Talk:Abortion/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

The Epoch Times as source

The Epoch Times is a Chinese paper, often termed tabloid, whose main agenda is apparently bad-mouthing China. Now, that may be a purpose which you can appreciate, and it may stem from good intentions, but the bottom line is that the paper is biased. I strongly protest using this site as a source. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about this too -- Epoch Times has some good information. (I mean the article on wikipedia, not necessarily the paper.) --Quasipalm 03:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Given their agenda, I don't trust anything they say about abortion. The Chinese govt. is still forcefully aborting women, and it fits the Epoch Times to spin-control and present only biased information which places abortion in as negative and harmful a light as possible. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, the paper mentions a study by University of Oslo -- if someone wants to find the study itself, that'd be fine. But other main source of the article is something called The Christchurch Health and Development Study, which sounds a little, um, biased. -Quasipalm 03:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I will stick to linking to medical journals in the future. The Christchurch Health study looked like it could be biased, but I would have to look more into the study. I wouldn't want to be judgmental of the study at the same time though. -Liz xox 04:23, February 11, 2006 (UTC).

I agree, looks like a biased source. Take a look at this - is this the same Christchurch? KillerChihuahua?!? 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the Christchurch Health study and it seems to be more of a collaboration of different studies from New Zealand that they combined the information from. Although I am not sure, I wouldn't link to them though, because of the chance of bias, just direct studies from valid medical journals. -Liz xox 04:23, February 11, 2006 (UTC).

Christchurch is a city in New Zealand. The name of the city is religiously-inspired, I would imagine, but I don't know if the study was sponsored or conducted by religious groups. Generally, I tend to avoid secondary sources, whether reputable or not. I look for the original sources and then judge their individual merit from there. -Kyd 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Liz xox's Epoch Times link

From the article:

Forty-eight percent of the women who had miscarriages suffered distress at the ten-day period versus 30 percent of those who aborted.
However, the ones who had miscarriages dropped to 23 percent after six months and to 2.6 percent after five years. Of the women who had abortions 26 percent were still suffering grief, guilt, depression, shame and denial at six months. After five years 20 percent were still distressed.

This is mixed news, but what Liz xox added was quite one sided:

Although some studies comparing depression in post-abortive women and woman who miscarried| found a higher rate of long-term depression in woman who underwent an abortion.

This strikes me as cherry picking... what do others think? -Quasipalm 03:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

See above, I think the paper is not a good source. Give me PubMed any day of the week. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The [Epoch Times ] link is an article that is about "Long-Term Effects" of abortion. [[1]]I see no reason why this is biases information. It has information from different studies and presents the information to the reader. They can decide if the agree with the different studies, but facts and statistics found in studies cannot be argued as biased. If this source is "biased" then why are the following links allowed:
They are all similar websites, in that they are not medical journals or government websites.
As an afterthought, just so no one deletes anything again, I will go and find the specific information (from every study discussed in the article) in a medical journal and link to the medical journal. That shouldn't be an issue with anyone I would hope. So I'll just do that soon, if no one has an objection to me linking information that is from a valid medical journal. -Liz xox 04:19, February 11, 2006 (UTC).
Valid medical journals are indeed better sources than the Epoch Times. Try to find recent studies with a decent size group - small groups give misleading results. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will make sure to check for that; thank you for the suggestions. -Liz xox 04:30, February 11, 2006 (UTC).

Np, and good luck. You'll find we are a reasonable group, and very careful about sources. Check the archives here also - there may be sources listed that no one ever followed up on. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Abortion-crime rate drop correlation

Recent analysis by noted economist Steven D. Levitt draws a link between the approval of legalized abortion in the United States and a significant drop in the U.S. crime rate 18 years later. The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime (2001) claims an effective 50% drop in crime as a direct result of the procedure availability. Such research has been criticized for sugesting that the solution to crime is to eugenically reduce the population in poor and minority neighborhoods. [2][3]

This was shoehorned in under "Heath effects: suggested effects." Does it belong there? Perhaps it would be better located under "Social issues," as it would be considered a social effect, not a health one. -Kyd 12:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Much more appropriate under Social issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Added a revised section. Tweaking it as I go along. Do we really need sources on the opposition to these claims as being eugenic or is that the sort of thing that follows unsaid? Because I fear we're getting dangerously close to finding a source for everything. [4] -Kyd 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
People generally only insist on having 5 or 6 linked sources for any factual information that reveals the bloodiness, ugliness, harmfulness or cruelty of abortion. I can't imagine why that double standard would be changed now - though it would be nice and fair, and it would end the inherrent POV in the present "consensus". 84.146.241.62
As that section already has 4 sources and starts out by stating it is controversial, it is clear that we're not presenting it as unchallanged and it is fully sourced. IMHO 4 refs is enough for one claim. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that the whole issue is pretty well discussed at Legalized abortion and crime effect... We don't need to rehash the whole issue here. --Quasipalm 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Removed POV sentence about data that "supports" any claim. There is no cause and effect correlation proven and as such any discussion of that data will have to take that into account (which the version deleted did not do). 84.146.216.195

Excuse me, but what do you, 84, know that one of the world's leading economists does not? Before you go off and start deleting things and saying that the data doesn't support Levit's results, try bringing some clear proof to the table. Oh, and here's an idea, try reading the book or the paper you are trying to discredit, because at this point it's painfully clear to me that you haven't. -Quasipalm 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Cause and effect: most people, with minimal knowledge of sociological studies understnad that cause and effect is nearly impossible to prove. Correlations do not imply cause and effect - as countless others have pointed out when editing this very article! Apparently this is news to you. Read the study. It will assist you in understanding the pertiennt point I made. While you were complaining, someone else has edited the clearly offending sentence appropriately. 84.146.216.195 23:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Correlations can and often do imply cause and effect, even if you can not be 100% sure. In this case, the only known shared variable for the states that showed an early crime drop is the change in abortion law, and it should also be noted that states that changed their laws earlier saw a corresponding earlier drop in crime rate. Implying causation from the correlation in this case makes perfect sense and I'd like to hear your alternate explaination if you disagree. (If the correlation was not caused by the abortion change, you would find a third, here unknown variable that effected both trends to show correlation without causation.) In poly-sci, the best thing you can have is a control group, which is exactly what we had with states that allowed abortion and had a crime rate drop, and those that didn't and had a later crime rate drop. Are the results 100% conclusive? No, nothing is in these kinds of studies, but it's about as close as we can get using "what ifs." And yes, I've read this paper and Levit's book, and I'm still very convinced that you haven't. -Quasipalm 23:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph was phrased so that any level of conclusion was presented in terms of the study's conclusion. The data are there but it is left to the reader to determine whether or not the Donohue and Levitt's findings are valid. I have, however, rewritten the sentence in the hope of avoiding future confusion. The solution to a unclearly-worded presentation of valid information is to amend the error — not delete it entirely, like you did. -Kyd 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Since my edits are never acceptable, no matter how mundane and correct they may be, I deleted the sentence for one of you to fix (see my note inviting such a correction above!!!). Clearly the sentence contained incorrect and/or misleading information and did not belong in the article. THank you for fixing it. 84.146.216.195 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The solution would've been to fix the sentence yourself or point out the problem on the Talk page -- and, no, I wouldn't count deleting it as "POV" and "untrue" as an explicit invitation to do so. We're not mind-readers (well, I'm not, at least) so we can't simply intuit that you want something fixed from a wholesale deletion. Things go a lot more smoothly when you work with rather than against. -Kyd 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This sentence: "There is no cause and effect correlation proven and as such any discussion of that data will have to take that into account (which the version deleted did not do)" certainly implies very clearly that the information was untrue as presented and could come into the article if presented truthfully. You could have figured that out with half your brain tied behind your back. 84.146.216.195
To what are you refering? Also, don't mix metaphors, especially if you're trying to insult someone's intelligence. -Kyd 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You are too smart too feign a lack of common sense. We all know you can read. 84.146.216.195 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 84.146.216.195 I spent considerable time and effort performing grammatical corrections on this area and, after having read both the paper and Levitt's book, clarifications of the intent of the authors. I think if you re-read the revisions you summarily dismissed as "biased" you would understand that it is the removal of bias I performed. One might think you are promoting an agenda. Is this the case? If so, why here? There are an abundance of sites that go in both directions and anyone interested should be able to find them easily. While I truly value your input and view, because this is such a sensitive topic, may I gently request that you carefully analyze your contributions for bias prior to posting? It will save untold hours or heartburn all around. Lexlex 10:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt to lend an additional perspective to this article. Don't take it personally that your edits were caught in the crossfire. Everyone has a bias, of course, but it's all about keeping it in check. Anon seems to have been on a ceaseless mission to prove something here for the past two months. -Kyd 22:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

