This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
abortion, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
@ 0BlackEclipse0: you are making deceiving changes to favour a narrative saying the Catholic stance onaborption was always the same. Please revert your changes; I remind you that this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. Veverve ( talk) 00:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The inclusion in medical writings of new discoveries of birth control agents, such as those by Hildegard of Bingen and William of Saliceto, demonstrates that people continued, in the Middle Ages, to pass along and try new folk remedies.... In William's case, the discovery was the observation that plants of the mint family had the common attribute of causing an abortion. In Hildegard's case, it was the use of tansy for the same." [1]: 105 (3) I see no reason to remove the information from studies of Polish public opinion.
The Augustinian view seems to have prevailed, however, and thus, until the 19th Century, abortion before animation, or "quickening", seems to have been allowed by the Church of Rome." [2] Also, "
The bull [Effraenatam of 1588] had a lifetime of about two-and-a-half years and was weak in influence. The succeeding pope countered it and returned to the traditional position that contraception was a sin and abortion a crime, but that abortion could not occur until after the fortieth day, when the fetus was ensouled." [1]: 158
0BlackEclipse0: Since 0BlackEclipse0 is an SPA that opened 2 days ago (with almost all edits being to this article and
United States anti-abortion movement), I have no way of knowing if you're new to Wikipedia or if you simply have multiple accounts. In the former case, please be aware that there's a policy (see
WP:ONUS) that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
" According to
WP:BRDDISCUSS, after edits were reverted, you should not restore them (as you've done), but rather should discuss them here on the talk-page and seek consensus. You should leave time for other editors to respond as well. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy (see
WP:EDITWARRING) by self-reverting the edits to the article that you just made.
NightHeron (
talk)
22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
uninterrupted in time(from dictionary.com). The accurate words would perhaps be "continual use" (meaning
of regular or frequent occurrence), but I think that many people will have no clear understanding of what either word is supposed to mean in this context, and confusion would result. I also don't understand how someone could unwittingly commit the "sin" of contraception. I don't think we need to specify what makes contraception more or less of a sin from a Catholic perspective, especially since it's complicated and is not clearly specified in the sources.
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices, so at first the word seemed redundant and confusing. But then I recalled a story that a friend told me. A woman she knew tried for several years unsuccessfully to get pregnant. She had the habit of drinking strong mint tea every day, and only after several years had passed learned that herbs of the mint family have long been known to have contraceptive or abortifacient properties. So she was unwittingly using a contraceptive. She is also Catholic, but clearly her use of a contraceptive was not deliberate and was not sinful according to Catholic belief. So I withdraw my objection to the word "deliberate". NightHeron ( talk) 15:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
0BlackEclipse0 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Edit5001, so I've reverted their edits per WP:BLOCKEVADE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
@ Endymiona19: could you justify your edits? Also pinging @ David notMD:. Veverve ( talk) 15:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Endymiona19: Today, you have five times changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" despite warnings here and on your Talk page that this constitutes edit warring. Do not make this change again unless you can achieve a clear consensus here on the Talk page of the article that your change is an improvement to the article (unlikely). David notMD ( talk) 18:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Sixth! A block request has been made and the editor notified. David notMD ( talk) 19:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Endymiona19 went on to edit war at Abortion and has been indefinitely blocked (as a sockpuppet). David notMD ( talk) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked through Noonan's book and I do not think what he says matches the claim in the heading. Furthermore, if that is what he meant it would appear inaccurate since there were canon law claims against abortion prior to Pope Sixtus [1]. I don't think this was the case Noonan's notes on page 100 here that there were canon law statements against prior to Pope Sixtus. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Here were the quotes I had in mind. from his article. Also I agree that canon law is not always meant in the past what it means now. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@ NightHeron: looking at your edit: is there a widespread problem of FICTREFs with Noonan? Veverve ( talk) 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it permissible to point out a "dead link" or will Wikipedia impose sanctions for that? The "dead link" is found is the reference to Pope Pius XII's alleged statement on ectopic pregnancies. When I tried to look at the source, I received a 404 error. Wikipedia needs to realize that threatening sanctions is not likely to fulfill any accuracy-related goal that Wikipedia might have. Why bother? Alexander Springstea ( talk) 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The early writings section includes discussion of Peter of Spain and associates him with both John XXI & the Thesaurus Pauperum. This misleading and should either be reworded or removed. It is not established that Peter of Spain became John XXI nor that Peter of Spain wrote Thesaurus Pauperum.
As the John XXI article states, Peter of Spain is only sometimes identified with John XXI. Furthermore, Peter of Spain also implies that the Peter of Spain the article discusses may differ from the "Pedro Hispano" that wrote the Thesaurus Pauperum.
Finally, the Peter of Spain article on Plato [1] states: "Current research on the identity of Peter of Spain has once again taken up the idea that he must have been a member of the Dominican Order instead of Pope John XXI" and "As yet there is no certainty about whether the Peter of Spain who wrote these treatises [Thesaurus pauperum and other works] is the author of the Tractatus"
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
Should the recent defrocking of fr frank pavone (head of priests for life) be discussed or at least mentioned in this article? I believe that this reflects upon what the Vatican really believes in that action and belief should coincide.
Info and reference:
https://twitter.com/frfrankpavone/status/1605576346440069120
Not sure how a “peter of Spain” reference got here… but what does peter of Spain have to do with the subject heading. I don’t understand. Seems like cruft but won’t remove as I don’t wish to be sanctioned.
