Talk:Abortion in the United States/Archive 1

message: From 1st paragraph:
:In the U.S., a movement to ban abortion altogether has some political clout, even though the practice is presently legal.
Saying "the practice is presently legal" is ambiguous, so it shouldn't be in the first paragraph - a place where we usually sum things up (or introduce them). The practice is subject to restrictions as to timing. AFAIK a woman can't just cancel her pregnancy one week before delivery, saying I changed my mind; I don't want to have it -- the article goes on to talk about trimesters and deadlines.
::Is it possible to say that the party that is in government has an effect on law regarding abortions and that while the majority of the population may or may not have voted for him he will now be making decisions that will effect the Supreme Court likely with abortion in mind (maybe that should be later on, but its how i would try to deal with it). Also how about Abortion in legal in the US to start off with. The talk of trimesters and deadlines (as i see it) is because Roe. vs Wade was based on trimesters. A weird way of getting women access to abortion but it became between the docto and the woman under privacy. This has effected many legal aspects of access to abortion although the Planned Parenthood case seems to be different than that directions. The other interesting thing about trimesters is how early many women have abortions. Most have it about as soon as they can if they are going to. Most 3rd term abortions are for genetic abnormalities that weren't detected earlier, although there are exceptions (page mentions quebec looking for a doctor who will do 3rd term abortions...more is available on Abortion in Canada... even with no abortion law in Canada there can still be limits.) They are however not legal limits...a doctor is not forced to perform abortions (not that i've ever heard of). The article on Quebec showed that it was dispoportnitely the poor and disadvantaged that needed a 3rd term abortion that was not directly for health reasons--Marcie 03:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous terminology 

message: I've posted this to the Roe v.s Wade area for discussion as well. I'm not quite sure in which it would go, but it is something that Canadians follow about American abortion law and notice (we keep track of your Supreme Court Decisions because they often have an impact on ours, although less so in this case it seems
I've looked at the Abortion the US page and i'm really not sure what is better here and there...i'm going to copy the commment there too"--Marcie 23:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information 

message: The reference to laws and controversy regarding "partial birth abortion" are innaccurate and unqualified. "Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term and is, in fact, the politically slanted terminology used to discuss the Dilation and Extraction technique of abortion, which is hardly ever used in the manner that the words "partial birth" seem to suggest.--216.87.207.1 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article on partial birth abortion discuss whether the term is misleading?Ferrylodge 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it possible to perhaps put in a sentence that says that the Catholic church is against abortion but that Catholics in American make their own decisions regarding abortion and birth control...or in some other way saying its clear that not everyone is following what the Catholic church says (or not all of it anyway). Up here they are about to legalize gay marriage (already legal in 7 provinces/territories) and the Pope or someone high up anyway...I’d have to look it up) has said that any politician that supports it should not be allowed communion...and a lot more of our politicians are Catholic in Canada than in the e US (including the Prime Minister). The general response has been that it is a matter of the state and not one of religion and that they as politicians are not going to force their religious beliefs on others. Kerry said something similar during the presidential debates...i have the debates saved(in text form so it should be easy to find) would a quote from there be helpful perhaps? As for actual difficulties in access my reading (from Canada of course) is that the problem is coming more from Fundamentalist Christians wanting to ban abortion than Catholics...of course this is a POV unless someone wants to find another way to word it.
Oh and thanks for whoever put a nicely worded version of the issue i wanted addressed but wasn't sure how to word regarding the position of women with disabilities and of races other than white, and a few other things i'd commented on but not changed.
Do let me know if the quote (debates) would be helpful or maybe some statistics...i tend to find those things easier than most...and if i can't find it i won't
 --Marcie 01:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Statements 

message: The data provided here (25.5% to postpone childbearing, 21.3% can't afford it, etc.) comes from an article titled "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries."  Does this mean that these numbers represent the percentage of women in all 27 countries?  If so, those statistics clearly don't belong in this article.  Does anybody know if these statistics are specific to the United States, or if they are the aggregate figues for all 27 countries? Parallel or Together? 04:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "Reasons for abortions" 

message: Someone has deleted my explanation that in this article the word "abortion" is not used in the medical sense, but only in the sense of "induced abortion".  I wonder what the objection is to making this clear? Rick Norwood 16:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spontaneous vs. induced abortion 

message: How can he Republicans be Pro Life if they toss our soldier's lives down the drain?
Assume the lotus position and repeat after me: "Npov Npov Npov."
:Not all pro lifers are Republican, and the GOP is not monolithic on most issues anyway.  With that in mind, assume the lotus position and repeat after me:
:"Fallacy of the undistributed middle, fallacy of the undistributed middle..." --Ur Wurst Enema 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Life...right... 

