 | This is an archive of past discussions about Abortion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
- Current discussion page is on Talk:Abortion.
In the ideal world, the debate over abortion would not happen here. It would be left to Usenet. In the ideal world, debate about how to characterize the debate about abortion would happen here.
Hank, and anyone else who hasn't done so, read neutral point of view carefully. If you cannot abide by it, you are simply not welcome here. --LMS
Do to the extreme and persistant anti-abortion prejudice displayed in the deletion of attempts by some to remove obvious phrasing bias, and to create a objective observation of the facts in the pro-choice discussion the value of having this article is mitigated, and perhaps should be reduced to something simple.
I, and others before me, dedicated substantial thought and time to objectifying this article only to have an unexplained reversion of all changes and additions. Since my attempts to neutralize prejudicial words and phrases were completely removed without thought, dicussion, or examination it seems as if the process is broken in this case. Futhermore, the following summary definitions might make a good unbiased overview, but I would expect someone in particular to modify it to remove the word freedom and add the work baby killing or something equivelent.
- Sorry about shouting in the first revision of these comments, but perhaps with the above explanation you can see the reason for my frustration. I have contributed to a few other articles, but never felt so insulted as by the dismission of my work. --Jonathan
- I don't know who wrote this (please sign your comments if you're going to make dramatic statements), but I totally disagree. We can find a way to state this fairly, and we will. --LMS
After all Hank Ramsy will delete anything that doesn't strictly support his particular (uncommonly secular) version of the anti-abortion position. Thus all attempts at fair observations will (perhaps) be limited to here. Perhaps something as succinct as the following might be made to stick, but I really doubt it.
Abortion: A generally accepted, but highly contentious way to ending pregnancy for medical or other personal reasons. Pro-Choice: People who believe that the decision to end a pregancy is a personal freedom issue which should be left up to the pregnant mother. Pro-Life: People who believe that the fetus should actually be considered independent person in the eyes of the law thus making abortion equivalent to murder.
I wonder whether there perhaps this article should be split up into two or perhaps three? At the moment it is about three different topics, which are approximately
- What abortion is, and what methods are used
- The general arguments for and against abortion
- The legal situation in the US
As all of these are different perhaps they should be separated?
The topic of this article is abortion, and we would be neglecting our duty if we were to ignore stating the leading views about it simply because, allegedly (actually, I don't know if this is true, and I don't care to investigate it), one person insists on making the article biased. With sufficient public reprimanding, such a person will be brought to see the merits of the neutral point of view, or he will leave. --LMS
Now, I am going to edit this article so that it presents the views fairly, or as fairly as I can make them right now. If you disagree with my edits, explain below why you think they are mistaken. --LMS
What exactly is a religionist? Could another term be better used here instead? Does it mean 'religious person', or 'religious leader', or 'religious authorities'? --Simon J Kissane
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=religionist
OK, I'm done with my edits now. I have integrated objections to all arguments, as is perfectly reasonable to do (it's extremely useful information, for one thing). I have also done something that no one thought to do so far, namely, to distinguish the different positions it's possible to have about abortion. Frankly, I think there are only two reasons why someone cannot continue on in this fashion I've tried to demonstrate: (1) the person is so irremediably biased that he or she is incapable of it--in that case, please go work on some other article; (2) the person just doesn't know the subject very well--ditto. I'm rather disgusted with the way you all have handled this controversy. In the future, please try to be more adult about it. --LMS
Looking at the definitions at the link you have provided above, I note that two of its three meanings are perjorative, and the third denotes simply 'religious person'. So I am going to change the word 'religionists' to 'religious people'. -- Simon J Kissane
Very reasonable--fine by me! --LMS
A fantastic revision, Larry. --KQ
Revised and signed my earlier talk comments (please review)... This revision is a substantial improvement, though I still feel that the introduction uses some "hot" language without explaination. Specifically, "deliberate termination" and "unwanted pregnancy" are strong phrases from the perspective of the mother who may need to exercise the option for personal medical reasons, pontentially severe birth defects, because of rape, or even fear of being beaten by the family or the person who's sperm fertilized the her egg. I have never talked to one woman who actually WANTED to have an abortion; in fact of the small subset of these who have had an abortion every single one was traumatized by every step of the experience that they had been forced into. (BTW Larry, it would be nice to see these points incorporated too.) Alternate suggestion reducing socially heated phrasing: "electing to end an unfavorable/adverse/detrimental pregnancy". Please note that this is in line with the common case as per the article's introduction. Therefore not noting the adversity of the majority case is biased by virtue of being insufficently qualified.