After Roe v Wade

While we're interested in adding social statistics to the abortion article, perhaps we should also note that after 1973, violent crime offenses, sexually transmitted diseases, child abuse, and illegal drug usage increased exponentially. This is according to the Dept. of Commerce, CDC, US Department of Health and Human Services, and National Institute on Drug Abuse, respectively.

Wow...I haven't even read the article yet and I'm already sensing its bias(es). That's really sad. Salva 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it. Any information that shines any truthful negative light on abortion is automatically suspect by the "consensus". God could write it in the sky and the NYT could report it as a fact, yet the "consensus" here would somehow keep the info out of the article. But I wish you luck. 84.146.216.195
Oh really? Violent crime rates declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2004. And Salva31, I encourage you to read the article, it's pretty damn good. And I have to say, even though biases flair on the talk page, the article is one of the least-biased articles you'll find on the internet, if not the best. --Quasipalm 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? The little black kids who were aborted in 1973, who you think would have been hoodlums, would have started their crime spree by 1990 (not 1994). You have glossed over the other statistics mentioned: sexually transmitted diseases, child abuse, and illegal drug usage. That you think this article is not biased is telling. 84.146.216.195 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You're amazingly offensive. But, anyway, here's a CDC document showing Syphilis and Gonorrhea at historic lows. [5] Here's a white house chart showing drug use has fallen since the early 70's. [6]. -Quasipalm 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You, too, are amazingly offensive. Not so fast. You are forgetting about lots of other STDs. And under the authors' thesis, the comparison for drugs would not be comparing the 1970s to the 1990s. It would compare 1972+18 to 1973+18 (you are smart, you get the idea). Funny - if you look at the data you trumpeted, once the true effect of Roe (under the authors' thesis) took effect in large numbers (in other words, once abortion in high number became common place enough to impact the population 18 years later), the drug rate began a dramatic climb! 84.146.216.195 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC
I've provided hard data -- meanwhile you provide offensive comments, unsubstantiated claims, and a lot of hot air. So, no, I'm done talking to you. (p.s. the drug rate hit a bottom in '93, 20 years after Roe. I think it's common knowledge that most people try drugs when they are teenages.) -Quasipalm 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This user has a history of similar behavior on this article. Just so that you know. -Kyd 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for giving me some more sources, quasi. Those will be very useful for reinforcing my original claim here or elsewhere. Salva 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hah! Too funny. Talk about ignorant -- did you even click on the links I've provided? I'm still waiting for your sources, by the way. For people that claim there is no connection between falling crime rates and legal abortion, you sure are quick to throw out claims that abortion increases child abuse, drug use, and stds. What's next? Global warming, music piracy and terrorism? --Quasipalm 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
And then, as the effects of abortion became widespread/commonplace (1977+18), the drug rate spiked. Thesis I do not support claims that abortion solved a crime wave. I have not made any claims about the myriad negative effects of abortion. I am simply refuting your fallacious claims. And since you brought up blame for bad things, I would suspect that I could blame this weekend's blizzard and all other bad news on President Bush on this page and garner lots of support from the "consensus". 84.146.216.195 00:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
My goodness... I don't know whether to laugh or to beat my head against something-- or both! You're a live wire 84. I gotta say, while I think you're off your rocker, I can't say you're not passionate. I would love to have a pint with you if you're ever in NYC. You kinda remind me of Marguerite Perrin... who would also be an amazing drinking buddy. -Quasipalm 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Warning: no personal attacks - that is twice now.84.146.216.195 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to remove any part of my post you think is a personal attack -- I didn't mean it as such, and I'm serious in liking your persistance in a strange sort of way. --Quasipalm 00:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The unintended charm wears off when you've been dealing with this "persistance" in the form of daily edit wars since early December. -Kyd 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Funny how th wars that you cause are balmed upon me. As I have stated, I cannot even add a comma without a spiteful reversion almost instantly appearing. At times people here cannot even post comments on the talk page without whole sections of the talk page being deleted for fear that the page's double standard is being exposed. At some point you will have to stop dismissing the legitimate points I always raise. You may not like my style, but I always find chinks in the so-called neutrality of this article. If you all would only stop and think for two seconds you could realize that "hey, all of us pretty much support abortion rights - maybe we do bring that bias to the article - it is odd that we don't really have many editors here who don't support abortion rights even though polls show that almost half the population is pro-life - gee, I wonder if that is becuase we chase them all away". But you choose to protect your article so no one could possibly be offended by its contents. Which is a pathetic standard. 84.146.216.195
Perhaps it is because you have accepted whatever has been shoveled at you by your professors or your news sources (as we all generally do) regarding abortion, and that I actually have - by my persistance despite the constant "fuck off" that I find here - presented you with plausible information that does certainly shed negative light on abortion. IOW, I persistantly challenge your paradigm about abortion - and you have realized that your paradigm has some weaknesses in it. 84.146.216.195
I quess you don't understand that abortion did not become rampant until the late 1970s - which 18 years later resulted in a drug spike. You can laugh and bang away, but facts are facts. You won't get a pass on your fallacious posts.84.146.216.195 00:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind I wasn't saying that drug use rates have fallen because of abortion, I was simply pointing out that Salva31's post was clearly incorrect. I do stand by the violent crime rate drops of the early 90s, and I do think Levit is correct in linking a portion of that drop to a decrease in unwanted babies. Feel free to provide data that show that crime rates have increased since the early 90s, I think you'll find that you'll be looking indefinitely. --Quasipalm 00:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is the cumulative work of many people of many different ideological persuasions. We try to be comprehensive, fair, and accurate, and consider contributions from all sides (see "fetal pain" — this wouldn't be here if it weren't for a pro-life user). After reading this article, if you still feel that there's a bias present, feel free to offer ideas you think would help to round it out (just be ready to bring along some sources). -Kyd 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this article is the work of editors who by and large support legal abortion. I do not support legal abortion - but then again I cannot even add a comma without spiteful reversions being made by Kyd, Qausi and Killerchihua. I would be shocked to find proof (or an admission) that any other editors who make substantial contributions to this page are anything but pro-choice. Sadly, many pro-life editors have tried, but they are all quickly chased away by the "consensus". Str77 is the only one I know who sticks around, but her viewpoint is kissed off and and any substantive edits of hers are always undone. And clearly, the goalposts are always moving when any inclusion of any material that in any way paints abortion as the least bit disquieting is attempted. Its why wikipedia is the least trusted name in town.84.146.216.195
84.146.216.195, buddy, I hereby challenge you to find a less-biased article on abortion on the web. Oh, and I'm not so sure you can presume to know what our views on abortion are -- most here are decidely centrist and not 100% pro choice or pro life (or at least that is my perception). --Quasipalm 01:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
A centrist view on abortion means support for legal abortion in some fashion. I think most would agree that a "centrist" view would be that abortion should largely be available but perhaps not past the first trimester (perhaps 80% or more of today's abortions should be legal). (Whereas the current US law allows abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason - absolute abortion on demand, an extreme view. With aboslute ban on all abortion as the other extreme.) That means that even your centrist editors are actually very much supportive of legal abortion in most circumstances. I don't think one could plausibly disagree with that assessment of who edits this page.84.146.216.195
So, your view is that having centrists editing the article is bad... which leaves extremists. I'd hate what your wikipedia would look like. --Quasipalm 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for your less-biased article, btw. I'd like to see what a non-biased take on abortion is, in your view, so we can work to make this article better. If you can't provide a less-biased article, I'll have to assume that you find this article to be the least overview of abortion on the web. -Quasipalm 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I did put "Centrist" is in quotes for a reason, by the way. My view is that no single view point should be over-represented in the editiing. The mainstream view should prevail in editing decisions. We know from countless surveys that academics and journalists are disproprotinately liberal when it comes to issues such as abortion. So we should not look to academia and news media as representative of what is mainsteam. But, because consistent polling results indicate that over 60% of Americans would like 95% of abortions to be made illegal, the "centrist" view is actually at odds with the actual US consensus. And since most editors seem to be Americans, it should trouble us all that those editors over-represent that "centrist" (but arguably minority) position. Certainly that analysis is palusible and supportable by data.84.146.216.195
You are the master of running a debate in circles, my friend. And I have a sense that you're using obfuscation as a debate tactic. Btw, where's that less-biased than Wikipedia article? Are you telling me that this article is as good as it gets? Because that's what I'm seing here, unless you can cough up a less-biased article. --Quasipalm 01:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It is your ilk who are masters of constantly changing goalposts in order to obfuscate. The fact that this article is biased does not change even if you think it is the least biased article ever written. The goal should not be to have an article less biased than all others. It shoudl be to have an article absent bias. I am happy that there is some hint of an attempt to include information other than what pro-abortin academics and journlaists (the pseudo-"mainstream") push. But that is the problem. Your starting point is extreme pro-abortion information sources. Yet you don't even acknowledge that. You think some trivial word here and there makes the article "neutral". That is where the lack of editors who don't have the pro-choice mentality is evident. 84.146.216.195
Mind if I ask how old you are, 84? All of a sudden I realize that I may have broken the law by inviting you to enjoy a drink with me.
Now, pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you just hinted that this is the least-biased article on abortion on the web. Feel free to prove this wrong by linking me to a less-biased article than this article. I'm glad you've come around to admiting the article is pretty damn good. -Quasipalm 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I'm not aware of a single edit of yours that I reverted -- can you point out what you were refering to? -Quasipalm 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - you are correct. Your viewpoints are so similar to the many other pro-choice editors that its easy to place you all in once cateogry. 84.146.216.195
In other words, I've never reverted your edits, you misspoke. Thanks for clarifying. --Quasipalm 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by Quasipalm

