Talk:Abortion/Archive 5

message: First off i'm not sure the reference is related to the site, and in fact it has already been added and deleted before (see above discussion)...it seems something that generally should be on the American site. Canada was chosen before i turned up on the Wiki, i would assume as an example, as having no laws because there is no law whatsoever concerning abortion. However if you looked further down the page (or it may have moved to the US page) you will find that there is no Doctor currently in Quebec that will do a third term abortion unless the women is about to die or there are genetic abnormalities---and the concern from what i can tell is not being sued...it ethical. Quebec is currently sending the few patients that need third term abortions to the US...which strongly suggests the service isn't available elsewhere in Canada (Quebec tends to be a very liberal province on "values" issues).
Discussion anyone? Otherwise i think moving the comment to the US page might make better sense. Although i'm not totally up to date on the Planned Parenthood case, at least until then under the Roe. v. Wade decision the government DID get a say to a certain extent in second trimester abortions (in a limited way) and a less limited (but not perhaps total) say in the 3rd trimester.
Also the US federal ammendment on "partial birth abortions" (i hate the term personally) has to my knowledge only been overturned in 3 states...so it would then actually be active in the other remaining states from what i understand although there is now good precendent if there are further lawsuits.
So unless there is some discussion i'm going to take the new addition out in a day or two--Marcie 02:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking the reference out today. Come to my talk page if you want to discuss it or put it up here.--Marcie 03:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New sentence added about legality of US abortions

message: I noticed the following vandalism was just reverted: "In days of yore, unwed mothers were often hit, hard, in the stomach with a shovel, or kicked down a flight of stairs in an effort to abort the unwanted child." But it did get me thinking that there is not an "Abortion history" article focusing on the practices/myths of abortion prior to legalization. This should cover how/who/where these abortions occurred but also provide a more complete telling of the complications as a result. - RoyBoy [∞] 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm my lead... I can feel the power already, the creative juices flowing; opps, lost it in the dead end pages I've been hacking away at with a rusty machete and curling iron. Well since I got a vote of confidence and I concur with the necessity to have an article of global proportions... I'll create a stub! The format follows a historical timeline but will certainly evolve as the article gets a sense of itself. Future discussion on this should be made @ History of abortion. - RoyBoy [∞] 05:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion History (focusing on illegal abortion practices) 

message: MamaGeek here: The Lancet's "meta-analysis" is hopelessly flawed.  The analysis was conducted by UNFPA-funded scientists, and anyone doing a little research can see that the UNFPA is a big abortion backer.  Furthermore, 15 published peer-reviewed studies were rejected from the analysis outright for unscientific reasons (i.e., they couldn't locate original authors of some studies).  All of those studies concluded an average of 80% elevated risk of post-abortion cancer.  In addition, these scientists included 28 new studies which were never published or peer-reviewed, which of course supported the no-link position.
I will not add my own text, but I will most certainly remove the PP and Lancet citations.
:Hello MamaGeek. Your work is certainly appreciated and I actually share your concerns about the "Lancet" (I call it the Beral) study. However since you are new here you may not be aware of some of implications of your edits. For example this paragraph is also the introductory paragraph to the main Abortion-Breast_Cancer_(ABC)_hypothesis article which I wrote. In that main article in the meta-analysis section  criticisms of the study (by Dr. Brind) are linked to. The reason I've agreed with Tony on letting that meta-analysis be in the introductory paragraph is because it is "recent news", and its prominence in the entry reflects its prominence in reality. Furthermore, I was not aware the meta-analysis was "UNFPA-funded" (I'm not even aware of who they are), but it hardly surprises me there are pro-choice conflicts of interest in the research. Could you please provide citations, ideally online citations, of the UNFPA funding and who they are so that it can be included in the main article further down. 
:However currently the meta-analysis will stay where it is until I can be satisfied this is the case. If it is then it will either be removed or re-edited to include the obvious conflict of interest. Also you can sign your entries with - ~~~~ which provides your name and the time of your message. Also I should note that there is a 3 revert rule where, if necessary Tony or I would seek arbitration as a result of continued edits. If you read my main article on the ABC link I think you can appreciate I have more than an open mind on the ABC issue. 
:If you also read the talk history I had a debate with Tony and Marcie about raising one study to the introduction above all others. I conceded the argument because the Lancet study is news, and should be reflected as such in the encyclopedia. But that doesn't stop us from being critical of it. (this has been cc'd to Talk:MamaGeek's) -RoyBoy [∞] 18:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent BBC citation. I entirely agree the UNFPA have a bias in favor of abortion as an option for women, hence any funding provided by them would naturally be a conflict of interest given their objectives; which I happen to agree with. But that would not excuse them for funding and influencing "scientific" research, nor would it excuse Lancet or the media of glossing it over. So is there a reliable online citation of UNFPA funding for the Beral study, or would I find that mentioned in the study itself? Requiring me to head down to the library again. - RoyBoy [∞] 20:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lancet study