--Jonathan
I just deleted the word "unwanted", but kept the word deliberate on the grounds that it has to be distinguished from accidentally induced miscarriage. Simon J Kissane
Why not replace "deliberate" with "elected" and "terminate" with "end"? This way meaning is still explicit, but the hot terms are mitigated. --Jonathan
I would suggest someone put arguments for and against abortion into a sub-article, and flesh them out in more detail? I am too tired to do it right now. -- Simon J Kissane
Larry, I'm afraid that part of the problem is that there is no agreement as to what is a "neutral" presentation. What exactly was the objection to the phrase "deliberate terminatation", for example? Why is this claimed to be a "strong phrase"? It is succinct and accurate. Does anyone seriously claim that the abortions being discussed (that is, excluding spontaneous abortions) are not "deliberate"? Or that they do not cause the "termination" of the pregnancy (not to mention, which I didn't, the life of the unborn)? The objection seems to be that the phrase was not sufficiently sympathetic to the feelings of the people choosing the abortion. In other words, my phrasing didn't adequately express a "pro-choice" bias. Now if I had said something in the definition about "killing of an unborn child", there would be cause for complaint. But "deliberate termination"? I would suggest that the problem here is not my lack of neutrality, but that of the"pro-choice" advocates. Similarly, the phrase "unwanted preganancy" is a very common usage, mostly by the "pro-choice" side in fact. Even in the case of theraputic abortions, whatever the reason, clearly the pregnancy being terminated is "unwanted", even if a pregnancy in general is. I suppose one could argue that this is obvious so the use of "unwanted" is superfluous. But I would not agree that my use of it violated neutrality. Of course it is entirely appropriate to include in the article a thorough discussion of all the reasons why one might want to choose terminate a pregnancy. But failing to enumerate them in the introductory definition is not an indication of bias. I can assure you that I had no intention to violate neutrality, and did not believe I did so. I made changes that I thought improved the accuracy and neutrality of the text. I was particularly concerned with what I felt were distortions of the "pro-life" viewpoint, that were obviously written by someone of the opposing view. As someone on the "pro-life" side, I felt I was more qualified to present the argument from that side than its opponents. I expected my arguments to be rebutted, but instead they were rewritten. Where I disagreed with the rewrite, I replaced it. Obviously endless rewrites are unproductive. But what is the alternative? I suggested clearly separating the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" perspectives, but that wasn't respected. I might add that I don't appreciate your scolding. I think the question of how to address this kind of disagreement is a serious issue concerning the wiki paradigm. That's the only reason I pursued it. If you have a solution, I'd be happy to hear it. Or maybe your solution is simply to tell people you disagree with that they're "unwelcome". Hey, I guess I can live with that. - Hank Ramsey
The idea is not to provide two biased arguments, but rather to attempt to use neutral and clinical language to present the facts and describe the positions themselves. Furthermore the introduction is intended to provided a descriptive overview in the most socially neutral possible language. (For example: the phone company destroyed my connection to my friend vs. the phone companies equipment dropped the call while I was talking to someone). In other words it is possible to be linguistically accurate without being socially neutral which is exactly what you were doing. Futhermore you misrepresented the 'Pro-Life' position which is predominently religiously founded because it doesn't represent your uncommonly secular 'Pro-Life' position. It's no surprise that neutralizing the language weakens the fire of anyone rhetoric, but for an encyclopedia that is the goal not a failure. Don't forget (as detailed in my previous entry) virtually NO pregnant woman WANTS to have an abortion, and that language that implies otherwise is in itself biased.
