This page 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. |
From 1st paragraph:
Saying "the practice is presently legal" is ambiguous, so it shouldn't be in the first paragraph - a place where we usually sum things up (or introduce them). The practice is subject to restrictions as to timing. AFAIK a woman can't just cancel her pregnancy one week before delivery, saying I changed my mind; I don't want to have it -- the article goes on to talk about trimesters and deadlines.
Also, balancing "it is presently legal" vs. "movement to ban it altogether" is way too polarizing. It makes it sound like an all or nothing deal. There are some advocates, of course, who may WANT to make it LEGAL in all cases; as well as some advocates who want to make it ILLEGAL in all cases. The article should make it clear what proportion of people hold those views.
Is the US polarized between, say 45% saying ban it altogether vs. 45% saying make it legal in all cases? I haven't seen any such statistics yet. -- Uncle Ed 17:58, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just a note on NPOV wording the article. The Pro-Choice crowd call the Pro-Life crowd "Ant-Choice" or "Anti-Abortion." Conversely, the Pro-Life crowd call the Pro-Choice crowd "Anti-Life." All "Anti-" terms are loaded and POV. I changed a few instances of usage of "Anti-Abortion" to "Pro-Life" since this is how this party refers to itself. Any comments? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
The part on pre-Roe law is a bit skimpy. It doesn't mention anything about the Physician's Crusade.
I've posted this to the Roe v.s Wade area for discussion as well. I'm not quite sure in which it would go, but it is something that Canadians follow about American abortion law and notice (we keep track of your Supreme Court Decisions because they often have an impact on ours, although less so in this case it seems
I've looked at the Abortion the US page and i'm really not sure what is better here and there...i'm going to copy the commment there too"--Marcie 23:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hello. I'm a Cannuck that has done some changes on the page. Hope you don't mind...a course i took compared the Roe vs. Wade decision to the Canadian case, and i wanted to try and add in some of what we learned which was basically that your decision came a hell of a lot earlier than ours (in terms of decriminalizing...abortions were available in Canada somewhat earlier but only under an except under the criminal code that required a lot of things...see the abortion in Canada page for info (i'm still learning to link...not quite sure how to do that one). Since the most important part of the US ruling was regarding privacy, AND since the decision regarding trimesters was based on viability there are different results. Not that it would not be impossible to write an abortion law in Canada, it just impossible politically since the last one went down on a tie in the Senate and any party that passes such a law knows they aren't going to last long (POV but on a talk page ok i think?). Probably the fact that we have a multiparty system (4 parties at the moment) AND a minority governement at the moment(2004 June) , although its the first in 25 years. While only two parties have ever been the federal government, there has been difference on which party is the opposition and the dynamics are quite different.
Also, again from a Canadian standpoint, i don't understand why the different rules from state to state regarding abortion, medicade coverage for abortion and even using city or state water is not discussed. I've read of many strange ways that the rights have been restricted in the US including clinics being denied access to the water of an area thus having to dig a well...but then they aren't allowed to use the general sewage if they get the water. I would think the fact that medicade often doesn't cover abortion would be an issue of class access, something that we are trying to address on the Canadian abortion page.
I guess these are ramifications of the law? Would there be a more appropriate spot to discuss this (and leave you alone if its the wrong spot). I did add in the effect of the trimester part of the ruling but left the rest out so i could ask, and start a discussion before just posting it up---if i've got the right spot even. Looks good though...i'm sure it was contentious to write!
I must say i'm mistified that the costs and coverage to getting an abortion aren't covered...we have a section on the Canadian page in it and its a lot less contentious here (which does NOT mean it doesn't have problems...it does--Marcie 23:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The reference to laws and controversy regarding "partial birth abortion" are innaccurate and unqualified. "Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term and is, in fact, the politically slanted terminology used to discuss the Dilation and Extraction technique of abortion, which is hardly ever used in the manner that the words "partial birth" seem to suggest.-- 216.87.207.1 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Could just as easily say "many Catholics SUPPORT the position...".
68.46.123.33 20:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh and thanks for whoever put a nicely worded version of the issue i wanted addressed but wasn't sure how to word regarding the position of women with disabilities and of races other than white, and a few other things i'd commented on but not changed.
Do let me know if the quote (debates) would be helpful or maybe some statistics...i tend to find those things easier than most...and if i can't find it i won't
-- Marcie 01:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Isn't any such statement unnecessary anyway? Certainly, it seems obvious that members of a religion, political party, or other such organizations are free to carry their own opinions on matters. It is not, for instance, surprising or relevant to state all of the ways in which some Democratic voters disagree with the official party platform. Perhaps the reference could simply be removed?
I reverted the edit that changed the discussion of law in the United States and how it is related to trimester back to a previous version as the version that was put in was incorrect. I have read Roe. vs. Wade (the legal decision) and the article is factually incorrect. The Planned Parenthood case changed things but i it is still unclear what limits the government can put on abortions as the case is a relatively new decision (in the mid 90's...likely an article can be found on the case here...otherwise i might take up writing one with those interested. It is obvious the government still takes the idea that it can legislate seriously as the Bush government recently passed legislationlimits third trimester abortions. Therefore it is obvious that the government can legislate in the United States at the moment. So far the decision has been turned over in three state Supreme Courts. That means it still operates in all the other states and i believe the federal government is appealing in the states where the decision was overturned (i believe Washington was one state and New York was definitely one of the other states). Roe vs. Wade was quite specific and is what the article is based on because of the impact it still has on American abortion law....first term the state has no say whatsoever, second term the interests and privacy of the mother need to be balanced against the needs of the state and in the third term the government has the right to be a large part of the decision. although this is currently being challenged. Just because the government didn't make any laws before did not mean it was not able to make laws. How many laws it can make is up to the Supreme Court. And the decision regarding trimesters had to do specifically with viability of the fetus, and the judges said so in their ruling. For a more detailed discussion see Roe v. Wade. It should be noted that the Roe v. Wade page has been granted the status of a " a featured article. We believe it to be one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work." by Wikipedia.
Selected quotes from that article include:
The Court declared, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
Relying on the current state of medical knowledge, the decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individual's constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit.-- Marcie 22:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
MamaGeek Joy You are not considering companion decision Doe v. Bolton, which is explained in the Roe v. Wade section of this article. In the U.S. today there is abortion on demand up until birth. Roe v. Wade was not the only decision relating to abortion in the U.S., and I don't see why you'd discount the other cases. By saying that the legal consensus is that abortion is only legal in the U.S. in the first trimester, you are gravely misrepresenting the truth.
The official report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, issued after extensive hearings on the Human Life Federalism Amendment (proposed by Senators Hatch and Eagleton), concluded:
"Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy." Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149, June 7, 1983, p. 6
See this website for Constitutional Law and Abortion: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm
This Pro-Life site appears to have a good summary as well: http://www.aclife.org/education/court.html
This follows. Italics and text in [] is mine.
U.S. Supreme Court DOE v. BOLTON, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) 410 U.S. 179 DOE ET AL. v. BOLTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA No. 70-40.
Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C. J., post, p. 207, and DOUGLAS, J., post, p. 209, filed concurring opinions.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
.... In Roe v. Wade, ante, p. 113, we today have struck down, as constitutionally defective, the Texas criminal abortion statutes that are representative of provisions long in effect [410 U.S. 179, 182] in a majority of our States. The Georgia legislation, however, is different and merits separate consideration.
