle of power, rebellion and societal expectations. [7]
Various options and realities of abortion have been dramatized in film. In Riding in Cars with Boys (2001) an underage woman decides to keep her baby, moves in with the father and finds herself involved with drugs, has no opportunities, and questioning if she loves her child. While in Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but finds she would be happier having it adopted by a wealthy couple. Other films Dirty Dancing (1987) and If These Walls Could Talk (1996) explore the availability, affordability and dangers of illegal abortions. The emotional impact of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy alone is the focus of Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her (2000) and Circle of Friends (1995). As a marriage was in trouble in the The Godfather Part II (1974) she knew the relationship was over when she aborted "a son" in secret. [8] On the abortion debate, an irresponsible drug addict is used as a pawn in a power struggle between pro-choice and pro-life groups in Citizen Ruth (1996). [9]
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The incidence rate should all read per 1000, not per 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.48.227 ( talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be a conflict between the text and the graphic [4] used in the section with regard to the UK. The unsourced text says:
Whereas the graphic shows that abortion is legal on demand as opposed to being shown as having a restriction. Or am I misinterpreting something? Bleakcomb ( talk) 00:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Would this be worth adding, somewhere near the beginning?-- TyrS ( talk) 03:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia ( over 67,000 edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Thanks!
I searched the Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup5, and found one major edit by Jagged 85. Tobby72 ( talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm really going to have to ask to see the citations for that one. - Schrandit ( talk) 11:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article pretty much repeats a standard pro-choice argument, as if endorsing it (rather than merely describing it). (For example, the anti-abortion point of view is that there is no such thing as a “safe” abortion.) The lead paragraph of the article should be made more neutral. Bwrs ( talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If the safety of abortion is indeed a partisan talking point, then in this case it would appear that pro-choice partisans are closer to reality than pro-life partisans - but that's not really the issue. When we discuss the safety of a medical procedure, we rely on reputable expert medical opinion, not on some sort of artificial compromise between the positions of two political factions. I would hope that this is an obvious extension of our mission to write a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell Talk 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur with MastCell. I thought that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" was the stuff of satire, not an argument I'd ever see someone making on Wikipedia. Roscelese ( talk) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Bwrs: this is all a bit too diaphanous for me to grab on to. Perhaps instead of arguing whether in the abstract if the existing language is "not neutral enough", you can make a specific, concrete proposal for a rewrite? What text, specifically, would you replace the existing paragraph with? That might be easier for editors to evaluate. Nandesuka ( talk) 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So let us be clear:
You are entitled make your own interpretations of the neutrally presented facts, but to require that Wikipedia must change its policies to accommodate your discomfort will never be acceptable. I trust that concludes our discussion until such time as you see fit to bring forward MEDRS-compliant sources supporting your claims. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence ends with "other species". That's true, but wouldn't it be more precise to say "other mammals"? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this change. The comment reads "true to text", but it's about a movie, so I'm not sure what text is being referred to. I would genuinely appreciate it if someone would explain. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In any case, that whole section needs rethink. Most of it would be better placed in Abortion debate than in the medical article. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Under the "Induced" section, I believe that the following sentence;
"A pregnancy can be intentionally aborted in many ways. The manner selected depends chiefly upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus, which increases in size as it ages",
should be changed so that 'as it ages' reads 'as he or she ages,' or something along similar lines.
The reasoning being that an embryo or fetus has a gender. A babies gender is determined at conception by the sperm. 71.112.50.92 ( talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I will change this to "which increases in size as the pregnancy progresses." to skirt the issue. Nandesuka ( talk) 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this must be a regular problem on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is dealt with or where I can find a discussion about it. As I specifically noticed the problem with this article I thought I would try discussing it here. A friend of mine recently needed information about abortion, however she is Georgian (the country near Russia). I read through the English version of this article and then handed the laptop to her - she switched to the Georgian language and I saw the look of horror on her face as she read. Because the Georgian version of the article (which is much smaller than the English version and has no references at all) includes this (translated by google): 'Artificial abortion negatively affects women's health, the psyche, the nervous system, often cause irritation, inflammation genital organs, hormonuli function and menstrual cycle disorders, infertility and early siberesa (Childlessness women of all reason 30%). Particularly harmful during pregnancy, the first abortion.' This is obviously quite shocking to read, quite different from the English version and totally unreferenced in all its claims. I see there is obviously a difficutly in making sure the various translations of the page are to the same standard, but in this case it seems it would be better if the Georgian language page didn't exist at all! (You can access the Georgian language page here to see the small size and lack of references: http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%90%E1%83%91%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A0%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98 Sorry if this is the wrong place to try and discuss this issue, but I really couldn't see anywhere else to begin. ABMalone ( talk) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There's this line about the movie "Juno": "While in Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but finds she would be happier having it adopted by a wealthy couple."
It's an incomplete sentence and has a pronoun without an antecedent ("it"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.34.181 ( talk) 21:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Germany should be light blue, see discussion section of the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.95.223 ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The following sentence located in the Abortion article is not an unbiased scientific statement, but rather extremely biased towards the pro-choice stance: "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring safely and 20 million unsafely." This statement only makes sense to those who do not think killing a fetus involves danger; as the entire point is to intentionally put the fetus in a situation so dangerous, that it is ultimately killed. This is analagous to stating that Nazi concentration camps were "safe" because the Nazis most often did not accrue damages to themselves. Of course the flipside is that the statement "All abortions are unsafe" is also biased, because it assumes the opposite. the only way to fix this issue within the Abortion article is to remove the statement entirely, or edit it to be nonbiased. It could easily be changed to to the following statement that most everyone could agree on: "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring without negative bodily health effects to the mother, and 20 million that do accrue negative, and potentially fatal bodily health effects to the mother"
I expect this to be kicked back by a pro-choice person claiming that it is already a clear fact, and that there is no bias, but hey I figured I might as well try, considering how obvious this one is.
Thank you for your time. Sdukeminloodwig3 ( talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that the pro-choice stance is institutionalized, and has become entrenched within the viewpoints of official organizations? If you go to the WHO website, you will find that they support the need to offer "safe abortions" to women that want them. This would only be possible if the WHO supports the idea of legal abortions. This is not unbiased. Therefore, by citing WHO as a source, you are not making your point stronger in terms of demonstrating neutrality, but rather quite the opposite. If an organization was completely unbiased regarding the abortion debate, it may do things such as observe and present data regarding abortion, but it would certainly not openly suggest that abortion should be "safe" and readily available to women who want it. How is that neutral? That aforementioned viewpoint assumes that the common anti-abortionist viewpoint, "abortion is murder" is wrong. Neutral entities cannot take sides within the abortion debate, without themselves losing their neutrality. But I guess I may be missing the point. If I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter how biased something is, as long as comes from an official organization, right? Let's forget about WHO and all the other "neutral" organizations out there regarding this abortion issue for just a moment, and focus on the actual sentence that started this discussion. Let's analyze it for a moment without assuming WHO, or organizations like it, are infallible. Sdukeminloodwig3 ( talk) 20:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, so in conclusion, it makes no difference if WHO is biased or not, because they are an official organization, so we must take their word as an authoritative source. I realize that it doesn't matter how biased the sentence is, because it came from the WHO. But seriously, do you agree that an abortion can only be "safe" if one does not consider the dangers involving the fetus to be worthy of of our concern? I am not saying the proposed stance is right or wrong, but it is certainly extremely biased, because it chooses sides regarding a key and central element of the abortion debate. It doesn't matter if the WHO says it or not, the sentence is biased and everyone can see it. It is convenient for people who do not see the dangers of the fetus to be worthy of our concern, (at least to the point of including it in statistics), that organizations such as the WHO appear to agree with them. This allows one to completely dodge any direct analysis of the sentence itself, and just say "The WHO said it, if you disagree you are wrong, end of story." I challenge anyone to actually analyze the sentence itself to look for any biases (such as the obvious ones I have pointed out), without reverting back to the "WHO said it, I agree with it, any bias is irrelevant, case closed" mentality.
Sdukeminloodwig3 (
talk)
16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that that statement could be could be considered somewhat biased by anti-abortion advocates. According to the article, "One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure." I did find a source claiming that legality is less of an issue than sanitation, since most illegal abortions are performed in undeveloped countries. Here it is, for whatever it's worth. http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/world_abortion_estimates.htm Amyrillis 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyrillis ( talk • contribs)
I have created a new page for the Wikipedia abortion project. I had found myself incorporating the same material to various pages in the project and, under the advice of RexxS, I decided to create a whole new page. This allows for some welcome pruning in the larger abortion pages. In the history section of the main abortion page, I plan to excise everything up to the 19th century, as this is where the history of the modern abortion laws begins in the West. I will just summarize the pre-history as briefly as possible, and add a see also tag pointing to History of Abortion Law Debate.
The current page is lacking in information about the evolution of abortion law from its earliest formulation in the non-Occidental historical texts. Many of these texts are widely available from reliable sources on the internet; so, I was able to present that material fairly and in an encyclopedic fashion. But researching the evolution of abortion laws in non-Occidental historical jurisprudence is beyond my capabilities. I wouldn't know where to start. Ermadog ( talk) 07:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this photograph. It's a very clear, professional medical photo and it's certainly relevant, but it's bothered me from the first time I saw it, yet I never could put my finger on why. It's still bothering me, so I'm going to try to.