--Jonathan--
Which of course brings us back to bias in the other direction, if I may jump in. You cite these as reasons why people wouldn't /want/ an abortion and supply an anecdote that everyone you've known hasn't actually /wanted/ one: medical reasons, pontentially severe birth defects, because of rape, or even fear of being beaten by the family or the person who's sperm fertilized the her egg.
And these are valid reasons why someone might opt for one as the lesser of evils in a very difficult situation. (And of course these ideas are here on the talk page, which means that they don't have to be unbiased). But here's my point: all the claims I've heard (which makes my claim also essentially anecdotal, admittedly) are that the majority of abortions are done for convenience, not for medical, danger, rape or incest reasons. Those abortions are specifically excepted by many pro-lifers that I know, and were legal long before Roe vs. Wade. Okay, so much for tired rhetoric from my point of view. I'm just trying to point out that while your rewording was more neutral in one way, it also reflects biases of your own.
Which brings me to the second point of contention, that of a religous base for the pro-life side. We've now seen two wikipedians who've come across that idea and said "hey, /I'm/ pro-life for other-than-religous reasons." Which makes me suspicious of that concept. So again, if we're really so set on reporting what the /majority/ believes, we really ought to find some good statistics somewhere.
Or just stop trying to characterize the "majority" of either group, which is always going to bother almost everyone. A pro-life moderate won't like to be classed with a bunch of zealots, zealots won't like being classed with a faithless moderate, ad nauseum.
Jonathan, I used the word "deliberate" as a synonym for "intentional" and an antonym for "accidental" or "natural". That is, I believe, a correct usage. Would "intentional" be more "socially neutral"? I don't see how. I suppose the word "deliberate" might be taken to imply thoughtful, careful consideration as well as mere intent. But how could that be objectionable? Surely an abortion decision is never made capriciously. As for intent, I do not doubt that every woman who chooses to have an abortion regrets having to make that choice. But if she did not want to have the abortion, it would not happen. It is a matter of her choice (as in "pro-choice"). That is what is meant by "intentional". Also, I would disagree that it is not appropriate for the article to include a clear presentation of arguments that are used to support various positions in the debate. But I do understand why that would make the "pro-choice" side uncomfortable, since their political success depends largely on obfuscation. As for the idea that the "pro-life" position is "religiously founded", that is of course a central dogma of the "pro-choice" side. But it is most certainly false, at least insofar as it is intended to suggest that the "pro-life" position cannot be advocated on a non-religious basis. - Hank Ramsey
I also think it is simply inaccurate to describe abortion only as the "early termination of pregnancy", since a premature cesarean delivery also terminates pregnancy, but is not considered abortion because it does so in such a way as to preserve the life of the fetus. If the fetus does survive an attempted abortion (admittedly extremely rare) the abortion attempt is considered to have failed. So the concept of abortion clearly requires the death of the embryo or fetus, as well as the termination of the pregnancy. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Editon) makes this explicit in its definition. But I am hesitant to make the necessary correction to the Wikipedia page because I would undoubtedly by accused of "pro-life" bias and be reminded that I am unwelcome. - Hank Ramsey
Actually, that's a good change, and I just made it. Some of us actually do care about honesty and accuracy more than our own political views. --LDC
Minor Point:
Do you actually think that your change removed any doubt in the mind of ANY potential readers as to the meaning of the previous revision? It's not a question of your change being technically inaccurate so much as it not actually affecting the objective knowledge conveyed to the reader.
- Sure, 99% of readers already know, so belaboring the point is useless for them. But they aren't the audience. An encyclopedia article should be clear to the 1% who are reading because they have no prior knowledge of the subject at all, and I do think the change is clearer for them.
Major Point:
I really wish some people would try to come up with some sort of statistical survey results especially when those same people don't have any non-threatening personal contact with the unfortunate people who need to get abortions. Pop literature and propaganda literature tend to be very one sided, and can't really be trusted without contact with the people involved on the receiving end of the process.
