Talk:Abortion/Archive 7

message: I think this article does not need this tag. It is informative on how abortion is done. Views of Pro-life or Pro-choice people does not matter in defining how the procedure is done. If you are disputing the procedures please discuss it. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for/against "Totally disputed" tag

message: * For --Cool Cat My Talk 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For (remove the tag)

message: At this point, I don't want to remove the tag, but I think we're getting there quickly. Thanks to everyone for their very hard work.--Tznkai 16:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I apologize in advance if I'm doing this incorrectly - I'm new and not 100% confident as to how discussions are organized/edited.  My question is in regard to this sentence: "Abortion rights advocates often argue that abortion needs to be widely available because some women become pregnant due to rape or incest (estimated at 2% of pregnancies)" under the "Rape, incest and health" debate section.  It seems to me that 2% of all pregnancies being due to rape or incest is very high, and I'm wondering if it's meant to say that 2% of abortions occur because the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.  I tried briefly to find the statistic online with no luck.  Can someone clarify (and let me know if this is the wrong way to go about checking)?  Thanks! /Icefyre 21:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I made two small changes to the descriptions of both the pro-choice and pro-life viewpoint. I feel that my changes promote accuracy and neutrality. Most importantly, it is true that many who are pro-choice privately find abortion distasteful even while maintaining that women have a right to it. Secondly, there are many convincing philosophical arguments on the pro-life end, and pro-lifers should not be stereotyped as basing their beliefs on this matter upon religious convictions.
I'd also like to point out to the supporters of both that it is vitally important for this article to portray this issue as accurately and neutrally as possible.
These changes got lost in the revert. Would someone who's got time do me a favor and try to fix the POV bits to reflect the less extreme views on the subject? I really think that better representing the more moderate views would add a great deal to the article.Bill Mutz 13:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two small changes

message: We all know that a fetus is a potential baby. When a woman has a spontaneous miscarriage she may mourn her unborn and unknown baby that never was. However, in the context of abortion, the vast majority of fetuses are pre-viable and in this context, for a "neutral" encyclopedia article, as for a medical textbook, it is misleading and deliberately inflammatory to insist that they be called "babies." Yes, people use different words in different contexts for the same thing. Fetus is a perfectly good and accurate word when the intention is to describe the process of abortion neutrally. It doesn't mislead or conceal anything and doesn't sound so self-righteously sermonizing. Baby is a good word to use in a sermon or a political polemic, but that is not what this is supposed to be, right? alteripse 03:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yucky intro, it won't last long. Mentioning America twice is overkill, probably unnecessary to mention it at all given its an acknowledged systematic bias. - RoyBoy 800 04:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh, I was coming to clarify that... its certainly a more informative intro with the terms and such, but the composition is long and awkward to me, especially in comparison to previous leads. Simply put abortion is controversial around the world; specifying America stands out as inaccurate (saying America is more divided on the issue than other western countries is clearer). Putting further perspectives (making the lead even longer) isn't necessary if America is just removed. I guess keeping the acknowledgement is fine, but its not just social (as the lead eloborates) and its not the "primary" focus... the primary focus is (or should be) Abortion; which the lead is elaborating. That results in a little confusion IMO, the lead ends up redirecting the focus in the last sentence. - RoyBoy 800 04:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Much better... I'll do some tweaks and see what you think. Initially I didn't like "without survival," but its quite accurate, I think it was the novelty of the phrase that troubled me; and that it does seems to repeat termination. But I'd certainly agree we should err on the side of clarity. - RoyBoy 800 14:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: baby vs fetus

message: To the anon contributor: You have removed useful and accurate definitions from the intro. You have made it less precise and accurate, since the word truly applies to both natural and induced abortions, even if you are only interested in one type. You have introduced unnecessarily POV terms: when there are various terms used for something, choosing a less precise term that is used only by one faction of a controversy is by that fact arguing only one POV. To argue otherwise is simply dishonest. The place for making it clear that some people prefer the terms baby and death is in the section on opposition to elective abortion. Both terms (baby and death) are used in many ways and in many contexts, and they are not the best choice for the intro to this article because the choice of them would already place the article on a single side of the controversy. Finally, all of us would appreciate it if you would sign in as a user and reassure us that you share the purpose of this project, which is to produce an accurate article that reflects the range of perspectives on the topic rather than a single view. Thanks. alteripse 12:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't me. All that I did was add content to the POV sections, so there must be some other anon user. I generally try to make a habit of mentioning any changes I make on the discussion pages and usually discuss major changes to introductions before making any actual changes. In spite of what my own changes might have reflected, though, I'm actually very pro-choice. Odd, eh? In any event, in order to prevent future mix-ups, perhaps I'll follow your request and log in before adding more content to this controversial subject. Oh, and how do you go about putting your nick at the end of a posting?
......oh, you mean like this, right?Bill Mutz 13:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, then I wasn't talking to you and what I said doesn't apply to you. Look at the history and you will see the list of anon IP changes of the last 8 hours. That is what I was addressing. Also, you sign with four tildes-- here are two ~~, adding two more makes it a signature with time stamp: alteripse 13:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: defending the intro