message: The following passage that I added to the "opposition" section of this article was removed as being "redundant": 
:Organizations and individuals opposing abortion typically present one of two general arguments against the general availability of abortion. Some argue that because of the complexity and difficulty involved in determining exactly when life begins, the law should err on the side of protecting the fetus over the mother's privacy rights, or, similarly, that the law should err on the side of protecting the potential life over the mother's privacy rights. Other organizations and individuals opposing abortion argue that the fetus is a distinct living entity, thus it is a person and is entitled to protection under the law.
Before I edited this section, the section began with the last sentence of this passage.  Unless the argument that I have added is contained elsewhere in the article (and if it is, it really should be in this section), I think it needs to be in this section.  These are the two most general arguments against abortion, but the "fetus is a person" argument is really a faith-based argument, as it requires a belief that the fetus is a living being at the point of conception.  The added argument is a secular argument, as it does not require that the arguer believe that the fetus is a living being from conception.  Rather, the argument relies on the scientific difficulty of determining exactly when life begins, and cautions that if the law is to err, it should err on the side of protecting the fetus since we cannnot accurately determine whether it is "alive" or not and cannot risk killing a being that might be alive.  Thus, it errs on the side of protecting something that might be alive (but is not certainly so) over the mother's right to privacy.  Perhaps the argument is inartfully worded and should be rewritten, but it really needs to be in the article as it relies on an entirely different premise from the second. - Jersyko talk 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The strong version of the argument is that a fetus is morally and legally equivalent to a newborn.  The weak version, which you added, is that the law ought to err on the side of treating the fetus as if it were morally and legally equivalent to a newborn.  This is the same argument, only in different levels of dilution. Alienus 05:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I disagree, labelling one or the other as "strong" and "weak" is POV.  The "weak version", as you call it, is a secular argument, as I've pointed out, as it does not require one to simply take it upon faith or belief that a fetus is alive from conception.  This distinguishes the arguments enough so that both warrant inclusion in this article. - Jersyko talk 13:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both the strong and weak versions are (at least ostensibly) secular arguments.  However, they differ only in whether they state the personhood of a fetus as a fact or merely as a likelihood we should lean towards.  Both omit any specific basis for thinking that a fetus should be given the rights of a person in the first place, which is why I put in "ostensibly".  In practice, the basis may well be secular, but it is quite often not, especially for the strong version.  In any case, there is redundancy here that must be resolved, because the article as it stands is repetative. Do you want me to take a stab at it first? Alienus 19:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree that the article is redundant, but please feel free to edit away.  I agree, though, that both arguments are flawed for failing to demonstrate the personhood of a fetus.  In any event, I will not revert any of your changes unless consensus is reached in re this issue. - Jersyko talk 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I took a stab at it.  Don't revert my changes, but feel free to either make suggestions here or change what you think is bad. Alienus 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the changes.  The flow is much better now.  I won't remove the contraception bit you added (partly because I agree with the sentiment expressed), but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else removed it as POV.  Perhaps the language you use could be neutralized somewhat? - Jersyko talk 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition arguments 

message: Looks like it should include the statistics if it's going to reference them, and more explicitly state opinions as such. -- Varuka 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other impediments to access 

message: As per my edit this morning, I tried to remove subtle POV from the sentence "abortion mortality fell from nearly 1,500 to a little over 100" - obviously from a pro-choice POV, this might seem NPOV, but obviously, for those who are pro-life, it is distinctly POV: the rate of abortion mortality may have falled from nearly 1500 to a little over 100 for the mother, but remained 100% for the child.
However, Alienus reverted this edit, pointing out - quite accurately and fairly - that "there are no maternal deaths from abortion because pregnant women who abort do not become mothers" (see edit summary). While this is accurate, it does have the problem that - if taken seriously, as one must presume Alienus intends - of rendering other uses of an almost identical phrase ("maternal death", "maternal mortality") within the same paragraph nonsensical, yet Alienus did not edit those. I now have - with the net effect, in my view, that the article is now more literally correct, per Alienus, but none-the-less, is less elegantly phrased. This strikes me as being a ridiculously over-scrupulous parsing of the text; surely, one can say "Some supporters of legal abortion argue that legalization has resulted in a dramatic fall in 'maternal death from abortion," so surely one can also say " From 1940 through 1970, maternal death from abortion fell"
The more controversial the topic, the greater the need for NPOV. But how far can this be taken? To the point of making the article less readable to quibble over a painfully minor distinction (and to be inconsistent about it, at that)? It seems to me that both my most recent edit and Alienus' edit should be reverted to my version from this morning. Simon Dodd 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addenda: if there is no objection to comments within 24 hours of my post yesterday evening, I will go ahead and make the reversion described therein. Simon Dodd 19:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alienus - In my view, the goal is to be accurate, first, and readable, second. "Working on an article that gains featured status" doesn't make my list of goals of contributing to Wikipedia. I want to stress that the section of the article in debate is not now as it was when I found it; then, it was both inconsistent and POV. It is now neither, but in the process it has become inelegantly phrased, which I think is regrettable; I think that referring to "maternal death" during abortion is perfectly reasonable use of language, but it is not the problem I initially made the edit to correct. My purpose was to correct what I saw as subtle POV, and while I think my way of saying it is better than the version you have forced, at the very least, while I don't like the new style, I am none-the-less content with the content. Therefore, while I think that your edit, in fact, is detrimental to the article in a stylistic manner, it does at least have the virtues of being scrupulously factually accurate. I am far more interested in substance than style, and thus leave it to others to fight the stylistic fight, as long as it remains factually accurate. :) Simon Dodd 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Maternal health"? 

