![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
According to statistics documented here: https://www.prochoice.org/documents/Stats_Table.pdf from the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 8 murders (17 attempted), 426 death threats, 198 incidents of assault or battery, and 4 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.
That's a 35 year time scale. To give the yearly abortion-industry statistics, that's about:
(As an aside, a dozen death threats a year puts it at a level of political importance equivalent to: the ruling Republicans of Wisconsin during Gov. Walker's controversial 2011 budget bill; various employees of AIG during the AIG bonus payments controversy; to Dennis Stinchcombe, who removed a Banksy artwork from a wall; and to British soccer players like David Beckham and Michael Owen.) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262428/death-threats-dozens-wisconsin-deroy-murdock http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/apr/16/man-removed-banksy-issued-death-threats http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-259443/Owens-dozens-death-threats.html
To compare that with all totals, the FBI lists here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10 ...that in 2011, there were 1481 instances where someone murdered a complete stranger, and 5588 instances where the relationship between killer and victim was "unknown." Assuming that 2011 was representative year for random killings (which is probably false, because as I mentioned before, crime has been down recently) that still gives us that ~0.013% of random murders are inspired to any degree by the actual abortion debate. (And we don't know how many of the people supposedly killing "against abortion" are actually killing due to undiagnosed cases of mental illness, etc.)
In any case, the statistics cited above are skewed by the fact, documented on Wikipedia here: /info/en/?search=Crime_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime ...that the period from 1977 to ~1993 was significantly more violent than the past decade and a half. For example, since 2001, in the past thirteen years, there has been exactly one abortion related murder.
That fact is crucially relevant to the notion of "anti-abortion violence" as a coherent phenomenon separable from other types of violence. According to the violence statistics above, together with a Gallup poll published here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx ...the period from ~1993 to today saw a drastic decrease in the amount of anti-abortion violence go hand-in-hand with a slight increase in the amount of anti-abortion sentiment. Around 1993, about 30% of Americans said they thought abortion should be legal "under any circumstances;" two decades later, that number is around 25%. The equivalent numbers for people who think abortion should be illegal "under any circumstances" is equivalent, from ~15% in 1993 to ~20% in 2013.
In my mind, this provides evidence against the notion that anti-abortion violence is actually or primarily tied to anti-abortion sentiment; if it were, an increase in such sentiment should result in higher rates of specifically anti-abortion violence.
Now, if you don't agree with me that this makes anti-abortion violence "non-notable" in the sense that it shouldn't even have a Wikipedia article at all, then so be it. But I'm definitely thinking that it's a bit of a POV-slant to have the first paragraph of the article on the abortion debate end with an underhanded AND UNSOURCED suggestion that people against abortion are notably willing to kill for their beliefs. The numbers I've cited above just don't support that conclusion; Freud would wonder whether the pro-choice movement might not be projecting a bit.
I know this issue is "controversial," but that's no excuse to let sloppy points of view get away with sticking to the facts. If anything, it makes such lenience all the more inexcusable for a supposedly-objective encyclopedia. And even if we think abortion violence is notable in an academic sense, I would argue that it is irrelevant to the subject addressed here, public discourse regarding abortion. This page should be an objective and encyclopedic description of the way two sides have attempted to shape public opinion; it should not be a general litany of controversial events and individuals that had relation to abortion (unlike the page to which I previously linked).
Accordingly, I'm just giving everyone a heads up that I'm deleting the phrase "with some anti-abortion advocates even going as far as using violence." Anyone who wants to say that violence is a notable facet of the anti-abortion movement can dispute me here. SvenTheBold ( talk) 02:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
SvenTheBold ( talk) 11:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding proposed edits: I am in favor of a different architecture, not just some minor changes. I will give you an analogy. Suppose Creationists attacked Wikipedia in order to present evolution as simply "a theory" and to insist as they indeed do that "the controversy ought to be taught." This would be rightly considered an attack against the scientific character of Wikipedia. Something similar has happened here. Here one insists that "the controversy must be taught", and by insisting on this one disguises the true nature of the controversy. And that is why the architecture of the article is the important question. The solution is presenting the authentic history of the controversy, that one does not ideologize history. History is an effort to present the phenomenology of historical forces, of the forces that have actually shaped history. This does not mean that one is against the abortion debate, it means that Wikipedia gives to the abortion debate the tool that it deserves, instead of manipulating things in order to perpetuate confusion. In my above comments I have now made some improvements which it would be useful to take notice of. Cklc ( talk) 12:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
"Is the article meant to conjoin the best pro-life arguments and the best pro-choice arguments (I don't think that is the purpose of the article.) Or is it meant to tell the story of the conflict ot two points of view, or two forces, in the political sphere? This can be done and ought to be done. Wikipedia is about facts and science, not about philosophy. But if you are going to tell the history, you are going to have to tell it in a different way than it is told here: not only mentioning the bad civic behavior of pro-life protesters, but also telling the bad civic behavior of the forces that foisted institutionalized abortion on the nation and the world. Oh yes, and also the ugly story of the practice of back-alley abortions before the legalizations, because that is also part of the story of abortion, but not insinuating the historical untruth the pro-life movement is responsible for back alley abortions of past and present. The historian will also reject therefore the myth that institutionalized abortion arose as a sort of civil rights movement. The historian will record that the pro-abortion movement has tried to paint itself as that. The historian will have to admit that the pro-life movement is something essentially modern and progressive, whereas the so called pro-abortion movement is something artificial and contrived. The historian would have to beging with the phenomenon of abortus provocatus, and then go on to show how it has emerged