Please stop erasing the warning regarding the following personal attack (thst you made against me) from your talk page: "I don't know whether to laugh or to beat my head against something-- or both! You're a live wire 84. I gotta say, while I think you're off your rocker, I can't say you're not passionate." As you know qausi:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, 84.146.216.195

No, I will not, because we both know you're being disingenuous. If I wanted to personally attack you, I could do a lot better than calling you a "live-wire" and inviting you out for a drink. Besides, we both know your checkered past behind a number of anonymous ip address, so as far as I'm concerned, you don't have any ground to stand on. If you want to find someone to support you, I might reconsider. --Quasipalm 02:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, signing up for a user name will give you slightly more credibility, as long as you stay civil. It would also be polite, since it allows others to communicate directly with you. Why don't you consider doing this, and then we can be more progressive in discussing the issue? Salva 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerned with Appeal to Consensus

I say this without making any mention of my particular opinions on the topic of abortion: Isn't it dangerous and potentially censoring to make appeals to consensus? How can we be sure what exactly is the consensus? Isn't there a danger of falling into an argument where both side claim to represent the group consensus? How do we know? I think it's been demonstrated often in the past that polls/votes are inadequate means of determining the actual consensus on a subject on Wikipedia. And isn't the group consensus at times irrelevent to what is appropriate action for Wikipedia? Just some food for thought. Freddie deBoer 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't simply to get a consensus of unsupported opinions, but to do our best to arrive at the truth of the matter. Strong evidence and argument lead to a consensus by successfully refuting divergent views and leaving only one candidate for agreement. In short, consensus should not be invoked in the place of facts, but as demonstration that factuality has been agreed upon due to prior discussion.
All this is particularly important in controversial articles where some people strongly hold views without any ability to support them and the majority may well be composed of these people. And this isn't some theoretical issue or one limited to this page. Just now, I ran into this problem on Objectivist philosophy, where I was outnumbered by partisans eager to ignore the undeniable facts of one matter so as to make their side look better. Alienus 07:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


"BTW"

I told you my sources, pal. Go look them up for yourself. Those statistics were out of a book, so I'm sorry, but I can't provide you with a link. Every one of those societal catastrophes experienced substantial growth after 1973. Was that a consequence of Roe? I'm not saying that it is, but am merely drawing hypothetical conclusions based on individual lines of inquiry. You did the same thing with the evidence that you showed me. What I am ultimately proposing is that the rather extreme fluctuation of these statistics within the past half-century makes them inconclusive in relation to legalized abortion. Providing observation(s) for our readers such as in the former links is permissable; interpreting that same evidence for them in writing borders on thought police, and will not be tolerated by me or anyone else interested in forming an encyclopedic article. Salva 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't provide a source for your claim. I, however, provided sources that directly refuted your claims. I totally understand about your book source not being online, but could you please provide the ISBN of the book you're talking about? Without quoting your source, you can't seriously expect to be taken seriously when all evidence I've provided points to the contrary.
As for your new "observations but no interpretation" rule -- certainly there is some mix there. I think quoting a world famous economist's observations about a research project he completed counts as an observation, not an interpretation.
Btw, congrats on discovering the bold feature, pal. (Pal? Was that supposed to be demeaning?) -Quasipalm 15:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[7], [8], [9].

Different sources, same idea. See? Individual lines of inquiry. 65.66.156.249 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you have it quasi. 65.66.156.249 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I quoted up to date sources from the DoJ, the CDC and the Executive Branch. You quote stats that are out of date (ending 1993) not adjusted for population growth and from some second-rate advocacy organization. Please, don't waste my time.
By the way, my favorite quote from this site is:
These graphs are NOT opinions. They are fact. We ask that you pay careful attention to the year 1962. This is the year of The Supreme Court Ruling in the case of ENGEL v. VITALE. The year that prayer was removed from our schools. The year that our tax dollars began paying for the brainwashing of our children.
Non-biased indeed. -Quasipalm 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he is biased. But I wasn't paying any attention to that. I was only concerned with showing you raw data and giving you my interpretation. Ironic, isn't it, that pro-choice sites don't have copies of data as in the former webpage?

Quasi, interpretation is subjective. What exactly was the premise on which this economist based his observations? Do you have a copy of his thesis that you might be able to send me? Who's to say that he isn't biased? You can't rationalize based on the findings of a single scientist, no matter how famous he is. Some of the most famous scientists in history turned out to be wrong, and have LIED to support their theory. (Ernst Haekel, everyone from the Piltdown man incident, etc.)