As usual, I'm not going to be bold by editing this article. I'd just like your feedback: Am I nuts to be bothered by this image? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 19:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The photo is amazing, and a good addition to this page. It is not gory or shocking. It has always been strange to see that abortion was the only medical procedure or occurence in wikipedia that did not include a photo of the procedure or occurence. Glad that it now does! Erma, are you advocating that a "strawberry milkshake" (to borrow your term) abortion image also be added to ensure balance? I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 ( talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Abortion is a huge contriversy. there are many people who would change it to suit the own opions. I think it should be semi-protected. Another solution iis to have certian people check this every day to check for vandlism. Wikiagoo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
I suspect I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask...
I was editing an abortion-related article that kept referring to women who kill their unborn babies as "mothers". That's not how I see motherhood! To be quite frank, I find the use of the term in that context to be both distasteful and likely inaccurate, but I'm hesitant to impose my personal feelings upon an article.
I looked at Abortion for guidance but was unable to find "mother" being used this way, so what I'm wondering is whether this is indicative of some sort of consensus. Under what circumstances should we use "mother" for women who have never given birth to a child? Dylan Flaherty ( talk)
Maybe I was naive. I had imagined that, given how basic this issue is, the editors would have long ago come to some consensus. But when I skimmed through 4 years of links, all I found were the same arguments being thrown back and forth; and when I say "thrown", I mean the way it's done in dodge-ball, except perhaps with murderous intent.
I realize that abortion is a controversial matter, one that brings out strong emotions from all sides, but I have rarely seen such obnoxious behavior coming from presumably sane adults. I'm very glad that some of the crazed crusaders have gotten banned, and I have no intention of joining them.
My first instinct is to just give up. That's also my second instinct. My third is to see if there's a solution. Is there some official process by which we can get a binding ruling on this topic? Or do we need to go from article to article, trying to build a local consensus? Or, really, should I just give up? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 04:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Under the article titled "Abortion", there is a map of abortion laws by country. It says that in Canada, abortion is "illegal with no exceptions". Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
This could not be further than the truth because Abortion is legal in Canada in every form without exception. I demand to have this changed. There is also another problem, under the article titled "Abortion Laws". It says that in Canada abortion is "legal on request". It should be changed to say abortion in Canada is legal in every form without exception. Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.77.187 ( talk) 01:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The source of the photo indicates that the fetus was aborted when it was 8 weeks old and 10 weeks after the last menstrual period. Thus the photo is representative of a fetus at at a stage of development that is typical for induced abortions in the West. It also indicates that fetus in the photo was actually alive at the time the photo was taken. The caption might want to note these facts for the reader's clarity.
Caption at source: "A 44-years old gravid female with previous 6 children was diagnosed with carcinoma in situ of cervix (early stage cancer of womb). So total removal of uterus (womb) with fetus in situ was considered to be inevitable for future health of the lady. The fetus is still alive. The author of this image states that it shows a fetus at 10 weeks gestation (i.e. from LMP), instead of 10 weeks from fertilisation."
Caption currently in article: "A 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer. The uterus (womb), included the fetus."
Caption suggested for article: "An 8 to 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer. The uterus (womb), included the fetus, still alive when the image was taken."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 ( talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes - we agree that the fetal age ought to be accurate: "An 8 to 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.233.28.25 (
talk)
17:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello.
On the main page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion Paragraph #1 ends with the following;
"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world.
In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal
issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in
many nations, often involving the opposing pro-life and pro-choice worldwide social movements
(both self-named). Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as access to family planning education
and contraceptive services has increased.[5]"
My Proposed Change is this;
"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions of the world there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; often involving the opposing pro-life, pro-choice and other anti-abortion [ 129] social movements (all self-named).
Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"
As you can see, I would like to request the addition of a third social movement that is not a sub to either
of the above (pro-life nor pro-choice.)
The term "
anti-abortion" is already being used in numerous articles on Wikipedia, including the primary article on
Abortion. However, there has been no attempts made to distinguish between those of us who are indeed "anti-abortion" and
those of us who are "pro-life."
The reason for my request is quite simple.
There are a significant number of people who oppose abortions for reasons other than the "sanctity of life"
or for the religious reasons most commonly found in the "pro-life" movements.
In fact, when the words "
anti-abortion" are searched for on Wikipedia, it returns NOT to an article
on the "Anti-abortion" movement, but on the "pro-life" movement instead.
Recognizing the fact that there are points at which a secular and a religious line of reasoning can intersect (namely the premise that life begins at conception),... We who call ourselves "Anti-Abortion" as opposed to
"pro-life" use a scientific basis (only); not a spiritual / religious one for the claim.
Indeed, many in the "Anti-abortion" (more specifically; anti-elective-abortion) movement are Atheists
and/or Agnostics (see www.Godlessprolifers.org)
Unlike "pro-lifers," we "Anti-aborts" argue almost exclusively from a Constitutional and scientific perspective.
As such, (we) Anti-Aborts are also more apt to support the "Death Penalty" and the "Rape Exception" for example.
This is my first attempt to affect a change to an article on Wiki, I apologize in advance if I have failed to follow the appropriate protocol for doing so. Chuz Life ( talk) 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your Question, Doc.,
I tried to make the distinction clear, myself (in my original post) and you are correct, Wiki currently re-directs back to "pro-life." I and a large number of others (www.GodlessProlifers.com) would like to draw a line between those of us who use a religious basis for our views and those of us who do not. In my own website (www.ChuzLife.net) I also try to make this clarification.
I'm certain that I can compile a list of others, as well. Chuz Life ( talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Doc
Your link refers to a need for sourcing "medical" references and claims. The distinction I am hoping to make is one of social/ political in nature.
Here are some references for your consideration;
Don Marquis: A Non-Religious Anti-Abortion Argument
Links I am also sifting through. (while at work) -- Chuz Life ( talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may ask, DocJames, Andrew C; "Is it your contention that all who oppose elective abortions are doing so from a religious basis?"
If not, you must recognize my point of contention; and the benefits to Wikipedia; in acknowledging fact where facts are found.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 15:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I understood that this forum was not for the debating of issues; However, some of the information that answers your question has already been provided here;
Don Marquis: A Non-Religious Anti-Abortion Argument
-- Chuz Life ( talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
To respond to my own cite (as I only discovered the article regarding Don Marquis today in trying to address Doc Jame's request) I have to add that I am not completely satisfied with (nor do I agree with) all of the points raised in the article I linked to.
That said, the reason for this thread is NOT to establish anything more than the fact that there is a significant number of people (some who probably haven't even realised it yet),... who (would) oppose the legality of elective abortions,.... while NOT coming from a religious basis or point of view.--
Chuz Life (
talk)
16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If I am permitted and others agree to it, I will gladly provide a scientific (and Constitutional) basis for a "non religious" stance against the legality of elective abortion....
Is that welcome here?
And more specific to the purpose of this thread, "it's not about me" as an individual. Nor is it about that one cite that you have assessed.
The purpose of this thread is to gain recognition of the fact that there are those who (like myself) oppose the legality of elective abortions, for reasons other than a religious, values, and or morality POV. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 16:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I digress.
What are the requirments that would have to be met, for the editors here at Wikipedia to allow for the recognition of the "Anti-Abortion" movement,... as defined by "a growing number of people who oppose the legality of elective abortions, for reasons other than those based on religion?" --
Chuz Life (
talk)
16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
With all do respect, I disagree on your assessment of my needs (above in bold).
It appears that Verification is key to getting changes and additions made.
I am not trying to make the case for or to justify a "new movement."
I am merely trying to gain recognition of a movement that already exists.
So again, I'll ask.
"What do I need to provide in order to gain that (said) regognition?"
Surely it's not a summary of my own justifications for my personal points of view.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may add; It appears the said verification has already been provided and is presently being cited under the "
Pro-Life" articles here on Wikipedia.
Quote;
"Attachment to a pro-life position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also Culture of Life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates.'
5' Many holding the pro-life position also tend toward a complementarian view of gender roles, though there is also a significant feminist element inside the movement.[6]"
Please take note that the in-line Verification cited is the very same one that I provided earlier in my OP.
Adding "Anti-Abortion" to your list of "social movements" contained in paragraph one is in keeping with,... not a challenge to the existing article.
Please consider this information as you further review my change request. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've read the five pillars... and it's not clear why you felt it necessary for me to do so.
I have already met the Verification requirement for the changes to be made. I've gone even beyond that to show how the "secular humanism" movement against elective abortion is currently recognized in another (directly) related article....
So, my change will not be a matter of breaking any new ground. It's only a matter of recognition in paragraph one of THIS article,... what Wikipedia presently eludes to in another.
And the intent is only to show that there are more than two "movements" involved in the worldwide struggle over the legality of abortion. There are those who are " Pro-Life, Pro-Choice,... and then there are those who are (for the reasons already provided) Anti-Abortion" as well.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The standards you are attempting to raise are above and beyond the standards posted by Wikipedia.
More significant than that is the fact that my request is directly in-line with another article already on Wiki.