(Section 3) Inasmuch as Doe and her class are recognized, the question whether the other appellants - physicians, nurses, clergymen, social workers, and corporations - present a justiciable controversy and have standing is perhaps a matter of no great consequence. We conclude, however, that the physician-appellants, who are Georgia-licensed doctors consulted by pregnant women, also present a justiciable controversy and do have standing despite the fact that the record does not disclose that any one of them has been prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution, for violation of the State's abortion statutes. The physician is the one against whom these criminal statutes directly operate in the event he procures an abortion that does not meet the statutory exceptions and conditions. The physician-appellants, therefore, assert a sufficiently direct threat of personal detriment. They should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief. Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d 833, 839-840 (CA6 1971); Poe v. Menghini, 339 F. Supp. 986, 990-991 (Kan. 1972).
Section 4 (1) ...This is not to say that Georgia may not or should not, from and after the end of the first trimester, adopt [410 U.S. 179, 195] standards for licensing all facilities where abortions may be performed so long as those standards are legitimately related to the objective the State seeks to accomplish.
because it fails to exclude the first trimester of pregnancy, see Roe v. Wade, ante, at 163, is also invalid. In so holding we naturally express no opinion on the medical judgment involved in any particular case, that is, whether the patient's situation is such that an abortion should be performed in a hospital, rather than in some other facility.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring *
I am somewhat troubled that the Court has taken notice of various scientific and medical data in reaching its conclusion; however, I do not believe that the Court has exceeded the scope of judicial notice accepted in other contexts.
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
[ Footnote * ] [This opinion applies also to No. 70-18, Roe v. Wade, ante, p. 113.] [410 U.S. 179, 209]
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring * While I join the opinion of the Court, 1 I add a few words.
Section 1 These rights, though fundamental, are likewise subject to regulation on a showing of "compelling state interest." We stated in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164 , that walking, strolling, and wandering "are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them." As stated in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 :
Section 2
While childbirth endangers the lives of some women, voluntary abortion at any time and place regardless of medical standards would impinge on a rightful concern of society. The woman's health is part of that concern; as is the life of the fetus after quickening. These concerns justify the State in treating the procedure as a medical one. [quickening is generally held to occur after the first trimester Marcie]
The "liberty" of the mother, though rooted as it is in the Constitution, may be qualified by the State for the reasons we have stated. But where fundamental personal rights and liberties are involved, the corrective legislation must be "narrowly drawn to prevent the supposed evil,"
There is no doubt that the State may require abortions to be performed by qualified medical personnel. The legitimate objective of preserving the mother's health clearly supports such laws. Their impact upon the woman's privacy is minimal. But the Georgia statute outlaws virtually all such operations - even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. In light of modern medical evidence suggesting that an early abortion is safer healthwise than childbirth itself, 5 it cannot be seriously [410 U.S. 179, 217] urged that so comprehensive a ban is aimed at protecting the woman's health.[ie laws can be written regarding the mother's health if they are reasonable] Rather, this expansive proscription of all abortions along the temporal spectrum can rest only on a public goal of preserving both embryonic and fetal life.
I am not prepared to hold that a State may equate, as Georgia has done, all phases of maturation preceding birth.
The protection of the fetus when it has acquired life is a legitimate concern of the State. -- Marcie 23:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The data provided here (25.5% to postpone childbearing, 21.3% can't afford it, etc.) comes from an article titled "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries." Does this mean that these numbers represent the percentage of women in all 27 countries? If so, those statistics clearly don't belong in this article. Does anybody know if these statistics are specific to the United States, or if they are the aggregate figues for all 27 countries? Parallel or Together? 04:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind, I went and checked it out myself. The figures are for the US so it's all good. I will include a link to the site for future reference. Parallel or Together? 04:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Where is the rest of the data from the Guttmacher institute study? Did they only look at whether rape was the cause. I was unable to find the full results of this study and thus unable to find a citation. As such I suggest it be removed unless it can be cited and reported more completely. For example, without knowing what other categories they used, the data for rape and incest is less meaningful because they may have included another parameter which was partially overlapping. I would certainly support increasingly the diversity of studies that we report here, but lets get the full data. savidan (talk) (e@) 19:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone has deleted my explanation that in this article the word "abortion" is not used in the medical sense, but only in the sense of "induced abortion". I wonder what the objection is to making this clear? Rick Norwood 16:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Since nobody has responded to this, I'm putting the clarifiction back. If you want to remove it, please explain why. Rick Norwood 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
How can he Republicans be Pro Life if they toss our soldier's lives down the drain?
Assume the lotus position and repeat after me: "Npov Npov Npov."
We are not doing that! It's a complete difference! We don't kill those people! Insurgents do! Beside, i'm pro-choice! The Republican 21:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The following passage that I added to the "opposition" section of this article was removed as being "redundant":
Before I edited this section, the section began with the last sentence of this passage. Unless the argument that I have added is contained elsewhere in the article (and if it is, it really should be in this section), I think it needs to be in this section. These are the two most general arguments against abortion, but the "fetus is a person" argument is really a faith-based argument, as it requires a belief that the fetus is a living being at the point of conception. The added argument is a secular argument, as it does not require that the arguer believe that the fetus is a living being from conception. Rather, the argument relies on the scientific difficulty of determining exactly when life begins, and cautions that if the law is to err, it should err on the side of protecting the fetus since we cannnot accurately determine whether it is "alive" or not and cannot risk killing a being that might be alive. Thus, it errs on the side of protecting something that might be alive (but is not certainly so) over the mother's right to privacy. Perhaps the argument is inartfully worded and should be rewritten, but it really needs to be in the article as it relies on an entirely different premise from the second. - Jersyko talk 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it should include the statistics if it's going to reference them, and more explicitly state opinions as such. -- Varuka 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As per my edit this morning, I tried to remove subtle POV from the sentence "abortion mortality fell from nearly 1,500 to a little over 100" - obviously from a pro-choice POV, this might seem NPOV, but obviously, for those who are pro-life, it is distinctly POV: the rate of abortion mortality may have falled from nearly 1500 to a little over 100 for the mother, but remained 100% for the child.
However, Alienus reverted this edit, pointing out - quite accurately and fairly - that "there are no maternal deaths from abortion because pregnant women who abort do not become mothers" (see edit summary). While this is accurate, it does have the problem that - if taken seriously, as one must presume Alienus intends - of rendering other uses of an almost identical phrase ("maternal death", "maternal mortality") within the same paragraph nonsensical, yet Alienus did not edit those. I now have - with the net effect, in my view, that the article is now more literally correct, per Alienus, but none-the-less, is less elegantly phrased. This strikes me as being a ridiculously over-scrupulous parsing of the text; surely, one can say "Some supporters of legal abortion argue that legalization has resulted in a dramatic fall in 'maternal death from abortion," so surely one can also say " From 1940 through 1970, maternal death from abortion fell"
The more controversial the topic, the greater the need for NPOV. But how far can this be taken? To the point of making the article less readable to quibble over a painfully minor distinction (and to be inconsistent about it, at that)? It seems to me that both my most recent edit and Alienus' edit should be reverted to my version from this morning. Simon Dodd 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The use of "mother" or "maternal" to refer to a pregnant woman who has an abortion is misleading and usually POV. Likewise, so is calling an embryo or fetus a "baby" or "infant". If you do a simple search, you'll nonetheless find these words in the article, because sometimes they're used accurately (such as referring to a woman who has had a child as a mother) and sometimes they're used inaccurately but in a direct quotes.