You are correct that those sources are out of date. I still want to compare the differences though and will respond sometime later today. Salva 18:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm thrilled you want to look directly at the paper. Download it here. Here's the abstract:
"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."
Is Levitt biased? Well, maybe so, who can say -- but by publishing his paper, he has invited anyone to discredit him -- this is why the scientific process works. Here's what he said on the subject on NPR:
"The numbers we're talking about, in terms of crime, are absolutely trivial when you compare it to the broader debate on abortion. From a pro-life view of the world: If abortion is murder then we have a million murders a year through abortion. And the few thousand homicides that will be prevented according to our analysis are just nothing—they are a pebble in the ocean relative to the tragedy that is abortion. So, my own view, when we [did] the study and it hasn't changed is that: our study shouldn't change anybody's opinion about whether abortion should be legal and easily available or not. It's really a study about crime, not abortion." [10]
And I agree with him. There is an objective truth here (no matter if Levitt is wrong or right), despite the politics involved. But I encourage you to read the paper and falsify it if you can. In turn, if you provide evidence to the contrary (evidence, not advocacy) I'd be delighted to review it. --Quasipalm 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the link. I looked over the paper, and frankly, it's one of the best that I've ever read! I'm abashedly remiss for the presuppositions that I made. If we're planning to add any more to the article based on Levitt's paper, then the overall NPOV should remain the same. No more arguments here. While certainly enlightening, it also reaffirmed my willingness to remain pro-life, since the number of abortions still outweighs the number of crime related deaths, by far. Again, thank you for clarifying, Quasi. Salva 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Great! I agree that Levitt's paper shouldn't change a person's ethical views about abortion. He's exactly right; if one believes abortion to be murder, then legal abortion is certainly much worse than any comparatively small drop in crime. I'm thrilled we could see eye to eye on this issue.  :-) -Quasipalm 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


"Oz" reality versus the here and now

In the land of Oz, the only people criticizing this research are fundamentalist nazi fascist Christians. And the only critique is idiological. In reality however, economists, sociologists and all sorts of pundits have criticized the many flaws in this research and the conclusions some draw from it. Please stop [curseword deleted] around with the facts. Controversial research was done. Many find the research flawed for various reasons having nothing to do with ideology. Stop painting this as if the research is not very controversial and validly disputed by academics. 84.146.200.136

I've not been involved in editing this section before, and the current version seems good. I have just removed the Yale criticism source, as it is too much for this already large article. As per my comment I think it would be best in Legalized abortion and crime effect. The sentence about their study also does not give any more information about the types of criticism the study has come under. If there is a reference to their critique then perhaps you could list it here to see if it is worth adding as a source, although there is already a wealth of sources on this subject. One last thing, calm down a bit - it's an encyclopaedia article. | Spaully 12:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that it was too long, it was also a copyright violation of the source. Do not add text with incompatible copyright restrictions to Wikipedia, anon. -Quasipalm 14:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Um. Okay. When and where has it been stated that the only criticisms of the abortion-crime theory are ideological ones from "fundamentalist nazi fascist Christians?" I believe that it read Christian conservatives, which is certainly non-inflammatory, even if it's not an entirely accurate picture of the diversity of criticism there may be. Anyway, I reworded it, to avoid POV, so please verify the current version of the text before you go flying your mouth off.
And, if you have any objection to the narrowness of the presented sources, then perhaps you should turn the finger-pointing toward yourself: you're the one who added them. -Kyd 18:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Death

Colle,

Might you consider making the information "factual" (I don't believe it isn't by the way) instead of blanking it and calling my contribution Vandalism (something I am getting mighty sick of) Chooserr 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chooserr -- thanks for the addition. IMHO, I think you skewed the reports slightly though by keeping out some key elements from the actual sources.
1)
  • Your Wording: It has been reported that abortion is the leading cause of death for women reproductive age in developing coutnries [11]
  • Source: In developing countries where abortion remains illegal, unsafe abortion is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age. Unsafe abortions are a drain on scarce medical resources. In settings such as these, emergency contraception could prevent deaths and reduce pressure on limited health resources
2)
  • Your Wording: with an annual death rate of 50,000 and 100,000 women. The world mortality rate of women due to abortion is roughly 13%, but gets higher in areas such as south africa. [12]
  • Source: In developing countries complications of unsafe abortion cause between 50,000 and 100,000 women's deaths annually (94, 233, 292). WHO estimates that the proportion of maternal mortality due to abortion complications ranges from 8% in Western Asia to 26% in South America, with a worldwide average of 13% (292). In some settings complications of unsafe abortion cause most maternal deaths, and in a few they may even be the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age
It seems to me that leaving out key words, like "illegal" and "unsafe", the paragraph was biased. However, I agree that your addition was not vandalism. -Quasipalm 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
p.s. South Africa is a country and isn't mentioned in the report. I think you meant Sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa is mostly industrialized now and surely has a much lower rate of fatality during abortion -- mainly because it's legal there (one of the few places in Africa) and handled by doctors, not by illegal abortionists. -Quasipalm 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

um.



"Unsafe abortion" changes rationale

In developing countries where abortion remains illegal, it has been also reported that unsafe abortion is a leading cause of death for women of reproductive age. [13]

The above sentence was lifted almost verbatim from the source. Reproductive Health Outlook gives the following source for this information, "Emergency contraceptive pills: medical services and delivery guidelines" by Consortium for Emergency Contraception, which gives a slightly-altered report from that of Reproductive Health Outlook:

"In many developing countries, where abortion remains illegal, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age."

The trail runs cold here. The Consortium doesn't cite a source. I have found some sources that suggest unsafe abortion is a leading cause of maternal mortality in specific regions, but a broad, sweeping generalization like "developing countries" seems an unfounded statistical tidbit without a conclusive source. -Kyd 00:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to engage in Edit Wars, but I do find it slightly ammusing that you would state they are counter productive when you revert them. The rationale for my revert was that if there is a dispute over the exact stats we shouldn't sweep them under the rug. WHO who is a reliable source came up with one set of numbers, but the other source is just as reliable or we should by right remove the whole section on percentages of people from which it stems. Also the section on the cotnraceptive doesn't belong, because it isn't discussing unsafe abortions - it would belong on a page like contraceptive. Oh yeah its wording is also a 9 on my POV scale. Chooserr 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
When I was discussing the rating on my POV scale I meant the phrasing that was on Antandrus' page, the current one is less POV, but still doesn't fit exactly. Chooserr 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You will see that, after the following sentence in the the Population Reports paper, there are three footnotes listed:

"In developing countries complications of unsafe abortion cause between 50,000 and 100,000 women's deaths annually (94, 233, 292)."

If you follow the footnote numbers back to the reference list (which should be easy, given the fact that they are all hyperlinked), you will find the following listed as sources for the above sentence:

  • 94. HENSHAW, S.K. Induced abortion: A world review. 1990. Family Planning Perspectives 22(2): 76-89. Mar.-Apr. 1990.
  • 233. ROYSTON, E. and ARMSTRONG, S., eds. Preventing maternal deaths. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1989. 233 p.
  • 292. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO). MATERNAL HEALTH AND SAFE MOTHERHOOD PROGRAMME. Abortion: A tabulation of available data on the frequency and mortality of unsafe abortion. 2nd ed. Geneva, WHO, 1994. 117 p.