47.151.239.57 ( talk) 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
abortion, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
@ 0BlackEclipse0: you are making deceiving changes to favour a narrative saying the Catholic stance onaborption was always the same. Please revert your changes; I remind you that this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. Veverve ( talk) 00:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The inclusion in medical writings of new discoveries of birth control agents, such as those by Hildegard of Bingen and William of Saliceto, demonstrates that people continued, in the Middle Ages, to pass along and try new folk remedies.... In William's case, the discovery was the observation that plants of the mint family had the common attribute of causing an abortion. In Hildegard's case, it was the use of tansy for the same." [1]: 105 (3) I see no reason to remove the information from studies of Polish public opinion.
The Augustinian view seems to have prevailed, however, and thus, until the 19th Century, abortion before animation, or "quickening", seems to have been allowed by the Church of Rome." [2] Also, "
The bull [Effraenatam of 1588] had a lifetime of about two-and-a-half years and was weak in influence. The succeeding pope countered it and returned to the traditional position that contraception was a sin and abortion a crime, but that abortion could not occur until after the fortieth day, when the fetus was ensouled." [1]: 158
0BlackEclipse0: Since 0BlackEclipse0 is an SPA that opened 2 days ago (with almost all edits being to this article and
United States anti-abortion movement), I have no way of knowing if you're new to Wikipedia or if you simply have multiple accounts. In the former case, please be aware that there's a policy (see
WP:ONUS) that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
" According to
WP:BRDDISCUSS, after edits were reverted, you should not restore them (as you've done), but rather should discuss them here on the talk-page and seek consensus. You should leave time for other editors to respond as well. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy (see
WP:EDITWARRING) by self-reverting the edits to the article that you just made.
NightHeron (
talk)
22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
uninterrupted in time(from dictionary.com). The accurate words would perhaps be "continual use" (meaning
of regular or frequent occurrence), but I think that many people will have no clear understanding of what either word is supposed to mean in this context, and confusion would result. I also don't understand how someone could unwittingly commit the "sin" of contraception. I don't think we need to specify what makes contraception more or less of a sin from a Catholic perspective, especially since it's complicated and is not clearly specified in the sources.
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices, so at first the word seemed redundant and confusing. But then I recalled a story that a friend told me. A woman she knew tried for several years unsuccessfully to get pregnant. She had the habit of drinking strong mint tea every day, and only after several years had passed learned that herbs of the mint family have long been known to have contraceptive or abortifacient properties. So she was unwittingly using a contraceptive. She is also Catholic, but clearly her use of a contraceptive was not deliberate and was not sinful according to Catholic belief. So I withdraw my objection to the word "deliberate". NightHeron ( talk) 15:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
0BlackEclipse0 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Edit5001, so I've reverted their edits per WP:BLOCKEVADE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
@ Endymiona19: could you justify your edits? Also pinging @ David notMD:. Veverve ( talk) 15:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Endymiona19: Today, you have five times changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" despite warnings here and on your Talk page that this constitutes edit warring. Do not make this change again unless you can achieve a clear consensus here on the Talk page of the article that your change is an improvement to the article (unlikely). David notMD ( talk) 18:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Sixth! A block request has been made and the editor notified. David notMD ( talk) 19:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Endymiona19 went on to edit war at Abortion and has been indefinitely blocked (as a sockpuppet). David notMD ( talk) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked through Noonan's book and I do not think what he says matches the claim in the heading. Furthermore, if that is what he meant it would appear inaccurate since there were canon law claims against abortion prior to Pope Sixtus [1]. I don't think this was the case Noonan's notes on page 100 here that there were canon law statements against prior to Pope Sixtus. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Here were the quotes I had in mind. from his article. Also I agree that canon law is not always meant in the past what it means now. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@ NightHeron: looking at your edit: is there a widespread problem of FICTREFs with Noonan? Veverve ( talk) 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it permissible to point out a "dead link" or will Wikipedia impose sanctions for that? The "dead link" is found is the reference to Pope Pius XII's alleged statement on ectopic pregnancies. When I tried to look at the source, I received a 404 error. Wikipedia needs to realize that threatening sanctions is not likely to fulfill any accuracy-related goal that Wikipedia might have. Why bother? Alexander Springstea ( talk) 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The early writings section includes discussion of Peter of Spain and associates him with both John XXI & the Thesaurus Pauperum. This misleading and should either be reworded or removed. It is not established that Peter of Spain became John XXI nor that Peter of Spain wrote Thesaurus Pauperum.
As the John XXI article states, Peter of Spain is only sometimes identified with John XXI. Furthermore, Peter of Spain also implies that the Peter of Spain the article discusses may differ from the "Pedro Hispano" that wrote the Thesaurus Pauperum.
Finally, the Peter of Spain article on Plato [1] states: "Current research on the identity of Peter of Spain has once again taken up the idea that he must have been a member of the Dominican Order instead of Pope John XXI" and "As yet there is no certainty about whether the Peter of Spain who wrote these treatises [Thesaurus pauperum and other works] is the author of the Tractatus"
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
Should the recent defrocking of fr frank pavone (head of priests for life) be discussed or at least mentioned in this article? I believe that this reflects upon what the Vatican really believes in that action and belief should coincide.
Info and reference:
https://twitter.com/frfrankpavone/status/1605576346440069120
Not sure how a “peter of Spain” reference got here… but what does peter of Spain have to do with the subject heading. I don’t understand. Seems like cruft but won’t remove as I don’t wish to be sanctioned.
47.151.239.57 ( talk) 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)