message: I think that giving the dispute its own article would allow the editors of the main article a better chance to offer users a chance to find valuable, factual information on the subject of abortion itself, especially to the extent of providing women who are considering abortion the most complete understanding of the subject that we can offer them. Pro-life and Pro-choice both have articles of their own, so it's not really a terribly radical idea. Bill Mutz 17:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mea culpa. There seems to be a bit of a hole in my head, for I did not realize that there was already a main article for the debate. In any case, I think that the discussion on the main page should remain as clinical as possible. Sorry. Bill Mutz 17:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Give the dispute its own article

message: What the heck is that for? Seems entirely unnecessary. - RoyBoy 800 04:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how a to-do list addresses anything we aren't already aware of; and have been discussing/reverting for months/years. - RoyBoy 800 05:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do List? 

message: Some loon inserted sections on 'herbal abortion' and 'traumatic abortion'.  Both have been culled, as the first is plain BS, and the second is technically 'induced miscarriage'. Proto 14:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem attacks do not help your position. What you refer to as 'plain BS' has sources cited, which is more than I can say for the rest of this article. As to your second point, I refer you to the opening paragraph: When an abortion occurs naturally or accidentally it is called a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), but if the development of the fetus or embryo is deliberately aborted it is an induced abortion. Also, Proto, please observe the three-revert-rule or you risk suspension. Eyeon 14:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence needs clarifying to confirm that deliberate aborting refers to surgicla or medical means.  Please consider discussing the addition of these (IMO) dubious items here before doing so. Proto 14:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a change would not be a clarification, it would be a redefinition. In reference to 'dubious' - my sources are cited. Or should this article only include methods that YOU find acceptable? Eyeon 14:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eyeon, your input might be better appreciated on the feces, masturbation and anus entires where you have recently been at work are editing.  Your information is extremely fringe, and IMO does not belong on the abortion page.  I suggest you place it at the end with a link to a page started for odd-ball abortion methods that are and never will be medically recommended.  I find myself laughing at this, becuase I don't find surgical abortion any less barbaric than doing the deed via herbs or trauma, however the entries here are supposed to reflect information that is generally useful to the population.  The info you would like to include does not fall under that category, IMO. 214.13.4.151 15:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try to divert attention from the issue at hand with talk of feces and masturbation. You have violated the three-revert rule, and you are being referred for suspension. IMO. Eyeon 16:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An attempt that would fail. Cited or not you are going against a quickly building consensus Eyeon. I'd be willing to take your side if you weren't attempting to force the issue on a controversial topic. - RoyBoy 800 16:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble with the Yoda-talk; do you have an opinion on the question of whether or not to mention unusual methods of abortion? Eyeon 17:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At this time, I do not. - RoyBoy 800 22:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, but saying the "abortion rate is low" doesn't make sense to me grammatically. - RoyBoy 800 15:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Had another go.  Might make more sense now. Spaully 15:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The information was cited properly and I have restored it. Eyeon 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Unless you can provide a source, I will revert. Eyeon 13:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Mr. 214's intentions may have been good to start with, but his edit history suggests he can't understand NPOV. Frustrated, he's getting a little paranoid and turning into a troll. Eyeon 13:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eyeon (masturbation, anus and feces): there is no proof that herbs can actually cause an abortion. Citing a for-profit herballist website is not proof.  Please find a scientific study that demonstrates your claim.  The fact the peoplehave written about it for a long time does not make it so - some Chinese eat rhino horns (in vain) to treat impotence and have been doing so for millennia - it does not prove rhino horns are a remedy for that malady.  This entry is supposed to be factual - not speculative. My wording reflects the facts.  It makes no sense to list the specifics of a home-remedy that is not proven to cause the desired effect.  And I changed the title to one that is appopriate "Self-induced abortion" - which is quite approrpiate and not at all "POV".  Such fringe information does not deserve several headings, etc.214.13.4.151 15:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 214, please avoid inflammitory statements. In fact, while we're at it, could you please get a log on so we can make discussions easier?--Tznkai 15:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what was inflamatory - the list of bathroom words is simply a list of the entries that Eyeon has spent most of his time editing lately. 214.13.4.151 18:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was completely irrellivant. The only purpose it can serve is to be inflammitory.--Tznkai 18:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbal / Traumatic abortion 