2/3 are from WHO and the newest of these is 12 years old. Why do we want to quote WHO statistics that could be anywhere between twelve and seventeen years old when there are updated ones? Claiming that there is a "factual dispute" between current and outdated statistics is like claiming that there is a dispute over the number of U.S. citizens based on the fact that the current number isn't the same as that which was given ten years ago. -Kyd 06:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why we should include the section on contraceptive here instead of at a contraceptive article where it belongs. Chooserr 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Section? It's a single, unobtrusive sentence, not three long, largely unnecessary paragraphs which have little if nothing to do with the subject of abortion (there are far worse indulgences of POV in this article). It's certainly relevant if it is being discussed as a potential preventative measure against the phenomenon of unsafe abortion. Anyway, I didn't add it — Uthbrian did. -Kyd 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the sentence on emergency contraceptive because Chooserr added this citation in this edit. Here is the direct quote from Chooserr's citation where he altered the statistic by dropping the important part about "where abortion remains illegal":
In developing countries where abortion remains illegal, unsafe abortion is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age. Unsafe abortions are a drain on scarce medical resources. In settings such as these, emergency contraception could prevent deaths and reduce pressure on limited health resources (Consortium for Emergency Contraception 2000).
From the above, you can see that Chooserr's own citation supports the use of emergency contraception to reduce unsafe abortions. Moreover, this advantage is reiterated at PMID 12321816. --Uthbrian (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional source. -Kyd 10:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI

You don't have to have an abortion, and why do you care if some woman you don't know gets an abortion? It's her choice, not yours. I really don't see why this is such an issue. The Republican 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's their opinion and people are known to think things that seem illogical to others. One who is against abortion may argue that if people are killing children ages one to three that it is also "wrong" and also their job to stop such cruelty. Remember that there is almost always more sides to an argument then one has considered. ^_~ AlexJohnc3 05:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr: too much detail?

Hi, Chooser.

Regarding your revert of the expanded list for "Therapeutic abortions," it looked like a good edit to me. The expanded list made sense and made some necessary distinctions. Sure that list would't be OK? (I know, I'm supposed to be bold, but I don't want to add to the fires this page produces.) Justin Eiler 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A quick googling for the text in the added lists suggests that it is not a suddenly made up thing: emedicine.com. But then there is the copyright issue of that excerpt... The definition of therapeutic abortion in the current article doesn't mention the health of the child, while the detailed list does. Weregerbil 02:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The list was re-added by an anon editor at AOL. I've done a minor copyedit, but will try to get something more succinct tomorrow. Justin Eiler 04:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Late-term abortion is legal throughout USA

This is a false statement that is currently in the article:

  • Though technically possible, most states in the U.S. do not allow abortion procedures past the point of fetal viability, except in some cases of maternal jeopardy.

First off, fetal viability cannot be a factor in legal restirctions on abortion in the US. THe original Roe opininion has been developed over he last 3 decades by the Supreme Court to make this quite clear. Regardless of any state law, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there can be no practical restrictions on abortion - the only exception being parental notification, but with that a judicial bypass MUST be available (and judges MUST allow the abortion unless they find the minor does not actually want one). State and federal bans on late term abortion have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, and currently the most recent federal ban has been nullified pending Supreme Court review. There can be no doubt about this. And the well-sourced wikipedia article Abortion Law does in fact note that in the US abortion is legal in all three trimesters with no justification for the editorial comment that such abortions never happen (thousands are done each year). Even the AGI report [[14]] claimed as a source by the person reverting this false claim notes that only 12 states have laws outlawing partial birth abortion and that 8 of those 12 laws violate the current federal law. Also - and extremely germane to this discussion - the AGI report cited makes it clear if your read the asterisked footnotes that most of all of the state restrctions have been enjoined or nullified by the courts and are NOT in effect - or not even enforced due to federal court rulings. (See the footnotes, and this caveat: "Except where noted, the laws are in effect, although they may not always be enforced.") And it is also of note that "health" reasons include the slightest mental effect on the mother such as stress (which means that EVERY pregnancy can be aborted for health reasons regardless of any supposed "viability" restriction). In addition to all this, the physicians who do these late abortions are on record that they are almost NEVER done out of necessity and almost ALWAYS done as electvie procedures.

  • And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range...In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective. - Dr. Matin Haskell desrcibing his partial-bbirth abortion practice to Congress.
  • We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years - Dr. George Tiller describing his partial borth abortion practice at an abortion convention (of the 10,000 cases between 6th and 9th month, only 800 were fetal anomalies). [15] (From a speech given by George R. Tiller at the National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting on April 2-4, 1995 in New Orleans, LA)
  • When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else. - Ron Fitzsimmons, abortion industry lobbyist, discussing partial birth abortion in the NYTimes.

The text that is currently in the article is just plain false in every way. 84.146.237.70

Just to remind everyone this is not an article on abortion in the US, and a sentance on the legality of abortion has no place in a description of the sugical methods. Thanks.
84.146 - You would get much further in your edits, and would not end up explaining them all the time if you did not change the sentances so drastically. You were right about that sentance, but the one you were trying to replace it with was equally NPOV. Just an observation. Spaully 10:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that other editors insisted on reverting the totally false sentence demonstrates how insanely POV the editors of this article are. That total falsehood was defended despite the oh-so-obvious repeated overturning by the courts of all attempts to ban partial birth abortion - which is always front page news in the USA, and which was also discussed ad naseum on frontpages during the recent SCOTUS confirmation hearings. It also remained despite the fact that it was also USA-centric - as you mentioned, Spaully. This demonstrates the double standard for this page. It just goes to show how easily such crap seeps in and stays in the article. I literally had to ram the truth down your collective throats for you to even think of budging on removing such obviously and patently false information. It should not be that way - but sadly, because of the extreme bias to favor abortion rights present among editors, it is the only way for balance to have half a chance. 84.146.240.137
I do agree with some of that, but it's gone now, so get down off that high horse before you fall and hurt yourself. Spaully 12:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Kyd is considered a respected editor, yet he totally fumbled this one - and I would say it was due to his personal POV. In any event, I HOPE the continued examples of such nonsense wake people up to the inherent bias of this page. It does not read like an abortion industry PR piece, but it certainly leans to favor abortion as a good thing. But it should not. Information that sheds negative light on the abortion industry ought not always be immediately censored. THere is ALWAYS a fight to keep such information out of the article. That is the double standard. Information that makes abortion seem reasonable and good is NEVER subjected to such tests. That should make everyone who thinks this is an unbiased article ashamed. Half the population of the world thinks abortion is evil and should be ilegal. Those having that belief can offer a wholly scientific and non-religious (rational) explanation to defend that view. But you would never know it by reading this article. 84.146.240.137

Spaully, you seem to be reasonable. I do not mean to hit you over the head with my truthful observations about how this page ends up being edited. I am pleased that you acknowledged the truthfulness of my comments regarding the late term abortion sentence. Thanks for the support and unbiased integrity on this particular point. 84.146.240.137

See the first page of the table, fifth column from the left, "Prohibited Except in Cases of Life Endangerment."

  • States with "viability" (unmarked): Arizona, California, Conneticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Lousiana, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
  • States with some other period (unmarked): Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.
  • States with "viability" and asterisk (exception for health): Alaska, Indiana, Montana, Pennsylvania.
  • States with "viability" and cross (exception for rape/incest): Arkansas.
  • States with "viability" or other period and double-cross (exception for life endangerment only): Rhode Island, New York, Michigan, Idaho.
  • States with "viability" and omega (exception for fetal abnormality): Maryland.
  • States with inverted triangle (law enjoined): Deleware, Minnesota, Ohio, Utah.