Going further, on this Article, we have this; "The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.[18]" which only further supports my position.
But, again I'll digress.
Someday the movement will grow large enough to breech even your ability to ignore / dismiss it any longer. Either that or someone with more resolve than myself will pick up the topic and take it further.
This exchange has completely undermined by respect for "all things - Wiki"
All I was seeking is recognition that your site already eluded to in another article.
I may return to it later, but I doubt that I will.
(Archived in case of delete) -- Chuz Life ( talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Why the antagonizing tone?
Don't answer.... I already explained to you why it's not the case.
I have nothing more to add.
I have presented my case as best I could and with as much respect for the forum rules and requirements as I can.
It's up to Wiki, as for whether or not they (you?) want to supress or acknowledge the existence of a third movement in this article.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The "us verses them" atmosphere in here is uncanny.
Your claim that I am whining is unfounded and (more to the point of this forum) un-productive.
If you or any of the editors simply wanted to see more proof and or (discrete) evidence of a separate movement,... you simply could have asked for it in the polite manner that the forum rules expect of all of us.
As far as WP:UNDUE is concerned, I've yet to receive an explanation as to why the external website " http://www.godlessprolifers" carries sufficient weight in ( THIS) one article (to support the idea of an Anti-Abortion Non religious movement),... but not in this one.
But then, silly me,... I actually took the promotion that "any and all are welcome to contribute" at Wiki's word.
It won't happen again.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 01:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
1: I am not seeking to redirect or rename the existing "pro-life" movement. Have you not read the entire exchange and my proposed wording? I am seeking recognition of a third movement, not the redefining of either of the two already listed.
2: There is no conflict? Would you like for me to list some quotes from all over the world and a wide range of political affiliations where people are exclaiming "
I am not pro-life, I am anti-abortion?" Here are some others. (
Click Here) --
Chuz Life (
talk)
01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The adjective "Very" is (in this case) subjective.
Had you clicked on the links I provided to searches where people are touting themselves as "Anti-Abortion" and are being adament about NOT being "pro-life"... You might at least begin to understand and accept the fact that the movement is real.
Does anyone mind if I ask where the reluctance to accept this movement as being fact (real?) comes from?
Why is there so much resistance to the simple acknowledgment that there is a growing number of people who call themselves "Anti-Abortion" but want to distance themselves from the primarily religious oriented "Pro-Life" movement?--
Chuz Life (
talk)
02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been involved in the Abortion debate for 20 years plus.
As such, I am confident that I don't need more time, and (besides) Wiki has already acknowledged the (secular humanist / Anti-abortion) movement (though indirectly) in other articles.
I love how the site touts that "anyone can edit" but when you discover something that has already been cited on another article and seek to add it to the context of another,... suddenly (for whatever convienience to yourself and others) it's dismissed as a "fringe group."
Nothing like treating your new members like 2nd. Class citizens,... huh.
Would you be so kind as to entertain a POLL and or petition along these lines?
I frequent an international political forum where we are able to create polls along any subject we like.
How about we see what percentage of those who oppose legalised abortion consider themselves to be "anti-abortion" as opposed to "pro-life" simply for the reasons that I have already stated (an angst towards religion)?
Or better yet, I can poll the entire forum on this exchange and whether or not the addition is merited.
I'm going to poll it regardless,... and for that matter... I intend to provide a link to it here as well.
Stay tuned-- Chuz Life ( talk) 02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand (or appreciate) the fact that there is a growing number of people who oppose the legality of elective abortions.... people who want to seperate and distinguish themselves from the (religious) stereotypical "Pro-Life" movement.
This is what spurred me to submit an amendment to the article in the first place.
WE don't want to be associated with them.
Read (again) what these people are saying about THEMSELVES;
" I am not pro-life, I am anti-abortion"
Here are some others. ( Click Here)
Unlike pro-lifers,... "anti-abortionists" support and can defend the death penalty, the rape exceptions to a ban on abortion and the use of birth controls and education to affect the abortion rate.
Anti-abortionists and the "pro-life" movement have little in common other than the want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Why are you so dead set against accepting that as fact?
What is the downside in letting frustrated and or conflicted "pro-lifers" know that there is another movement afoot that supports the right for women to abort in a rape situation,... and who also supports the death penalty and sex education? Tell me what the downside is. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 03:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Articles
LIKE THIS ONE only steel my resolve even further,... because they expose not only the incositancy in the first paragraph of this article,... but also the obvious bias towards slanting the playing field by the editors here.
Quote; "The anti-abortion movement is a Social movement|political movement opposed to abortion. Those within the movement seek to restrict or prohibit some or all abortions. Some involved in the movement also hold positions on other issues in bioethics and reproductive rights, such as opposing birth control, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning."
"While "anti-abortion" is the neutral term most often used in news accounts, many people within the movement prefer to call their beliefs "pro-life" or "right-to-life", names that began to appear in the early 1960s. This designation is a controversial, perhaps even loaded term|loaded, term because it takes for granted that an embryo or fetus qualifies as a full living human, complete with concomitant human rights."
So You tell me,.... which "movement" came first,... and which has been in essense hijacked by the other.
And then tell me again,... why you can't afford to be consistent in this article with your claims made in another.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 04:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude?
My argument is not that the "pro-life" movement should change anything.
My observation is that Wikipedia is being inconsistent in how it applies the labels... and it's obvious that in the first paragraph here, Wikipedia editors have not been consistent with regards to comments in related articles.
As for your refusal to acknowledge the distinction between an "anti-abort" who is non religious, who supports the death penalty and the rape exception.... and a "pro-lifer" who believes all life is sacred and opposes the death penalty and the rape exception? What can I say? It looks like willfull ignorance, to me. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 04:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Did you just remove my comments?
Tell me you didn't.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
How is separating your comments so I can better reply to them,... without changing even one word considered "editing" the comments themselves? --
Chuz Life (
talk)
06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please consider this change as a possible compromise;
"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion (both self-named) social movements.
Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"-- Chuz Life ( talk) 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Anybody? --
Chuz Life (
talk)
04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It was (is) my impression that the articles here on Wiki are supposed to have "world wide" application. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are primarily American (read the overviews) movements. Where "anti-abortion" is much more inclusive and descriptive of the worldwide view.
Your current article on "Pro-Life" expounds on this point where it states; "Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States),.."
Why are you and the other editors allowing yourselves, or either or both sides to influence or to "frame" the debate in this Article?
You can drop the "(both self named)" caviot and go at it from the neutrality angle.... The angle which reflects the "worldwide" view and not just the "strong Christian" perspective of the United States.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't prove a negative. (you probably know that)
However, it's worth noting that the AP (as cited in current Wikipedia articles) defines the terms "anti-abbortion" and "abortion rights" as being "neutral terms" and it is those current Wikipedia articles that declare the "pro-Life" and "pro-abortion" lables as decidedly biased and/or loaded terms.
So, I have to wonder why it is that you are all so unwilling to use the neutral terms in this paragraph instead of those which Wikipedia itself has deemd to be inflamatory?-- Chuz Life ( talk) 16:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss the first paragraph of this article, is it not?
As such, since I have an issue with this paragraph as it is currently written,... this is where I am addressing it.
Are you the sole editor in charge of this article? If not, who is?
Because, it appears to me that the paragraph as it is currently written (and as I have pointed out numerous times now) is misleading, inflamatory and exclusionary. The AP article (a source already being recognized by Wikipedia) is my basis for making this claim.
So,... with all due respect, I would like for some of the other editors to address this point. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 20:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Andrew and I apologize for some of the confusion. This has not been an easy forum for me to adjust to. My proposed change has evolved ever so slightly as I have been challenged by yourself and others to supoport my position.
The change I am now suggesting is this; ""The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion social movements. Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"
In the Wikipedia Article titled; Controversies over terminology the article says; "Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. " The article concludes with; "The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".[46]"
The logic follws from that paragraph that the Anti-abortion movement came first (chronologically) and the "pro-life" movement came as the dogma heated up. Likewise for the "Pro-abortion rights" movement and the later defined "pro-choice" movement. My contention is with the Article here being written using the Narrower defined, more or less exclusive and already documented as inflamatory lables that TWO (but not all) of the groups call themselves,..... RATHER than the two most basic and INCLUSIVE and Neutral groups that they each fall under.
The reluctance here towards seeking and recognizing neutraility does not reflect favorably on Wikipedia as a factual and unbiased reference sources at all. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 22:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought we are all to be respectful here. Some of you are making it very difficult. It's not about me, nor my agenda, nor the name I chuz to post under, nor my perceived intelligence, etc. It's about the subject at hand (in this case, the first paragraph) and whether or not a change is warranted. If the editors as a group are to serve as a democracy and rule that this change is not warranted? So be it. I presented the case to the best of my ability. I see an inconsistency where you don't. A unanimous group can still be wrong on something.
