Talk:Abortion/Archive 9

message: I see the following sentence under "surgical abortion" that doesn't appear to be accurate.  D & C) is a standard gynaecological procedure performed for a variety of reasons, such as examination.  I've never heard of D&C being used for a basic examination, or any kind of examination, and this information needs to be checked/clarified. My understanding of D&C is that it is used for abortion, post-miscarriage, and possibly for other unusual uterine conditions. This comment makes it sound like D&C is a routine procedure for any woman, which it is not.
Sorry about editing this page, I'm new and didn't know where to ask the question, but wanted to check this out before going in for an edit on this topic. 
--KBecks 03:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments: New User has question -placing at bottom of page -you can click on "+" at top of page to open up new topic dialogue. I would tend to agree with you that this is not "routine," but I am merely placing your comment here at the bottom of the page in a new topic (the normal way to post) for others to see.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  KBecks, a new user, has a Question? 

message: I removed this paragraph because the first statement is quite biased.
:The right to life, which is guaranteed in many basic legal and political documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United States' Declaration of Independence, is the basis of laws against murder, and, some would argue, against abortion. Twenty-five member nations of the Organization of American States (OAS) have ratified the "American Convention on Human Rights", which the United States has signed but not ratified; this Convention states in Article 4: "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception."
This was added by 214.13.4.151 (Special:Contributions/214.13.4.151) who has a history of changing abortion articles into POV nightmares.  I have no issue with the second part of this addition per se, but it needs to be relavent to the context.  --Quasipalm 14:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I wrote the abortion law section in response to  Tznkai's request for a  shortened summary. My goal was to pare it down to the bare bones of the subject. So, nothing that isn't directly related to the history of abortion law, or how it stands today. Tacking on additions that are more statements of someone's legal ideal (i.e. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees a right to life, which some people interpret to mean from conception, and thus abortion should be illegal) rather than statements of legal fact (i.e. abortion is illegal in Ireland and their Constitution guarantees the right to life of the unborn), seems to me unnecessary and superfluous — and POV, in the absence of an attending paragraph on the implications of various legal documents for reproductive rights. Anyone who thinks I'm trying to advance one position in favour of another via Wikipedia should see the original edit above that inspired this one (largely baseless speculations on the "anti-feminist climate" of nineteenth century medicine that might've influenced abortion laws of the time). I tried to be even-handed and show that courts around the world have reached both pro-choice (ex: Canada, America) and pro-life verdicts (ex: Ireland). Of course, I can't form a one-person consensus, so if 214 and others genuinely feel that this addition would benefit the article, then I'm sure something more NPOV and all-inclusive could be written. --Kyd 19:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Abortion is largley a summary article, I believe the shorter and terser the better. Any worldwide conventions that either have the power of law, or are likley to lead to a law would be relevant, but only a few sentances. Likewise, we can't speculate on what will happen in the future. The Abortion Law section should be a summary of the current status of laws, Laws In Progress (things that are widely considered likley to pass) and and other significant and recent changes. Everything else should be left to a diffrent section (IMNSHO)--Tznkai 20:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% --Quasipalm 14:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  Twenty-four member nations of the Organization of American States (OAS) have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, which entered into force in 1978 and which the United States has signed but not ratified; this Convention states in Article 4: "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception."214.13.4.151 17:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  214, I relocated your addition to the end of the section to fit better with its new flow (discuss the history of abortion law, segue to current laws, then cover international law). Also, I added info on the Beijing Platform for Action. I don't know if either of these treaties have actual bearing on abortion law -- not just implied rights either way. Thus the text, "A number of international treaties have factored into the debate over abortion legislation." Perhaps this information would be better moved to the abortion debate section? --Kyd 01:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  I removed PFA pending further discussion for two reasons: 1) it does not have the same status as a Convention (the PFA is more wishful political thinking and sentiments; and 2) the definitions within the PFA are controversial and not clearly defined such that it lacks clarity and its meaning continues to be debated 214.13.4.151 02:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  214's awkward, shoehorned, blatantly POV addition has been removed pending further discussion, now that 214's true colours have been revealed. 214 obviously has no vested interest whatsoever in maintaining NPOV policy and is more interested in supressing viewpoints that are counter to her own. I have attempted to be patient, fair-minded, and considerate. I've chosen to simply "show the other side" in an effort "please everyone": avoiding an edit war, yet curbing the POV nightmare that 214 seems intent upon creating. I have, in the interest of "community" and "inclusiveness," attempted to incoporate information that I believe has no bearing on the topic at hand: abortion law. It is my opinion that the OAS Convention has nothing to do with abortion, only contains an implication of a "fetal/zygotic right to life," if one chooses to selectively interpret the term "conception" in a manner that is favourable to her own view point (which, in the opinion of some, might be considered no less "controversial" than the PFA -- and "controversy" is certainly no grounds for censoring information: that, if anything, is the most egregious example of POV I've encountered yet).--Kyd 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleaase explain your rationale.  The "right to life" from the "moment of conception" is a plain-language acknowledgement of the personhood of the human being from the moment the sperm unites with the egg.  