The term maternal death is ambiguous, as the article first specifies that it refers to death involving childbirth (which clearly excludes abortion), then quotes a source that mentions abortion among maternal deaths. This source, which is quote NPOV, defines the term somewhat differently, as "deaths from pregnancy-related complications occurring throughout pregnancy, labour, childbirth and in the postpartum period". It also lists unsafe abortions as the cause of 12% of such deaths, adding that one 1% of that 12% occurs in rich countries. In short, anything that excessively emphasizes the possibility of maternal death from competent abortions is POV. I think the best way to avoid this is to just to use a different, less unclear and uncontroversial, term. In fact, I've just done so.
Taking care to use terms that do not show bias doesn't mean making the article any harder to read, and it's absolutely essential if we want this to become featured. Therefore, it would be very inappropriate to revert my changes on this matter. Alienus 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for content-centered changes to negatively effect the quality of the language. When this occurs, we have two choices: revert the change and accept inferior content or keep the content and improve the language. I strongly endorse the latter. So if you can find a way to make the text flow better while avoiding the dreaded m-word, go for it. Alienus 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article should contain at least a paragraph of this historic case. Good 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Democrats For Life are no longer marginalized in the party. They aanounced their plan to reduce the abortion rate by 95% in 10 years at the DNC HQ at the invitation of Hoawrd Dean. I could provide any number of quotes here to support this, but this is one of the first I came across: ""I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats," he urged respect for antiabortion Democrats whose policy positions, such as support for children's programs, are "often lacking on the Republican side." www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325026/posts
The following sentence has been inserted in the article: "There is also a large disconnect between convention delegates who pass the party platform and rank and file Democrats." While some 2004 polls seems to support this conclusion to some degree, more recent polls seem to confuse the issue as they reach quite different conclusions. Also, speaking of Democratic leaders, what about Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who is pro-life by most accounts? I think the sentence is mere POV and should be removed per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, but I would like to hear other editors' comments on the matter. For context, the relevant paragraph is the second one in this section. - Jersyko· talk 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In Later Judicial Decisions, the following sentence "Several items of legislation impacting on abortion, including the Child Custody Protection Bill, are awaiting Congressional debate (February 2003)" really needs an update. Its been 3 1/2 years, something tells me that bill has been decided on by now... Natalie 01:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There is only one single mention of murder even thought it is the argument of the opposing half of the debate. This whole article seems whack out of NPOV...-- 71.192.88.79 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
its nice to see right away what the typical rates of abortion have been in the US, its just inconvenient for some that actually, against popular imagination, the rates plunged to far fewer women having abortions during Clinton, during Reagan-Bush it was much higher and remained constant, the american people have been deceived and lied to by campaigns against the Clintons using the abortion issue, its actually the Clintons that had drastic reductions in abortions...no one else has even come close to matching those reductions in abortions!!! I'm not saying I'm pro-Clinton or anti-republican or something, I'm just stating facts, and I was incidently shocked by the reality, and now feel as if i have been deceived by american republicans, I live in switzerland actually, and I tend to think americans should do more like the French and make it a 10 week limit perhaps, its too easy in america to get an abortion i think, the French for instance have higher standards, yet i am happy the Clintons helped greatly reduce the abortion rate in america!!!... 83.79.137.123 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The same pollsters have just released several new polls. I have taken the liberty to update one. Also, at surveyUSA.com, you can get state-by-state adult composition of the debate. The Last time it was taken the numbers appeared: (as of 11/12/06): (these polls are not too in depth, but it allows people to look at the abortion debate state-by-state. This would be what would count in case Roe v. Wade was overturned (but not in a way where the justices will amend constitutional law to give equal protection and due process to unborn children/fetuses) and we wanted to predict abortion law for each jurisdiction.* These polls are based on rolling averages and are found in the cross tabs. There is an abortion poll from 2005, however with more detail and more focus on the abortion debate. http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html Alabama- Prolife: 58% Prochoice: 36% Alaska- Prolife: 34% Prochoice: 61% Arizona- Prolife: 38% Prochoice: 57% Arkansas-Prolife: 54% Prochoice: 41% California- 32%, 63% Colorado- 40%, 56% Connecticut- 32%, 65% Deleware- 34%, 60% Florida- 39%, 57% Georgia- 43%, 48% Hawaii- 36%, 59% Idaho- 56%, 39% Illinois- 37%, 57% Indiana- 47%, 47% Iowa- 45%, 51% Kansas- 46%, 48% Kentucky- 55%, 40% Louisiana- 61%, 34% Maine- 31%, 65% Maryland- 33%, 63% Massachusetts26%, 68% Michigan- 36%, 58% Minnesota- 40%, 56% Mississippi- 59%, 34% Missouri- 49%, 46% Montana- NOT AVAILABLE Nebraska- 45%, 48% Nevada- 33%, 62% NewHampshire 27%, 69% New Jersey- 31%, 65% New Mexico- 42%, 50% New York- 28%, 65% NorthCarolina50%, 44% North Dakota NOT AVAILABLE Ohio- 47% 49% Oklahoma- 48% 47% Oregon- 36% 57% Pennsylvania 41% 52% Rhode Island 33% 61% SouthCarolina50% 43% South Dakota 45% 52% Tennessee 52% 40% Texas 42% 50% Utah 61% 34% Vermont 25% 71% Virginia 46% 47% Washington 34% 63% WestVirginia 52% 41% Wisconsin 40% 55% Wyoming 44% 51% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.144.113.218 ( talk) 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
I think th lead is rather poor and would suggest an almost complete re-write. We do not need to repeat the definition debate. If anything, we could have a foot note that when we use the word "abortion" in this article, we are referring to an induced abortion procedure anytime in a pregnancy. We should summarize the state of Abortion in the US in the lead. We should summarize the actual article, not rehash definition debate stuff that is already covered in the main abortion article. I'll see if I can't come up with a proposal.- Andrew c 14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ummm.. the state of California does not consider abortion of a fetus to be homicide, so your citation is off topic, original research.- Andrew c 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c edited the lead to say: "Generally speaking, in the United States induced abortions become more controversial the later they are performed into the pregnancy. " Subsequently, Severa reverted this edit. I think Andrew c's edit was okay. The lead ought to say something about public opinion, and the sentence Andrew c wrote accomplishes that well. Ferrylodge 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The above was removed from the article. I think it is clearly notable that a state legislature passed a law banning abortion. Is there an argument why we shouldn't mention this in the article, or can we work on a wording and place to fit this back into he article? - Andrew c 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
While I ordinarily prefer gender-neutral terminology, I think it's better to refer to the people actively seeking abortions as "women." If we refer to doctors and vendors selling abortifacients to "people," one might think that they meant men as well as women (which may have been the case, but the words still don't mean the same thing in that context). I believe someone else also pointed out that it might cause confusion regarding fetal personhood. Darkfrog24 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following line is irrelevant in an article on abortion and should be deleted - or am I missing something?
