Talk:Abortion/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 4

→

Mention of "death" AND "human fetus" is not POV:

Webster's Medical dictionary:

1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation: b : induced expulsion of a human fetus (214...)

That's great that webster's medical dictionary says that - but that doesn't make it so. As far as we know, scientifically speaking, the embryo is just a bunch of undifferentiated cells - they are nothing - therefore they cannot be dead or alive - they only have the POSSIBILITY of becoming something. The definition used in this article for abortion is extremely POV and anti-choice, for it supports the fact that a death/killing is taking place. Why is nothing being done about this? (Nadsat)

Sorry, Nadsat, but what you provide is not "scientifically speaking", but rather your POV, and a rather extreme POV. (Apart from a rather strange logic: they are something, therefore they are nothing... What!?) Yes, the article gives "the fact that death/killing is taking place". You are right! It is a fact. You might think, that a woman's choice choice should be supreme, that's your POV and you have all the right to your POV. But facts are facts and Webster gives reference to these facts. Str1977 09:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Nadsat was speaking scientifically. That the anti-choice movement happens to be scientifically invalid is hardly Nadsat's fault. I am looking at "Molecular Biology of the Cell", Alberts et al., 3rd Edition (1994), Chapter 21 (pages 1037-1137); "Functional Anatomy of the Vertebrates", Liem et al., 3rd edition (2001), Chapter 4, pages 118-176. And each of those two books has a few pages worth of references to original research on the subject. Nadsat can't help it if pro-lifers don't bother researching embryology. - David Elliott, 9:51am Australian EST, 25/5/05

The only part of Nadsat's post that was scientifical, was "the embryo is ... a bunch of undifferentiated cells" (and even that is only true in the beginning). The rest is extreme POV or factually wrong (or both). That you share it, David, is clear - otherwise you wouldn't be complaining and wouldn't use the strange term "anti-choice".

Str1977 00:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

His point was valid because factuality is invoked by words like death and killing. Anyone reading such a definition of abortion would be led to a *moral* opinion by the factual presentation, combined with the clear *ommission* of other facts of the definition. A much more rigorously factual presentation would make it clear that death/killing refferred to biological extinction (as opposed to the implication that this is nessecarily the death of a thinking, protectable being - which is *clearly* in dispute). And his description was a very accurate assessment of a human fetus, and the pro-life campaign most certainly attacks abortion of blastocysts. As for my use of the word anti-choice, it is no less problematic than the term "pro-life" (which, as i'm sure you know, was invented for purely superficial reasons, as much as "anti-choice". In any case, anti-choice accurately captures a part of the argument which i happen to support, so i see no problem with using it. It is independant of my scientific opinions either way.). David 10:24am AEST

So, David, when the facts lead someone to a moral opinion they turn into POV?

Death is, first and foremost, a biological fact.

Note, that this is only the real short, first line definition. All you want is explained in the entry further down.

There are many strange name tags around in this field, but "anti-choice" certainly is the strangest (I know it is used, and you may use it on the talk page all you like, but still it is strange - the problem of course really is the euphemism "choice" without an object). Pro-life at leat is partly appropriate, even though not all opponents of abortion are really pro-life (life in all circumstances). And another difference is, that one was given by one side to themselves, the other one side calling the other side that way.

Str1977 01:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The facts do not lead someone to a moral opinion, their incompleteness does. Maybe i didn't say it clearly enough: Incomplete and innacurately-worded facts could lead someone to the anti-choice position. That's my contention. That's why courts ask you state "the truth" along with "the *whole* truth". Ommission can be as bad (and effective) as a well-put lie, and 'pro-lifers' generate a lot of fluff regarding early-stage abortions by conflating biological and popular definitions of life, by ommitting accurate descriptions of embryology.

As for everything i want being explained further down, i don't think it is at all. I can't see any mention of the scientific argument that pro-lifers are in many cases in the position of "defending" something that shows no cognitive or relevant structural differences from bacteria, algae, or even sperm and ova.

David, 7:35pm AEST, 25/5/2005

David, I can't see what is ommitted in the opening paragraph (given the fact that it is an opening paragraph.)

You give a popular definition of life when you link it to cognition. That's your POV and not embryology. This POV blinds you to the differences you deny.

