Talk:Abortion/Archive 12

message: Reverted this addition which referred to a disabled women's experience with a forced abortion:
:Throughout history, disabled women have been forced — at times — to have abortions or to be sterilized. To this day, even in countries that specifically outlaw sterilization, disabled women are coerced into abortions.
While this subject is certainly notable, the addition needs to be toned down a bit. - RoyBoy 800 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but how so? I could use a little more direction. --Jacquelyn Marie 12:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much remove the personal experience, which I have done above along with tweaks in the formatting. Is this acceptable to you? If you want to go into personal experiences and periods in history you can start a sub-section in History of abortion, preferably after Post-industrial. If done well and in detail it could become its own article in due course. - RoyBoy 800 15:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Roy -- this has been extremely helpful. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, and I would like to thank you for bringing up disability rights; which is a hidden and troubling aspect to abortion that is rarely discussed and usually overlooked. It is an outstanding example of what makes Wikipedia great... so upon reflection I will give you a Wikithanks and copy this to your talk page for others to see. - RoyBoy 800 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Either we should move this next to sex selected infanticide, or vice versa. Also, claim removed until backed up with some sort of source or refrence. Its a strong ambigious claim and we need to avoid those like the plague.--Tznkai 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It originally had a source, which somehow disappeared in the edit: http://www.newint.org/issue233/fruit.htm
--Jacquelyn Marie 03:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But which country would you out? China? As I understand it doesn't outlaw sterilization; and to use anecdotal evidence to point the finger at a country would be unfair and unencyclopedic unless we could provide solid evidence it is a more widespread problem than elsewhere. Yes, China comes to mind... and I guess that would be okay; but I'm concerned it would lead to further countries being added... and it could be a significant list when all said and done. - RoyBoy 800 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's an op-ed piece with a few anecdotes about sexuality and disability. The only direct reference to an abortion — specifically a forced abortion — is in a quotation from a poem and some insufficiently substantiated claims about China. It's a legitimate, noteworthy issue; but is this an appropriate source? --Kyd 15:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Forced abortion: Coercive Birth Control in Tibet, has some information as well as a list of sources which we could track down at end of page. CNN. Forced abortion of the disabled: Human Rights Watch (main disability article), Human Rights Violations Related to Women’s Sexual Autonomy and Reproductive Choices on Human Rights Watch, UN Disability Convention (see under "Family/privacy rights" where is stated " In particular, disabled women are often victims of forced sterilization and forced abortion." Towards a Gender Sensitive Disability Rights Convention under "Right to protection against all forms of violence" and "Right to protection against eugenic health programs and practices" where forced abortion is specifically mentioned. Is this what was wanted, or did you need anything else?  KillerChihuahua 18:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work KC! I thought this had turned into a dead issue.--Tznkai 17:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: thanks. :)  KillerChihuahua 18:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion related to the disabled community 

message: I have removed all the external links. I personally am sick and tired of the bloating that one side or the other gets. I propose we only add statistics, and additional information that is reasonable neutral and sterile. No diatribes, no declarations. Only external links to laws, statements by governments, statistics, medical journal definitions, etc.
No more advocacy groups. Leave that to the abortion subpages (debate, morality, pro choice, pro life, abortion in _____, etc.)
This is ridiculous. I think most of you will agree with me.--Tznkai 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good'ol justfacts link moving back again. - RoyBoy 800 05:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links. 