"They also believed that a woman should be allowed to refuse sex with her husband. An American woman had no legal recourse at that time against rape by her husband, except possibly divorce,[4] an option that (especially before the American Civil War) was usually available only for well-connected women of means who had sufficient resources not just to end the marriage but to also survive without a husband." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.192.176 ( talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused why this article is using CDC statistics rather than AGI statistics for yearly number of abortions in the U.S. CDC does not include abortion figures from every state (including California), so its total is always dramatically lower than reality. AGI may be a "pro-choice source", but most anti-abortion people that I have heard use AGI figures because they are the most extensive. So if both sides use AGI data, there shouldn't be a POV/NPOV concern about using AGI. If the article keeps using CDC statistics rather than AGI, then there should at least be a note about how CDC figures are incomplete.( talk) 08:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I moved this from the article:
What is the purpose of these latest additions? What are they getting at? The last 4 or 5 sentences are completely unsourced, and partially inaccurate/original research. The article cited The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion doesn't say anything about "bias" or "pro-choice". There are other problems as well. Anyway, can we discuss what the article is lacking, how we should remedy that, and then work together to reach a consensus version we can all live with?- Andrew c [talk] 02:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[moved from the "Biased statments" section above]The article's statements about the number of abortions is slyly deceptive. The number of late term abortions is presented only as a percentage of the overall number of abortions since Roe v. Wade. Nowhere are these numbers made explicit. Only the number of abortions in the U.S. in 2003 is made explicit. That number, 854,122, is about half the peak number of abortions in any of the years since Roe, hardly a representative number. The percentage of late term abortions (2nd and 3rd trimester) in the innocuous looking pie chart adds up to 11.3%, a number significantly exceeded by the Alan Guttmacher Institute's calculations, which are generally considered more reliable than those of the Center for Disease Control cited in the pie chart. If we enumerate the total number of abortions since Roe and factor in the more reliable percentage, we find that the number of late term abortions since Roe exceeds 6,000,000, a figure the writers of "Abortion in the United States" apparently wish to conceal. I propose the following edit to be added immediately under figure 1 in "Number of Abortion in United States":
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote from AGI itself: "...the Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable all women and families to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births and exercise the right to choose abortion safely and with dignity." http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2007/06/25/AnnualReport2006.pdf. (Wikipedia cites AGI 74 times in various articles and nowhere mentions AGI's bias. In the same way, the article under discussion here nowhere mentions that the CDC fails to include all the states in its tally of abortions)
You cite AGI and CDC in this article. Someone needed to point out AGI's bias and CDC's incomplete count.
Your article also states, "According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 854,122 legal induced abortions in the US in 2003." This is the lead statement in the section of the article dealing with the number of abortions. It is not only prominent; it is entirely unqualified, which suggests that it is typical of the yearly abortion rate in the U.S. It most certainly is not. Did the critic of my "worse than a guesstimate" object to that statement in the article? I will agree that I ought to have included the qualification, "If we assume that the figure cited by the Court is typical...."
Furthermore, pointing out CDC's stunted estimates will help the objectivity of the article.
Basic arithmetic is not "original research."
Late-term abortion is commonly defined as 2nd and 3rd term abortion. But I make it clear in my suggested edit that by late term abortion I mean 2nd and 3rd term abortion. So there is nothing misleading here.
Had I time, I would address all the issues raised. I will make only one more point. Planned Parenthood and its sister pro-choice organizations habitually state that only a "very small percentage" of abortions are late term abortions. This makes the number sound small. The article's pie chart adopts this perspective. However, the statement that over 6,000,000 late term abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade doesn't sound small and will give the reader a choice of perspectives. I hope you folks have a committment to choice as well as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) It has been a couple of days since I wrote this response to the critics of my proposed edit. This time no one has made any reply. I assume that's because they are satisfied. I will wait a couple of days more and if there are still no objections, I will reintroduce my edit (with the changes mentioned above) into the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk • contribs)
But I just gave you hypertext leading to AGI's own self-description in its own publication: "...the Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable all women and families to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births and exercise the right to choose abortion safely and with dignity." http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2007/06/25/AnnualReport2006.pdf. If you can reject that you can reject anything. Also a cite was given for the statement that AGI was more reliable than CDC (The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion) What the hell is going on? I'm beginning to think that you guys just don't want that 6,000,000 figure known. Objectivity isn't making neutral statements; it's making true statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that AGI's pro-choice position would, if anything, cause it to underestimate the number of abortions in the U.S. since Roe. Therefore, we can treat its 47,000,000 figure as a minimum and its claim that CDC under-reports abortions as accurate. The actual total of abortions since Roe has probably passed 50,000,000 by now. My use of the 47,000,000 figure is an estimate of the number that can be backed up by citation. Also, do you really doubt the statement from AGI that it supports abortion rights? Don't readers of Wikipedia, which cites AGI so often, have a right to know its position? Let's not be working to keep the readers of Wikipedia ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 20:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have one more change to make. then, i think, Im through. Determining the number of abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade is extremely difficult.Most of the figures above and below are from the CDC. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is generally considered more reliable and produces an abortion count which is on average 15% higher. [3] If we add up the Alan Guttmacher Institute's (AGI's) yearly abortion tallies, we find that 46,995,300 abortions were performed from 1973 through 2003. [4] The AGI is a self-acknowledged "pro choice" research organization, so it is not likely to have overestimated the number of abortions. [5]. AGI estimates a 3% under-count for its own figures. [6]In 2002 the Center for Disease Control estimated that just under 87% of abortions were first term abortions, a fact relied upon by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007. [7] Therefore, 13% were second and third term abortions, a percentage which multiplied by 46,995,300 yields 6,108,389 as the number of 2nd and 3rd term abortions performed in the U.S. between 1973 and 2004.
I can do what you ask if you will allow me to use sources that are pro-life. You now allow the pro-choice AGI as a reference even though it admits that it's figures are inaccurate by about three percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you removed my edits from the article on anencephaly in favor of such statements as "Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain," which cites no source at all. Nobody on earth knows whether an anencephalic baby can feel pain or anything else for that matter. You really do have a double standard here and it really seems to favor the pro-choice position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Could one of you answer this finally?
Before I put in any more effort, I'd like to hear your verdict on the statement and citation below. Keep in mind that the addition here was done by NRL not me;I'm just describing the results of their "original research;" (I'm assuming sources are allowed to do "original research.") Would you allow the following paragraph to be put in Abortion in the United States?
Adding the abortion figures released by AGI from 1973 to 2004 and estimating the number of abortion from 2004 to 2006, National Right to Life(NRL) concludes that there have been 48,585,993 abortions in the United States between 1973 and 2007. (footnote: NRL, "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade 48,585,993 Total Abortions since 1973," Jan.,2007. http://www.nlc.org/factsheets/FS03_AbortionsintheUS.pdf)
The Physicians for Life, which has an entry in Wikipedia, reviews technical statements for the NRL. "please type four tildes at the end of your post." I did. It doesn't work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 September 2007
You have read my edits as presented above. Therefore, you know that the claim that AGI is pro-choice cites directly to an AGI statement that says it is pro-choice. The declaration is often repeated in AGI literature. AGI is cited twice in the "Abortion in the United States" article and mentioned 74 times altogether in Wikipedia. You have no quarrel with this, unless I add the AGI yearly counts together to come up with a minimum total. But you do quarrel with an NRL cite. You are clearly biased. Trading proposed edits back and forth in this context is the same as what you call "edit warring." It's useless. You win the "war." You have effectively concealed from the readers of Wikipedia the fact that there have been over 6,000,000 second and third term abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade. I'm sure you know the company you're in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
From 1st paragraph:
Saying "the practice is presently legal" is ambiguous, so it shouldn't be in the first paragraph - a place where we usually sum things up (or introduce them). The practice is subject to restrictions as to timing. AFAIK a woman can't just cancel her pregnancy one week before delivery, saying I changed my mind; I don't want to have it -- the article goes on to talk about trimesters and deadlines.
