Talk:Abortion/Archive 17

message: The Epoch Times is a Chinese paper, often termed tabloid, whose main agenda is apparently bad-mouthing China. Now, that may be a purpose which you can appreciate, and it may stem from good intentions, but the bottom line is that the paper is biased. I strongly protest using this site as a source. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about this too -- Epoch Times has some good information. (I mean the article on wikipedia, not necessarily the paper.) --Quasipalm 03:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given their agenda, I don't trust anything they say about abortion. The Chinese govt. is still forcefully aborting women, and it fits the Epoch Times to spin-control and present only biased information which places abortion in as negative and harmful a light as possible. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the paper mentions a study by University of Oslo -- if someone wants to find the study itself, that'd be fine.  But other main source of the article is something called The Christchurch Health and Development Study, which sounds a little, um, biased.  -Quasipalm 03:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, looks like a biased source. Take a look at this - is this the same Christchurch? KillerChihuahua?!? 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Epoch Times as source

message: Please stop erasing the warning regarding the following personal attack (thst you made against me) from your talk page:  "I don't know whether to laugh or to beat my head against something-- or both! You're a live wire 84. I gotta say, while I think you're off your rocker, I can't say you're not passionate." As you know qausi:  Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy:  There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks,  84.146.216.195
:No, I will not, because we both know you're being disingenuous.  If I wanted to personally attack you, I could do a lot better than calling you a "live-wire" and inviting you out for a drink.  Besides, we both know your checkered past behind a number of anonymous ip address, so as far as I'm concerned, you don't have any ground to stand on.  If you want to find someone to support you, I might reconsider.  --Quasipalm 02:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attack by Quasipalm

message: :You don't have to have an abortion, and why do you care if some woman you don't know gets an abortion? It's her choice, not yours. I really don't see why this is such an issue. The Republican 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's their opinion and people are known to think things that seem illogical to others. One who is against abortion may argue that if people are killing children ages one to three that it is also "wrong" and also their job to stop such cruelty. Remember that there is almost always more sides to an argument then one has considered. ^_~ AlexJohnc3 05:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: Hi, Chooser.
Regarding your revert of the expanded list for "Therapeutic abortions," it looked like a good edit to me. The expanded list made sense and made some necessary distinctions. Sure that list would't be OK? (I know, I'm supposed to be bold, but I don't want to add to the fires this page produces.) Justin Eiler 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick googling for the text in the added lists suggests that it is not a suddenly made up thing: emedicine.com. But then there is the copyright issue of that excerpt... The definition of therapeutic abortion in the current article doesn't mention the health of the child, while the detailed list does. Weregerbil 02:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was re-added by an anon editor at AOL. I've done a minor copyedit, but will try to get something more succinct tomorrow. Justin Eiler 04:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chooserr: too much detail?