message: I thought this was settled. I have re-removed the choice as an ambigious term from the Abortion Terminology section. The question of choices at stake, and choice as a euphimism in the context of "pro-choice" are dealt with in the debate section. The terminilogy section is for terms that have ambigious and implicit meaning. Life and Human are ambigious, because they are sometimes confused with personhood and person. This is not a statement of belief, merely that the words have implicit meanings. When someone says "human" they do not always mean person, but frequently they do. This is a fact. When people say choice, they almost always mean "something having to do with a decision being made".
I understand the point being made. That point can be made in the abortion debate section. Its useful there. Not useful in an attempt to warn the reader that we're trying our best to NOT make implications beyond strict definition.--Tznkai 16:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your explanation suits your desire too, so lets Wikipedia:Assume good faith here, 214.  Tznkai is right that it is both redundant and out-of-place at this specific point in the article.  We could have the entire debate rolled up into the terminology section, but it is better addressed in the debate section, IMHO.  --Quasipalm 17:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to assume good faith with you is nonsensical given your vast history of ignoring consensus and acting unilaterally.  Yet still I do AGF with you, 214, most of the tmie.  I, for the most part, really believe that you mean well.  But rewriting a paragraph so that "life" always precedes "choice" -- it is childish and silly.  You can only break long-held consensus so much before I start to think that you look at wikipedia as a chance for advocacy and proselytization. It doesn't help that you repeatedly try and add "his holiness" into pope articles even though wikipedia came to a compromise and reached consensus on that months ago.  You're not exactly what I would call a "team player."  --Quasipalm 18:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not going to try to "fix" this, but here I would like to point out the way in which the word "choice" is ambiguous.  To most people who are "pro choice", "pro choice" means that the question of what choices a woman makes during her pregnancy should be between her and her doctor.  To some people who are "pro life", "pro choice" means either that abortion is the favored alternative, or that the choice of abortion is value neutral.  This confusion of the word is so fixed in the minds of many that I feel the need to explain further.  I am pro-choice but anti-abortion -- at least in the late stages of pregnancy.  By being anti-abortion, I mean that if a friend asked me if she should have an abortion I would advise against it.  By being pro-choice, I mean that the government should not pass laws on this intensely private subject.  When the government tries to pass laws to "fix" the lives of private citizens, it is like someone trying to pull a splinter using a fork lift. Rick Norwood 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Calm, Kyd.  You've written a sentence that, if read literally, says the punishment of women is not addressed as a right.  I think a shorter sentence is in order.  Rick Norwood 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that the previous version wasn't clearly phrased. However, 214 feels the need to continually wedge these qualifications into the text, again, and again, and again, and I can't help feeling it's an attempt to lead readers around by the hand. Just when you think it's all been settled, it gets brought up once more. It's become frustrating. --Kyd 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I share your frustration.  I suggest you revert changes that are not discussed here. Rick Norwood 22:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Evidently some people really do believe that not punishing women is an "extreme point of view"! Rick Norwood 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Kyd, now we have "9% of thought", which is what happens when you get half a dozen rewrites on the same day.  I'm out of here until things calm down. Rick Norwood 21:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course you realize that such is true about "life."  If I loose a skin cell the size of a zygot, I'm certainly not going to hold a funeral.  Nor 
I agree with you that both "choice" and "life" belong in the section on "linguistic pitfalls".  The question is, how to get that paragraph in a shape that won't be instantly reverted.  When things calm down a little bit, maybe that can be accomplished, but right now I see much heat and little light. Rick Norwood 12:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  At the very least, the Department of Redundency Department should give it a once over.  Rick Norwood 12:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Choice" 