on the political stage, and how the pro-life movement came to be as a reaction to it. The historian should not begin by saying "abortion is something controversial"; it should begin by telling us in the first place what reality we are speaking of: that is the only way a mature opinion can be formed. The article is based on the idea that abortion is some ethereal thing, that for some strange reason, is controversial, hinting that this is because of the warped minds of the religious fanatics who do not accept our practice of abortion. There is a pseudo-gentlemanliness. "Now boys and girls, let us describe the debate, let us keep calm (not like those religious fanatics who oppose abortion); you will note that this is a controversial subject therefore some compromise is surely necessary" But the subtext of "compromise" is that it is necessary to keep people in the fog, so that nothing happens. It is all very controversial, you see. So go back to your homes and watch some more television. The cure to all this is history, rightly done, which dares to look the thing in the eye. The historian will ensure that the fog lifts.." H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cklc ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Cklc ( talk) 22:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just made a couple of edits to the "Anti-abortion violence" section of the article, but I wonder if this section even belongs in an article entitled "Abortion debate"? If the article were about the "Abortion issue" more broadly, or the "Abortion conflict" more specifically then I could easily see such a section but it seems to me that "Abortion debate" should be about the conflict of ideas rather than physical conflict. I went back in the history of the article and it seems that this section is relatively new. I also notice that stand-alone article on Anti-abortion violence and Anti-abortion violence in the United States already exist on Wikipedia so it's not as if this topic is being ignored. Incidentally, I looked up Anti-war violence in Wikipedia and noticed that such an article is missing among the millions. KatieHepPal ( talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of the section. The lead of this article starts: The abortion debate is the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion.
As explained above, violence is a big part of that discourse and plays a prominent role in the way reliable sources have talked about the debate. The problem is that throughout this thread you've been explaining your edits in terms of what other editors' agendas and righting perceived wrongs. e.g. Seems as if some editors want to include the topic wherever they can
and Apparently, two separate existing Wikipedia articles on this phenomenon as well as a section on it in the main abortion article were not enough for you.
and We don't need to cram an anti-abortion violence section into every article touching on the subject
. The number of places it appears is irrelevant if it makes sense to talk about it per reliable sources on the subject. That it appears in multiple places does not mean it was "crammed". It's because it's relevant to the article. The article
anti-abortion violence is not reproduced here but summarized in two paragraphs, given due weight as it relates to this article. I don't know why that's controversial. Are you saying that anti-abortion violence is not talked about in any meaningful way in literature about "the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion"? --—
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
then, yes, I would call that going on of one's way to bring up the subjectYou're still making comments about what should happen to the content based on the intentions you're ascribing to other editors.
It is not really "debated," however-- I quoted the lead above to address this. The article is not about a literal verbal debate; it's about "the ongoing controversy". Violence is part of that. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
In order to provide WP:NPOV the section on Pro-Abortion Violence should be included. To say it never happens provides a strong bias making it look as if only Pro-Life Violence is taking place. I think both forms of violence are wrong and simply would like both mentioned for academic and historical purposes on Wikipedia; the article should provide a neutral look at both forms of violence. My attempt of WP:BOLD has been reverted due to an unintended edit war with User:Roscelese suggesting there was not enough Cited sources, no Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the 20 given, and not enough WP:WEIGHT. See also the Revision history . We should attempt to reach a consensus to determine the outcome of this issue and the level of importance on including this information. - Gaming4JC ( talk) 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The Interim exists is to report and comment on the many offences against human dignity our society has experienced: abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, contraception, sexual promiscuity, the decline of the traditional family, and the rise of radical environmentalism and animal rights agendas that put non-human matters at the centre of public concern.--— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
"It violates NPOV to include only acts of violence on one side."This sentiment, which runs throughout the Support arguments, is explicitly incorrect when it comes to NPOV, as even a brief skimming of WP:NPOV will make clear. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#.22Reputation_for_Fact_Checking.22, opened by GodBlessYou2. Jytdog ( talk) 16:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, if the focus of this article is not necessarily the intellectual debate over the morality and legality of abortion (as it seems to me that it was before the "Anti-abortion violence" section was added) but rather any "ongoing controversy" related to abortion and covered by reliable sources, then it seems to me that we should add some subtopics. The "pro-abortion/choice violence" subtopic that some want to add seems pretty thin, but there should be all sorts of material on "late-term abortion" in general and "partial birth abortion" in particular. Also, allegations of "pro-choice" bias in the mainstream media have been plentiful and have been carried by a number mainstream organs over the years. KatieHepPal ( talk) 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we please have a discussion about the last paragraph of the Overview section and the claim that children are not "full persons by law?" First of all, the hyperlink for that claim is now broken and was not a particularly strong reference to begin with. Neither side is arguing that children in any stage of fetal development should have the right to vote or to enter into contracts. Within the context of the abortion debate, "full personhood" is not what is being argued for or against. The paragraph itself concludes that "for the past two centuries, they (children)have been treated as persons for the limited purposes of Offence against the person law." This latter portion/ statement completely counters the relevance of the earlier claim that "children are not full persons." Please allow for the "children are not full persons" portion / comment to be removed. L.L. Brown 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that there needs to be a section that involves a philosophical view on the topic abortion.