The vast majority of states have viability-based restrictions and the vast majority of these are in effect. In fact, contrary to the erroneous statement, "if your read the asterisked footnotes that most of all of the state restrctions have been enjoined or nullified by the courts and are NOT in effect," only four states have viability laws which are not in effect. You were, evidently, reading the sixth column, "'Partial-birth' abortion banned," in which most of the laws are enjoined -- but this isn't and never was a discussion of IDX or IDX laws (sorry that you fumbled on that count, GE). Your uncited quotations, as usual, prove little to nothing. This is a discussion of the existence of time-based abortion restrictions in the United States; it is not a discussion of whether these laws are enforced, what kind of definitions doctors include under "health," or whether any of this is valid. Evidently, you're looking for some avenue by which to prove something, to which I will again cite WP:POINT. I'm restoring the sentence as there is no ground for deletion based upon a factual error. -Kyd 16:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no practical enforcable or enforced restrictions on abortion in the USA based on viability. Period. This is NOT open to debate. The law of the land is that women can have an abortion at any time for any reason. Period. Wisely, legislatures have tried to impose limits based on viability, but none have any effect as the courts have nullified them. In addition, any so-called restriction based on viability is meaningless as any such restriction MUST have a "health of the mother" exception - which means that a woman simply need claim distress over having to bear a child in order to procure a legal abortion. In other words, a woman who wants an abortion gets one as long as she can pay - period. Only someone who has no idea what he is talking about - or a person with an extreme bias - would argue otherwise. 84.146.222.200

From http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib13.html:

  • Attempts by the States To Limit the Decisions
  • The bevy of Supreme Court decisions mentioned in this report were in response to challenges to laws enacted by the states following Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to clarify or, more often, to circumscribe these decisions. Although the Court in Roe v. Wade clearly gave the states the right, once a fetus has achieved viability, to regulate and even proscribe abortion except where appropriate medical judgment finds it necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman, the states did not need to codify the Court's guidelines in their statutes. Indeed, 10 states have no specific statutes dealing with postviability abortions.
  • Many, on the other hand, still have laws "on the books" that were overturned directly or de facto by the 1973 and subsequent Court decisions. For example:
  • • Three states (MI, NH and RI) have among their formal statutes laws that prohibit abortion after quickening;
  • • Five have laws prohibiting abortion in the third trimester (FL, GA, IA, SC and VA);
  • • Seven have statutes that permit abortion only when the woman's life is endangered (DE, ID, KS, MI, NH, NY and RI);
  • • Nine have laws prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation, usually 20 or 24 (CA, DE, MA, NV, NY, NC, PA, SD and UT);
  • • Eleven permit abortions only if the woman's life is in danger or if there is a "serious," "grave" or "irreversible" risk to her health (IN, MA, NV, NC, ND, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA and WY).
  • All are unconstitutional in light of the decisions mentioned earlier.

Please stop re-inserting the absurd POV statement into the article. 84.146.222.200

Furthermore, this pro-abortion link reveals that the extreme POV statement Kyd wants in the article is pure poppycock: http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortionbans/24084res20051007.html 84.146.222.200

It seems both of those links are arguing that the laws are not enforcable, but what happens on the ground may be different. Does anyone have actual statistics about how many late term abortions happen for reasons other than the mother-to-be's health? That seems to be the only information (short of the actual laws being struck down by a judge) that would settle this disagreement. -Quasipalm 21:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
See page 12 of this link for data that 18,000 abortions each year are after 21 weeks. See page 13 of this link for additional related data: [16]

And another Feb 2006 AGI pub that counter's Kyd's assertion: [17]

  • HIGHLIGHTS:
26 states have bans on “partial-birth” abortions that apply throughout pregnancy.[25 of which are not enforceable]
18 bans have been specifically blocked by a court.
7 bans remain unchallenged but are presumably unenforceable under Stenberg because they lack health exceptions.
Ohio’s ban has been challenged and upheld by a court.
5 states have bans that apply after viability. [3 of which are theoretically enforceable]
Utah’s ban has been specifically blocked by a court because it lacks a health exception.
Montana’s ban remains unchallenged but is presumably unenforceable under Stenberg because it lacks a health exception.
3 bans are currently in effect.
4 states have bans that include a health exception. [and in 2 of those states, such an exception makes viability no issue at all]
2 states broadly allow the procedure to protect against physical or mental impairment.
2 states narrowly allow the procedure to protect only against bodily harm.
27 states have bans without a health exception. [19 of which are not enforceable]
19 bans have been specifically blocked by a court.
8 bans remain unchallenged. [though it is unclear if they are actually being enforced or are enforceable given the clear rulings of the US Supreme Court that with no health exception such a law is unconstitutional]

84.146.222.200

Doesn't your citation of the AGI publication show that your earlier statement is false? -- There are no practical enforcable or enforced restrictions on abortion in the USA based on viability. Period. This is NOT open to debate. -- If "3 bans are currently in effect" that apply after viability and 2 states have bans with health exceptions where viability is an issue, then certainly there are at least a few enforceable restrictions on abortions. This surely isn't any consolation to you, as the number and scope of the enforceable restrictions is undoubtedly inadequate in your opinion, but it doesn't make sense to claim something to be "NOT open to debate" and then refute your own claim. Perhaps you believe that these bans would be overturned were they challenged in court? Or you think that they aren't currently being enforced because of the potential challenge? It is also possible that I misunderstood your point. Please explain.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 01:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The practical reality is that none of these laws is enforced due to Supreme Court rulings. And it is no stretch whatsoever to state that the ACLU and abortion lobbyists would instantly bring a suit if anyone attempted to enforce such laws. But you seem to miss the fact that one doctor alone who does these late term abortions is on record as doing 10,000 third trimester (post-viability) abortions during a 5-year period. And all of those who do such later term abortions admit that they are overwhelmingly elective (not for any health reason). Though he tries to dismiss such admissions, they do show Kyd's statement to be patently false - and simply the agit prop of the abortion industry. 84.146.238.46 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a black thing

The crime/abortion research has been lambasted as having racial implications (as drawn even by the researchers) from the beginning:

  • London Times Aug 15, 1999: "Removing poor black, unwanted, children would have an especially powerful impact on crime rates 20 years later, Levitt and Donohue predicted."
  • NYT Aug 20, 1999: "Teen-agers, unmarried women and black women, for example, have higher rates of abortion, the resarchers [Levitt and Donohue] note.."
  • London Telegraph Aug 24, 2003: "Conservatives were enraged that abortion could be construed as a crime-fighting tool. Liberals were aghast that poor and black women were singled out."

Please stop removing from the article the reality of this one major reason (race) for the controversy that surrounded this research. 84.146.222.200