Life goes on.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 22:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Sure. You've stated you have no intention of mastering how to use a Wikipedia talk page, which you mis-called a "forum", and have posted numerous verbose posts in which you have failed utterly to convince anyone the change you want is desirable. In short, you've made it clear that you don't plan to learn about how Wikipedia works, but you want to get your own way on the article anyway without having to bother to learn that. I am now done with trying to talk to you, as you have rejected all helpful advice and stated clearly you don't plan to learn your way around here. If you change your mind, there are links on your talk page, and I specifically recommend you read WP:TPG and WP:CON, or for a quick intro, go through the Wikipedia:Tutorial (pay special attention to Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages).) Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
(please feel free to add any I missed)
KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Citation 4 is from Planned Parenthood International, citation 5 is from the Guttmacher Institute; while the Guttmacher Institute is no longer formally connected to Plan Parenthood it was originally started by Planned Parenthood, named after one of Planned Parenthood's former presidents/leaders of Planned Parenthood International, and still holds Alan Guttmacher in high regard, calling him an "Inspired leader
Patient teacher
Reluctant boss
Irreverent skeptic
Indignant advocate
Irrepressible boat-rocker
Old Testament prophet
Compassionate friend" and "much more". Guttmacher's site also points out that "no one was better able to unite the Planned Parenthood organization or summon it to carry out its historic mission" than Guttmacher. I Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher are both biased sources, and all facts supported by their citations should be pulled until put under review for non-biased citation, except for those acknowledged rather than challenged by those of the opposing point of view (example: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html ).
Furthermore the idea the legality of abortion not effecting abortion rates is illogical, and blatantly false. Rather than argue this in depth, I'll cite this blog post, who argues the case well and cites the Guttmacher Institute for his numbers. http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/making-abortion-illegal-reduces-the-abortion-rate/
"Abortion in Ireland, for example, is illegal in most cases, whereas across the pond in England and Wales it is basically legal (though with more restrictions than in the U.S.). According to Guttmacher, the abortion rate for Ireland in 1996 was 5.9. For England and Wales, 15.6. That is, by Guttmacher’s own numbers, the abortion rate for England (where abortion is legal) is several times what it is in Ireland (where it is not). Presumably the lower Irish rate is not due to the country’s fanatical devotion to sex education and contraception."
"In the first year after Roe v. Wade, some 750,000 women had abortions in the United States (representing one abortion for every four live births). By 1980, the number of abortions had reached 1.6 million (one for every 2.25 live births), where it leveled off." Why would abortion rates increase after Roe v. Wade unless the legality effected the frequency of abortions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.82.141 ( talk) 01:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
We should have a picture in the lead. The one I placed there is as good as any that we have. If someone prefers another I am sure I would have not great qualms. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Throughout most of this article's tumultuous history it has existed perfectly well without any lead image. Recent attempts to add a lead image have not achieved consensus and have only lead to dispute. I would like to propose that the current image be removed (as it is neither an accurate illustration, nor NPOV) and that no other images replace it until consensus is shown for one. This should keep debate on the talk page (where it belongs) rather than turning the article itself into a battleground. Kaldari ( talk) 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
1. Changes should be made to "Medical" section. Current says:
Medical
"Medical abortions" are non-surgical abortions that use pharmaceutical drugs, and are only effective in the first trimester of pregnancy. [citation needed] Medical abortions comprise 10% of all abortions in the United States[17] and Europe.[citation needed] Combined regimens include methotrexate or mifepristone, followed by a prostaglandin (either misoprostol or gemeprost: misoprostol is used in the U.S.; gemeprost is used in the UK and Sweden.) When used within 49 days gestation, approximately 92% of women undergoing medical abortion with a combined regimen completed it without surgical intervention.[18] Misoprostol can be used alone, but has a lower efficacy rate than combined regimens. In cases of failure of medical abortion, vacuum or manual aspiration is used to complete the abortion surgically."
Proposed:
Medication
"Medication abortions" are non-surgical abortions that use pharmaceutical drugs administered by a physician, and are only effective in the first trimester of pregnancy. In the United States, medication abortions accounted for 13% of all abortions in 2005, and for 22% of abortions occurring before nine weeks’ gestation. [17] Combined regimens include methotrexate or mifepristone, followed by a prostaglandin (either misoprostol or gemeprost: misoprostol is used in the U.S.; gemeprost is used in the UK and Sweden.) When used within 49 days gestation, approximately 92% of women undergoing medication abortion with a combined regimen completed it without surgical intervention.[18] Misoprostol can be used alone, but has a lower efficacy rate than combined regimens. In cases of failure of medication abortion, vacuum or manual aspiration is used to complete the abortion surgically. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone (marketed in the U.S. as Mifeprex, and in Europe as RU-486) for use in the United States in September 2000.
2. In the "Surgical" section, adding "of pregnancy" to the first sentence so it reads as the following:
In the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common method.[19]
3. The main "Incidence" section currently reads:
Incidence
The number of abortions performed worldwide has deceased between 1995 and 2003 from 45.6 million to 41.6 million (a decrease from 35 to 29 per 1000 women between 15 and 44 years of age).[3] The greatest decrease has occurred in the developed world with a decrease from 39 to 26 per 1000 women in comparison to the developing world which had a decrease from 34 to 29 per 1000 women.[3] Of these approximately 42 million abortions 22 million occurred safely and 20 million unsafely.[3]
The incidence and reasons for induced abortion vary regionally. Some countries, such as Belgium (11.2 per 100 known pregnancies) and the Netherlands (10.6 per 100), had a comparatively low rate of induced abortion, while others like Russia (62.6 per 100) and Vietnam (43.7 per 100) had a high rate. The world ratio was 26 induced abortions per 100 known pregnancies (excluding miscarriages and stillbirths).[62]
Proposed:
Incidence
The number of abortions performed worldwide declined between 1995 and 2003 from 45.5 million to 41.6 million (a decrease from 35 per 1000 women to 29 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44).[3] The greatest decrease has occurred in the developed world, from 39 to 26 per 1000 women, in comparison to the developing world which saw a decrease from 34 to 29 per 1000 women in 2003.[3] Of these approximately 42 million abortions, 22 million occurred under safe conditions and 20 million in unsafe conditions.[3]
The incidence and reasons for induced abortions vary regionally. The lowest rates in countries where abortion is legal, such as Nepal and South Africa are 5 abortions per 1,000 and 6 abortions per 1,000 women, respectively. The highest rates in countries where abortion is legal occurred in Cuba (57 abortions per 1,000 women) and Russia (45 abortions per 1,000 women). Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions. [62]
In the United States, 1.21 million abortions occurred in 2005, the most recent year for which complete data are available. The U.S. abortion rate is 19 abortions per 1,000 women. Nearly half of all U.S. pregnancies are unintended, and four in 10 of those end in abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. [64]
4. The "By gestational age and method" section currently reads:
By gestational age and method
Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2003, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 88.2% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks, 10.4% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. 90.9% of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation), 7.7% by "medical" means (mifepristone), 0.4% by "intrauterine instillation" (saline or prostaglandin), and 1.0% by "other" (including hysterotomy and hysterectomy).[63] The Guttmacher Institute estimated there were 2,200 intact dilation and extraction procedures in the U.S. during 2000; this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year.[64] Similarly, in England and Wales in 2006, 89% of terminations occurred at or under 12 weeks, 9% between 13 to 19 weeks, and 1.5% at or over 20 weeks. 64% of those reported were by vacuum aspiration, 6% by D&E, and 30% were medical.[65] Later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries.[66]
Proposed:
By gestational age and method
Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2006, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found 88% of abortions were performed in the first trimester of pregnancy with the majority (62.0%) obtained at less than 8 weeks' gestation; only 5.0% of abortions were obtained at or later than 16 weeks' gestation. Approximately 3.7% were performed between 16-20 weeks and 1.3% were performed at 21 weeks’ gestation or later. 87.6% of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation), medication (nonsurgical) abortion accounted for 10.6%. All other methods accounted for a consistently small percentage of abortions (0.4%-1.7%). [63] Similarly, in England and Wales in 2006, 89% of terminations occurred at or under 12 weeks, 9% between 13 to 19 weeks, and 1.5% at or over 20 weeks. 64% of those reported were by vacuum aspiration, 6% by D&E, and 30% were medical.[66] Later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries.[67]
5. Under "By personal and social factors," the last sentence of the first paragraph currently reads:
The Guttmacher Institute estimated that "most abortions in the United States are obtained by minority women" because minority women "have much higher rates of unintended pregnancy."[70]
Proposed:
The Guttmacher Institute estimated that a broad cross-section of U.S. women have abortions. Women obtaining abortions are most likely to be in their 20s, never-married and not living with a partner, below the federal poverty line, to already be mothers, to be white, have at least some college education or to be religiously affiliated. But certain groups of women – those in their 20s, black women and poor women are overrepresented among abortion patients. [71]
6. Within the section entitled, "Abortion law," there is a number of bullet points that follow the third paragraph, which reads, "Many countries in which abortion is legal require that certain criteria be met in order for an abortion to be obtained, often, but not always, using a trimester-based system to regulate the window of legality:"
Currently, the first bullet point describing the case in the United States says:
In the United States, some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require that parents be contacted if their minor daughter requests an abortion.[95]
Proposed:
The court ruling of the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, significantly weakened the legal protections previously afforded women and physicians in Roe v. Wade by giving states the right to enact restrictions that do not create an “undue burden” for women seeking abortion. Some states impose a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require parents to give consent or to be notified if their minor daughter requests an abortion. [95]
7. At the end of the "Abortion law" section, additional text is proposed so the last paragraph of the section reads as the following:
In the US, about 8% of abortions are performed on women who travel from another state.[103] However, that is driven at least partly by differing limits on abortion according to gestational age or the scarcity of doctors trained and willing to do later abortions. There are currently 1,787 abortion providers in the United States. Eighty-seven percent of all U.S. counties lack an abortion provider, and 35% of women live in those counties.