First of all, we need to know what exactly is abortion. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by surgical or medical needs. [1] Most people debate whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong. However, that involves creating a moral statement on the issue. A moral statement is affirming that a person's motive or character is good or bad [2]. According to Lewis Vaughn, a utilitarian may judge abortion differently from a Kantian theorist. An act utilitarian believes happiness over unhappiness [3] A Kantian Theorist supports Kant's Theory which focuses on universality, impartiality, and the respect for persons. This is known as the Categorical Imperative, which focuses on people's wants and needs. [4] Would it be okay if everyone could get abortions? That is what someone who believed in Kant's Theory would ask. An act utilitarian could have two possible looks on the issue of abortion. One reaction could be that abortion is okay because it would lead to an overall happiness for the mother. However, on the other hand, they could be against abortion due to the physical and social pain that it would bring to the mother which means they would suffer from unhappiness. [5] A Kantian Theorist looks at abortion completely different. They do not look at the happiness of the mother, they focus more on the child and whether or not they are a person with rights. Kant's Theory suggests that a fetus is a human with rights, therefore making abortion wrong. However, this theory also supports self defense, so if the mother's life is in danger than it is okay. [6]
References
I think it is a different look to see old moral theories instead of looking at current laws, feel free to comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercer.phi205 ( talk • contribs) May 12, 2014
Your statement of Kantian Ethics is incomplete. A better way to frame this argument is that Kantian Ethics supports both sides of the debate. I apologize for no references as I'm not a research specialist, but the addition should include something like the following:
The categorical imperative argument indicates that no baby should ever be aborted since that baby is a human with the right to control their own body and life. It is wrong to abort a baby, even if it is nothing more than a one-second-old fertilized egg. Full stop.
Similarly, every woman (pregnant or not) has the right to control their own life and body, and the categorical imperative insists that no woman may be forced to perform any act she doesn't wish or be prevented from performing any act she does wish on her own body. This would include abortion as well as things like self-mutilation or even suicide. It's her body to control, and therefore her right to do so. Full stop.
In summary, abortion is wrong as is telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Therefore this argument cannot be solved with reference to the categorical imperative. Each side must recognise the validity of the other side's argument. It's not a matter of one side being "right" and the other being "evil" because both are evil. Both are absolute truths.
The only way out of this philosophical debate is to argue the relative level of the two evils. Is abortion worse than the loss of control over one's body, or is the loss of control over one's body worse than abortion?
There will likely never be a single solution and this debate will likely go on forever, so in the end, it is pragmatism that must be the dominant ethical consideration. Each geography, culture, race, religion, nation, and century will have to struggle anew with the dilemma of the choice for choice or the choice for life.
Preceding inserted 04:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC) by
2601:141:300:915E:A130:A4CA:BA2E:5253 (
talk) 04:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Recently an editor removed a quotation in the "Privacy" section of the article [11]. Another editor quickly restored it [12]. I see a couple of problems with the presentation of this quotation from political science professor Eileen L. McDonagh. First, it does not really "explain privacy in US law." Rather, it proposes a philosophical basis for such law. The quote comes from an article in which McDonagh advocates for "securing the constitutional right to abortion funding" and this supposed explanation of US privacy law is, instead, part of a complaint that this privacy law, and the moral premises behind it, are not strong enough.