If a person (embryo or fetus according to this convention) has the right to life, she cannot be killed (aborted).  Its not too difficult to see that.  Not sure what your argument is.  The OSA document is a Convention - which has a recognized legal status under international law as "binding" on nations that have ratified it.   This is unequivocal and incontrovertible fact.  Your comments indicate that you don't agree with this Convention.  Fine.  We all have our opinions.  Another fact is that there is no document that has the force of law under international law that enshrines the right to abortion.  Any document that has attempted to create such a right has caused extreme contorversy and the issue is not settled as a matter of international law.  Tznkai noted (and you agreed) that any laws or binding international law could be listed - but speculative international law should not.  The OSA document falls into that category - the PFA does not.  What is your point - why do you insist that the PFA be added when it does not fall into Tznakai's inclusion framework that you voiced agreement for? 214.13.4.151 05:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The language isn't unambiguous enough to convince me it specifically refers to a "right to life from conception" in such a manner that abortion would be rendered illegal/immoral. Also, reading the Article on the American Convention of Human Rights, the fact that only 24/35 member nations and the fact that Trinidad and Tobago are mentioned as having pulled out of the Convention over its provisions on the death penalty would suggest to me that it isn't without controversy itself. And, as I've mentioned, controversy is hardly grounds for complaint. I'm not objecting to the presentation of this information, per se, but I specifically remember objecting to the presentation of speculations or interpretation. And it's my opinion that you're being no less "interpretive" (for want of a better term) than I. It's your interpretation of the implications of an international law for abortion versus my interpretations of another international law for abortion. So I tried to "smooth" things out, yes, because I thought just presenting the other side (even if it seemed sort of irrelevant to the topic) would make everyone happy. Call me a fool. I don't like singling people out. Also, I spent three hours researching my one paragraph addition to the abortion law section, and, from what I understood, ratification by 189 members of the U.N. means it was international law. Correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, I don't know what you mean by Tznkai's "inclusive framework," unless you're referring to this: "Any worldwide conventions that either have the power of law, or are likley to lead to a law would be relevant..." I never agreed with that outright. That was Quasipalm.--Kyd 05:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did mistake you for Quasi.  Sorry.  The OSA Convention is in force and binding on ratifying nations.  The PFA is not a Convention, and does not carry the weight of a Convention.  Thats why it does not have the same legal force under international law.   This distinction is extremely significant, legally speaking.  Liekwise, legally speaking, the OSA Convention on it face grants the right to life from the moment of conception.  This is, legally speaking, unequivocal language that grants personhood to the fetus and the right to not be killed.  This disallows abortion.  Your personal interpretation is not at issue.  You seem to be grasping at straws to downplay the significance of the OSA convention. At the very lest you should be willing to admit that the OSA Convention places a burden on anyone who wishes to kill an embryo or fetus to prove that killing that embryonic or fetal person is somehow legally justifiable.   214.13.4.151 06:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's okay, we all make mistakes. I'm still looking for info on the PFA's "bindingness."  FYI, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you referred to in an earlier version of your edit is nonbinding, according to the Wikipedia article on the [U.N.] (which, in my opinion, is a rather frightening consideration -- I think we can both agree on that). You seem to have shifted your footing now that you've chanced upon a technicality (binding vs. nonbinding treaties) that may or may not be to your advantage. But, in accordance with my own "3RR" (Three Response Rule), I'm not going to push this any further with you for the time being. Mostly because I'm tired, hungry, and rather worried about the safety of two of my friends. It's a pleasant distraction, I admit, but I'm finally starting to feel the stings after sticking my hand into this particular hornet's nest. The rest of you can untangle this one, I'm sure. All I ask is that, if anyone feels the need to reinsert the OSA and/or PFA info, at least stick with the flow of the article that I had laid down: "discuss the history of abortion law, segue to current laws, then cover international law." More coherant format, IMHO. --Kyd 07:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  The sentences you added are a great resolution to this issue, Tznkai. Thanks! --Kyd 14:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed addition

message: The generic information about world religions generally supporting restriction on most abortions (that is simply a fact) is extremely relevant to the poll results.  Of course an expansion of those religious views is fond elswhere, but this short addition seems appropriate here.  Why is it not appropriate, quasi, other than your pro-abortion leanings not liking those facts?  214.13.4.151 17:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 214, I'm pretty fine as far as the POV of your entry, but it is speculation not fact reporting. I will try to roll what you're trying to say in somewhere in the debate section.--Tznkai 20:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for working on this. 214.13.4.151 02:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Religions 

message: Great job with the article folks, I'm very pleased with the changes as they have progressed. My 'puter 'sploded, so I'm going to be on only intermittently for the next week or so. Remember to keep the sections as terse as possible please, this is a summary article after all.
Kudos to everyone for their hard work.--Tznkai 18:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish your 'puter a speedy recovery. Did it combust spontaneously? JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hope your computer is well soon, Tznkai. Thanks again for all your guidance. --Kyd 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Without your oversight of this article; I'd have another headache to deal with instead of contributing elsewhere. You the man! - RoyBoy 800 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Job!