8. In addition to the textual changes, certain reference citations should be updated because of new data available from the Guttmacher Institute. The citation list should remain the same except for the following citation changes:
17. ^ Jones RK et al., “Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1):6–16.
62. ^ Sedgh, Gilda, Henshaw, Stanley K., Singh, Susheela, Bankole, Akinrinola and Drescher, Joanna . (2007). Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends. International Family Planning Perspectives, 33 (3). Retrieved 2010-06-16. 63. ^ Pazol, K., Gamble, K. S., Parker, W. Y., Cook, D. A., Zane, S. B., and Hamdan, S. (November 27, 2009). Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58 (SS08), 1–35. Retrieved June 16, 2010. 64. ^ Finer LB and Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90–96.
95. ^ Guttmacher Institute, Parental involvement in minors’ abortions, State Policies in Brief, 202010, < http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf>, accessed June 16, 2010. Guttmacher ( talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC):— Guttmacher ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I noticed that the introduction mentions and links to the "Pro-Choice" thing. The name "Pro-Choice" is a deliberate misrepresentation and fallacy that encourages people to mistakenly believe that abortion is a women's rights issue when really it's totally unrelated. Referring to the opposite of "Pro-life" as "Pro-Choice" is akin to saying that Common Era is purely a political correctness measure; the name political correctness immediately conveys other suggestions and prejudices to the reader. I would say that all references to "Pro-Choice" ought to be removed from the article, in accordance with WP:NPOV, except where a specific mention is made that it's almost exclusively the "Pro-Choice" people themselves who call it that, just like the names Republic of China etc. ( Huey45 ( talk) 04:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
(undent) We need to reflect the best quality literature. If people are serious in improving this page, grab a recent review article ( email me if you need a copy of anything ) and start improving the article. We are not here to direct science but reflect science. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I find that simplistic labels are just that, simplistic. OK, one could argue that Pro-lifers are the absolute, extremist, anti-abortionists, believing that abortion is never, ever justified, no matter what. Many are not Pro-life beyond the abortion debate. There are those who support the death penalty, and those who support "just" wars. (Some possibly support unjust wars.) Those are anti-life activities. Back on the abortion issue, apart from the aforementioned absolute, extremist, anti-abortionists, there is a continuum of opinions, ranging from those who strongly oppose abortion in almost all circumstances but believe it justified in certain rare situations, to those who believe the mother should always have a choice, no matter what. I'm not sure which of those people are covered by the term Pro-choice. There are those who are strongly opposed to abortion but don't believe governments should be telling them, or anyone else, what to do on a moral issue like abortion. Given that spectrum of opinions, and the inaccuracy of the terms Pro-life and Pro-choice, I don't like seeing them used in an article like this, unless we're simply describing specific organisations that use those terms in their names. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The article says that "abortion rates" are the same in countries where it is legal and illegal. But there are two ways of measuring the abortion rate: the number of women per 1000 per year who have abortions, versus the abortion to live birth ratio. If you're pro-choice, you'd see the "abortion rate" as being the rate at which women are affected by abortion, but if you're pro-life you'd see the abortion rate as the rate at which embryos and fetuses are affected by abortion. Why does this article A) measure the incidence of abortion in pro-choice terms, and B) not even say that this is how the incidence of abortion is being measured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Nedved ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "Abortion does not impair subsequent pregnancies, nor does it increase the risk of future premature births, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage" is junk. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) While the risk to subsequent pregnancies is relatively low, abortion decidedly does impair them. - Schrandit ( talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm sure I can find more sources if needed but right off the bat from google the Mayo Clinic, the American Medical Association and the United States government all say that abortion can impair subsequent pregnancies. Why do we say it can't? - Schrandit ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The Mayo Clinic reference ( [1]) does not state that abortion increases the risk of subsequent miscarriage. First, it completely exonerates medical abortion of any such effect (you seem to have skipped that part). Secondly, it states that surgical abortion can rarely result in uterine scarring which can lead to infertility or miscarriage. Of course, carrying a pregnancy to term and having a C-section can also lead to uterine scarring. The Mayo Clinic piece does not suggest that abortion increases this risk over the baseline associated with pregnancy, unless I'm missing something?
It might be most accurate to say that the results are conflicting; in fact, that's exactly what PMID 20362515 says - it points out the methodologic limitations of published studies, including recall bias, poor controlling for confounders, and the problem of choosing an appropriate comparison group. The authors concluded: "In summary, despite two systematic reviews and several primary studies, the evidence supporting the effects of IA on subsequent reproduction is sparse and conflicting." MastCell Talk 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
According to ACOG ( [3]): "Most doctors agree that one abortion does not affect future pregnancies." (...and, on an earlier topic, "The risk of a woman dying from giving birth is at least 10 times greater than the risk from an early abortion.") MastCell Talk 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This article could be a good source for the article, particularly on abortion practitioner trends and training in the U.S. - Roy Boy 18:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Art serves to humanize the abortion issue and illustrates the myriad of decisions and consequences it has. One of the earliest known representations of abortion is in a bas relief at Angkor Wat (c. 1150). Pro-life activist Børre Knudsen was implicated in a 1994 art theft as part of a pro-life drive in Norway surrounding the 1994 Winter Olympics. [1] A Swiss gallery removed a piece from a Chinese art collection in 2005, that had the head of a fetus attached to the body of a bird. [2] In 2008, a Yale student proposed using aborted excretions and the induced abortion itself as a performance art project. [3]
The Cider House Rules (novel 1985, film 1999) follows the story of Dr. Larch an orphanage director who is a reluctant abortionist after seeing the consequences of back-alley abortions, and his orphan medical assistant Homer who is against abortion. [4] Feminist novels such as Braided Lives (1997) by Marge Piercy emphasize the struggles women had in dealing with unsafe abortion in various circumstances prior to legalization. [5] Doctor Susan Wicklund wrote This Common Secret (2007) about how a personal traumatic abortion experience hardened her resolve to provide compassionate care to women who decide to have an abortion. As Wicklund crisscrosses the West to provide abortion services to remote clinics, she tells the stories of women she's treated and the sacrifices herself and her loved ones made. [6] In 2009, Irene Vilar revealed her past abuse and addiction to abortion in Impossible Motherhood, where she aborted 15 pregnancies in 17 years. According to Vilar it was the result of a dark psychological cycle of power, rebellion and societal expectations. [7]
Various options and realities of abortion have been dramatized in film. In Riding in Cars with Boys (2001) an underage woman decides to keep her baby, moves in with the father and finds herself involved with drugs, has no opportunities, and questioning if she loves her child. While in Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but finds she would be happier having it adopted by a wealthy couple. Other films Dirty Dancing (1987) and If These Walls Could Talk (1996) explore the availability, affordability and dangers of illegal abortions. The emotional impact of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy alone is the focus of Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her (2000) and Circle of Friends (1995). As a marriage was in trouble in the The Godfather Part II (1974) she knew the relationship was over when she aborted "a son" in secret. [8] On the abortion debate, an irresponsible drug addict is used as a pawn in a power struggle between pro-choice and pro-life groups in Citizen Ruth (1996). [9]
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The incidence rate should all read per 1000, not per 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.48.227 ( talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be a conflict between the text and the graphic [4] used in the section with regard to the UK. The unsourced text says:
Whereas the graphic shows that abortion is legal on demand as opposed to being shown as having a restriction. Or am I misinterpreting something? Bleakcomb ( talk) 00:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Would this be worth adding, somewhere near the beginning?-- TyrS ( talk) 03:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia ( over 67,000 edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Thanks!
I searched the Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup5, and found one major edit by Jagged 85. Tobby72 ( talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm really going to have to ask to see the citations for that one. - Schrandit ( talk) 11:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article pretty much repeats a standard pro-choice argument, as if endorsing it (rather than merely describing it). (For example, the anti-abortion point of view is that there is no such thing as a “safe” abortion.) The lead paragraph of the article should be made more neutral. Bwrs ( talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If the safety of abortion is indeed a partisan talking point, then in this case it would appear that pro-choice partisans are closer to reality than pro-life partisans - but that's not really the issue. When we discuss the safety of a medical procedure, we rely on reputable expert medical opinion, not on some sort of artificial compromise between the positions of two political factions. I would hope that this is an obvious extension of our mission to write a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell Talk 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur with MastCell. I thought that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" was the stuff of satire, not an argument I'd ever see someone making on Wikipedia. Roscelese ( talk) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Bwrs: this is all a bit too diaphanous for me to grab on to. Perhaps instead of arguing whether in the abstract if the existing language is "not neutral enough", you can make a specific, concrete proposal for a rewrite? What text, specifically, would you replace the existing paragraph with? That might be easier for editors to evaluate. Nandesuka ( talk) 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So let us be clear:
You are entitled make your own interpretations of the neutrally presented facts, but to require that Wikipedia must change its policies to accommodate your discomfort will never be acceptable. I trust that concludes our discussion until such time as you see fit to bring forward MEDRS-compliant sources supporting your claims. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence ends with "other species". That's true, but wouldn't it be more precise to say "other mammals"? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind this change. The comment reads "true to text", but it's about a movie, so I'm not sure what text is being referred to. I would genuinely appreciate it if someone would explain. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In any case, that whole section needs rethink. Most of it would be better placed in Abortion debate than in the medical article. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Under the "Induced" section, I believe that the following sentence;
"A pregnancy can be intentionally aborted in many ways. The manner selected depends chiefly upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus, which increases in size as it ages",
should be changed so that 'as it ages' reads 'as he or she ages,' or something along similar lines.