Of course, we could change the the introduction of the quotation by saying something like: Eileen L. McDonagh has this view of the right of privacy but this brings me to the other problem with the quote. Why include it then? If this isn't really a scholarly explanation of the law concerning privacy as it exists in the US but rather someone's view of what she would like it to be, why include it at all? Especially since we are not quoting any other scholar with a quite different view. Motsebboh ( talk) 04:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The articles spreads misinformation in this section with a claim that Qur'an 17:32 forbids killing of fetuses due to fear of poverty. First of all, the passage is misattributed, relevant ayah is 31st not 32nd, and secondly, the arabic text speaks of killing "alwaadukum" or "your children", "awlaad" is a plural of "walad", i.e. a child in the common sense of the word and the ayah is addressing the practice of killing born children, particularly female, as stated here: "these verses in fact were revealed to forbid the pre-Islamic Arab practice of killing or burying alive a newborn child (particularly a girl) on account of the parents' poverty or to refrain from having a female child" ( http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_101_150/abortion.htm) . There is no reason to broaden the meaning to include fetuses or embryos, as majority of the islamic scholars doesn't; in fact, contrary to information in the article "Ensoulment" under the heading considering islamic viewpoint (which states only one opinion from one scholar), the majority of islamic scholars consider the pre-forty weeks (some schools consider 40 days to be the limit, and others 120) gestation pregnancy abortion as not un-lawful - on contrary the four legal schools deem it legally permissible, because only after that time the soul is traditionally thought to be implemented - as the article on abortion under the islamic section clearly states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.150.21 ( talk) 23:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this article is the place for a lengthy discussion of what legislation or caselaw exists. Information about legislation or caselaw should be included insofar as it supports claims about arguments in the abortion debate (eg. right to privacy), the subject of this article. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
One pptential reason to legalize abortions is the safety claim: legalizing abortions reduces the number of unsafe abortions. This topic is covered by the main Abortion article, but it should also be covered here. 89.138.147.167 ( talk) 21:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I added this sub-section to the page a while back, which was undone by another user who asked me to post it to the talk page first. So I would like to do that now and suggest this sub-section to be added to the section titled "Arguments against the right to abortion":
Respect for human life
One argument against the right to abortion appeals to the (secular) value of a human life. The thought is that all forms of human life, including the fetus, are inherently valuable because they are connected to our thoughts on family and parenthood, among other natural aspects of humanity. Thus, abortion can express the wrong attitudes towards humanity in a way that manifest vicious character. This view is represented by some forms of Humanism and by moral philosopher Rosalind Hursthouse in her widely anthologized article "Virtue Theory and Abortion".[109] Thinking about abortion in this way, according to Hursthouse, shows the unimportance of rights because one can act viciously in exercising a moral right. (For example, she says, "Love and friendship do not survive their parties' constantly insisting on their rights, nor do people live well when they think that getting what they have a right to is of preeminent importance; they harm others, and they harm themselves."[109]) Hursthouse argues that the ending of a human life is always a serious matter and that abortion, when it is wrong, is wrong because it violates a respect for human life.
109. Hursthouse, Rosalind (1991). "Virtue Theory and Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs. 20 (3): 223–246. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.64.160 ( talk) 20:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
SOme of the wording in the introductiuon comes off as nbiased. "Both terms are considered loaded in mainstream media, where terms such as “abortion rights” or “anti-abortion” are generally preferred." According to whom? Pro-life and pro-choice are the preferred terms of each side to remain neutral. "with small numbers of anti-abortion advocates using violence, such as murder and arson." This statement is biased as it does not acknowledge the violence from the other side. Don't pretend that the violence is one sided. PGHOPPER ( talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the paragraph about the phrase "unborn baby" because, as explained at Talk:United_States_abortion-rights_movement#Terminology, it is original research. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Wtmitchell: I didn't remove that source; it's still there. Are you seriously arguing that "Search results for 'unborn child'" is an appropriate, non-OR citation? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I restored "anti-abortion campaigners" as it is more neutral, encyclopedic and consistent with Wikipedia consensus, compared to "Pro-Life campaigners". The article itself explains why we use this language. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This edit, which renamed the "Arguments against the right to abortion" section to "Arguments against abortion", caught my eye. In a quick look at the article, my eye went to the TOC entry for the section headed "Arguments for abortion rights which do not depend on fetal non-personhood". Looking more widely, I see that the article has a major section headed "Personhood" which contains minor sections about arguments for and against abortion rights and/or abortion itself. I think that this organizational arrangement could be improved. It seems to me that the article content about fetal personhood could/should be subsumed into separate sections describing positions for and against abortion and abortion rights. It seems to me that abortion and abortion rights ought to be treated separately in presenting arguments for and against. I've often heard politicians make statements to the effect that they are personally against abortion but are also in favor of the right of a woman to make an abortion decision for herself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.
Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)
Thanks in advance. Warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I've located the statistic that was reverted ( [13]) but I don't feel that this article is an appropriate place to just add a random statistic. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Reverted back to neutral language; save POV language for quotations, etc. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 18 August 2020 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
According to statistics documented here: https://www.prochoice.org/documents/Stats_Table.pdf from the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 8 murders (17 attempted), 426 death threats, 198 incidents of assault or battery, and 4 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.