message: This article should contain at least a paragraph of this historic case. Good 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NOW v. Scheidler]] 

message: The following sentence has been inserted in the article: "There is also a large disconnect between convention delegates who pass the party platform and rank and file Democrats."  While some 2004 polls seems to support this conclusion to some degree, more recent polls seem to confuse the issue as they reach quite different conclusions.   Also, speaking of Democratic leaders, what about Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who is pro-life by most accounts?  I think the sentence is mere POV and should be removed per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, but I would like to hear other editors' comments on the matter.  For context, the relevant paragraph is the second one in this section. - Jersyko·talk 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: In Later Judicial Decisions, the following sentence "Several items of legislation impacting on abortion, including the Child Custody Protection Bill, are awaiting Congressional debate (February 2003)" really needs an update. Its been 3 1/2 years, something tells me that bill has been decided on by now...Natalie 01:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates? 

message: There is only one single mention of murder even thought it is the argument of the opposing half of the debate. This whole article seems whack out of NPOV...--71.192.88.79 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder 

message: its nice to see right away what the typical rates of abortion have been in the US, its just inconvenient for some that actually, against popular imagination, the rates plunged to far fewer women having abortions during Clinton, during Reagan-Bush it was much higher and remained constant, the american people have been deceived and lied to by campaigns against the Clintons using the abortion issue, its actually the Clintons that had drastic reductions in abortions...no one else has even come close to matching those reductions in abortions!!! I'm not saying I'm pro-Clinton or anti-republican or something, I'm just stating facts, and I was incidently shocked by the reality, and now feel as if i have been deceived by american republicans, I live in switzerland actually, and I tend to think americans should do more like the French and make it a 10 week limit perhaps, its too easy in america to get an abortion i think, the French for instance have higher standards, yet i am happy the Clintons helped greatly reduce the abortion rate in america!!!...83.79.137.123 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source that was cited to support the conclusion that abortions decreased under Clinton says nothing about the presidency or political parties.  Thus, it's original research to discuss the decline in abortions in the context of political parties or the identity of the president, implying a connection is so doing.  The article already discusses abortion rates over time.  In any event, the information is certainly too specific for the article's introduction. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your statement, which you put that "there was less abortions under Clinton than Reagan and Bush" and use one fact which you state regarding the amount abortions under one president than the other, and the overlooking or justifying your stat as to the reason why that may be the case is a false argument fallacy under the concept of Half-truth Correlation does not imply causation or Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  It could be said that of this statistic fiery arrow may be due to Democratic president manipulating the data or hiding the full truth of what may be the cause of that statistic.  Your premise is without factual basis or fully cited information to justify your statement.207.67.148.136 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  abortion rates drastically declining during Clinton 