The reasoning being that an embryo or fetus has a gender. A babies gender is determined at conception by the sperm. 71.112.50.92 ( talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I will change this to "which increases in size as the pregnancy progresses." to skirt the issue. Nandesuka ( talk) 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this must be a regular problem on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is dealt with or where I can find a discussion about it. As I specifically noticed the problem with this article I thought I would try discussing it here. A friend of mine recently needed information about abortion, however she is Georgian (the country near Russia). I read through the English version of this article and then handed the laptop to her - she switched to the Georgian language and I saw the look of horror on her face as she read. Because the Georgian version of the article (which is much smaller than the English version and has no references at all) includes this (translated by google): 'Artificial abortion negatively affects women's health, the psyche, the nervous system, often cause irritation, inflammation genital organs, hormonuli function and menstrual cycle disorders, infertility and early siberesa (Childlessness women of all reason 30%). Particularly harmful during pregnancy, the first abortion.' This is obviously quite shocking to read, quite different from the English version and totally unreferenced in all its claims. I see there is obviously a difficutly in making sure the various translations of the page are to the same standard, but in this case it seems it would be better if the Georgian language page didn't exist at all! (You can access the Georgian language page here to see the small size and lack of references: http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%90%E1%83%91%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A0%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98 Sorry if this is the wrong place to try and discuss this issue, but I really couldn't see anywhere else to begin. ABMalone ( talk) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There's this line about the movie "Juno": "While in Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but finds she would be happier having it adopted by a wealthy couple."
It's an incomplete sentence and has a pronoun without an antecedent ("it"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.34.181 ( talk) 21:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Germany should be light blue, see discussion section of the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.95.223 ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The following sentence located in the Abortion article is not an unbiased scientific statement, but rather extremely biased towards the pro-choice stance: "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring safely and 20 million unsafely." This statement only makes sense to those who do not think killing a fetus involves danger; as the entire point is to intentionally put the fetus in a situation so dangerous, that it is ultimately killed. This is analagous to stating that Nazi concentration camps were "safe" because the Nazis most often did not accrue damages to themselves. Of course the flipside is that the statement "All abortions are unsafe" is also biased, because it assumes the opposite. the only way to fix this issue within the Abortion article is to remove the statement entirely, or edit it to be nonbiased. It could easily be changed to to the following statement that most everyone could agree on: "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring without negative bodily health effects to the mother, and 20 million that do accrue negative, and potentially fatal bodily health effects to the mother"
I expect this to be kicked back by a pro-choice person claiming that it is already a clear fact, and that there is no bias, but hey I figured I might as well try, considering how obvious this one is.
Thank you for your time. Sdukeminloodwig3 ( talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that the pro-choice stance is institutionalized, and has become entrenched within the viewpoints of official organizations? If you go to the WHO website, you will find that they support the need to offer "safe abortions" to women that want them. This would only be possible if the WHO supports the idea of legal abortions. This is not unbiased. Therefore, by citing WHO as a source, you are not making your point stronger in terms of demonstrating neutrality, but rather quite the opposite. If an organization was completely unbiased regarding the abortion debate, it may do things such as observe and present data regarding abortion, but it would certainly not openly suggest that abortion should be "safe" and readily available to women who want it. How is that neutral? That aforementioned viewpoint assumes that the common anti-abortionist viewpoint, "abortion is murder" is wrong. Neutral entities cannot take sides within the abortion debate, without themselves losing their neutrality. But I guess I may be missing the point. If I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter how biased something is, as long as comes from an official organization, right? Let's forget about WHO and all the other "neutral" organizations out there regarding this abortion issue for just a moment, and focus on the actual sentence that started this discussion. Let's analyze it for a moment without assuming WHO, or organizations like it, are infallible. Sdukeminloodwig3 ( talk) 20:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, so in conclusion, it makes no difference if WHO is biased or not, because they are an official organization, so we must take their word as an authoritative source. I realize that it doesn't matter how biased the sentence is, because it came from the WHO. But seriously, do you agree that an abortion can only be "safe" if one does not consider the dangers involving the fetus to be worthy of of our concern? I am not saying the proposed stance is right or wrong, but it is certainly extremely biased, because it chooses sides regarding a key and central element of the abortion debate. It doesn't matter if the WHO says it or not, the sentence is biased and everyone can see it. It is convenient for people who do not see the dangers of the fetus to be worthy of our concern, (at least to the point of including it in statistics), that organizations such as the WHO appear to agree with them. This allows one to completely dodge any direct analysis of the sentence itself, and just say "The WHO said it, if you disagree you are wrong, end of story." I challenge anyone to actually analyze the sentence itself to look for any biases (such as the obvious ones I have pointed out), without reverting back to the "WHO said it, I agree with it, any bias is irrelevant, case closed" mentality.
Sdukeminloodwig3 (
talk)
16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that that statement could be could be considered somewhat biased by anti-abortion advocates. According to the article, "One of the main determinants of the availability of safe abortions is the legality of the procedure." I did find a source claiming that legality is less of an issue than sanitation, since most illegal abortions are performed in undeveloped countries. Here it is, for whatever it's worth. http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/world_abortion_estimates.htm Amyrillis 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyrillis ( talk • contribs)
I have created a new page for the Wikipedia abortion project. I had found myself incorporating the same material to various pages in the project and, under the advice of RexxS, I decided to create a whole new page. This allows for some welcome pruning in the larger abortion pages. In the history section of the main abortion page, I plan to excise everything up to the 19th century, as this is where the history of the modern abortion laws begins in the West. I will just summarize the pre-history as briefly as possible, and add a see also tag pointing to History of Abortion Law Debate.
The current page is lacking in information about the evolution of abortion law from its earliest formulation in the non-Occidental historical texts. Many of these texts are widely available from reliable sources on the internet; so, I was able to present that material fairly and in an encyclopedic fashion. But researching the evolution of abortion laws in non-Occidental historical jurisprudence is beyond my capabilities. I wouldn't know where to start. Ermadog ( talk) 07:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this photograph. It's a very clear, professional medical photo and it's certainly relevant, but it's bothered me from the first time I saw it, yet I never could put my finger on why. It's still bothering me, so I'm going to try to.
As usual, I'm not going to be bold by editing this article. I'd just like your feedback: Am I nuts to be bothered by this image? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 19:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The photo is amazing, and a good addition to this page. It is not gory or shocking. It has always been strange to see that abortion was the only medical procedure or occurence in wikipedia that did not include a photo of the procedure or occurence. Glad that it now does! Erma, are you advocating that a "strawberry milkshake" (to borrow your term) abortion image also be added to ensure balance? I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 ( talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Abortion is a huge contriversy. there are many people who would change it to suit the own opions. I think it should be semi-protected. Another solution iis to have certian people check this every day to check for vandlism. Wikiagoo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
I suspect I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask...
I was editing an abortion-related article that kept referring to women who kill their unborn babies as "mothers". That's not how I see motherhood! To be quite frank, I find the use of the term in that context to be both distasteful and likely inaccurate, but I'm hesitant to impose my personal feelings upon an article.
I looked at Abortion for guidance but was unable to find "mother" being used this way, so what I'm wondering is whether this is indicative of some sort of consensus. Under what circumstances should we use "mother" for women who have never given birth to a child? Dylan Flaherty ( talk)
Maybe I was naive. I had imagined that, given how basic this issue is, the editors would have long ago come to some consensus. But when I skimmed through 4 years of links, all I found were the same arguments being thrown back and forth; and when I say "thrown", I mean the way it's done in dodge-ball, except perhaps with murderous intent.
I realize that abortion is a controversial matter, one that brings out strong emotions from all sides, but I have rarely seen such obnoxious behavior coming from presumably sane adults. I'm very glad that some of the crazed crusaders have gotten banned, and I have no intention of joining them.
My first instinct is to just give up. That's also my second instinct. My third is to see if there's a solution. Is there some official process by which we can get a binding ruling on this topic? Or do we need to go from article to article, trying to build a local consensus? Or, really, should I just give up? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 04:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Under the article titled "Abortion", there is a map of abortion laws by country. It says that in Canada, abortion is "illegal with no exceptions". Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
This could not be further than the truth because Abortion is legal in Canada in every form without exception. I demand to have this changed. There is also another problem, under the article titled "Abortion Laws". It says that in Canada abortion is "legal on request". It should be changed to say abortion in Canada is legal in every form without exception. Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.77.187 ( talk) 01:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The source of the photo indicates that the fetus was aborted when it was 8 weeks old and 10 weeks after the last menstrual period. Thus the photo is representative of a fetus at at a stage of development that is typical for induced abortions in the West. It also indicates that fetus in the photo was actually alive at the time the photo was taken. The caption might want to note these facts for the reader's clarity.