Str1977 09:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that is ommitted in the opening paragraph is that an undifferentiated bunch of cells is aborted. We should really include that. David is right. It IS the scientific statement which is relevant for an encyclopedia.--Fenice 10:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A vast majority of abortions are done at the fetus stage, fetus is defined in Webster's Medical Dictionary as "a developing human."

im·plan·ta·tion (in placental mammals) : the process of attachment of the embryo to the maternal uterine wall

em·bryo : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems ; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

Str1977, i think you're getting confused here: i made no secret of the fact that i was using a popular definition of life - i was saying that you (and others) confused this popular definition with the biological definition. This confusion advances the pro-choice argument via a logical error (or a deception (i.e. a "bait-and-switch" argument)). Hence, it is an unacceptable form of POV violation. - David, 5:27pm AEST 29/5/2005

Doesn't it already say "embryo" and "fetus" - and abortion refers to all stages of pregnancy, not just the one you are highlighting to push your POV.

Str1977 10:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is not about embryo and fetus, but about whether 'living human' or 'death' can be in the definition. If we include that you think there is death involved, we would have to include the undifferentiated-bunch-of-cells-argument.--Fenice 12:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know. 'living', 'human' and 'death' are just facts. There is nothing wrong with stating these - and everything wrong with trying to tone these down. The opening paragraph is no place for argument, apart from the fact that the "undifferentiated-bunch-of-cells" is only true for the very first stages of "embryohood" (and I think embryo - together with the link - does the trick).

Str1977 12:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not a viable solution to put the arguments in the top paragraph, that's exactly why it is not done. The undifferentiated-bunch-of-cells stage is when abortions usually take place.--Fenice 12:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait: The undisputed Alan Gutmacher Institute facts are that virtually no abortion is performed until woman suspects she is pregnant - which is long after the "undifferentiated cells" or blastocyst" phase. Lets stop arguing silliness - the embryo is alive and is killed, or else there is not an abortion. Abortion requires killing a living embryo or fetus, regardless of whether you ascribe any value to that embryo. Its simple biology and medicine.

From what I know pro-choice argues that an embryo is an undifferentiated bunch of cells with no brain. The Embryo-stage goes until the 9th or 12th week, then it is called a fetus. Abortion laws usually allow abortions within the first two and a half or three months because during this stage the embryo (or early fetus) is a bunch of cells with no brain which is a medical fact (without any further ethic interpretation added) and it is a majority opinion in western society that this argument is valid. That's why it's a law in most countries. Three months is usually also the point in time when brain development beginns. And most abortions happened before that (if there are laws allowing abortion; if abortion is forbidden just as many abortions happen, but at a later stage on average).--Fenice 08:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Substantial differentiation occurs DURING the embryo phase. And by the end of week 8 the embryo is a fetus with many organs fully functioning. See the Webster's Medical Dictionary definitions posted above. Regardless, the embryo and fetus is human and alive, and must be killed for there to be an abortion, according to the medical definition of induced abortion (the main topic of this article). The biology here is not at issue. A living human organism exists. Abortion is the killing of that organism to rid the mother of having to carry it. Why is there an attempt to hide that medical fact?

The biology - or, rather, your formulation of it - is certainly at issue - the embryo may be "human" and "alive", but it is not "human" and "alive" by popular/ethical/philosophical notions of what humanity and life mean. Refusing to acknowledge this biological fact is mistaken at best, and a deceptively unnacceptable "bait-and-switch" argument at worst. This is what we have been trying to get through.

And for the record, anti-abortionists most certainly campaign for the "rights" of blastocysts, and the "rights" of 0-12 week old embryos just as often (actually, i would say more often) than anything older than that, so the undifferentiated nature of a blastocyst is most definitely pertinent to the question of political POV. This is an article on abortion, and the abortion of brainless lumps of cells is relevant, and its ommission biases the hypothetically 'innocent' reader toward pro-life via misinformation. - David, 5:36pm AEST 29/5/2005

Nasdat, your comment that Webster's medical dictionary has a anything but a fact-based POV strains credulity. And by the way, cells can be alive (such as cancer cells), cells can die, and cells can be killed.