message: The same pollsters have just released several new polls. I have taken the liberty to update one. Also, at surveyUSA.com, you can get state-by-state adult composition of the debate. The Last time it was taken the numbers appeared: (as of 11/12/06): (these polls are not too in depth, but it allows people to look at the abortion debate state-by-state. This would be what would count in case Roe v. Wade was overturned 
(but not in a way where the justices will amend constitutional law to give equal protection and due process to unborn children/fetuses) and we wanted to predict abortion law for each jurisdiction.* These polls are based on rolling averages and are found in the cross tabs. There is an abortion poll from 2005, however with more detail and more focus on the abortion debate.
http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html
Alabama- Prolife: 58%  Prochoice: 36% 
Alaska-  Prolife: 34%  Prochoice: 61%
Arizona- Prolife: 38%  Prochoice: 57%
Arkansas-Prolife: 54%  Prochoice: 41%
California-  32%, 63%
Colorado-    40%, 56%
Connecticut- 32%, 65%
Deleware-    34%, 60%
Florida-     39%, 57%
Georgia-     43%, 48%
Hawaii-      36%, 59% 
Idaho-       56%, 39%
Illinois-    37%, 57%
Indiana-     47%, 47%
Iowa-        45%, 51%
Kansas-      46%, 48%
Kentucky-    55%, 40%
Louisiana-   61%, 34%
Maine-       31%, 65%
Maryland-    33%, 63%
Massachusetts26%, 68%
Michigan-    36%, 58%
Minnesota-   40%, 56%
Mississippi- 59%, 34%
Missouri-    49%, 46%
Montana- NOT AVAILABLE 
Nebraska-    45%, 48%
Nevada-      33%, 62%
NewHampshire 27%, 69%
New Jersey-  31%, 65%
New Mexico-  42%, 50%
New York-    28%, 65%
NorthCarolina50%, 44%
North Dakota NOT AVAILABLE 
Ohio-        47% 49%
Oklahoma-    48% 47%
Oregon-      36% 57%
Pennsylvania 41% 52%
Rhode Island 33% 61%
SouthCarolina50% 43%
South Dakota 45% 52%
Tennessee    52% 40%
Texas        42% 50%
Utah         61% 34%
Vermont      25% 71%
Virginia     46% 47%
Washington   34% 63%
WestVirginia 52% 41%
Wisconsin    40% 55% 
Wyoming      44% 51% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.144.113.218 (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Polls 

message: :On March 6 2006 the state of South Dakota banned all abortions except those done to save the life of the mother, "in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion," according to the Associated Press. South Dakota bans most abortions. CNN. March 5 2006. Opponents of the law gathered enough signatures for a referendum on the November 7 2006 ballot in which the law was rejected 56-44%S.Dakota election results. CNN, Nov. 2006.
The above was removed from the article. I think it is clearly notable that a state legislature passed a law banning abortion. Is there an argument why we shouldn't mention this in the article, or can we work on a wording and place to fit this back into he article? -Andrew c 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This stuff was in a section on PBA, and I removed it.  Even if put into an appropriate section, it still gives undue weight to a law that ultimately failed.  There is other proposed legislation that has failed too (e.g. in Mississippi).  In contrast, many states continue to enact "trigger laws" that would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Those triggers laws have not failed, and are presently on the books.  One was signed in Louisiana a few months ago.Ferrylodge 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a google test, I have to disagree with your undue weight concerns. Perhaps we could also mention trigger laws elsewhere in the article, but at least to the media, the South Dakota law was the most notable out of any of them. Google "abortion ban" and hits #1,8,18,19 deal with SD, and the rest with the PBA Ban. Do a google search where you exclude the phrase "partial-birth" and hits #1,2,3,8,9,10,11,13,14,17,20 all deal with SD. Only hit 19 deals with a trigger law (the remaining hits deal with the PBA Ban without saying "partial-birth" or the Nicaragua abortion ban). I believe we could have more in depth coverage of bans and trigger laws across the US, but I also believe that the SD ban has established notability, and having 2 sourced sentences about the ban and subsequent voter rejection isn't giving it too much space.-Andrew c 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've inserted this paragraph, which I stole from the Roe v. Wade article: "On March 6, 2006, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed into law a pro-life statute which made performing abortions a felony, and that law was subsequently repealed in a November 7, 2006 referendum.  On February 27 2006, Mississippi’s  House Public Health Committee voted to approve a ban on abortion, and that bill died after the House and Senate failed to agree on compromise legislation.  Several states have enacted so-called 'trigger laws' which 'would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned."  Hopefully, that will work.Ferrylodge 18:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks for finding that paragraph.-Andrew c 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Dakota 

message: While I ordinarily prefer gender-neutral terminology, I think it's better to refer to the people actively seeking abortions as "women." If we refer to doctors and vendors selling abortifacients to "people," one might think that they meant men as well as women (which may have been the case, but the words still don't mean the same thing in that context).  I believe someone else also pointed out that it might cause confusion regarding fetal personhood.Darkfrog24 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, women are the gender who get pregnant, changing to "persons" or "people" is silly. One puppy's opnion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woman vs. Person 

message: It seems to me that the following line is irrelevant in an article on abortion and should be deleted - or am I missing something?
"They also believed that a woman should be allowed to refuse sex with her husband. An American woman had no legal recourse at that time against rape by her husband, except possibly divorce,[4] an option that (especially before the American Civil War) was usually available only for well-connected women of means who had sufficient resources not just to end the marriage but to also survive without a husband."   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.192.176 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Sentence