message: I bolded the sentence in the article that i did (which pointed out that the women who had the most problems were those who already gone through trauma) because i thought it was an important point and it wasn't brought clearly to attention. To be honest i missed it the first few reads...and i read carefully. If it being bolded is objected to can we agree on some way of making it a bit easier to see among the quotes? If you go back i was concerned earlier...its in the rewording area although that was a while ago and i was still worried with it when i came across it later...it seems though that the sentence i wrote about dentists was pulled out (i don't think it was originally but who knows)...looking at it now i figure there isn't a problem in that area--Marcie 08:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mamageek changed that, I kept the change because an entire segment of a sentence being bolded isn't necessary to highlight a point which is fairly logical and self evident. I recommend if you still wish to emphasize the second part simply focus on the word "particularly" by making it italics/bold or both. I'm unsure which would be most appropriate. - RoyBoy [∞] 20:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Being Bold

message: There's a sentence in the intro:
:"Morning after" or "emergency" contraceptive drugs that are taken within 72 hours of sex interfere with the release of eggs from the ovary or with fertilization, and so are will be released anyway; in these cases, if conceptions occurs the zygote will implant successfully regardless of emergency contraception use.
I'm not sure what's meant by "and so are will be released anyway," and I didn't want to change it for fear of changing the intended meaning. Any thoughts? TIMBO (T A L K) 01:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An intro sentence 

message: I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say: "Morning after" or "emergency" contraceptive drugs that are taken within 72 hours of sex interfere with the release of eggs from the ovary or with fertilization, and so are will be released anyway;[...] --Sdfisher 17:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what it's trying to say either!!! Haha that's the third time that sentence has caused a talk page note. I guess someone should just be bold and change it. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it.  Have a look and see if it makes sense.  :)  --Chadofborg 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. :) TIMBO (T A L K) 02:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording Change Needed 

message: It's redundant. "... usage, refers to the voluntary or induced termination of pregnancy, generally ..." and then it goes to say that "... As a result, birth does not take place. ..." Isn't it obvious that a birth won't take place if there's a termination of the pregnancy? I don't want to edit it myself, as im sure this is a "heated" topic, but i think someone who frequents this topic should take a look at it.
Paulr 17:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First and second sentences. 

message: I'm about to add notes on the effectiveness of Prohibition on reducing admissions to hospitals for liver disease as a counter-argument/rebuttal, since I added information about legislative effectiveness arguments.  Please help, folks from both sides of the fence. Sandbody 23:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV help: legislative effectiveness arguments 

message: Summary: 204.60.237.72 changed the following text:
: Since 1972, the medical definition of pregnancy in the United States requires that implantation has already occurred. According to this definition, emergency contraceptives do not interfere with pregnancy. Some people believe the zygote is a human being with the same moral standing as an implanted embryo before pregnancy actually starts.
to
: Since 1972, the medical definition of pregnancy in the United States requires that implantation has already occurred. According to this definition, emergency contraceptives do not interfere with pregnancy.
Sandbody's changed it back, with the edit summary "rv Some pro-lifers -do- believe that a zygote is a human being (article must be representing all POV)"
However, this statement when juxtaposed against the medical opinion only represents the beliefs of one faction in a moral debate--it's extremely POV.  The morality of abortion is covered in depth in another article Morality and legality of abortion, where all significant moral views of abortion should be represented.  A one-sided representation of human beliefs with respect to abortion (whether related to pre-implantation contraception or not) should not be presented here. Therefore I have reverted, with the edit summary "Revert. Juxtaposing the medical definition against the beliefs of *one* faction is POV. Leave the beliefs for the appropriate articles and cover *all* significant ones."  The medical definition of pregnancy is given solely to explain why abortion is distinguished from contraception as a matter of medical classification.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that - the question might well be asked, "Why not also juxtapose the belief that the unimplanted zygote is not a human being?"  I do wonder under what circumstances the phrase was added so that I saw it when first I read the article.  I know that you guys probably have a pretty elaborate understanding here; it helps to know what some of the particular points are.  Thanks. Sandbody 16:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of [[User:Sandbody|Sandbody]]'s revert of [[User:204.60.237.72|204.60.237.72]]'s removal of reference of a statement of the beliefs of *some* people who are opposed to abortion.