Why should it strain credulity? Webster was written by humans, the same as anything else. Presumably they have opinions that may have influenced what they wrote. The fact that someone in a more authoritative position than you wrote a definition that agrees with you means little when there is very obviously a considerable opposing view. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for you to argue your position, however well-supported, they are a place to discuss changes to the article, which must be neutral. The fact that people oppose some of your changes ipso facto makes them not neutral. You cannot tell the other side what is neutral since the definition of neutral is something both sides accept. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 19:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Str1977, (and 214... below) you are conflating "life" in the popular sense of the word and "life" in the biological sense of the word. Websters dictionary is using life in the biological sense, by which standard the fetus is alive (just like a bacterium). The biological definition of life is very different from the popular definition, otherwise you'd feel guilty about taking antibiotics. This discussion about Websters is *obscuring* an underlying disagreement which *should* be illuminated by the wiki entry. - David Elliott, 9:51am Australian EST, 25/5/05

To 214..., Nadsat, and Str1977: We may all benefit from looking into the article life. This may not be a straightforward issue, from any POV. In any case, it would likely do us well to consider using more specific terminology, as "life" certainly carries along much ambiguity, unless the article life is to be completely revised... (Djbaniel) 14:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "life": the living human organism with unique DNA known as an embryo is the very same organism when it is labeled a fetus and later a nenonate, infant, toddler, pre-teen, adolsecent, and adult. It is alive that entire time. By the definition on the life page, the embryo is a living human organism. 214.13.4.151

Definition in the Intro of Life:

Life may refer to the ongoing process of which living things are a part; the period between the birth and death of an organism; the condition of an entity that has been born and has yet to die; and that which makes a living thing alive.

life goes from birth to death, according to this --Fenice 15:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Webster's Medical Dictionary: alive = "having life : not dead or inanimate"

Again, it is a lie to claim that a healthy embryo or fetus is not a living human organism, and to consider it somehow "biologically incorrect" to explain that the medical purpose of this (overwhelmingly elective) surgery is to end that life (regardless of whether you ascribe any value to that living organism), thereby ending the pregnancy. Pregnancy is most typically the normal biological state of having a living human embryo or fetus inside oneself as a result of sexual intercourse. The pregnancy ends when that living embryo or fetus dies or is born. Why is it biologically incorrect to put it in such plain unemotional terms? It is clearly POV to use euphemisms that hide the medical and bological reality. "Terminating a pregnancy" is an empty term that gives no hint at what an abortion is - after all child-birth is also the termination of pregnancy! Is there a reason that the physical biological medical reality of abortion is to be hidden? 214.13.4.151

214..., as above, your argument obscures the actual disagreement - the conflation of biological life with popular ideas of life as "sentience". The article should make this distinction clear... David Elliott, 9:51 AEST 25/5/05

I will not give you my view on this because it does not matter. What matters is to find a viable definition for this text. One that does not contain arguments of the pro-life-side (living human) or arguments of pro-choice (just an accumulation of cells with no brain yet). When the cells become a living human person is pov. By leaving out 'living' we are avoiding to make a statement on the issue. --Fenice 15:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fenice; the point here is that we need to develop a NPOV first sentence (that's truly all we're talking about here). The problem here is that bias is unfortunately unavoidable in a passionate argument – not because one side will triumph over the other but because everyone has their own view of what “death” “life” “cells” and “embryo” mean to them. Some people see “life” as a set of chemical reactions that enable an organism to interact with it’s environment, while others view “life” as an incredible, unfathomable gift from God (Note: I’m not trying to make a value judgment. I’m just pointing out different views.). Therefore, any treatment of the word “life” will be struck down as being POV. It’s a given. The most NPOV thing we come up with will be debated. What we need to do is to come up with an answer that most people will reasonably agree with (optimally, a definition in which people from both sides will agree fits in with their understanding of the term).

However, we have a responsibility of being as forthright as we possibly can about the topic (in David Elliott’s words, “the *whole* truth”). This leads to two heated arguments over the action (is it “killing”/“death” or is it “removal”/“termination”) and the entity (is it “alive”/“unborn child” or is it “unthinking”/“a collection of cells”).

The entity debate (“alive”/“cells”) brings up the interesting issue of “alive.” In common usage, “life” is more of a spectrum. We can’t help thinking that people we interact with are somehow more “alive” than trees and bacterium. Part of this is that “alive” is often paired with “conscious.” People are clearly alive; rocks are clearly dead: the question is whether it’s misleading to label a set of growing, developing cells “alive.” Since I generally view bacterium as being alive, it is my opinion that a developing zygote is alive.

The problem with putting “alive” in the definition is that people may associate it with “conscious.” The zygote might be viewed as “sleeping” to a reader if it were called “alive”. The fact is it’s not quite “sleeping,” but almost there (it hasn’t developed the capacity yet). Therefore, “life” is a tricky issue. It isn’t wrong but it may be misleading.