Race is not the only controversial point here. However, I'd feel much less uncomfortable including the racial term if it was explicitly drawn by Levitt and Donahue. Do you have a reference for that? Justin Eiler 00:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Found it. Despite your insistance to the contrary, race was not a primary factor in the consideration of crime rates. The three primary factors were:
  • Teen pregnancy
  • Unmarried pregnancy
  • Pregnancy in poverty. (per Levitt and Donahue, p 33)
At this point, having seen the paper, the only thing I can say is that you are falling prey to the conclusions that the media made, rather than listening to the conclusions that Levitt and Donahue made. As not infrequently happens, the papers did not make an accurate analysis of Levitt and Donahue's findings.
If you have any primary sources that indicate that Levitt and Donahue were basing their conclusions on race, then I welcome seeing them. Otherwise, your continued adding of "black" to the paragraph about Levitt and Donahue's research is not an accurate assesment of their paper. Justin Eiler 00:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Since 84 didn't provided sources, I was suspicious, so I tracked them down myself. Here are the sources I could fine:
The crime/abortion research has been lambasted as having racial implications (as drawn even by the researchers) from the beginning:
  • London Times Aug 15, 1999: "Removing poor black, unwanted, children would have an especially powerful impact on crime rates 20 years later, Levitt and Donohue predicted."
This isn't as much of a London Times news article as it is an Op-ed by Andrew Sullivan.
  • NYT Aug 20, 1999: "Teen-agers, unmarried women and black women, for example, have higher rates of abortion, the resarchers [Levitt and Donohue] note.."
This source is right: [18]. The entire paragraph is ""Most of the reduction," Dr. Levitt and Dr. Donohue write, "appears to be attributable to higher rates of abortion by mothers whose children are most likely to be at risk for future crime." Teen-agers, unmarried women and black women, for example, have higher rates of abortion, the researchers note, and children born to mothers in these groups are statistically at higher risk for crime in adulthood." I don't see this in the book though, so perhaps the author was wrong.
  • London Telegraph Aug 24, 2003: "Conservatives were enraged that abortion could be construed as a crime-fighting tool. Liberals were aghast that poor and black women were singled out."
This is actually from the New York Times again, this time in the Magazine, August 3, 2003 -- and this is interesting, this passage is actually reprinted in Freakonomics as an introductory quote to the chapter. It's on page 115. Here's the NYTimes source: [19].
-Quasipalm 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This is what I mean about the double standard: the NYT reports that Levitt and Donohue note race as a factor in their abortion and crime research, and their own book notes that the researchers themselves understand that race is part of what caused a stir - but including this information in the article is labeled POV. What Kyd is trying to do is to side with the backpedaling the researchers did when everyone seized on the racial implications. He is welcome to do so, but doing so is inherently POV. (And, by the way, I did provide sources. I did not provide links. And the Telegraph did also publish the piece that apparently originated in the NYT). I do appreciate that you are trying to asses the actual facts, Quasipalm. It is nice to see that you are doing so prior to simply dismissing the argument altogther. In any event, Kyd's statement is factually wrong, POV, and not appropriate for this article. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply trying to prove a point (the point being that abortin supporters rule the roost here at wikipedia-abortion). 84.146.238.46
Ah! I missed that--thanks for the clarification, Quasipalm and 84. Justin Eiler 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi 84, I just re-read the paper by Levitt, and they indeed do look at race as a contributing factor in their research. I apologize for thinking it wasn’t an issue – I think I was confused because I read the book more recently where race isn't presented as a major contributing factor. While I don’t think this is inherently racist, I do think that quoting others who disapprove is appropriate in this section. Let’s work on putting it in, in a non-biased and sourced (who said it was inappropriate?) way. Here's the actual text:
This analysis considers four factors: race, teenage motherhood, unmarried motherhood, and unwantedness. Beginning with the first three of these factors, we use the 1990 Census to determine the proportion of children in each of the 8 possible demographic categories (e.g. white children born to teenage mothers growing up in a single-parent household, or black children born to non-teenage mothers growing up in two-parent households). We then use the estimates of Levine et al. [1996] to determine what those proportions might have been in the absence of legalized abortion. Using Rasanen et al. [1999] and observed frequencies of crime by race in the United States, we generate categoryspecific crime rates corresponding to each of the eight cells. Combining these crime rates with the change in the number of births in each category due to abortion provides an estimate of the hypothetical reduction in crime. Finally, under the assumption that 75 percent of unwanted births are aborted (this number appears consistent with data from self-reported pregnancy histories), we estimate the contribution to lower crime from fewer unwanted births.14 It is important to note that our calculations below isolate the marginal contribution of race, teenage motherhood, unmarried motherhood, and unwantedness. Thus, when computing the impact of race, we net out any racial differences in those other characteristics in order to avoid double counting. The results of this exercise for homicide are as follows.
-Quasipalm 19:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Glad for your efforts to look into this further. My point has never been that the researchers are racist. Its that publishing their research is vile simply because the racial implications are sinister and discgustingly utilitarian: "if we want less crime, lets keep those inner-city aborion mills in black neighborhoods open." Hiding the reaction (to this racially charged research) of MANY on ALL sides (left and right) to the racial implications is a disservice to truth and to the readers. I am sure your version is more likely to be approved than mine, regardless of how objetive my version is. Please give it a try. 84.146.210.80

This section also mentions only one critique made by academic peers. There are actually 4 of them. I think the details do not belong in this section for any of the critiqes, but a more generic indication that the study was criticized both as having academically weak methods and conclusions, and for its social implications. 136.215.251.179

Circles in the sand

What follows is a long explanation of my partial-revert, partial-adaptation of GE's edits to "Definitions." I would much rather focus on a subject we haven't yet covered in the article, but, unfortunately, retreading ground we've already covered seems unavoidable.

Since the 1960's, pregnancy has been defined by the medical community as beginning at the implantation of the embryo.

Uncited. If you're going to claim a time frame for the establishment of a scientific definition, you need a cite, otherwise it just seems like an attempt to make some kind of implication that this definition was the product of its era — not science.

I agree with KYD. G&E, can you provide a source for pregnancy definition change that we can all insptect?
Although some laymen reject this and instead define it from the moment the embryo is conceived.

This phrasing also implies that there are no people within the medical community who hold the opinion that pregnancy begins at conception, when, evidently, there are, from the existence of groups such as Physicians for Life.

I like the current language, Others differ, however, placing this initiation at conception. It side-steps this issue.
Elective abortion : An induced abortion requested by the pregnant woman because she does not want to carry the pregnancy to term (globally the most common reason for legal abortions [20][21]).

I covered this matter in Archive 14, "Elective Abortion." If a pregnant woman requests an abortion, so that she might undergo chemotherapy, it would still fit within the definition of "elective abortion" presented above; she doesn't want to carry to term because she doesn't want to die — but, still, she doesn't want to carry to term. It really all depends upon the view point of the reader, and, thus, it really isn't solid ground to be basing medical definitions. The term "elective" does not occur once in either of the AGI documents cited, "An Overview of Abortion in the United States," and "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries." Also, the motivations for abortion are discussed in "Incidence," so this is needless repitition.

KYD is correct -- elective is subjective. All abortions can be seen as elective by the strictest standards. An abortion performed for any other reason. seems to be the most clear.
Terminating a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child with severe defects or associated with a high likelihood of death soon after birth

The initial wording made it clear that such abortions are performed in the case of defects which would result in either mortality or morbidity. This wording confuses that, divorcing the high likelihood of death from its cause, the severe defects.

I'm indifferent about this edit -- although I must say that the sentence above has the added quality of sounding like more natural language. -Quasipalm 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Selectively aborting one or more fetuses when multiple fetuses exist (twins, triplets, quintuplets, etc.) in order to reduce health risks for the remaining fetuses

Wikilinks eliminate the need for in-article definitions of unrelated topics. -Kyd 09:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You say that you "would much rather focus on a subject we haven't yet covered in the article" - of course you would! You foisted your POV into the article and now you don't want anyone to draw attention to that fact. One of the wikipedia policy pages warns about constant disruption masquerading as editing, which is actually nothing more than stealthy POV insertion - which many of your edits clearly are. 136.215.251.179
Lets keep out any ad hominem attacks -- and please assume good faith. Kyd is a respected editor and is a major reason this article isn't in tatters. G&E is good at pointing out POV issues where other people see none, even if at times his/her style is a bit impassioned. Try to remain respectful. -Quasipalm 14:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kyd is respected despite her constant efforts to insert her abortion-friendly POV into the article. That is a fact - a fact that should make you all question the integrity of any claim that this is an unbiased article. Quasi and Spaully, I do appreciate your acknowledgement of any good you may find in my contributions here. People who are polite in revealing the blatant POV here get ignored and the bias does not get addressed and the non-factual information stays in the article. I know I am not liked, but its the facts that matter in the end - not my reputation. The prevailing consensus here has a clear POV, and the instant reaction to ANY information (objective or subjective) that in any way reveals any ugliness or blemish related to abortion is to delete it. But when blatant POV (such as Kyd's assertion that late-term abortion is only a theory, not a reality) is added to the article it is simply accepted. And I have to carry on and cite God himself in order for any of you to accept that Kyd's was obviously POV pushing. And in fact, I find no indication that any of you have even let her know that was what she was doing - though you should. But I will keep on editing here. Such objective information (as I mentioned earlier) and valid opinions (often held by perhaps half the world or more) will not be kept out of this article no matter how hard some of you try. One would think that some of you would realize that, as Quasi seems to, it might be a good idea to actually consider the complaints I have rather than smugly pat yourselves on the back. When, in fact, people are pleasant and fair I return the favor. 136.215.251.179