That's a 35 year time scale. To give the yearly abortion-industry statistics, that's about:
(As an aside, a dozen death threats a year puts it at a level of political importance equivalent to: the ruling Republicans of Wisconsin during Gov. Walker's controversial 2011 budget bill; various employees of AIG during the AIG bonus payments controversy; to Dennis Stinchcombe, who removed a Banksy artwork from a wall; and to British soccer players like David Beckham and Michael Owen.) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262428/death-threats-dozens-wisconsin-deroy-murdock http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/apr/16/man-removed-banksy-issued-death-threats http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-259443/Owens-dozens-death-threats.html
To compare that with all totals, the FBI lists here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10 ...that in 2011, there were 1481 instances where someone murdered a complete stranger, and 5588 instances where the relationship between killer and victim was "unknown." Assuming that 2011 was representative year for random killings (which is probably false, because as I mentioned before, crime has been down recently) that still gives us that ~0.013% of random murders are inspired to any degree by the actual abortion debate. (And we don't know how many of the people supposedly killing "against abortion" are actually killing due to undiagnosed cases of mental illness, etc.)
In any case, the statistics cited above are skewed by the fact, documented on Wikipedia here: /info/en/?search=Crime_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime ...that the period from 1977 to ~1993 was significantly more violent than the past decade and a half. For example, since 2001, in the past thirteen years, there has been exactly one abortion related murder.
That fact is crucially relevant to the notion of "anti-abortion violence" as a coherent phenomenon separable from other types of violence. According to the violence statistics above, together with a Gallup poll published here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx ...the period from ~1993 to today saw a drastic decrease in the amount of anti-abortion violence go hand-in-hand with a slight increase in the amount of anti-abortion sentiment. Around 1993, about 30% of Americans said they thought abortion should be legal "under any circumstances;" two decades later, that number is around 25%. The equivalent numbers for people who think abortion should be illegal "under any circumstances" is equivalent, from ~15% in 1993 to ~20% in 2013.
In my mind, this provides evidence against the notion that anti-abortion violence is actually or primarily tied to anti-abortion sentiment; if it were, an increase in such sentiment should result in higher rates of specifically anti-abortion violence.
Now, if you don't agree with me that this makes anti-abortion violence "non-notable" in the sense that it shouldn't even have a Wikipedia article at all, then so be it. But I'm definitely thinking that it's a bit of a POV-slant to have the first paragraph of the article on the abortion debate end with an underhanded AND UNSOURCED suggestion that people against abortion are notably willing to kill for their beliefs. The numbers I've cited above just don't support that conclusion; Freud would wonder whether the pro-choice movement might not be projecting a bit.
I know this issue is "controversial," but that's no excuse to let sloppy points of view get away with sticking to the facts. If anything, it makes such lenience all the more inexcusable for a supposedly-objective encyclopedia. And even if we think abortion violence is notable in an academic sense, I would argue that it is irrelevant to the subject addressed here, public discourse regarding abortion. This page should be an objective and encyclopedic description of the way two sides have attempted to shape public opinion; it should not be a general litany of controversial events and individuals that had relation to abortion (unlike the page to which I previously linked).
Accordingly, I'm just giving everyone a heads up that I'm deleting the phrase "with some anti-abortion advocates even going as far as using violence." Anyone who wants to say that violence is a notable facet of the anti-abortion movement can dispute me here. SvenTheBold ( talk) 02:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
SvenTheBold ( talk) 11:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding proposed edits: I am in favor of a different architecture, not just some minor changes. I will give you an analogy. Suppose Creationists attacked Wikipedia in order to present evolution as simply "a theory" and to insist as they indeed do that "the controversy ought to be taught." This would be rightly considered an attack against the scientific character of Wikipedia. Something similar has happened here. Here one insists that "the controversy must be taught", and by insisting on this one disguises the true nature of the controversy. And that is why the architecture of the article is the important question. The solution is presenting the authentic history of the controversy, that one does not ideologize history. History is an effort to present the phenomenology of historical forces, of the forces that have actually shaped history. This does not mean that one is against the abortion debate, it means that Wikipedia gives to the abortion debate the tool that it deserves, instead of manipulating things in order to perpetuate confusion. In my above comments I have now made some improvements which it would be useful to take notice of. Cklc ( talk) 12:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
"Is the article meant to conjoin the best pro-life arguments and the best pro-choice arguments (I don't think that is the purpose of the article.) Or is it meant to tell the story of the conflict ot two points of view, or two forces, in the political sphere? This can be done and ought to be done. Wikipedia is about facts and science, not about philosophy. But if you are going to tell the history, you are going to have to tell it in a different way than it is told here: not only mentioning the bad civic behavior of pro-life protesters, but also telling the bad civic behavior of the forces that foisted institutionalized abortion on the nation and the world. Oh yes, and also the ugly story of the practice of back-alley abortions before the legalizations, because that is also part of the story of abortion, but not insinuating the historical untruth the pro-life movement is responsible for back alley abortions of past and present. The historian will also reject therefore the myth that institutionalized abortion arose as a sort of civil rights movement. The historian will record that the pro-abortion movement has tried to paint itself as that. The historian will have to admit that the pro-life movement is something essentially modern and progressive, whereas the so called pro-abortion movement is something artificial and contrived. The historian would have to beging with the phenomenon of abortus provocatus, and then go on to show how it has emerged on the political stage, and how the pro-life movement came to be as a reaction to it. The historian should not begin by saying "abortion is something controversial"; it should