Likewise, there debate over the action (“killing”/“termination”) requires caution. We are biased to see death as the (often violent) end to a conscious life. Therefore, “death” brings the same problem that “life” did a paragraph before. There is a natural bias to the word.

Don’t get me wrong - the same arguments can be drawn with “cells” and “termination.” “Cells” might hint at bias that puts a soon-to-be child on par with bacterium. “Termination” compares the ending of a (possible) fruitful life to carrying out an action.

Personally, I like “termination” a lot better than “death.” The reason for it is that “termination” is often related with death (much like “execution” which actually might be a pretty good choice). I see it as middle ground in this debate.

Sorry this was a bit long; I just hope this helps with this ongoing debate. -JJLeahy 06:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comments. I note that the requirment for the "death" of a "human" embryo or fetus is how Webster's Medical Disctionary describes it (re-posted below). This is medical/biological fact. The POV comes in when people want to hide this medical fact.

Webster's Medical dictionary:

1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation: b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

(214...)

214, why is it that you want to hide the biological and medical *fact* that when Websters Medical Dictionary says death, it does NOT mean the same thing that we mean when we argue that a death is ethically wrong? This is dishonest, and medically and biologically inaccurate. It is you who is hiding the medical facts by demanding a more limited definition - you are asking for an ommission, an absence of relevant biological information. Why do you want this article to hide the truth? (See the Nadsat-initiated discussion above.) - David, 5:57pm, AEST, 29/5/2005

Dear David,

since you keep on repeating it, let me address your mantra:

you are accusing 214... and me of conflating a "purely biological death with what you call >>popular ideas of life as "sentience"<<

In the opening paragraph only the bare necesseties are mentioned, it is giving the "technical description" and the biological fact of death, which however is the basis for the moral arguments discussed further down or elsewhere. (In other words: if there were no death involved, there'd no debate.)

You are declaring "popular ideas" identify life with sentience". Is this your view? It isn't mine and it isn't NPOV.

You say: "thing that we mean when we argue that a death is ethically wrong".

Who is we?

Again it's your POV. You are saying abortion is not ethically wrong, so the death involved can only be a mere biological function and can not be ethically wrong. (Apart from the thing that it's not the death, but the killing that's ethically wrong.)

Basically, you are arguing that the opening paragraph should have a disclaimer, saying: "death - yes, it's death, but only biologically, so there's nothing wrong about it, since we argue so.

Str1977 18:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I have not been on this talk page in awhile and we have quite the discussion going here. I'd like to say a few things. First and foremost here is a definition from The American Heritage Dictionary that might knock all of you off of your rockers(except for David (and any others) who I would like to thank for your sanity).

abortion: induced termination of pregnancy before the embryo or fetus is viable.

comment from another: inclusion of the term "viable" in the definition is simply inaccurate legally, medically, and factually - and therefore totally inappropriate on wikipedia (partial-birth abortions are legally performed in the USA on perfect and viable unborn children up until the moment before natural birth - yes, even a pre-born at 9 months - for any reason, including a mother changing her mind as to whether the child is wanted). In light of this reality, "viability" simply will not be part of any wikipedia definition definition - although it certainly is appropriate for the article to point out that it is thought that most abortions occur before viability.

To me the above definition is more NPOV. I can't respond to all the arguments that were made against me on this page, but feel free to bring them up again because I think the main ones in favor of the current definition (which I maintain is extremely POV) got lost due to this incredibly long discussion. One could say viable just means incapable of living outside of the uterus - which people no matter which camp you are from (pro-choice, anti-choice etc.) can agree that the embryo is NOT capable of living outside of the uterus.

Someone said if there was no death there would be no debate - but that IS precisely what the debate is about. Whether a death occurs or not. Science - yes SCIENCE - biology - MEDICINE - all that jazz - maintains that when the pregnancy is terminated due to abortion it is in the first trimester of pregnancy when the embryo is just a mass of undifferentiated cells - the other side, which seems irrational to mean - for how can one argue with science? ...but anyways... the other side would maintain that somehow a death occurs. The whole argument is whether a death occurs or not. So let us stear clear of the term DEATH!

comment: causing the death of the living organism is absolutely mandatory for an induced abortion (meically, there cannot be an abortion without a living embryo or fetus). Please address this fact.