message: I see that my two edits were removed.
Item #1: The first study in the mental health discussion.  We discussed this about a month ago, which is that the first study was redundant with the third one (i.e. gave no new information) and in addition had no source.  Tsukai asked if anyone had an objection to the removal, and no one responded.  You had a month to object!
Item #2: The just facts website is not in fact non partisan.  They specifically state that they are a conservative site.  It has an AGENDA and therefore is a pro-life site.
I'll give you all time to respond before I delete them again. Lepidoptera 18:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had a reversion war here the past couple of days.  I don't know if your stuff was changed intentionally or just caught up in a bunch of hasty people reverting each other.  There is some work to be done on the article, but it can't start until the reversion war settles down. Rick Norwood 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They were both reverted by the same user, who doesn't have an account- just an IP.  Actually if you look at his talk page it's littered with people complaining about his abuse of reverts.  But I figured I should bring this to the discussion page and see what other people have to say. Lepidoptera 19:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "The term chosen by Just Facts is 'preborn human.' This phrase is medically accurate, distinguishes between humans and other mammals, and conveys reality in simple unemotional language."
"Preborn human" is a neologism used exclusively by the right-to-life movement. Do a Google search, if you don't believe me, and see what kind of hits you return. "Preborn" or (pre-born) were listed at neither Dictionary.com nor Wiktionary; a Google search for the term, individually, returned 90% pro-life sites. I don't understand how anyone can use a politically-charged term while claiming it "unemotional language" (especially when it rejects "unborn baby" because it "tends to evoke a warm sentiment"). "Human" herein is deliberately ambiguous in context: "homo sapiens," i.e. "something that is biologically human," or "person, individual." Emotionalization, anyone?
This site definitely belongs under pro-life, because, in the organization of links, we are forced to consider the site's "agenda" (thus, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, for all its wonderful charts and graphs, is "pro-choice"). Tznkai suggests that the the partisan link sections be done away with entirely. I understand, and also agree, with this idea, but believe that the section should remain, if only to prevent the ideologies presented on such sites from spilling over into the main article. The informational section was designed to be a third, neutral category, not an opportunity and an invitation for mole links. --Kyd 11:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems reasonable. I think, invariably, we're going to have to streamline the article. If two studies asked the same questions, and returned the same results, it would seem logical to favour the newest one (or else the one with the broadest geographical sample). I think this is also going to come into play in the Public Opinion section; the number of American studies is going to have to be trimmed down if we're also to include some international examples. --Kyd 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reverted again.  128.253.240.212 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: I divided the public opinion information by country and added information on Australia. Also, the text of the first poll on the American list originally read as such:
:"One 2005 poll, which asked a sample of Americans to choose between two undefined labels ("pro-choice" and pro-life"), found that a majority (54%) prefer the label "pro-choice", while 38% prefer "pro-life".  In the same poll, 30% said that they would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned; 42% said abortion should be harder to obtain; 9% thought abortions should be easier to obtain, and 47% said ease or difficulty should remain the same."
The source listed is Polling Report. This site appears to be aggregate of many polls from many sources; it is not one long, comprehensive poll, as the original editor seems to have confused it. I attempted to correlate the numbers and questions provided with individual polls listed on the site. It was thus that I discovered that the original editor had mistakenly incorporated at least three polls into one. The origin of the "38% pro-life/54% pro-choice" statistic is a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll; the "42% harder/9% easier/47% same" statistic came from a ABC News/Washington Post. I couldn't find a poll that said 30% of Americans wanted Roe overturned, so I used the Pew Research poll which had numbers for both people who wanted it overturned and who didn't (incidentally, an outdated version of the Pew poll listed on the site says 30% want Roe overturned).
We still need to find a source for the Ireland claim, and, also, I would like to rework the presentation of the remaining American polls to counteract the obvious pro-life bias:
:"A similar 2004 poll revealed that a majority of Americans (53%) think that "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter." A majority (58%) said they thought abortion was morally unacceptable "when the mother's life is not in danger". [10] A 2003 poll indicated a majority (57%) of Americans support legal abortion only in limited circumstances, such as "when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest" or "when the woman's physical health is endangered."
No opposite number on whether "Abortion destroys a human life"? What percentage thought that abortion was acceptable in broader circumstances? It's something akin to the fallacy of the enumeration of favourable circumstances, isn't it?
Anyone know where to begin with other countries? Perhaps some that aren't English-speaking G8 members? --Kyd 15:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Opinion

message: The fact that religion beliefs are not exacerbated in this country, definitely help people to keep a clear and logical view about this matter.
This does not belong in an encyclopedia unless there is a viable citation available.  Salva 04:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: can't find this passage anywhere--Tznkai 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's convenient--WwJd 04:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, is it?  I don't get it.  --Quasipalm 18:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this discussion serious. The sentence was there for a moment, part of a series of really bad edits, but it was quickly removed (by me, I think) after the initial post by Salva. Hence you can't find it. Str1977 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjectivity, anyone? 

message: An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus which is removed from the uterus.
I'm curious about the word "removed" -- isn't that specific to induced abortion?  How might we change that word to include spontaneous abortion?  --Quasipalm 18:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line 

message: OK to archive
Why were these  edits removed completly? Even if you disagree or think there is a policy violation, don't just remove, improve. Or atleas C&P to the talk page.
Restoring some of the edits now.--Tznkai 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits have been twice reverted as POV. Not innacurate, but pov. This won't do, considering the amount of information. If you insist that it is a violation of our NPOV policy, FIX IT! Don't remove it!--Tznkai 23:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 4.238.136.248 