Caption at source: "A 44-years old gravid female with previous 6 children was diagnosed with carcinoma in situ of cervix (early stage cancer of womb). So total removal of uterus (womb) with fetus in situ was considered to be inevitable for future health of the lady. The fetus is still alive. The author of this image states that it shows a fetus at 10 weeks gestation (i.e. from LMP), instead of 10 weeks from fertilisation."
Caption currently in article: "A 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer. The uterus (womb), included the fetus."
Caption suggested for article: "An 8 to 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer. The uterus (womb), included the fetus, still alive when the image was taken."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.28.25 ( talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes - we agree that the fetal age ought to be accurate: "An 8 to 10-week-old fetus removed via a therapeutic abortion from a 44-year-old woman diagnosed with early-stage uterine cancer." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.233.28.25 (
talk)
17:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello.
On the main page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion Paragraph #1 ends with the following;
"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world.
In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal
issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in
many nations, often involving the opposing pro-life and pro-choice worldwide social movements
(both self-named). Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as access to family planning education
and contraceptive services has increased.[5]"
My Proposed Change is this;
"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions of the world there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; often involving the opposing pro-life, pro-choice and other anti-abortion [ 129] social movements (all self-named).
Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"
As you can see, I would like to request the addition of a third social movement that is not a sub to either
of the above (pro-life nor pro-choice.)
The term "
anti-abortion" is already being used in numerous articles on Wikipedia, including the primary article on
Abortion. However, there has been no attempts made to distinguish between those of us who are indeed "anti-abortion" and
those of us who are "pro-life."
The reason for my request is quite simple.
There are a significant number of people who oppose abortions for reasons other than the "sanctity of life"
or for the religious reasons most commonly found in the "pro-life" movements.
In fact, when the words "
anti-abortion" are searched for on Wikipedia, it returns NOT to an article
on the "Anti-abortion" movement, but on the "pro-life" movement instead.
Recognizing the fact that there are points at which a secular and a religious line of reasoning can intersect (namely the premise that life begins at conception),... We who call ourselves "Anti-Abortion" as opposed to
"pro-life" use a scientific basis (only); not a spiritual / religious one for the claim.
Indeed, many in the "Anti-abortion" (more specifically; anti-elective-abortion) movement are Atheists
and/or Agnostics (see www.Godlessprolifers.org)
Unlike "pro-lifers," we "Anti-aborts" argue almost exclusively from a Constitutional and scientific perspective.
As such, (we) Anti-Aborts are also more apt to support the "Death Penalty" and the "Rape Exception" for example.
This is my first attempt to affect a change to an article on Wiki, I apologize in advance if I have failed to follow the appropriate protocol for doing so. Chuz Life ( talk) 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your Question, Doc.,
I tried to make the distinction clear, myself (in my original post) and you are correct, Wiki currently re-directs back to "pro-life." I and a large number of others (www.GodlessProlifers.com) would like to draw a line between those of us who use a religious basis for our views and those of us who do not. In my own website (www.ChuzLife.net) I also try to make this clarification.
I'm certain that I can compile a list of others, as well. Chuz Life ( talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Doc
Your link refers to a need for sourcing "medical" references and claims. The distinction I am hoping to make is one of social/ political in nature.
Here are some references for your consideration;
Don Marquis: A Non-Religious Anti-Abortion Argument
Links I am also sifting through. (while at work) -- Chuz Life ( talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may ask, DocJames, Andrew C; "Is it your contention that all who oppose elective abortions are doing so from a religious basis?"
If not, you must recognize my point of contention; and the benefits to Wikipedia; in acknowledging fact where facts are found.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 15:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I understood that this forum was not for the debating of issues; However, some of the information that answers your question has already been provided here;
Don Marquis: A Non-Religious Anti-Abortion Argument
-- Chuz Life ( talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
To respond to my own cite (as I only discovered the article regarding Don Marquis today in trying to address Doc Jame's request) I have to add that I am not completely satisfied with (nor do I agree with) all of the points raised in the article I linked to.
That said, the reason for this thread is NOT to establish anything more than the fact that there is a significant number of people (some who probably haven't even realised it yet),... who (would) oppose the legality of elective abortions,.... while NOT coming from a religious basis or point of view.--
Chuz Life (
talk)
16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If I am permitted and others agree to it, I will gladly provide a scientific (and Constitutional) basis for a "non religious" stance against the legality of elective abortion....
Is that welcome here?
And more specific to the purpose of this thread, "it's not about me" as an individual. Nor is it about that one cite that you have assessed.
The purpose of this thread is to gain recognition of the fact that there are those who (like myself) oppose the legality of elective abortions, for reasons other than a religious, values, and or morality POV. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 16:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I digress.
What are the requirments that would have to be met, for the editors here at Wikipedia to allow for the recognition of the "Anti-Abortion" movement,... as defined by "a growing number of people who oppose the legality of elective abortions, for reasons other than those based on religion?" --
Chuz Life (
talk)
16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
With all do respect, I disagree on your assessment of my needs (above in bold).
It appears that Verification is key to getting changes and additions made.
I am not trying to make the case for or to justify a "new movement."
I am merely trying to gain recognition of a movement that already exists.
So again, I'll ask.
"What do I need to provide in order to gain that (said) regognition?"
Surely it's not a summary of my own justifications for my personal points of view.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may add; It appears the said verification has already been provided and is presently being cited under the "
Pro-Life" articles here on Wikipedia.
Quote;
"Attachment to a pro-life position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also Culture of Life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates.'
5' Many holding the pro-life position also tend toward a complementarian view of gender roles, though there is also a significant feminist element inside the movement.[6]"
Please take note that the in-line Verification cited is the very same one that I provided earlier in my OP.
Adding "Anti-Abortion" to your list of "social movements" contained in paragraph one is in keeping with,... not a challenge to the existing article.
Please consider this information as you further review my change request. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've read the five pillars... and it's not clear why you felt it necessary for me to do so.
I have already met the Verification requirement for the changes to be made. I've gone even beyond that to show how the "secular humanism" movement against elective abortion is currently recognized in another (directly) related article....
So, my change will not be a matter of breaking any new ground. It's only a matter of recognition in paragraph one of THIS article,... what Wikipedia presently eludes to in another.
And the intent is only to show that there are more than two "movements" involved in the worldwide struggle over the legality of abortion. There are those who are " Pro-Life, Pro-Choice,... and then there are those who are (for the reasons already provided) Anti-Abortion" as well.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The standards you are attempting to raise are above and beyond the standards posted by Wikipedia.
More significant than that is the fact that my request is directly in-line with another article already on Wiki.
Going further, on this Article, we have this; "The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.[18]" which only further supports my position.
But, again I'll digress.
Someday the movement will grow large enough to breech even your ability to ignore / dismiss it any longer. Either that or someone with more resolve than myself will pick up the topic and take it further.
This exchange has completely undermined by respect for "all things - Wiki"
All I was seeking is recognition that your site already eluded to in another article.
I may return to it later, but I doubt that I will.
(Archived in case of delete) -- Chuz Life ( talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Why the antagonizing tone?
Don't answer.... I already explained to you why it's not the case.
I have nothing more to add.
I have presented my case as best I could and with as much respect for the forum rules and requirements as I can.
It's up to Wiki, as for whether or not they (you?) want to supress or acknowledge the existence of a third movement in this article.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The "us verses them" atmosphere in here is uncanny.
Your claim that I am whining is unfounded and (more to the point of this forum) un-productive.
If you or any of the editors simply wanted to see more proof and or (discrete) evidence of a separate movement,... you simply could have asked for it in the polite manner that the forum rules expect of all of us.
As far as WP:UNDUE is concerned, I've yet to receive an explanation as to why the external website " http://www.godlessprolifers" carries sufficient weight in ( THIS) one article (to support the idea of an Anti-Abortion Non religious movement),... but not in this one.
But then, silly me,... I actually took the promotion that "any and all are welcome to contribute" at Wiki's word.
It won't happen again.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 01:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
1: I am not seeking to redirect or rename the existing "pro-life" movement. Have you not read the entire exchange and my proposed wording? I am seeking recognition of a third movement, not the redefining of either of the two already listed.
2: There is no conflict? Would you like for me to list some quotes from all over the world and a wide range of political affiliations where people are exclaiming "
I am not pro-life, I am anti-abortion?" Here are some others. (
Click Here) --
Chuz Life (
talk)
01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The adjective "Very" is (in this case) subjective.
Had you clicked on the links I provided to searches where people are touting themselves as "Anti-Abortion" and are being adament about NOT being "pro-life"... You might at least begin to understand and accept the fact that the movement is real.
Does anyone mind if I ask where the reluctance to accept this movement as being fact (real?) comes from?
Why is there so much resistance to the simple acknowledgment that there is a growing number of people who call themselves "Anti-Abortion" but want to distance themselves from the primarily religious oriented "Pro-Life" movement?--
Chuz Life (
talk)
02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been involved in the Abortion debate for 20 years plus.
