Talk:Abortion/Archive 6

message: Dear IP,
The section "feminism" should actually include information on feminism. Pro-Life-info goes under the heading of "pro-life". If you wish, you can insert the pro-life-info I just removed in the pro-life section. For a detailed description of the meaning of the term Feminism click here--Fenice 08:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminism section

message: Mainstream: feminist ideology is not proven to be or generally accepted as mainstream - use of that word in this context is misleading and POV, and the word "most" is a neutral and accurate way to describe the current state of affairs. user:214.13.4.151
*Just for the record, I am fine with 'most', didn't revert it.--Fenice 11:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream

message: Constitutional: feminist theory is focused on a woman's right to self detemination, the word constitutional is extra and applies only to States that have a constitution, so the word is actually  limitation on the general feminist theory that that movement applies universally to all women, regardless of the existence or contents of any constitution user:214.13.4.151
*If you read the discussion above with str1977 you will see that it is by no means clear that the discussion on women's rights is about constitutional/civil rights. str1977 believes that for most people it includes all kinds of different concepts on top of civil rights. And str1977 wants to focus on that. I having been saying that I do not care to include anything but the core issue, which is civil rights. This is not the place to do have a review of the discussion on what people claim to be women's right other than civil/constitutional. This further discussion should be in the main article Morality and legality of abortion. Civil rights is the lowest common denominator. All western states of course have constitutions by the way. Which one did you think doesn't have one?--Fenice 11:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional, civil rights - issue, continuation of core issue in section feminism-today

message: the american heritage dictionary defines abortion as
   1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of
      survival.
   2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced
      abortion.
   3. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
   4. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full
      development or maturation.
   5. An aborted organism.
   6. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.
===and a reflection on your thought: 
The descriptors "incapable of survival" [in definitions # 1 & 2 above] and "nonviable" [in def # 3, above] 
do not accurately describe thousands of legal abortions that occur in the USA, China, and elswhere (a large 
majority of children born at a gestational age of 24 to 34 weeks survives - yet thousands of fetuses are killed at this stage each year through legal abortion in the USA alone). 
And none of these describe what is medically required for an induced abortion to occur - the doctor must first 
kill, not just cease the growth of, the fetus [I have a friend whose endocrine system is flawed and therefore 
his body ceased normal growth prior to reaching full development, but he is not dead].
Webster's Medical dictionary is more technically accurate:
1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation: b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
:I don't have a problem with kill; but you should recognize humans aren't the only species that can be aborted. The medical dictionary is making the definition within a medical context; Wikipedia does not need to follow suit since abortions can happen other species. - RoyBoy 800 06:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, so long as the intro specifies "generally" or "commonly" etc. refers to human abortion I'm fine with it. Just making sure you kept in mind the scope and context of your evidence. - RoyBoy 800 04:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  just a thought 

message: Where is the debate about the name change? If there isn't any can it be changed back. I feel this is wrong and strongly oppose it, --SqueakBox 00:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC).
 is a new user (approx 20 edits) who has made no attempt at gainibng consensus. Please can this move be reverted asap, --SqueakBox 00:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
*I moved it back. 10qwerty 00:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: I don't think that the link to the Just Facts site should be under the section "Politically Neutral". The site does present facts for both for and against, but certainly the majority of the facts cast a negative light on abortion. It's a valid link as it had great information, but I just dispute it being entirely neutral. --K. 05:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's valiant attempt at a compromise; but I do not see a compromise in this instance. The very labels of Fact and Opinion is a categorization we shouldn't be making; as any reference worthwhile likely contains both fact and opinions. As the link stands (with no header)... is "safest" thing to do; but it reflects poorly on Wikipedia being able to read between the lines on references with phrases: "The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation." "Preborn human" is pro-life terminology; and its not necessarily accurate since a pregnancy can spontaneously fail (hence not preborn, but preabortive). I'm moving it back to pro-life; attempts to move it back will be reverted. - RoyBoy 800 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Royboy is right; the page may be factually accurate in as far as it goes, but it is clearly pro-life through which facts it chooses to present. --Robert Merkel 23:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Facts link