message: Major Rewrite Needed. Missing is a discussion of the father's rights in abortion. For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, why is this a unilateral decision. What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights?
Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, which is this a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years. If they decided to have unprotected sex, why would one party have 100% of the rights? Rex Judicata 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
* For a discussion of this topic, please read Oklahoma Law Review, Abortions of the Paternal Prerogatives Of Unwed Natural Fathers, 2000. Rex Judicata 20:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
**If you think something is missing from the article which needs to be there feel free to add it to the article. But please do not put up a NPOV sign before discussing it on the talk page with other people who maintain the article. The text in the article right now has no major POV problems in the issues it is discussing. If it is missing a discussion on something, it does not mean that the article violates NPOV. kaal 21:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paternal Rights 

message: The entire non-medical discussion of abortion is hopeless NPOV as it is from a 100% female perspective. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (reverted political hijacking - Caution! do not violate the 3 reversion rule.) 

message: This article need attention to eliminate the overt gender bias. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution - do not violate the 3 reversion rule 

message: However, natural pregnancies involve the participation of a man and a woman. removed as self evident and therefore unnecessary. Both parties in the pregnancy have rights with respect to a potential abortion. removed as POV.
For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, should this be a unilateral decision? What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights? Who is the champion for the rights of the father? removed as we must not ask questions, --SqueakBox 20:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, should this be a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years? If both parties decided to have sex, which always has the potential for pregnancy, is there a moral or legal reason for the rights to be anything other than equal? are more questions and should not be here. It is unwiki to ask questions like this, --SqueakBox 20:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Political sabotage repaired. Agwiii 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: I did not revert your neutral edits. This article has so much dog posting by squeakbox that your neutral edits must have been caught in the middle. Please restore them - your sentence in the first paragraph about the Father's rights in Abortion was appropriate. ==> Agwiii 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not violated 3RR, Agwiii. Prove your allegation. You do not know my political opinions. In my opinion where fathers do have rights in this case is where abortion is illegal, like where I live, which may be your subtle agenda, --SqueakBox 01:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry SqueakBox, but you are mistaken. Stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia. I have no agenda, unlike you. Again I repeat STOP CYBER STALKING ME! ==> Agwiii 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Time out, folks. I suggest we all cool off for a while, as the reversion war will only get people temp-blocked or the page protected. There is a neutral version from Jersyko in place, let's leave it as is for now, please... Fire Star 01:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question to jersyko 

message: To SqueakBox, Stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia.
I am directing you to immediatly stop harassing,  dog-posting and cyberstalking me.
Florida Statutes 784.048(1)(d) defined the crime of "Cyberstalking". 
 
784.048  Stalking; definitions; penalties.-- 
(1)  As used in this section, the term: 
 
(a)  "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose. 
(b)  "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests. 
 
(c)  "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person. 
(d)  "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose. 
(2)  Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 
 
(N.B. 775.082 (4)  A person who has been convicted of a designated misdemeanor may be sentenced as follows: 
(a)  For a misdemeanor of the first degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year; 
(3)  Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 
 
(4)  Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 
 
(5)  Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 
(6)  Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section. 
If you have any questions about your crime of cyberstalking, SqueakBox, let me know, but you are now directed to stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia.
==> Agwiii 13:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FS 784 Cyberstalking Statute

message: TO: SqueakBox. Directing you to stop breaking the law is not a threat. If you continue your course of illegal action, I will see the law is enforced. BTW, cyberstalking, SPAMMING, online harassment are crimes covered by our treaties of extradition.  STOP BREAKING THE LAW! STOP HARASSING! Agwiii 15:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP Breaking the harassment and cyberstalking law! 

message: On reading this section it's clear that it doesn't belong under "abortion" because when it is used no implantation can have occurred.  Perhaps it should be given an article of its own or described in a suitable article on pharmaceutical contraceptives. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Morning after pill

message: Is it NPOV to say that the use of the term 'Partial-Birth Abortion' is controversial?  To me, the term itself 'partial birth abortion' is a weighted one, so is it fair to say that the term is controversial?  Going back through various versions, people seem to keep removing and adding it ... that in itself would suggest the term is controversial.  And it's not like the phrase 'partial birth abortion' has been expunged, it's still there, just with an addendum that its use can be controversial.  Proto | 11:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversially

message: The debate on abortion section spends a lot of time on pro-life feminists.  As it stands, I think that this tilts the section away from NPOV.  Basically, the article historicizes the pro-choice position in a damaging way -- one of the basic claims of pro-choice advocates is that pro-choice is a pro-woman position.  This article as it is seems to linger on the fact that that has not always historically been the case.
I can see a couple of ways to clean this up.  The easiest is to cut the pro-life feminist discussion drastically -- cutting it to a sentence, probably (which is I think a fair assessment of its importance in the current debate.)  This is probably what I would do, personally, for reasons of time and expertise.
The other way would be to historicize the pro-life position as well, particularly discussing the link between advocates of pro-life positions and advocates of traditional family structures.  This would raise questions about pro-life motivations (i.e., it's all about children's rights) similar to those raised about the pro-choice movement's motiviations (i.e., it's all about women's rights.)
It seems best to be clear about my own POV -- I'm pro-choice, though with qualms. NoahB 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  debate on abortion and feminism