Talk:Roe v. Wade/Archive 1

message: This article features very little on the actual majority opinion of the court. Whats the deal? Someone should update it to include that. If no one else would like to, I can. However, section V of the opinion summarizes it up nicely if someone else would like to. It's a little bit disappointing that this article doesn't have it, considering this is one of the most important recent cases in American law.
Jcp20 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion of the Court? 

message: Just something I noticed -  I was comparing the 'Roe v. Wade' page with that 'Miranda v. Arizona' to see if the formatting was the same for both supreme court cases, when I noticed that on Miranda v. Arizona the content box showed as follows:
Contents [hide]
1 Background of the case 
1.1 The Legal Aid Movement 
1.2 Arrest and conviction 
2 The Supreme Court's decision 
2.1 Harlan's dissent 
3 Effects of the decision 
4 Subsequent history 
5 Sources and further reading 
6 External links 
In Roe v. Wade, the first section is called 'History of the Case'. Is there any reason these are different? A minor matter, but I just thought I'd point it out. 67.162.149.163 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Box 

message: 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:  Comparisons with Canada 

message: I've read over this page, and I'm not exactly sure that it could qualify as NPOV. Consider this one sentence in particular:
"Abortion doctors have been the targets of harrassment and even murder by pro-life zealots who claim that by taking the life of an abortion doctor they are actually saving many fetus' lifes."
Whether or not I agree with those sentiments is irrelevant; it's not NPOV, and I suspect a lot of the rest of the article isn't, either. I'm also not sure that I could rewrite this article to BE NPOV. Thanks. --Fermatprime 12:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of this page is in need of re-writing for bad grammar, inaccuracy, lack of information and NPOV correction. I have hesitated to put it on my To-Do list for the Supreme Court case WikiProject because it is a very controversial decision, but it has gotten too far out of hand now. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Skyler1534 13:52, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Intersting. I wrote the article (well the original) on doctors being shot for the Canadian page and the Roe. page. I deliberately put it under other saying it could not be the general position of the pro life movement to kill. Its stayed all right on the Canadian page...maybe people just change stuff less there. There was no mention of "zealots"...guess its a wiki thing eh?--Marcie 22:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV?? 

message: "RoevWade.org" is an anti-abortion advocacy site that makes numerous substantive claims that are either plainly political POV or else hotly contested. To link to it as a resource on Roe v. Wade while not providing balancing links to pro-choice resources on Roe v. Wade is manifestly a violation of NPOV. If others feel that discussions by advocates are a good resource to link, then let them add it along with pro-choice advocacy sites that discuss Roe v. Wade and the surrounding legal framework; if not, then let both be removed in favor of NPOV legal information on the decision. Radgeek 03:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better solution than removing the pro-Roe photo would be to balance it with a photo of protesters opposing Roe, or better yet, find a single picture that shows both sides counter-demonstrating. That would highlight the strength of the controversy, and make the article pop out more as well. Just my opinion. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV link removed 

message: I eliminated the title of "Abortion" since it really didn't make sense. The section is about a Supreme Court decision, not abortion itself.--Elizabeth 16:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edits to "Abortion" section 

message: *It should be noted that the above comment was by a know sockpuppet of a baned vandal, the vandal was baed from making extreme POV edits, see  and   for refrence of some this users previous activity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical revisionism 

message: I'd like to know what others think of this line from the article. The style guide Words to avoid advices to avoid representing statistics this way. I personally want to know how many states banned the practice altogether. Abortion in the United States says that 31 states allowed abortion to protect the mother's life only, 13 states had laws similar to Colorado's which was fairly liberal, and 2 more allowed abortion in limited instances. So, according to that article 46 states just restricted the practice. Where was it banned? --24.18.211.95 07:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree mostly with your point, I wouldn't call Colorado's laws fairly liberal. The Washington DC laws may have effectively been fairly liberal but the other laws were fairly restrictive from what I can tell Nil Einne 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  banned or significantly restricted in 46 states 

message: The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here.  Uriah923 06:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of ON content and quality of reference 