Also, balancing "it is presently legal" vs. "movement to ban it altogether" is way too polarizing. It makes it sound like an all or nothing deal. There are some advocates, of course, who may WANT to make it LEGAL in all cases; as well as some advocates who want to make it ILLEGAL in all cases. The article should make it clear what proportion of people hold those views.
Is the US polarized between, say 45% saying ban it altogether vs. 45% saying make it legal in all cases? I haven't seen any such statistics yet. -- Uncle Ed 17:58, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just a note on NPOV wording the article. The Pro-Choice crowd call the Pro-Life crowd "Ant-Choice" or "Anti-Abortion." Conversely, the Pro-Life crowd call the Pro-Choice crowd "Anti-Life." All "Anti-" terms are loaded and POV. I changed a few instances of usage of "Anti-Abortion" to "Pro-Life" since this is how this party refers to itself. Any comments? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
The part on pre-Roe law is a bit skimpy. It doesn't mention anything about the Physician's Crusade.
I've posted this to the Roe v.s Wade area for discussion as well. I'm not quite sure in which it would go, but it is something that Canadians follow about American abortion law and notice (we keep track of your Supreme Court Decisions because they often have an impact on ours, although less so in this case it seems
I've looked at the Abortion the US page and i'm really not sure what is better here and there...i'm going to copy the commment there too"--Marcie 23:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hello. I'm a Cannuck that has done some changes on the page. Hope you don't mind...a course i took compared the Roe vs. Wade decision to the Canadian case, and i wanted to try and add in some of what we learned which was basically that your decision came a hell of a lot earlier than ours (in terms of decriminalizing...abortions were available in Canada somewhat earlier but only under an except under the criminal code that required a lot of things...see the abortion in Canada page for info (i'm still learning to link...not quite sure how to do that one). Since the most important part of the US ruling was regarding privacy, AND since the decision regarding trimesters was based on viability there are different results. Not that it would not be impossible to write an abortion law in Canada, it just impossible politically since the last one went down on a tie in the Senate and any party that passes such a law knows they aren't going to last long (POV but on a talk page ok i think?). Probably the fact that we have a multiparty system (4 parties at the moment) AND a minority governement at the moment(2004 June) , although its the first in 25 years. While only two parties have ever been the federal government, there has been difference on which party is the opposition and the dynamics are quite different.
Also, again from a Canadian standpoint, i don't understand why the different rules from state to state regarding abortion, medicade coverage for abortion and even using city or state water is not discussed. I've read of many strange ways that the rights have been restricted in the US including clinics being denied access to the water of an area thus having to dig a well...but then they aren't allowed to use the general sewage if they get the water. I would think the fact that medicade often doesn't cover abortion would be an issue of class access, something that we are trying to address on the Canadian abortion page.
I guess these are ramifications of the law? Would there be a more appropriate spot to discuss this (and leave you alone if its the wrong spot). I did add in the effect of the trimester part of the ruling but left the rest out so i could ask, and start a discussion before just posting it up---if i've got the right spot even. Looks good though...i'm sure it was contentious to write!
I must say i'm mistified that the costs and coverage to getting an abortion aren't covered...we have a section on the Canadian page in it and its a lot less contentious here (which does NOT mean it doesn't have problems...it does--Marcie 23:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The reference to laws and controversy regarding "partial birth abortion" are innaccurate and unqualified. "Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term and is, in fact, the politically slanted terminology used to discuss the Dilation and Extraction technique of abortion, which is hardly ever used in the manner that the words "partial birth" seem to suggest.-- 216.87.207.1 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Could just as easily say "many Catholics SUPPORT the position...".
68.46.123.33 20:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh and thanks for whoever put a nicely worded version of the issue i wanted addressed but wasn't sure how to word regarding the position of women with disabilities and of races other than white, and a few other things i'd commented on but not changed.
Do let me know if the quote (debates) would be helpful or maybe some statistics...i tend to find those things easier than most...and if i can't find it i won't
-- Marcie 01:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Isn't any such statement unnecessary anyway? Certainly, it seems obvious that members of a religion, political party, or other such organizations are free to carry their own opinions on matters. It is not, for instance, surprising or relevant to state all of the ways in which some Democratic voters disagree with the official party platform. Perhaps the reference could simply be removed?
I reverted the edit that changed the discussion of law in the United States and how it is related to trimester back to a previous version as the version that was put in was incorrect. I have read Roe. vs. Wade (the legal decision) and the article is factually incorrect. The Planned Parenthood case changed things but i it is still unclear what limits the government can put on abortions as the case is a relatively new decision (in the mid 90's...likely an article can be found on the case here...otherwise i might take up writing one with those interested. It is obvious the government still takes the idea that it can legislate seriously as the Bush government recently passed legislationlimits third trimester abortions. Therefore it is obvious that the government can legislate in the United States at the moment. So far the decision has been turned over in three state Supreme Courts. That means it still operates in all the other states and i believe the federal government is appealing in the states where the decision was overturned (i believe Washington was one state and New York was definitely one of the other states). Roe vs. Wade was quite specific and is what the article is based on because of the impact it still has on American abortion law....first term the state has no say whatsoever, second term the interests and privacy of the mother need to be balanced against the needs of the state and in the third term the government has the right to be a large part of the decision. although this is currently being challenged. Just because the government didn't make any laws before did not mean it was not able to make laws. How many laws it can make is up to the Supreme Court. And the decision regarding trimesters had to do specifically with viability of the fetus, and the judges said so in their ruling. For a more detailed discussion see Roe v. Wade. It should be noted that the Roe v. Wade page has been granted the status of a " a featured article. We believe it to be one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work." by Wikipedia.
Selected quotes from that article include:
The Court declared, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
Relying on the current state of medical knowledge, the decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individual's constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit.-- Marcie 22:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
MamaGeek Joy You are not considering companion decision Doe v. Bolton, which is explained in the Roe v. Wade section of this article. In the U.S. today there is abortion on demand up until birth. Roe v. Wade was not the only decision relating to abortion in the U.S., and I don't see why you'd discount the other cases. By saying that the legal consensus is that abortion is only legal in the U.S. in the first trimester, you are gravely misrepresenting the truth.
The official report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, issued after extensive hearings on the Human Life Federalism Amendment (proposed by Senators Hatch and Eagleton), concluded:
"Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy." Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149, June 7, 1983, p. 6
See this website for Constitutional Law and Abortion: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm
This Pro-Life site appears to have a good summary as well: http://www.aclife.org/education/court.html
This follows. Italics and text in [] is mine.
U.S. Supreme Court DOE v. BOLTON, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) 410 U.S. 179 DOE ET AL. v. BOLTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA No. 70-40.
Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C. J., post, p. 207, and DOUGLAS, J., post, p. 209, filed concurring opinions.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
.... In Roe v. Wade, ante, p. 113, we today have struck down, as constitutionally defective, the Texas criminal abortion statutes that are representative of provisions long in effect [410 U.S. 179, 182] in a majority of our States. The Georgia legislation, however, is different and merits separate consideration.