message: For the sake of simplicity, and increasing NPOV, I'm going through the article top to bottom and NPOVing and fact checking as I go. I am making minimal edits without discussion of course, and will discuss as I go. To make life easier, please put citations for all of the health risk complications of abortion, both mainstream methods and non here so we can all have a better, factual neutral article--Tznkai 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Risk Fact checking 

message: There are many external links. For the sake of a good encylopedia article, I suggest we cull some from the herd. Please choose those you think are vitally needed, and those you think must go and leave comment here--Tznkai 18:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The conduct of user 214.13.4.151 is under review.  Eyeon 18:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 214.13.4.151 

message: ===U.S. political parties===
The official platforms of the major political parties in the US are as follows:
The US Republican Party's stance: 
"Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment. We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life." (Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000) 
"Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action. Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services." (Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000)
The US Democratic Party's official statements: 
"Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." (Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004) 
"Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right. Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing." (Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000)
Gnaargh. This is important information, but the article is huge, and where it was made the organization messy. Any way we can make this more brief, or just keep it in a seperate article?--Tznkai 19:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  exised 

message: The official platforms of the major political parties in the US are as follows:
The US Republican Party's stance: 
"Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment. We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life." (Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000) 
"Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action. Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services." (Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000)
The US Democratic Party's official statements: 
"Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." (Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004) 
"Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right. Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing." (Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000)
Gnaargh. This is important information, but the article is huge, and where it was made the organization messy. Any way we can make this more brief, or just keep it in a seperate article?--Tznkai 19:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. political parties

message: Simple and easy: Does this article still need the NPOV flag? If so, what sections are under contest?--Tznkai 20:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: There was an edit to add the information of Self induced Abortion. I suspect this is not a mainstream term: A google search for "self induced abortion" returns 3650 hits  A google search for "induced abortion" and "spontaneus abortion" return 109,000 and 164,000 hits respectivly 
I have removed refrences to it and am going to dispute self-induced abortion as well.--Tznkai 14:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Induced Abortion 

message: I flagged this article as totally disputed, since we can't seem to come to any sort of agreement whatsoever on almost anything. I propose a top to bottom review of this article, primarly fact checking, accuracy and reduction of point of view statements. Then, balance issues (mainstream versus not) then trim for length. Either way, this article is quickly becoming useless.--Tznkai 16:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * As for methods of abortion being spun off into a separate article - each method currently has its own page, so why place another page between the user and the methods when all it would be is a page of links?  If a more accepted term was found for self-induced abortion, the article you have requested for deletion could be moved and edited to accomodate this.  Spaully 19:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: do all herbal and traumatic abortions qualify as self-induced? I seem recall a very sad case in Michigan where some kids got into trouble. That wasn't really "self-induced" nor was it done within a clinic. And looking, you're right, each method has its own page, then we need to have "for the main article..." links on each. As for the VfD, it seems I am probably wrong about the article itself, but I still doubt it as a useful classification of "types" of abortions, rather it seems to be an accepted term about a problem in the ongoing abortion crisis/debate. --Tznkai 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Dispute: How can we fix it? 

message: I am going through and trimming information from the pro-choice pro-life sections. Theres no reason to bloat this article with it when theres a seperate article for it.--Tznkai 14:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is a reason, people come here... especially anon's and add links to their pov in order to achieve visual dominance in the article. - RoyBoy 800 16:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The links are gone; in case you need to be told, don't do that. Better too many than no links whatsoever. - RoyBoy 800 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Strange, the links, related topics sections show up in the edit window, but aren't showing up for me when I display the article. - RoyBoy 800 18:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted nothing. The article seems to have a formatting error thats making it go a little nuts for some reason.--Tznkai 18:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, improper comment from Coolcat I think. - RoyBoy 800 18:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, my fault, sorry--Tznkai 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty. I disagree WomenonWaves needs no comment; because I didn't know what it was when I initially saw it; and the rationale "just go to the link" can apply to all links, but we put comments to be helpful especially for people unfamiliar with the subject or the organizations. For example if The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a research arm of planned parenthood, perhaps that should be mentioned. (I saw it was removed when an anon placed it there.) - RoyBoy 800 04:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I removed all commentary aside from official catholic doctrine since who the hell understands latin these days anyway. WomenonWaves has more than just abortions where illegal information, and looks more like a general prochoice site to me. I'm just cutting like mad, and I'm doing it pretty viciously. Someone can put them back later, just hopefully they'll select only the best--Tznkai 05:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming. 

message: I generally think much of the trimmed fat was properly trimmed.  However, these stats are an integral part of understanding abortion in our world. 214.13.4.151 18:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropping off 

message: Ok. The article has been reorganized. Where can we put a blurb about the problems of self-induced abortion? Not sure where to stick it, but important highlights is, circumstances for abortion suck in a lot of places, and are leaving to serious problems where medical care is illegal, unavailable, or expensive--Tznkai 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self induced aboriton (take two)