As such, I am confident that I don't need more time, and (besides) Wiki has already acknowledged the (secular humanist / Anti-abortion) movement (though indirectly) in other articles.
I love how the site touts that "anyone can edit" but when you discover something that has already been cited on another article and seek to add it to the context of another,... suddenly (for whatever convienience to yourself and others) it's dismissed as a "fringe group."
Nothing like treating your new members like 2nd. Class citizens,... huh.
Would you be so kind as to entertain a POLL and or petition along these lines?
I frequent an international political forum where we are able to create polls along any subject we like.
How about we see what percentage of those who oppose legalised abortion consider themselves to be "anti-abortion" as opposed to "pro-life" simply for the reasons that I have already stated (an angst towards religion)?
Or better yet, I can poll the entire forum on this exchange and whether or not the addition is merited.
I'm going to poll it regardless,... and for that matter... I intend to provide a link to it here as well.
Stay tuned-- Chuz Life ( talk) 02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand (or appreciate) the fact that there is a growing number of people who oppose the legality of elective abortions.... people who want to seperate and distinguish themselves from the (religious) stereotypical "Pro-Life" movement.
This is what spurred me to submit an amendment to the article in the first place.
WE don't want to be associated with them.
Read (again) what these people are saying about THEMSELVES;
" I am not pro-life, I am anti-abortion"
Here are some others. ( Click Here)
Unlike pro-lifers,... "anti-abortionists" support and can defend the death penalty, the rape exceptions to a ban on abortion and the use of birth controls and education to affect the abortion rate.
Anti-abortionists and the "pro-life" movement have little in common other than the want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Why are you so dead set against accepting that as fact?
What is the downside in letting frustrated and or conflicted "pro-lifers" know that there is another movement afoot that supports the right for women to abort in a rape situation,... and who also supports the death penalty and sex education? Tell me what the downside is. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 03:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Articles
LIKE THIS ONE only steel my resolve even further,... because they expose not only the incositancy in the first paragraph of this article,... but also the obvious bias towards slanting the playing field by the editors here.
Quote; "The anti-abortion movement is a Social movement|political movement opposed to abortion. Those within the movement seek to restrict or prohibit some or all abortions. Some involved in the movement also hold positions on other issues in bioethics and reproductive rights, such as opposing birth control, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning."
"While "anti-abortion" is the neutral term most often used in news accounts, many people within the movement prefer to call their beliefs "pro-life" or "right-to-life", names that began to appear in the early 1960s. This designation is a controversial, perhaps even loaded term|loaded, term because it takes for granted that an embryo or fetus qualifies as a full living human, complete with concomitant human rights."
So You tell me,.... which "movement" came first,... and which has been in essense hijacked by the other.
And then tell me again,... why you can't afford to be consistent in this article with your claims made in another.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 04:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude?
My argument is not that the "pro-life" movement should change anything.
My observation is that Wikipedia is being inconsistent in how it applies the labels... and it's obvious that in the first paragraph here, Wikipedia editors have not been consistent with regards to comments in related articles.
As for your refusal to acknowledge the distinction between an "anti-abort" who is non religious, who supports the death penalty and the rape exception.... and a "pro-lifer" who believes all life is sacred and opposes the death penalty and the rape exception? What can I say? It looks like willfull ignorance, to me. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 04:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Did you just remove my comments?
Tell me you didn't.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
How is separating your comments so I can better reply to them,... without changing even one word considered "editing" the comments themselves? --
Chuz Life (
talk)
06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please consider this change as a possible compromise;
"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion (both self-named) social movements.
Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"-- Chuz Life ( talk) 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Anybody? --
Chuz Life (
talk)
04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It was (is) my impression that the articles here on Wiki are supposed to have "world wide" application. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are primarily American (read the overviews) movements. Where "anti-abortion" is much more inclusive and descriptive of the worldwide view.
Your current article on "Pro-Life" expounds on this point where it states; "Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States),.."
Why are you and the other editors allowing yourselves, or either or both sides to influence or to "frame" the debate in this Article?
You can drop the "(both self named)" caviot and go at it from the neutrality angle.... The angle which reflects the "worldwide" view and not just the "strong Christian" perspective of the United States.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't prove a negative. (you probably know that)
However, it's worth noting that the AP (as cited in current Wikipedia articles) defines the terms "anti-abbortion" and "abortion rights" as being "neutral terms" and it is those current Wikipedia articles that declare the "pro-Life" and "pro-abortion" lables as decidedly biased and/or loaded terms.
So, I have to wonder why it is that you are all so unwilling to use the neutral terms in this paragraph instead of those which Wikipedia itself has deemd to be inflamatory?-- Chuz Life ( talk) 16:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss the first paragraph of this article, is it not?
As such, since I have an issue with this paragraph as it is currently written,... this is where I am addressing it.
Are you the sole editor in charge of this article? If not, who is?
Because, it appears to me that the paragraph as it is currently written (and as I have pointed out numerous times now) is misleading, inflamatory and exclusionary. The AP article (a source already being recognized by Wikipedia) is my basis for making this claim.
So,... with all due respect, I would like for some of the other editors to address this point. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 20:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Andrew and I apologize for some of the confusion. This has not been an easy forum for me to adjust to. My proposed change has evolved ever so slightly as I have been challenged by yourself and others to supoport my position.
The change I am now suggesting is this; ""The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many regions there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion social movements. Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"
In the Wikipedia Article titled; Controversies over terminology the article says; "Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. " The article concludes with; "The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".[46]"
The logic follws from that paragraph that the Anti-abortion movement came first (chronologically) and the "pro-life" movement came as the dogma heated up. Likewise for the "Pro-abortion rights" movement and the later defined "pro-choice" movement. My contention is with the Article here being written using the Narrower defined, more or less exclusive and already documented as inflamatory lables that TWO (but not all) of the groups call themselves,..... RATHER than the two most basic and INCLUSIVE and Neutral groups that they each fall under.
The reluctance here towards seeking and recognizing neutraility does not reflect favorably on Wikipedia as a factual and unbiased reference sources at all. -- Chuz Life ( talk) 22:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought we are all to be respectful here. Some of you are making it very difficult. It's not about me, nor my agenda, nor the name I chuz to post under, nor my perceived intelligence, etc. It's about the subject at hand (in this case, the first paragraph) and whether or not a change is warranted. If the editors as a group are to serve as a democracy and rule that this change is not warranted? So be it. I presented the case to the best of my ability. I see an inconsistency where you don't. A unanimous group can still be wrong on something.
Life goes on.-- Chuz Life ( talk) 22:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Sure. You've stated you have no intention of mastering how to use a Wikipedia talk page, which you mis-called a "forum", and have posted numerous verbose posts in which you have failed utterly to convince anyone the change you want is desirable. In short, you've made it clear that you don't plan to learn about how Wikipedia works, but you want to get your own way on the article anyway without having to bother to learn that. I am now done with trying to talk to you, as you have rejected all helpful advice and stated clearly you don't plan to learn your way around here. If you change your mind, there are links on your talk page, and I specifically recommend you read WP:TPG and WP:CON, or for a quick intro, go through the Wikipedia:Tutorial (pay special attention to Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages).) Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
(please feel free to add any I missed)
KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Citation 4 is from Planned Parenthood International, citation 5 is from the Guttmacher Institute; while the Guttmacher Institute is no longer formally connected to Plan Parenthood it was originally started by Planned Parenthood, named after one of Planned Parenthood's former presidents/leaders of Planned Parenthood International, and still holds Alan Guttmacher in high regard, calling him an "Inspired leader
Patient teacher
Reluctant boss
Irreverent skeptic
Indignant advocate
Irrepressible boat-rocker
Old Testament prophet
Compassionate friend" and "much more". Guttmacher's site also points out that "no one was better able to unite the Planned Parenthood organization or summon it to carry out its historic mission" than Guttmacher. I Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher are both biased sources, and all facts supported by their citations should be pulled until put under review for non-biased citation, except for those acknowledged rather than challenged by those of the opposing point of view (example: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html ).
Furthermore the idea the legality of abortion not effecting abortion rates is illogical, and blatantly false. Rather than argue this in depth, I'll cite this blog post, who argues the case well and cites the Guttmacher Institute for his numbers. http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/making-abortion-illegal-reduces-the-abortion-rate/
"Abortion in Ireland, for example, is illegal in most cases, whereas across the pond in England and Wales it is basically legal (though with more restrictions than in the U.S.). According to Guttmacher, the abortion rate for Ireland in 1996 was 5.9. For England and Wales, 15.6. That is, by Guttmacher’s own numbers, the abortion rate for England (where abortion is legal) is several times what it is in Ireland (where it is not). Presumably the lower Irish rate is not due to the country’s fanatical devotion to sex education and contraception."
"In the first year after Roe v. Wade, some 750,000 women had abortions in the United States (representing one abortion for every four live births). By 1980, the number of abortions had reached 1.6 million (one for every 2.25 live births), where it leveled off." Why would abortion rates increase after Roe v. Wade unless the legality effected the frequency of abortions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.82.141 ( talk) 01:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)