(Section 3) Inasmuch as Doe and her class are recognized, the question whether the other appellants - physicians, nurses, clergymen, social workers, and corporations - present a justiciable controversy and have standing is perhaps a matter of no great consequence. We conclude, however, that the physician-appellants, who are Georgia-licensed doctors consulted by pregnant women, also present a justiciable controversy and do have standing despite the fact that the record does not disclose that any one of them has been prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution, for violation of the State's abortion statutes. The physician is the one against whom these criminal statutes directly operate in the event he procures an abortion that does not meet the statutory exceptions and conditions. The physician-appellants, therefore, assert a sufficiently direct threat of personal detriment. They should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief. Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d 833, 839-840 (CA6 1971); Poe v. Menghini, 339 F. Supp. 986, 990-991 (Kan. 1972).
Section 4 (1) ...This is not to say that Georgia may not or should not, from and after the end of the first trimester, adopt [410 U.S. 179, 195] standards for licensing all facilities where abortions may be performed so long as those standards are legitimately related to the objective the State seeks to accomplish.
because it fails to exclude the first trimester of pregnancy, see Roe v. Wade, ante, at 163, is also invalid. In so holding we naturally express no opinion on the medical judgment involved in any particular case, that is, whether the patient's situation is such that an abortion should be performed in a hospital, rather than in some other facility.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring *
I am somewhat troubled that the Court has taken notice of various scientific and medical data in reaching its conclusion; however, I do not believe that the Court has exceeded the scope of judicial notice accepted in other contexts.
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
[ Footnote * ] [This opinion applies also to No. 70-18, Roe v. Wade, ante, p. 113.] [410 U.S. 179, 209]
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring * While I join the opinion of the Court, 1 I add a few words.
Section 1 These rights, though fundamental, are likewise subject to regulation on a showing of "compelling state interest." We stated in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164 , that walking, strolling, and wandering "are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them." As stated in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 :
Section 2
While childbirth endangers the lives of some women, voluntary abortion at any time and place regardless of medical standards would impinge on a rightful concern of society. The woman's health is part of that concern; as is the life of the fetus after quickening. These concerns justify the State in treating the procedure as a medical one. [quickening is generally held to occur after the first trimester Marcie]
The "liberty" of the mother, though rooted as it is in the Constitution, may be qualified by the State for the reasons we have stated. But where fundamental personal rights and liberties are involved, the corrective legislation must be "narrowly drawn to prevent the supposed evil,"
There is no doubt that the State may require abortions to be performed by qualified medical personnel. The legitimate objective of preserving the mother's health clearly supports such laws. Their impact upon the woman's privacy is minimal. But the Georgia statute outlaws virtually all such operations - even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. In light of modern medical evidence suggesting that an early abortion is safer healthwise than childbirth itself, 5 it cannot be seriously [410 U.S. 179, 217] urged that so comprehensive a ban is aimed at protecting the woman's health.[ie laws can be written regarding the mother's health if they are reasonable] Rather, this expansive proscription of all abortions along the temporal spectrum can rest only on a public goal of preserving both embryonic and fetal life.
I am not prepared to hold that a State may equate, as Georgia has done, all phases of maturation preceding birth.
The protection of the fetus when it has acquired life is a legitimate concern of the State. -- Marcie 23:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The data provided here (25.5% to postpone childbearing, 21.3% can't afford it, etc.) comes from an article titled "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries." Does this mean that these numbers represent the percentage of women in all 27 countries? If so, those statistics clearly don't belong in this article. Does anybody know if these statistics are specific to the United States, or if they are the aggregate figues for all 27 countries? Parallel or Together? 04:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind, I went and checked it out myself. The figures are for the US so it's all good. I will include a link to the site for future reference. Parallel or Together? 04:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Where is the rest of the data from the Guttmacher institute study? Did they only look at whether rape was the cause. I was unable to find the full results of this study and thus unable to find a citation. As such I suggest it be removed unless it can be cited and reported more completely. For example, without knowing what other categories they used, the data for rape and incest is less meaningful because they may have included another parameter which was partially overlapping. I would certainly support increasingly the diversity of studies that we report here, but lets get the full data. savidan (talk) (e@) 19:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone has deleted my explanation that in this article the word "abortion" is not used in the medical sense, but only in the sense of "induced abortion". I wonder what the objection is to making this clear? Rick Norwood 16:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Since nobody has responded to this, I'm putting the clarifiction back. If you want to remove it, please explain why. Rick Norwood 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
How can he Republicans be Pro Life if they toss our soldier's lives down the drain?
Assume the lotus position and repeat after me: "Npov Npov Npov."
We are not doing that! It's a complete difference! We don't kill those people! Insurgents do! Beside, i'm pro-choice! The Republican 21:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The following passage that I added to the "opposition" section of this article was removed as being "redundant":
Before I edited this section, the section began with the last sentence of this passage. Unless the argument that I have added is contained elsewhere in the article (and if it is, it really should be in this section), I think it needs to be in this section. These are the two most general arguments against abortion, but the "fetus is a person" argument is really a faith-based argument, as it requires a belief that the fetus is a living being at the point of conception. The added argument is a secular argument, as it does not require that the arguer believe that the fetus is a living being from conception. Rather, the argument relies on the scientific difficulty of determining exactly when life begins, and cautions that if the law is to err, it should err on the side of protecting the fetus since we cannnot accurately determine whether it is "alive" or not and cannot risk killing a being that might be alive. Thus, it errs on the side of protecting something that might be alive (but is not certainly so) over the mother's right to privacy. Perhaps the argument is inartfully worded and should be rewritten, but it really needs to be in the article as it relies on an entirely different premise from the second. - Jersyko talk 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it should include the statistics if it's going to reference them, and more explicitly state opinions as such. -- Varuka 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As per my edit this morning, I tried to remove subtle POV from the sentence "abortion mortality fell from nearly 1,500 to a little over 100" - obviously from a pro-choice POV, this might seem NPOV, but obviously, for those who are pro-life, it is distinctly POV: the rate of abortion mortality may have falled from nearly 1500 to a little over 100 for the mother, but remained 100% for the child.
However, Alienus reverted this edit, pointing out - quite accurately and fairly - that "there are no maternal deaths from abortion because pregnant women who abort do not become mothers" (see edit summary). While this is accurate, it does have the problem that - if taken seriously, as one must presume Alienus intends - of rendering other uses of an almost identical phrase ("maternal death", "maternal mortality") within the same paragraph nonsensical, yet Alienus did not edit those. I now have - with the net effect, in my view, that the article is now more literally correct, per Alienus, but none-the-less, is less elegantly phrased. This strikes me as being a ridiculously over-scrupulous parsing of the text; surely, one can say "Some supporters of legal abortion argue that legalization has resulted in a dramatic fall in 'maternal death from abortion," so surely one can also say " From 1940 through 1970, maternal death from abortion fell"
The more controversial the topic, the greater the need for NPOV. But how far can this be taken? To the point of making the article less readable to quibble over a painfully minor distinction (and to be inconsistent about it, at that)? It seems to me that both my most recent edit and Alienus' edit should be reverted to my version from this morning. Simon Dodd 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The use of "mother" or "maternal" to refer to a pregnant woman who has an abortion is misleading and usually POV. Likewise, so is calling an embryo or fetus a "baby" or "infant". If you do a simple search, you'll nonetheless find these words in the article, because sometimes they're used accurately (such as referring to a woman who has had a child as a mother) and sometimes they're used inaccurately but in a direct quotes.
