This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I have edited this article as requested by Andrew C in the Talk:Abortion thread " Article in need of help." I have left the content of the article largely unaltered and have focused instead on readability and amending clear NPOV issues. However, the current version does not sit too well with me, and I hope that other users will be encouraged to seek sources where I have noted the need and also help to reduce the "essay-ness" of the current format. - Severa ( !!!) 11:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The "when does pregnancy begin" / "is it ethical to kill unimplanted embryos" debate keeps coming up on the emergency contraception, oral contraceptive, and abortifacient articles, but been reverted in all three as off-topic. Would this article be a good 'home' for information on that debate? Lyrl 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The section on Peter Singer's views is a bit too oversimplified, and too loosely paraphrased.
More importantly, all of the 'debate' covered in this article presumes that the pro-life movement's main argument about the worth of human embryos is that they are the same as adults, along with the argument for personhood. While this argument is good, especially when relating inherent dignity to personhood, it is representative of only one part of the pro-life argument. More broadly, the pro-life argument is that by virtue of their biological existence, genetics, and functionality, human embryos are members of the human community and are therefore deserving of treatment as such. The personhood argument is great, but it's important to acknowledge the context in which it is based.
Pianoman123 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This statement is not supported by the reference given: "In 1988, the Anglican Archbishop of York, John Habgood, argued that personhood begins with . [9]" He might hold this view but it does not appear to be referenced correctly. Hardyplants ( talk) 04:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)
I've just explained why I'm not willing to ignore this source; because others are not as easily available. Having said this, I would point out that the current source is more than sufficient. It says quite clearly that personhood develops gradually, which is precisely the point here. Spotfixer ( talk) 06:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead and justify the inclusion of the POV term "morally indefensible" when it means nothing more than "immoral". Spotfixer ( talk) 05:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)
Actually, "mother to be" makes the unsafe implication that the woman is going to carry that pregnancy to term. Sure, if she does, then she becomes a mother (unless she coincidentally was one already). Otherwise, the term is highly inappropriate and biased. Likewise, "fetus" (and, earlier, "embryo") are both technically accurate and free of blatant emotionalism, whereas "pre-born baby" is very much parallel to counting unhatched chickens, rounding up in an unsafe way. It's as bad as rounding "old man" to "not-quite-dead corpse".
That's the sort of thinking you need to understand.
The term "immoral" comes up all the time in ethics, where it's used as a technical term. In contrast, "morally indefensible" is not technical, and it's quite judgmental. It is this connotation that makes it inappropriate here. Spotfixer ( talk) 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted an edit that I hope will be seen as acceptable to both sides. It uses the wording of the source, but attributes them to the source in order to maintain NPOV. - Neitherday ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There isn't much content about the role of doctors in abortion. This article in AJOG looks at the issue of doctors not wishing to perform abortions or directly refer, and suggests that they have an ethical obligation to "indirectly refer": "Physicians morally opposed to abortion have an ethical obligation to make an indirect referral (providing information about health care organizations competent to counsel about and perform the procedure) for patients who are considering termination of pregnancy. [1]. Fences and windows ( talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sources:
"Ethical aspects of abortion" can easily be misread to imply ethical as opposed to unethical aspects (we don't mean this, do we? As of course, 'ethical' is a highly contentious matter of opinion). I think that something like "Ethics-related arguments regarding abortion" would be more neutral and clear.
Also I think we should either change:
"Should the potential to be a person give embryos, zygotes and fetuses a right to life?" to "Should the potential to be a person give embryos, zygotes and fetuses a right to life at any cost, especially one which overrides the health, well-being and/or rights of women?"
or else add after that point: "And if so, should that right overrides womens' rights to health, well-being, autonomy and/or choice?"
-- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ludicrous because it assume that an embryo is a potential person not an actual person. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.102.116.218 (
talk) 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit ( talk) 14:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I have edited this article as requested by Andrew C in the Talk:Abortion thread " Article in need of help." I have left the content of the article largely unaltered and have focused instead on readability and amending clear NPOV issues. However, the current version does not sit too well with me, and I hope that other users will be encouraged to seek sources where I have noted the need and also help to reduce the "essay-ness" of the current format. - Severa ( !!!) 11:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The "when does pregnancy begin" / "is it ethical to kill unimplanted embryos" debate keeps coming up on the emergency contraception, oral contraceptive, and abortifacient articles, but been reverted in all three as off-topic. Would this article be a good 'home' for information on that debate? Lyrl 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The section on Peter Singer's views is a bit too oversimplified, and too loosely paraphrased.
More importantly, all of the 'debate' covered in this article presumes that the pro-life movement's main argument about the worth of human embryos is that they are the same as adults, along with the argument for personhood. While this argument is good, especially when relating inherent dignity to personhood, it is representative of only one part of the pro-life argument. More broadly, the pro-life argument is that by virtue of their biological existence, genetics, and functionality, human embryos are members of the human community and are therefore deserving of treatment as such. The personhood argument is great, but it's important to acknowledge the context in which it is based.
Pianoman123 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This statement is not supported by the reference given: "In 1988, the Anglican Archbishop of York, John Habgood, argued that personhood begins with . [9]" He might hold this view but it does not appear to be referenced correctly. Hardyplants ( talk) 04:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)
I've just explained why I'm not willing to ignore this source; because others are not as easily available. Having said this, I would point out that the current source is more than sufficient. It says quite clearly that personhood develops gradually, which is precisely the point here. Spotfixer ( talk) 06:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead and justify the inclusion of the POV term "morally indefensible" when it means nothing more than "immoral". Spotfixer ( talk) 05:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)
Actually, "mother to be" makes the unsafe implication that the woman is going to carry that pregnancy to term. Sure, if she does, then she becomes a mother (unless she coincidentally was one already). Otherwise, the term is highly inappropriate and biased. Likewise, "fetus" (and, earlier, "embryo") are both technically accurate and free of blatant emotionalism, whereas "pre-born baby" is very much parallel to counting unhatched chickens, rounding up in an unsafe way. It's as bad as rounding "old man" to "not-quite-dead corpse".
That's the sort of thinking you need to understand.
The term "immoral" comes up all the time in ethics, where it's used as a technical term. In contrast, "morally indefensible" is not technical, and it's quite judgmental. It is this connotation that makes it inappropriate here. Spotfixer ( talk) 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted an edit that I hope will be seen as acceptable to both sides. It uses the wording of the source, but attributes them to the source in order to maintain NPOV. - Neitherday ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There isn't much content about the role of doctors in abortion. This article in AJOG looks at the issue of doctors not wishing to perform abortions or directly refer, and suggests that they have an ethical obligation to "indirectly refer": "Physicians morally opposed to abortion have an ethical obligation to make an indirect referral (providing information about health care organizations competent to counsel about and perform the procedure) for patients who are considering termination of pregnancy. [1]. Fences and windows ( talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sources:
"Ethical aspects of abortion" can easily be misread to imply ethical as opposed to unethical aspects (we don't mean this, do we? As of course, 'ethical' is a highly contentious matter of opinion). I think that something like "Ethics-related arguments regarding abortion" would be more neutral and clear.
Also I think we should either change:
"Should the potential to be a person give embryos, zygotes and fetuses a right to life?" to "Should the potential to be a person give embryos, zygotes and fetuses a right to life at any cost, especially one which overrides the health, well-being and/or rights of women?"
or else add after that point: "And if so, should that right overrides womens' rights to health, well-being, autonomy and/or choice?"
-- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ludicrous because it assume that an embryo is a potential person not an actual person. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.102.116.218 (
talk) 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit ( talk) 14:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)