I vote for my American Heritage Dictionary definition to be used. I am trying to be NPOV - I realize I will not convert any of you over to my belief and that is fine I am not trying to. Fenice and others what do you think of this definition?

Also, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NPOV/POV DEBATE, BUT JUST TO ANSWER AN INITIAL QUESTION: I use anti-choice because I believe pro-life is a propaganda term. I am not anti-life - I think life is wonderful, afterall I am alive right now aren't I? So to me it comes down to pro-choice or anti-choice. I know people who think birth begins at conception but they are pro-choice because they realize that if one takes away a woman's reproductive rights over her body you practically sell her body and life to the State. That is my very simplified version of that. But I just wanted to clarify.

comment: there are no neutral terms, so the terms used are the terms each side chooses to use for itself. "Pro-choice" is certainly a manufactured political term, too. The "choice" is hidden - the choice is abortion. But "Pro-abortion" is avoided because everyone knows human abortion is bloody and violent (even if it is a just a mass of cells) - and not something for which to advocate. People who want good education opportunities for all are happy to be labeled "pro-education", but people who want good abortion services run like heck away from the term "pro-abortion". And those who oppose abortion are in fact very accurately described as "anti-abortion" (a term they often embrace in their literature). The only group hiding behind a label are the ones who refuse to mention the word "abortion", as if it were a dirty word.

Oh, and also whoever stated "ummm Nadsat...like DUH cells can be alive" - obviously, but we're not talking about just any cells and I never mentioned whether the cells were alive or not I just said they were - undifferentiated - which means they are not anything; they just have the POTENTIAL of being something. So the argument you were trying to formulate was heavily flawed and did not make much sense.

Sorry this was quite long, I eagerly await the angry and vicious responses. --Nadsat 02:22, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Who destroyed my comments - this section is sort of hard to follow right now because of the way you answered what I wrote AND at least sign your name so I know who to address.

Okay, your statement that the term viable is NOT inaccurate legally, medically etc. is just ridiculous. You then proceeded to talk about partial-birth abortions - which are perhaps .102938123% of abortions (don't quote me on that - yes I'm exaggerating) my point is that, those type of abortions are miniscual this page and the definition we wish to generate for the term abortion is about the MAJORITY of abortions - that occur in the 1st trimester of pregnancy BEFORE THE FETUS IS VIABLE!

Be that as it may, but it is not part of the definition of abortion that the fetus is not viable.Str1977 22:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, most partial-birth abortions occur when the mother's health is at serious risk - as in having the baby would result in her death. Anyways, although this has nothing to do with the article - just to respond to more personal attacks you made - I would not support partial-birth abortions just because - only when health of the mother is at a serious risk etc. So what you said didn't really apply.

What I don't understand is how a woman's live can be saved by doing "partial birth", while "full birth" would kill her. I'm seriously asking. Str1977 22:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I'll be reasonable - and say that the term viable is perhaps a controversial one - because that is what the whole debate is about - but anyways - it is not wrong factually; it is in a dictionary and accepted by most of the medical profession as the correct term.

Viable belongs on wikipedia WAY MORE then - the death of the fetus - does! My god. You are certainly an unreasonable being.

The "death of the fetus" is certainly part of abortion. Viability isn't (see above) Str1977 22:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look the reason pro-abortion is not used is because it's not like all those who are pro-choice LOVE abortions - oh yes we want more, we want more! Let me tell you. I personally dream about them at night. (In the previous statements: HEAVY sarcasm should be detected) It's the fact that we (pro-choicers) do not believe - that people - ESPECIALLY MEN - should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. And because we do not wish to sell a woman's body to the State. And because we think that if you take away a woman's reproductive rights you take away the control she has over her life and health. And for many more reasons. That's why pro-abortion isn't used. If there was another way to get rid of the UNDIFFERENTIATED CELLS then perhaps we would all like that instead. We're not particularly fond of abortions, we're fond of CHOICE. Get it?

And I do not consider myself anti-life. I like life. Life = good. I think pro-life is a term that was manufactured to make women feel like murderers; which it was. Anyways.