The term maternal death is ambiguous, as the article first specifies that it refers to death involving childbirth (which clearly excludes abortion), then quotes a source that mentions abortion among maternal deaths. This source, which is quote NPOV, defines the term somewhat differently, as "deaths from pregnancy-related complications occurring throughout pregnancy, labour, childbirth and in the postpartum period". It also lists unsafe abortions as the cause of 12% of such deaths, adding that one 1% of that 12% occurs in rich countries. In short, anything that excessively emphasizes the possibility of maternal death from competent abortions is POV. I think the best way to avoid this is to just to use a different, less unclear and uncontroversial, term. In fact, I've just done so.
Taking care to use terms that do not show bias doesn't mean making the article any harder to read, and it's absolutely essential if we want this to become featured. Therefore, it would be very inappropriate to revert my changes on this matter. Alienus 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for content-centered changes to negatively effect the quality of the language. When this occurs, we have two choices: revert the change and accept inferior content or keep the content and improve the language. I strongly endorse the latter. So if you can find a way to make the text flow better while avoiding the dreaded m-word, go for it. Alienus 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article should contain at least a paragraph of this historic case. Good 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Democrats For Life are no longer marginalized in the party. They aanounced their plan to reduce the abortion rate by 95% in 10 years at the DNC HQ at the invitation of Hoawrd Dean. I could provide any number of quotes here to support this, but this is one of the first I came across: ""I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats," he urged respect for antiabortion Democrats whose policy positions, such as support for children's programs, are "often lacking on the Republican side." www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325026/posts
The following sentence has been inserted in the article: "There is also a large disconnect between convention delegates who pass the party platform and rank and file Democrats." While some 2004 polls seems to support this conclusion to some degree, more recent polls seem to confuse the issue as they reach quite different conclusions. Also, speaking of Democratic leaders, what about Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who is pro-life by most accounts? I think the sentence is mere POV and should be removed per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, but I would like to hear other editors' comments on the matter. For context, the relevant paragraph is the second one in this section. - Jersyko· talk 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In Later Judicial Decisions, the following sentence "Several items of legislation impacting on abortion, including the Child Custody Protection Bill, are awaiting Congressional debate (February 2003)" really needs an update. Its been 3 1/2 years, something tells me that bill has been decided on by now... Natalie 01:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There is only one single mention of murder even thought it is the argument of the opposing half of the debate. This whole article seems whack out of NPOV...-- 71.192.88.79 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
its nice to see right away what the typical rates of abortion have been in the US, its just inconvenient for some that actually, against popular imagination, the rates plunged to far fewer women having abortions during Clinton, during Reagan-Bush it was much higher and remained constant, the american people have been deceived and lied to by campaigns against the Clintons using the abortion issue, its actually the Clintons that had drastic reductions in abortions...no one else has even come close to matching those reductions in abortions!!! I'm not saying I'm pro-Clinton or anti-republican or something, I'm just stating facts, and I was incidently shocked by the reality, and now feel as if i have been deceived by american republicans, I live in switzerland actually, and I tend to think americans should do more like the French and make it a 10 week limit perhaps, its too easy in america to get an abortion i think, the French for instance have higher standards, yet i am happy the Clintons helped greatly reduce the abortion rate in america!!!... 83.79.137.123 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The same pollsters have just released several new polls. I have taken the liberty to update one. Also, at surveyUSA.com, you can get state-by-state adult composition of the debate. The Last time it was taken the numbers appeared: (as of 11/12/06): (these polls are not too in depth, but it allows people to look at the abortion debate state-by-state. This would be what would count in case Roe v. Wade was overturned (but not in a way where the justices will amend constitutional law to give equal protection and due process to unborn children/fetuses) and we wanted to predict abortion law for each jurisdiction.* These polls are based on rolling averages and are found in the cross tabs. There is an abortion poll from 2005, however with more detail and more focus on the abortion debate. http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html Alabama- Prolife: 58% Prochoice: 36% Alaska- Prolife: 34% Prochoice: 61% Arizona- Prolife: 38% Prochoice: 57% Arkansas-Prolife: 54% Prochoice: 41% California- 32%, 63% Colorado- 40%, 56% Connecticut- 32%, 65% Deleware- 34%, 60% Florida- 39%, 57% Georgia- 43%, 48% Hawaii- 36%, 59% Idaho- 56%, 39% Illinois- 37%, 57% Indiana- 47%, 47% Iowa- 45%, 51% Kansas- 46%, 48% Kentucky- 55%, 40% Louisiana- 61%, 34% Maine- 31%, 65% Maryland- 33%, 63% Massachusetts26%, 68% Michigan- 36%, 58% Minnesota- 40%, 56% Mississippi- 59%, 34% Missouri- 49%, 46% Montana- NOT AVAILABLE Nebraska- 45%, 48% Nevada- 33%, 62% NewHampshire 27%, 69% New Jersey- 31%, 65% New Mexico- 42%, 50% New York- 28%, 65% NorthCarolina50%, 44% North Dakota NOT AVAILABLE Ohio- 47% 49% Oklahoma- 48% 47% Oregon- 36% 57% Pennsylvania 41% 52% Rhode Island 33% 61% SouthCarolina50% 43% South Dakota 45% 52% Tennessee 52% 40% Texas 42% 50% Utah 61% 34% Vermont 25% 71% Virginia 46% 47% Washington 34% 63% WestVirginia 52% 41% Wisconsin 40% 55% Wyoming 44% 51% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.144.113.218 ( talk) 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
I think th lead is rather poor and would suggest an almost complete re-write. We do not need to repeat the definition debate. If anything, we could have a foot note that when we use the word "abortion" in this article, we are referring to an induced abortion procedure anytime in a pregnancy. We should summarize the state of Abortion in the US in the lead. We should summarize the actual article, not rehash definition debate stuff that is already covered in the main abortion article. I'll see if I can't come up with a proposal.- Andrew c 14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ummm.. the state of California does not consider abortion of a fetus to be homicide, so your citation is off topic, original research.- Andrew c 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c edited the lead to say: "Generally speaking, in the United States induced abortions become more controversial the later they are performed into the pregnancy. " Subsequently, Severa reverted this edit. I think Andrew c's edit was okay. The lead ought to say something about public opinion, and the sentence Andrew c wrote accomplishes that well. Ferrylodge 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The above was removed from the article. I think it is clearly notable that a state legislature passed a law banning abortion. Is there an argument why we shouldn't mention this in the article, or can we work on a wording and place to fit this back into he article? - Andrew c 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
While I ordinarily prefer gender-neutral terminology, I think it's better to refer to the people actively seeking abortions as "women." If we refer to doctors and vendors selling abortifacients to "people," one might think that they meant men as well as women (which may have been the case, but the words still don't mean the same thing in that context). I believe someone else also pointed out that it might cause confusion regarding fetal personhood. Darkfrog24 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following line is irrelevant in an article on abortion and should be deleted - or am I missing something?