message: A phrase I've seen repeatedly in abortion discussions, and again in this article, is "when life begins" and variations thereof, as in "hotly debate when life actually begins". The phrase, in its various forms, seems to me to mean something quite different from what the authors are trying to convey.
IMHO its poor use of language.
"When life begins" is an issue of ancient history, not contemporary conception. Life began in the magical moment of abiogenesis that preceded the lengthy evolutionary chain of events that led to us - or when a supernatural entity placed the first biengs on this earth, if that is more in line with your religious beliefs.
Its self evident that a sperm cell is alive, as is an egg. Thus, every stage of reproduction, including those prior to conception, is a part of the continuum of life stretching back to the first organisms.
What the authors of such phrases clearly wish to examine or comment on is when "personhood" or "humanity" begins. This is clear from the context of the phrase as used in the article. This concept is not at all the same as when "life" begins. If the language of the article reflects the actual language used by the US Supreme Court, I'm surprised that such an elevated group of erudite individuals would be so inarticulate. farrenh 01:10, 8 October 2005 (GMT+2)
:Yes I agree. As a biologist, I always find it funny when people talk about when life begins. As for the question of personhood, I'm reminded of the words of a professor. Specifically how exactly abortion opponents who consider the single celled embryo formed upon fusion of the sperm and an egg a unique person the same as you and me explain what happens when the embryo splits giving rise to twins. Are these still a single unique person? Nil Einne 17:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're equivocating on the meaning of the word "life" here.  By that logic, saying that "life ends at brain death" would be just as nonsensical, since many of the body's cells are still alive at that point.  Roughly speaking, "life" can mean either "the state of being alive" or "the period of existence of a living organism".  Since the product of conception is clearly a different organism from the sperm and ovum, its "life" (in the second sense of the word) begins at conception.  Miraculouschaos 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "When life begins" 

message: I'm inclined to change back the edits made by 128.187.179.214.  While all parties participating in the debate might be characterized as believing that life begins "as early as" conception, the sentence as it currently stands refers specifically to the Pro-Life position.  I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of this group believes instead that life begins upon conception.  I can try to dig up cites for this if there's any feeling that this is not the case.  I'll hold off making the relevant changes until tomorrow evening to see if there's any community dissent.  Thanks David 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upon vs. as early as 

message: This is a necessary clarification given the definition of "fetus".  Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with allowing the abortion of fetal canine life or fetal bovine life, rather only fetal human life.  Nor does the pro-life community concern itself with protecting the "fetal life" of any mammals other than humans.  Hence the clarification.  This is about as NPOV as can get, given that the unnecessarily latinized term "fetal" seems to be a must-have to those favoring choice in regard to abortion. -- Chris 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with your modifcation, you seem to be missing the point. The fetus is a common medical and scientific term used all the time. It is not some odd latin term. The word is important (as is the word human) because we are talking about a fetus here. Nil Einne 17:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fetal life" to "fetal human life" 

message: I made a small change to eliminate what I perceived as a bit of bias.  The sentence that once read:  
"With the changes to the Supreme Court that have occurred recently (the death of William Rehnquist in 2005, the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, and their replacement on the Court by John Roberts and Samuel Alito respectively in 2005 and 2006), it remains to be seen whether the current interpretation of Roe will hold much longer."
Now reads:  "...it remains to be seen whether the current interpretation of Roe will continue to hold."  The original structure seems to imply that the Roe decision is close to being overturned and, more subtly, that it should be overturned.  I believe my revision is more objective.   ---Bryan Jones
:Isn't it axiomatic that all supreme court decision are subject to review and at risk of being overturned by some future court?  So if this paragraph is going to be a mini-civics lesson, maybe it should be more timeless, something like: "Roe, like all Supreme Court decisions, will always be periodically revisited with the possibility of being overturned.  As the personality of the court changes over time, it remains to be seem whether the current interpretations in all decisions will continue to hold." --JJLatWiki 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates since the Alito Confirmation 

message: As someone who had never known the intracacies of this case, I looked to this article for the details. However, I find it disturbing that after reading through the "History of case" section, just who Wade is is unclear. I had to go to the side info box to even find a wiki-link to read about him. However, even that article doesn't make it overly clear what his role was in the case. After using Wikipedia for over a year, this is the first time where it looks like I will have to go elsewhere to research the subject. Quite disappointing. JPG-GR 05:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. While the plaintiff's role in the case is stated quite clearly, the defendant's is not.  Anyone with knowledge on the subject care for a rewrite? —Brim 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wade 

message: I reverted the entire article bacj to a version from Nov 29th today (December 2), because in a series of edit wars where folks diligently tried to revert delet vandalism, several sections were lost.  I don't believe I removed any legitimate edits, but if I have, let's get them back in and keep this article stable?
Brad 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Wars 