My number one question to ask women who have abortions: Are you afraid of the consequences of not having an abortions? If ANYONE can find a statistically meaningful set across the women having abortions for whom the majority answer to that exact question is NO I will be shocked.
My number one question to ask "Pro-Life" positers: Do you feel that abortion is wrong in the eyes of God? If ANYONE can find a statistically meaningful majority across the people advocating a "Pro-Life" position who Don't answer YES I will be shocked again.
In addition to all of my reading my emperical evidence strongly suggests these conclusions, and I haven't seen anyone quoting anything emperical to oppose it.
--Jonathan--
- Why do you think statistics on people's beliefs are that relevant? They may be interesting from a political point of view, but they are necessarily time-sensitive and culture-sensitive, and not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The article should cover the scientific facts, and should outline the political debate and what the sides are. But how many people are on each side and why isn't really important to history, only to present politics. Maybe a separate page on "20th century American political debate on abortion" wouldn't be a bad idea, but I still don't think it's that important in the long run. I'm also rather puzzled by your first question above. My own experience is very limited, having known only one woman who chose abortion--but she was indeed very frightened of the consequences of not having it; not so much the physical risk of childbirth, but the family and social ostracism, loss of options due to loss
re the following sentence, In most first world countries, particularly within Europe, abortion became commonly accepted by the end of the 20th century. Coming from Europe I have to say that it is rather sweeping generalisation to describe the manner in which public, medical and political opinion changed on the issue of abortion. If we are going to talk about Europe's attitudes to abortion (and, boy is it complicated!) it is worth using a sentence or two to convey how Europe's attitudes have evolved. Put at its most straightforward, Europe had a tradition of back-street abortions. A small minority approved of abortion. The vast majority disapproved. In the post war period, abortion was legalised to provide a safe legal alternative to backstreet abortions. This change did not mark an acceptance of a 'woman's right to choose'. However in the 1970s and later, public attitudes evolved, with legislation that was originally framed to discourage back street abortions, providing abortion as in effect a method of post-conception contraceptive. Original limitations imposed to 'restrict' abortion (in David Steel's Abortion Act in the UK, for example) gradually ceased to be applied rigidly, reflecting an increasing public acceptance of a large proportion of the electorate of the principle of a right to abortion, its increasing acceptance matching to related phenomena - the decline in religious practice and belief, and the greater degree of sexual activity. It is worth taking a sentence or two (ok, four) to explain what occured was not a simple broad European acceptance of a 'right' of abortion overnight, but instead an evolving concept, originally negative (discouraging back street abortions)turning into something positive, a perception of a 'right to choose', while equally making clear that a large minority in Europe disapprove of abortion. I'm not in any way taking sides on the issue, just trying to ensure the history gets the full complexity right, rather than simple sentences make the change sound too straightforward. JTD 05:17 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)
Article missed a central necessary definition, why Pro-Life & Pro-choice take such fundamentally different views. It talked about the abortion issue without giving explaining the fundamentally different concepts at the heat of the debate - one side's view of how a pregnancy involved a human being in the womb, the other, of how until later in the pregnancy, what was in the womb isn't a human being. The first argument is the central plank of the pro-life cause, the Right to Life, the second, leads to the Pro-choice argument, the Right to Choose. And because they are by definition built on such completely contradictory fundamental perceptions, seeking a middle ground in effect involves one side or the other accepting that their fundamental belief is wrong, so undermining their entire case. Hence no agreement, and each side's conviction that the other so - 'anti-woman', 'anti-life', etc. Without that central explanation of the fundamental and conflicting definitions, a reader wouldn't grasp what is at the heart of the abortion debate, which is not subtle nuances but basic definitions and perceptions. I've added in a couple of paragraphs at the start to contextualise the debate. It should help people not merely understand each side's basic line, but why each side sees the other's argument as so fundamentally wrong and unacceptable. JTD 02:27 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)