message: The debate about the current Supreme Court justices is fueled in large part by abortion.  The article on Miers goes into good detail on this, but would perhaps it be worthwhile to add a bit of information about this to the abortion article or history of abortion/abortion law, etc? -Cookiemobsta 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather keep it out of the top tier for now since the news will probably be best linked in a more detailed article.--Tznkai 01:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it belongs on Abortion in the United States, but not the top-level article abortion.  We've already had a hard time making the article international.  --Quasipalm 01:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Precisely. It's far too limited of an issue to be mentioned in the main article. The debate is largely American and seems to be relatively short-term (and, unfortunately, there is simply isn't space for a blow-by-blow account of the debate's proceedings here). I'd recommend Abortion in the United States, or, like you said, History of abortion. --Kyd 17:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court Nominations 

message: I've added information from an Irish Times survey. Sadly, it's a little older than I'd have liked it to be, but frankly it's better than nothing at all. As for Northern Ireland, however, I only managed to find references to polls at a pro-life site and in a Belfast Telegraph article, which can only be accessed by those with a subscription. Ann, you're Irish, aren't you? If you could help out with this any further it'd be really great!
I removed the globalization tag because I feel that the section is now international. If anyone could help contribute information for other countries, please do! I may attempt to gather information for a paragraph on the United Kingdom soon.
I have also removed the following paragraph pending further discussion: "In most of the other countries in Europe (France, Germany, Belgium, UK, Czech Republic,...) there is little debate about abortion, since many consider it a private matter." Claims of this nature, obviously, are far too broad to be made without a source.
--Kyd 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Opinion, Again 

message: :As repeated and hopefully redundant reminder, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy prohibits biased usage of terminology. The reader is reminded to assume good faith in part of the editors, and that there are no deliberate allusions or colloquial meanings applied to seemingly controversial terms.
This has been removed. We do not refer to ourselves in articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self reference to Wikipedia 

message: The map legend for abortion laws around the world is to small to read.
Leon Trotsky 9:39 30 October 2005
: How big would you want it? Is there a standard? The current font, I believe, is Arial size 9. I've added a text-based version of the legend to the map page for now. It should, I assume, adjust itself according to the user's browser preferences. --Kyd 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Map Legend

message: I found out more about this from my biology class- it's actually really interesting.  There is a correlation between higher rates of breast cancer and abortions, but abortions do not CAUSE breast cancer- they simply make you have 4 more years of periods.  The reason for the correlation is simply that having your period causes breast cancer.  
The rise in breast cancer is due to two factors: our periods come earlier- at 12 or 13, as opposed to 15.  We also get pregnant far later- sometimes not until our 30's, when historically it would be at 16 or 17.  Since breast feeding prevents your period, the typical 15 year old years ago would have about a year of periods, followed by a pregancy and then 2-3 years of breast feeding, a few more periods, and then another pregancy, and so on.  Thus, historically women would have very few periods in their lifetime while modern women have many many periods because of delayed child bearing AS WELL as the decline in breast feeding.  
Thus, a woman who has an abortion is merely adding on about 3-4 years of periods to her life by not bringing it to term and breastfeeding it.  That's a lot of periods, and a lot of cell damaging hormones.  The average female many years ago would have about a total of 150 periods, whereas today's woman averages 400.  If you don't have kids and don't breastfeed, that ends up being even more.
Is there a way to integrate this information into the entry? Lepidoptera 19:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Get us a source that isn't a textbook. Your text book should have linked a study.--Tznkai 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Those are confounding factors well understood and accounted for as a matter of course in scientific studies. Hence, this doesn't really impact the ABC results, and periods involve hormones, the very same mechanism proposed in the ABC hypothesis. - RoyBoy 800 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC hypothesis= crap 

message: OK to archive
I have culled the links and instituted a new structure (being bold and hopefully with a clue). Sites with information on abortion itself, and tbe processes, medical effects, and consueling and so on, are kept, everything else is either removed or earmarked for another sub article.
--Tznkai 16:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm glad that someone had the gumption to seize the bull by the horns. For all its usefulness, the  link section was unfortunately fraught with abuse. Anwayway,  I moved the two abortion law links back, as both supplement the law summary, and the average reader probably won't check out the abortion law sub-article. --Kyd 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links overhaul.