message: I removed the following broken link:
* The Logical Shambles of Roe v. Wade, A Critical Analysis
Brad 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: In the "see also" section, there are links to Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis and 
Legalized abortion and crime effect.  I think these links are adequate, and we don't additionally need sections in this article on those subjects.  This article is about a court case in 1973, and those two subjects are extremely tangential to the subject of the article.
If no one objects, I'll go ahead and delete those two sections.Ferrylodge 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Abortion is the proper place for such things, if at all. Xiner (talk, email) 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Ferrylodge 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they belong in the See also section, but rather in Abortion, which I'll add to the list. Xiner (talk, email) 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Sections on Cancer and Crime 

message: This article is currently undergoing review to determine if it still meets the criteria for a "featured article."  You can provide input.  Personally, I think the article is in good shape.Ferrylodge 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Review 

message: Is there a place for the fact that the texas law did not make it a crime for a woman to perform an abortion on herself.  It did not make it a crime to seek an abortion from a doctor.  It was not a crime to have an abortion.  It was a crime for a doctor to perform the abortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevorhughdavis (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the "holding" on the right side of the page, so that it clarifies: "Texas laws making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy."Ferrylodge 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  specifics of texas law 

message: Here's a recent edit that I'm going to revert.  The reason given is "NPOV".  The deleted stuff is in bold:  
This deleted stuff has been in the article for about a year.  See here.  I don't see why it presents a POV problem.  No elaboration was given for the edit.  It is objectively true that, while pro-choice people emphasize a woman's individual rights, pro-life people emphasize individual rights of the fetus (and of family members who would protect the fetus).  So, I really don't see an NPOV problem here.  Am I missing something?Ferrylodge 12:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be undue weight to mention that supporters of Roe cite the primacy of women's rights, without mentioning that opponents cite the primacy of fetal rights?  Why should the former be mentioned but not the latter?Ferrylodge 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took another look at the paragraph and realized that there was no reason to say both "personal freedom" and "primacy of individual rights". I cut the text in dispute and the primacy bit, circumventing the problem. Deltabeignet 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit looks okay to me.Ferrylodge 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primacy 

message: I think the "Public Opinon" poll added on the front page was a little decieptive. Here is the orginial Table:
1973	
1976	
1979	
1981	
1985	
1989	
1991	
1992	
1993	
1996	
1998	
2005	2006	
%	
%	
%	
%	
%	
%	
%	
%	
%	
%	
%	
%	%   	
Favor	
52	
59	
60	
56	
50	
59	
65	
61	
56	
52	
57	
52 	49
Oppose	
42	
28	
37	
41	
47	
37	
33	
35	
42	
41	
41	
47 	47
Not Sure/ Refused	
7	
13	
3	
3	
3	
4	
4	
4	
3	
7	
2	
1  	4
I think it's a much better way than the table on the front page. Anyone else agree?
:The "Public Opinon" poll table on the front page was designed to prevent it from being deceptive.  The problem is that the poll question incorrectly implied that Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester, when actually it legalized abortion in the second trimester too (i.e. up until viability for any reason a woman chooses).  Thus, the poll results may be a good indicator of the public opinion trend, but not a good indicator of the total support or opposition.Ferrylodge 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. Leigao84 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harris Interactive Poll 

message: The following sentence was recently edited to insert the parentheticals: "Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into 'pro-choice' (pro-abortion) and 'pro-life' (anti-abortion) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides."
In my opinion, this sentence could use clarification, but the parentheticals do not do the job.  First of all, someone who is pro-choice may also consider himself or herself to be opposed to abortion, and only in favor of a right to make such a tragic choice.  At the same time, it's true that the words "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not self-explanatory for someone unfamiliar with this whole issue, and so parentheticals could possibly be helpful here.  I think a better way to change the sentence would be like this: "Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-Roe (mostly pro-choice) and anti-Roe (mostly pro-life) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides."  I'll go ahead and make this change, which I think makes the article more accurate.  Note that this article has an entire section explaining that many liberal scholars are pro-choice but anti-Roe.Ferrylodge 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Roe and anti-Roe 