"They also believed that a woman should be allowed to refuse sex with her husband. An American woman had no legal recourse at that time against rape by her husband, except possibly divorce,[4] an option that (especially before the American Civil War) was usually available only for well-connected women of means who had sufficient resources not just to end the marriage but to also survive without a husband." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.192.176 ( talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused why this article is using CDC statistics rather than AGI statistics for yearly number of abortions in the U.S. CDC does not include abortion figures from every state (including California), so its total is always dramatically lower than reality. AGI may be a "pro-choice source", but most anti-abortion people that I have heard use AGI figures because they are the most extensive. So if both sides use AGI data, there shouldn't be a POV/NPOV concern about using AGI. If the article keeps using CDC statistics rather than AGI, then there should at least be a note about how CDC figures are incomplete.( talk) 08:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I moved this from the article:
What is the purpose of these latest additions? What are they getting at? The last 4 or 5 sentences are completely unsourced, and partially inaccurate/original research. The article cited The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion doesn't say anything about "bias" or "pro-choice". There are other problems as well. Anyway, can we discuss what the article is lacking, how we should remedy that, and then work together to reach a consensus version we can all live with?- Andrew c [talk] 02:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[moved from the "Biased statments" section above]The article's statements about the number of abortions is slyly deceptive. The number of late term abortions is presented only as a percentage of the overall number of abortions since Roe v. Wade. Nowhere are these numbers made explicit. Only the number of abortions in the U.S. in 2003 is made explicit. That number, 854,122, is about half the peak number of abortions in any of the years since Roe, hardly a representative number. The percentage of late term abortions (2nd and 3rd trimester) in the innocuous looking pie chart adds up to 11.3%, a number significantly exceeded by the Alan Guttmacher Institute's calculations, which are generally considered more reliable than those of the Center for Disease Control cited in the pie chart. If we enumerate the total number of abortions since Roe and factor in the more reliable percentage, we find that the number of late term abortions since Roe exceeds 6,000,000, a figure the writers of "Abortion in the United States" apparently wish to conceal. I propose the following edit to be added immediately under figure 1 in "Number of Abortion in United States":
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote from AGI itself: "...the Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable all women and families to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births and exercise the right to choose abortion safely and with dignity." http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2007/06/25/AnnualReport2006.pdf. (Wikipedia cites AGI 74 times in various articles and nowhere mentions AGI's bias. In the same way, the article under discussion here nowhere mentions that the CDC fails to include all the states in its tally of abortions)
You cite AGI and CDC in this article. Someone needed to point out AGI's bias and CDC's incomplete count.
Your article also states, "According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 854,122 legal induced abortions in the US in 2003." This is the lead statement in the section of the article dealing with the number of abortions. It is not only prominent; it is entirely unqualified, which suggests that it is typical of the yearly abortion rate in the U.S. It most certainly is not. Did the critic of my "worse than a guesstimate" object to that statement in the article? I will agree that I ought to have included the qualification, "If we assume that the figure cited by the Court is typical...."
Furthermore, pointing out CDC's stunted estimates will help the objectivity of the article.
Basic arithmetic is not "original research."
Late-term abortion is commonly defined as 2nd and 3rd term abortion. But I make it clear in my suggested edit that by late term abortion I mean 2nd and 3rd term abortion. So there is nothing misleading here.
Had I time, I would address all the issues raised. I will make only one more point. Planned Parenthood and its sister pro-choice organizations habitually state that only a "very small percentage" of abortions are late term abortions. This makes the number sound small. The article's pie chart adopts this perspective. However, the statement that over 6,000,000 late term abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade doesn't sound small and will give the reader a choice of perspectives. I hope you folks have a committment to choice as well as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) It has been a couple of days since I wrote this response to the critics of my proposed edit. This time no one has made any reply. I assume that's because they are satisfied. I will wait a couple of days more and if there are still no objections, I will reintroduce my edit (with the changes mentioned above) into the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk • contribs)
But I just gave you hypertext leading to AGI's own self-description in its own publication: "...the Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable all women and families to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births and exercise the right to choose abortion safely and with dignity." http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2007/06/25/AnnualReport2006.pdf. If you can reject that you can reject anything. Also a cite was given for the statement that AGI was more reliable than CDC (The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion) What the hell is going on? I'm beginning to think that you guys just don't want that 6,000,000 figure known. Objectivity isn't making neutral statements; it's making true statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that AGI's pro-choice position would, if anything, cause it to underestimate the number of abortions in the U.S. since Roe. Therefore, we can treat its 47,000,000 figure as a minimum and its claim that CDC under-reports abortions as accurate. The actual total of abortions since Roe has probably passed 50,000,000 by now. My use of the 47,000,000 figure is an estimate of the number that can be backed up by citation. Also, do you really doubt the statement from AGI that it supports abortion rights? Don't readers of Wikipedia, which cites AGI so often, have a right to know its position? Let's not be working to keep the readers of Wikipedia ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 20:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have one more change to make. then, i think, Im through. Determining the number of abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade is extremely difficult.Most of the figures above and below are from the CDC. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is generally considered more reliable and produces an abortion count which is on average 15% higher. [3] If we add up the Alan Guttmacher Institute's (AGI's) yearly abortion tallies, we find that 46,995,300 abortions were performed from 1973 through 2003. [4] The AGI is a self-acknowledged "pro choice" research organization, so it is not likely to have overestimated the number of abortions. [5]. AGI estimates a 3% under-count for its own figures. [6]In 2002 the Center for Disease Control estimated that just under 87% of abortions were first term abortions, a fact relied upon by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007. [7] Therefore, 13% were second and third term abortions, a percentage which multiplied by 46,995,300 yields 6,108,389 as the number of 2nd and 3rd term abortions performed in the U.S. between 1973 and 2004.
I can do what you ask if you will allow me to use sources that are pro-life. You now allow the pro-choice AGI as a reference even though it admits that it's figures are inaccurate by about three percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you removed my edits from the article on anencephaly in favor of such statements as "Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain," which cites no source at all. Nobody on earth knows whether an anencephalic baby can feel pain or anything else for that matter. You really do have a double standard here and it really seems to favor the pro-choice position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Could one of you answer this finally?
Before I put in any more effort, I'd like to hear your verdict on the statement and citation below. Keep in mind that the addition here was done by NRL not me;I'm just describing the results of their "original research;" (I'm assuming sources are allowed to do "original research.") Would you allow the following paragraph to be put in Abortion in the United States?
Adding the abortion figures released by AGI from 1973 to 2004 and estimating the number of abortion from 2004 to 2006, National Right to Life(NRL) concludes that there have been 48,585,993 abortions in the United States between 1973 and 2007. (footnote: NRL, "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade 48,585,993 Total Abortions since 1973," Jan.,2007. http://www.nlc.org/factsheets/FS03_AbortionsintheUS.pdf)
The Physicians for Life, which has an entry in Wikipedia, reviews technical statements for the NRL. "please type four tildes at the end of your post." I did. It doesn't work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 September 2007
You have read my edits as presented above. Therefore, you know that the claim that AGI is pro-choice cites directly to an AGI statement that says it is pro-choice. The declaration is often repeated in AGI literature. AGI is cited twice in the "Abortion in the United States" article and mentioned 74 times altogether in Wikipedia. You have no quarrel with this, unless I add the AGI yearly counts together to come up with a minimum total. But you do quarrel with an NRL cite. You are clearly biased. Trading proposed edits back and forth in this context is the same as what you call "edit warring." It's useless. You win the "war." You have effectively concealed from the readers of Wikipedia the fact that there have been over 6,000,000 second and third term abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade. I'm sure you know the company you're in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 ( talk) 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)