begin by telling us in the first place what reality we are speaking of: that is the only way a mature opinion can be formed. The article is based on the idea that abortion is some ethereal thing, that for some strange reason, is controversial, hinting that this is because of the warped minds of the religious fanatics who do not accept our practice of abortion. There is a pseudo-gentlemanliness. "Now boys and girls, let us describe the debate, let us keep calm (not like those religious fanatics who oppose abortion); you will note that this is a controversial subject therefore some compromise is surely necessary" But the subtext of "compromise" is that it is necessary to keep people in the fog, so that nothing happens. It is all very controversial, you see. So go back to your homes and watch some more television. The cure to all this is history, rightly done, which dares to look the thing in the eye. The historian will ensure that the fog lifts.." H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cklc ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Cklc ( talk) 22:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just made a couple of edits to the "Anti-abortion violence" section of the article, but I wonder if this section even belongs in an article entitled "Abortion debate"? If the article were about the "Abortion issue" more broadly, or the "Abortion conflict" more specifically then I could easily see such a section but it seems to me that "Abortion debate" should be about the conflict of ideas rather than physical conflict. I went back in the history of the article and it seems that this section is relatively new. I also notice that stand-alone article on Anti-abortion violence and Anti-abortion violence in the United States already exist on Wikipedia so it's not as if this topic is being ignored. Incidentally, I looked up Anti-war violence in Wikipedia and noticed that such an article is missing among the millions. KatieHepPal ( talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of the section. The lead of this article starts: The abortion debate is the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion.
As explained above, violence is a big part of that discourse and plays a prominent role in the way reliable sources have talked about the debate. The problem is that throughout this thread you've been explaining your edits in terms of what other editors' agendas and righting perceived wrongs. e.g. Seems as if some editors want to include the topic wherever they can
and Apparently, two separate existing Wikipedia articles on this phenomenon as well as a section on it in the main abortion article were not enough for you.
and We don't need to cram an anti-abortion violence section into every article touching on the subject
. The number of places it appears is irrelevant if it makes sense to talk about it per reliable sources on the subject. That it appears in multiple places does not mean it was "crammed". It's because it's relevant to the article. The article
anti-abortion violence is not reproduced here but summarized in two paragraphs, given due weight as it relates to this article. I don't know why that's controversial. Are you saying that anti-abortion violence is not talked about in any meaningful way in literature about "the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion"? --—
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
then, yes, I would call that going on of one's way to bring up the subjectYou're still making comments about what should happen to the content based on the intentions you're ascribing to other editors.
It is not really "debated," however-- I quoted the lead above to address this. The article is not about a literal verbal debate; it's about "the ongoing controversy". Violence is part of that. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
In order to provide WP:NPOV the section on Pro-Abortion Violence should be included. To say it never happens provides a strong bias making it look as if only Pro-Life Violence is taking place. I think both forms of violence are wrong and simply would like both mentioned for academic and historical purposes on Wikipedia; the article should provide a neutral look at both forms of violence. My attempt of WP:BOLD has been reverted due to an unintended edit war with User:Roscelese suggesting there was not enough Cited sources, no Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the 20 given, and not enough WP:WEIGHT. See also the Revision history . We should attempt to reach a consensus to determine the outcome of this issue and the level of importance on including this information. - Gaming4JC ( talk) 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The Interim exists is to report and comment on the many offences against human dignity our society has experienced: abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, contraception, sexual promiscuity, the decline of the traditional family, and the rise of radical environmentalism and animal rights agendas that put non-human matters at the centre of public concern.--— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
"It violates NPOV to include only acts of violence on one side."This sentiment, which runs throughout the Support arguments, is explicitly incorrect when it comes to NPOV, as even a brief skimming of WP:NPOV will make clear. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#.22Reputation_for_Fact_Checking.22, opened by GodBlessYou2. Jytdog ( talk) 16:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, if the focus of this article is not necessarily the intellectual debate over the morality and legality of abortion (as it seems to me that it was before the "Anti-abortion violence" section was added) but rather any "ongoing controversy" related to abortion and covered by reliable sources, then it seems to me that we should add some subtopics. The "pro-abortion/choice violence" subtopic that some want to add seems pretty thin, but there should be all sorts of material on "late-term abortion" in general and "partial birth abortion" in particular. Also, allegations of "pro-choice" bias in the mainstream media have been plentiful and have been carried by a number mainstream organs over the years. KatieHepPal ( talk) 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we please have a discussion about the last paragraph of the Overview section and the claim that children are not "full persons by law?" First of all, the hyperlink for that claim is now broken and was not a particularly strong reference to begin with. Neither side is arguing that children in any stage of fetal development should have the right to vote or to enter into contracts. Within the context of the abortion debate, "full personhood" is not what is being argued for or against. The paragraph itself concludes that "for the past two centuries, they (children)have been treated as persons for the limited purposes of Offence against the person law." This latter portion/ statement completely counters the relevance of the earlier claim that "children are not full persons." Please allow for the "children are not full persons" portion / comment to be removed. L.L. Brown 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that there needs to be a section that involves a philosophical view on the topic abortion.