message: The article was recently edited to include these new italicized sentences:
:Some pro-life supporters argue that life begins upon conception, and thus the unborn should be entitled to legal protection.  Based on this argument, these pro-lifers argue against the Plan B "contraception" and any intentional destruction of living human embryos, citing that they contain unique human DNA, and match the biological definition of life (contains cells, require nourishment, homeostasis etc.)  Acknowledging America's pluralism, President Clinton signed the first Dickey Amendment in 1995, as a "policy of silence", whereby the federal government would neither ban destructive embryo research, nor fund it.  President Bush slightly relaxed that decision in 2001. 
I'm sure that this stuff is accurate, but I don't think it belongs at this location, or even in this article.  The section is titled "Controversy" which of course means controversy about Roe v. Wade.  I think, therefore, that this material should be in another article instead, for example in an article about the pro-life movement, or about the Stem cell controversy, or about Plan B, or the like.  So, I'm going to remove it from this article.  If there's any objection to the removal, I hope we can talk about it here on the talk page before proceeding further.  Thanks.Ferrylodge 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dickey Amendment, Plan B, et cetera 

message: Shouldn't there be a section here on the effects of Roe v Wade on such things as broken families, number of children, etc.?  Or at least the statistics since 1973.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.43.91 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't just list statistics since 1973, because it would imply a causation, when it may just be a correlation or even a coincidence. Any statistics about the effects of Roe v. Wade need to specifically focus on causation. What I am trying to avoid is the sort of stuff that someone once wanted to add to the abortion article. The incident I am recalling was that the user wanted to add that the abortion rate declined under President Clinton, which obviously implies that Clinton had something to do with it, although the source cited said nothing about Clinton. So, what sort of statistics do you have in mind? Can you mention your sources?-Andrew c [talk] 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects and statistics 

message: Intro
Re: "Roe critics say the ruling is illegitimate because it strays from the text and history of the Constitution, and imposes abortion policy on the states and Congress contrary to American principles of federalism and democracy."
From Federalism : "Advocates of a weaker federal government and stronger state government are those that generally favor confederation, often related to "anti-federalists"." "federalism" deleted. 
If one accepts the existence and role of the Supreme Court, then one would consider their rulings at least democratic. Whatever issue anyone might have with the Supreme Court, or any other part of the US government, as to whether or not it is "contrary to the principles of democracy", expression of that does not belong in this section of the Wiki, if on the Wiki at all. Deleted.
Pursuant to another discussion, personhood vs inviolability, I have -added- the original "inviolability".
Women's equality. Abortion is not a process undergone by men. Women's Rights, which includes women's equality in its scope but also the concept of issues pertaining to women only, or centered on women, is perhaps the word the writer was seeking. Replaced, corresponding link added.
Modified as above; moved this paragraph under the appropriate heading Controversy *
Supreme Court decision
Heading: Completely unnecessary. Misleading. Irrelevant, in that it describes a subject of the subject, rather than the subject itself. Removed.
Controversy *
The writer of the opinion "recognized" the rights of the person in this very article, a few paragraphs up. However, it is considerably improved by adding the word "adequately". 
"killing an innocent victim.." All three words unnecessarily charged. The entire phrase is unnecessary to convey the meaning of the sentence. Replaced.
Added human life distinction.
majority of Americans believe as a link? link changed to CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.
Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope my revert didn't seem to bold. I believe you are editing in good faith, and I'm glad you recognize you may have been "a little carried away". While your statements may be true that embryos are more like tadpoles and fetuses are more like babies, and thus this explains the acceptance of 1st trimester abortions and the disapproval of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. However, without a specific source to make that claim, it is original research to make the connection. And as you point out, being a poll, the respondents often aren't given a chance to explain their views in more depth. So I think it is best for now, without any further sourcing, to simply state what the poll found, and leave trying to explain those findings to the experts. As for your other edits, thanks for helping improve the article. Just because I disagreed with part of your edit doesn't mean I don't believe you can edit in good faith. I see that you are new to wikipedia as well, so if you have any questions about learning the ropes or anything else, I'd be glad to try and help where I can. -Andrew c [talk] 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Summary in full: 19:17 PST, 4 Dec 07 

message: This comment has been moved here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Editorializing" 

message: There are (at the moment) 5 occurrences of the phrase "anti-choice" in this article. Personal stance aside, the generally-used terms for the sides of this issue are "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Defining the controversy over this issue as "Pro" and "Anti" inherently introduces a bias, which violates NPOV. Hence, I am replacing the appropriate "anti-choice" statements as "pro-life". Ogredrew (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to do that earlier, but I accidentally missed some of them. Thanks for noticing and fixing. I agree that "pro-life" is much more better than "anti-choice", because the latter is a disparaging term used by opponents, while the later is a term of self identity (see WP:NCI). I'd be glad to discuss matters further, but I think a term of derision used by opponents can never really be used neutrally. -Andrew c [talk] 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Choice/Anti-Choice and NPOV