90% of abortion is birth control - a fact nowhere in this article

This article should make the reader aware that an overwhelming percentage of abortions are elective and not for health reasons or sexual assault reasons. Abortion supporters rely heavily on the rationale that abortion should be available for those sympathetic reasons to make their argument. It is unfair to keep hidden the reasons women actually give for having abortions - which most often boils down to post conception birth control (even for most late-term abortions). Such information was removed long ago (perhaps even by you) when the chart that listed the reasons was removed. 84.146.210.80

  • censored out of the article:

Women from 27 nations reported the following reasons for seeking an induced abortion: [22]

  • 25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
  • 21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
  • 14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
  • 12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
  • 10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
  •   7.9% – Want no (more) children
  •   3.3% – Risk to fetal health
  •   2.8% – Risk to mother's health
  •   2.1% – Rape, incest, other

This data was misrepresented as being "from 27 nations" when it is, in fact, only the U.S. data. Check Table 2 of "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries" and you will see that the numbers align. "27 Countries" is an aggregate of several international studies and the one from which the above data was taken is from 1988 (citation: Torres A and Forrest JD, Why do women have abortions? Family Planning Perspectives, 1988, 20(4):169-176). There is a more updated U.S. study (2004) mentioned in "Incidence." -Kyd 08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kyd, you are a bit too hasty and slavish to your POV. If you look at the actual table, you will find that where data is available, the global average is similar if not the same. Actually, this is how the authors describe their data:

  • Table 2 (page 121) presents percentage distributions of 26 samples of women from 23 countries according to their most important reason for seeking abortion. (This measure combined responses both to questions that asked women to give their most important reason and to questions that simply asked why they had had an abortion.)

Here is the abstract of the scholarly article:

  • Methods: Findings from 32 studies in 27 countries were used to examine the reasons that women give for having an abortion, regional patterns in these reasons and the relationship between such reasons and women's social and demographic characteristics. The data come from a range of sources, including nationally representative surveys, official government statistics, community-based studies and hospital- or clinic-based research.
  • Results: Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. [birth control] The second most common reason -socioeconomic concems- includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons. Women's characteristics are associated with their reasons for having an abortion: With few exceptions, older women and married women are the most likely to identify limiting childbearing as their main reason for abortion.

Also from this comprehensive study (conducted by abortion advocates):

  • Risk to maternal health. This reason was somewhat important overall, having been cited as the main reason by 5-10% in seven countries and by 20-38% in three (Kenya, Bangladesh and India). This factor is apparently less important in Latin America and in the developed countries included here. The category of maternal health risk may include risks to either physical or mental health; another area of uncertainty is whether the potential health problem has been identified by a doctor or by only the woman herself. Because a threat to maternal health is often an exception to the law in countries where abortion is illegal, many women may cite this reason because it is socially acceptable and provides a legal or moral justification for abortion. Nevertheless, pregnancy probably poses a real threat to many of these women, because at least a small proportion in almost every country cite it as their overriding reason, regardless of the legal status of abortion.
  • Fetal defect. Women rarely report that fetal defects or potential problems for the baby motivated their decision to have an abortion. This probably stems from one or more factors, including the low actual incidence of birth defects, the fact that most women obtain abortions before such defects could be known, and fetal defects are generally not detected in developing countries (where advanced testing and modern medical care are not widely available). Furthermore, in many surveys, this reason may not have had its own separate category, but may have been grouped into an "other" catch-all category. Finally, the reason may have been omitted altogether in some studies. This reason was recorded in only one-third of the countries, with Indian women the most likely to have given fetal defects as the most important reason (11%); 5-8% of women in three other developing countries (South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand) also cited this as their main reason. In all four of these Asian and South Asian countries, sex selection is believed to play a role in abortion, and in such instances, some women may report that "fetal defect" was the main reason for their abortion.14 In the United States, only a small fraction (8%) of the women who reported fetal defect as a contributing reason said that they had been advised by a physician that the fetus may be deformed or abnormal, suggesting that many women may be making this determination on their own.

Bottom line: Globally, the overwhelming main reason that women offer for having an abortion is the objective equivalent of post-conception birth control (which hopefully most people find quite distasteful). 136.215.251.179

See the very last entry, "United States 1987-1988," in Table 2 of "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries" to confirm that the percentages given for the United States there are the same, to the decimal, as those you posted here in the list above. They are not representative of findings from 27 nations, as implied by the headlining text, "Women from 27 nations reported the following reasons for seeking an induced abortion." This was a mistake or misrepresentation on the part of the original editor. -Kyd 11:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested wording for including this objective factual information in this article: Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason -socioeconomic concems- includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. Health concerns are cited by a minority of women. 136.215.251.179

That would be plagiarism as that text is lifted verbatim from "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries." Perhaps you should read something about copyright. Beyond this, the motivating factors in the abortion decision are already covered in the "Incidence" section. -Kyd 11:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you have never seen articles that include a quote with attribution? Or maybe you are just being argumentative. 136.215.251.179
As Quis mentioned above, WP:NPA. Kyd is quite calm and reasonable. Your hostility is an issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Most people understand from its context that Kyd's reply to me regarding plagiarism was PATRONIZING, INSINCERE, SMUG and SNOTTY - and was not meant to be helpful. My reaction was to call her bluff. And your reaction is to keep on bluffing. And I am sure you are also highly respected here. Which , again, calls that honor into question. 136.215.251.179

Kyd's comment -- wiki-linking plagiarism and suggesting you read up on copyright -- was patronizing. Your reply -- suggesting that Kyd had never heard of quotations with attribution -- was similarly unhelpful in furthering the discussion. However, Kyd's point stands that the table doesn't belong as it was misrepresented, but that the data can still be found in the "incidence" section, and a link to the study is included. While quoting the study verbatim is an option, the information is already included and therefore lifting the text straight from the linked study seems unnecessary.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 12:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My first response to this thread was to reasonably explain the error in the data's presentation. 84/136's response to this: "Kyd, you are a bit too hasty and slavish to your POV." I hardly see how pointing out a factual error could be considered a manifestation of POV, but, nonetheless, I once again explained how to verify that a mistake had been made. I also responded to the post in which 84 quoted verbatim from the study (this comment was added to the page while I was drafting the second explanation, so I posted both responses at once). I find it odd that 84/136 was ruffled over minor sarcasm, when, in fact, not only have some of his past comments been uncooperative (see above — before I'd even gotten snarky, 84 was being defensive, as demonstrated in the "slavish and hasty" comment), but some have been downright rude [23] or directly insulting [24].
Paraphrasing seems preferable to quotation, as we are dealing with a top-tier article, and brevity is a concern. In the majority of cases, aside from important definitions, I think that direct quotations should be left to seperate sub-articles. -Kyd 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
File:Buddha image - white stone.jpg
Buddha wants everyone to chill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quasipalm (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2006.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/Archive_17&oldid=786044425"