First of all, we need to know what exactly is abortion. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by surgical or medical needs. [1] Most people debate whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong. However, that involves creating a moral statement on the issue. A moral statement is affirming that a person's motive or character is good or bad [2]. According to Lewis Vaughn, a utilitarian may judge abortion differently from a Kantian theorist. An act utilitarian believes happiness over unhappiness [3] A Kantian Theorist supports Kant's Theory which focuses on universality, impartiality, and the respect for persons. This is known as the Categorical Imperative, which focuses on people's wants and needs. [4] Would it be okay if everyone could get abortions? That is what someone who believed in Kant's Theory would ask. An act utilitarian could have two possible looks on the issue of abortion. One reaction could be that abortion is okay because it would lead to an overall happiness for the mother. However, on the other hand, they could be against abortion due to the physical and social pain that it would bring to the mother which means they would suffer from unhappiness. [5] A Kantian Theorist looks at abortion completely different. They do not look at the happiness of the mother, they focus more on the child and whether or not they are a person with rights. Kant's Theory suggests that a fetus is a human with rights, therefore making abortion wrong. However, this theory also supports self defense, so if the mother's life is in danger than it is okay. [6]
References
I think it is a different look to see old moral theories instead of looking at current laws, feel free to comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercer.phi205 ( talk • contribs) May 12, 2014
Your statement of Kantian Ethics is incomplete. A better way to frame this argument is that Kantian Ethics supports both sides of the debate. I apologize for no references as I'm not a research specialist, but the addition should include something like the following:
The categorical imperative argument indicates that no baby should ever be aborted since that baby is a human with the right to control their own body and life. It is wrong to abort a baby, even if it is nothing more than a one-second-old fertilized egg. Full stop.
Similarly, every woman (pregnant or not) has the right to control their own life and body, and the categorical imperative insists that no woman may be forced to perform any act she doesn't wish or be prevented from performing any act she does wish on her own body. This would include abortion as well as things like self-mutilation or even suicide. It's her body to control, and therefore her right to do so. Full stop.
In summary, abortion is wrong as is telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Therefore this argument cannot be solved with reference to the categorical imperative. Each side must recognise the validity of the other side's argument. It's not a matter of one side being "right" and the other being "evil" because both are evil. Both are absolute truths.
The only way out of this philosophical debate is to argue the relative level of the two evils. Is abortion worse than the loss of control over one's body, or is the loss of control over one's body worse than abortion?
There will likely never be a single solution and this debate will likely go on forever, so in the end, it is pragmatism that must be the dominant ethical consideration. Each geography, culture, race, religion, nation, and century will have to struggle anew with the dilemma of the choice for choice or the choice for life.
Preceding inserted 04:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC) by
2601:141:300:915E:A130:A4CA:BA2E:5253 (
talk) 04:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Recently an editor removed a quotation in the "Privacy" section of the article [11]. Another editor quickly restored it [12]. I see a couple of problems with the presentation of this quotation from political science professor Eileen L. McDonagh. First, it does not really "explain privacy in US law." Rather, it proposes a philosophical basis for such law. The quote comes from an article in which McDonagh advocates for "securing the constitutional right to abortion funding" and this supposed explanation of US privacy law is, instead, part of a complaint that this privacy law, and the moral premises behind it, are not strong enough.
Of course, we could change the the introduction of the quotation by saying something like: Eileen L. McDonagh has this view of the right of privacy but this brings me to the other problem with the quote. Why include it then? If this isn't really a scholarly explanation of the law concerning privacy as it exists in the US but rather someone's view of what she would like it to be, why include it at all? Especially since we are not quoting any other scholar with a quite different view. Motsebboh ( talk) 04:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The articles spreads misinformation in this section with a claim that Qur'an 17:32 forbids killing of fetuses due to fear of poverty. First of all, the passage is misattributed, relevant ayah is 31st not 32nd, and secondly, the arabic text speaks of killing "alwaadukum" or "your children", "awlaad" is a plural of "walad", i.e. a child in the common sense of the word and the ayah is addressing the practice of killing born children, particularly female, as stated here: "these verses in fact were revealed to forbid the pre-Islamic Arab practice of killing or burying alive a newborn child (particularly a girl) on account of the parents' poverty or to refrain from having a female child" ( http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_101_150/abortion.htm) . There is no reason to broaden the meaning to include fetuses or embryos, as majority of the islamic scholars doesn't; in fact, contrary to information in the article "Ensoulment" under the heading considering islamic viewpoint (which states only one opinion from one scholar), the majority of islamic scholars consider the pre-forty weeks (some schools consider 40 days to be the limit, and others 120) gestation pregnancy abortion as not un-lawful - on contrary the four legal schools deem it legally permissible, because only after that time the soul is traditionally thought to be implemented - as the article on abortion under the islamic section clearly states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.150.21 ( talk) 23:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this article is the place for a lengthy discussion of what legislation or caselaw exists. Information about legislation or caselaw should be included insofar as it supports claims about arguments in the abortion debate (eg. right to privacy), the subject of this article. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
One pptential reason to legalize abortions is the safety claim: legalizing abortions reduces the number of unsafe abortions. This topic is covered by the main Abortion article, but it should also be covered here. 89.138.147.167 ( talk) 21:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I added this sub-section to the page a while back, which was undone by another user who asked me to post it to the talk page first. So I would like to do that now and suggest this sub-section to be added to the section titled "Arguments against the right to abortion":
Respect for human life
One argument against the right to abortion appeals to the (secular) value of a human life. The thought is that all forms of human life, including the fetus, are inherently valuable because they are connected to our thoughts on family and parenthood, among other natural aspects of humanity. Thus, abortion can express the wrong attitudes towards humanity in a way that manifest vicious character. This view is represented by some forms of Humanism and by moral philosopher Rosalind Hursthouse in her widely anthologized article "Virtue Theory and Abortion".[109] Thinking about abortion in this way, according to Hursthouse, shows the unimportance of rights because one can act viciously in exercising a moral right. (For example, she says, "Love and friendship do not survive their parties' constantly insisting on their rights, nor do people live well when they think that getting what they have a right to is of preeminent importance; they harm others, and they harm themselves."[109]) Hursthouse argues that the ending of a human life is always a serious matter and that abortion, when it is wrong, is wrong because it violates a respect for human life.
109. Hursthouse, Rosalind (1991). "Virtue Theory and Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs. 20 (3): 223–246. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.64.160 ( talk) 20:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
SOme of the wording in the introductiuon comes off as nbiased. "Both terms are considered loaded in mainstream media, where terms such as “abortion rights” or “anti-abortion” are generally preferred." According to whom? Pro-life and pro-choice are the preferred terms of each side to remain neutral. "with small numbers of anti-abortion advocates using violence, such as murder and arson." This statement is biased as it does not acknowledge the violence from the other side. Don't pretend that the violence is one sided. PGHOPPER ( talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the paragraph about the phrase "unborn baby" because, as explained at Talk:United_States_abortion-rights_movement#Terminology, it is original research. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Wtmitchell: I didn't remove that source; it's still there. Are you seriously arguing that "Search results for 'unborn child'" is an appropriate, non-OR citation? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I restored "anti-abortion campaigners" as it is more neutral, encyclopedic and consistent with Wikipedia consensus, compared to "Pro-Life campaigners". The article itself explains why we use this language. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This edit, which renamed the "Arguments against the right to abortion" section to "Arguments against abortion", caught my eye. In a quick look at the article, my eye went to the TOC entry for the section headed "Arguments for abortion rights which do not depend on fetal non-personhood". Looking more widely, I see that the article has a major section headed "Personhood" which contains minor sections about arguments for and against abortion rights and/or abortion itself. I think that this organizational arrangement could be improved. It seems to me that the article content about fetal personhood could/should be subsumed into separate sections describing positions for and against abortion and abortion rights. It seems to me that abortion and abortion rights ought to be treated separately in presenting arguments for and against. I've often heard politicians make statements to the effect that they are personally against abortion but are also in favor of the right of a woman to make an abortion decision for herself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.
Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)
Thanks in advance. Warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I've located the statistic that was reverted ( [13]) but I don't feel that this article is an appropriate place to just add a random statistic. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Reverted back to neutral language; save POV language for quotations, etc. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)