Please stop changing the article back to being extremely POV. --Nadsat 17:12, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151 - you changed it again! Wow. Oh, and classy work, linking to murder in the second paragraph. Way to be NPOV, tiger! ugh. --Nadsat 19:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

allegedly pov changes

addition of morning-after-pill - this is not an abortion method and therefore does not belong into the article on abortion
changed 'campaigning in anti-abortion cycles' to 'campaigning'. - This omission makes the statement inaccurate. The reader would want to know which campaigns are meant.
deletion of the indisputable fact that civil rights are limited. - maybe you live in Canada, but for most people in most western countries abortion laws do limit their civil rights. See several articles on Abortion law.
deletion of two links to sites on abortion from the article on abortion, justfacts.com and [http:\\www.thedoctorslounge.net doctorslounge] - there should be links on abortion in an article on abortion, and the political (Pro-choice + pro-life) links are quite useless to the majority of readers anyway. So we can not do without the neutral ones.--Fenice 05:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fenice,

The morning-after pill is often portrayed as a method of abortion, whether correctly or incorrectly, so there is a reason for including a link to it on this page. I took care to formulate it so that the line does distinguish between RU, an undisputed abortifacient, and the MAP, where there is controversy. The question can and is dealt with over there at the MAP page. Why remove the link?

'PS. Someone else is changing my wording too. Isn't that evidence that mine is a tangible compromise?

- This line is constantly being added and removed. So let's leave it in for now.--Fenice 15:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
How does "the abortion debate focuses on the right of the prospective mother" (as opposed to the father, dealt with in the paragraph) differ from "the abortion debate is cast in terms that limit rights over the abortion decision to the prospective mother"? - This paragraph is about the rights of the father (paternal) not about any limitation of supposed rights.
- Actually now that I think about it both versions imply that the mother has a right to decide over abortion, which is not true in most western industrialized countries. Since the entire section is really about paternal rights, why don't we leave this sentence out alltogether.--Fenice 15:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about the links: The "Just Fact" really appears to be neutral, except for the opening paragraph. The "abortion pill" link is also neutral in itself (the problems were with other articles on the page I read and confused with this one), though it really reads like a comercial. Question is however, whether this does not really belong on the RU page rather than here.

Regards, Str1977 12:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through the links and tidied them (alphabetically), haven't deleted or added any though. After looking at the two sites that keep getting bounced back and forth, I would say the mifestrone/'abortion pill' one is basically NPOV, but the Just Facts one perhaps is not so much. Proto 08:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

and obviously the npov problem includes all the other changes of the IP after I put up the NPOV-template, most of these changes were discussed before, so I just don't see the need to repeat all this - but I will on request however.
and in particular the newly added problem of the removal of the neutral religious-tolerance-link by the anon IP.--Fenice 09:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't know whether you're referring to me (I'm the 132...) or the other IP. I did encounter log-in difficulties lately, I will try to fix them. IMHO the Just Facts page is exactly that, apart from the opening paragraph. So the site owner's have their POV and this paragraph shows it, but further down all seems to be neutral. The other link, I repeat, I basically a commercial for that "medication" The religious tolerance link I never disputed. Str1977 11:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

+++No no no Str1977, you are not the IP I mean, it's 214.13.4.151. This person has been making pro-life-changes in several articles for days - and has never responded on any talk pages. This IP has also moved or deleted the religious-tolerance link.--Fenice 11:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user: the religious-tolerance link offers conclusory opinions (POV) about the interpretation of Christian scriptures - and concludes that most abortions would not be prohibited or sinful according to its interpretation of Christian scripture. Biblical interpretation is inherently POV.

-Fetus-

Str1977 - Using the word 'living' to describe a fetus (in the first sentence) is POV. Just as using the phrase 'non-living fetus' would also be POV. So just leave it as 'fetus'. Proto 11:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user: actually, a dead fetus is never aborted, though many fetuses do die in the womb, the procedure to remove them from the uterus is not an abortion - thus, medically speaking, only a live fetus or embryo can be aborted.

While it is true that "Dilation/Extraction" is the term for extracting a "dead" fetus, the term "living" comes from the non-NPOV stance that fetuses are alive. The term "living" does not add anything but POV in this context. Liam Bryan 01:29, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Anon: Tumors, like fetuses, are alive/living/growing. Doctors perform medical procedures to kill/destroy and then remove them. NPOV.

By that argument, a surgeon who removes a tumor is a murderer. That's just silly. Tumors aren't alive, the person is alive. Similarly, a lot of people believe that a fetus is not alive. That's a point of view, and so leaving the word 'living' out removes any POV ambiguities. It doesn't lean either way. Proto 09:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hold on - Killing a living thing (bacteria, geranium, tumor or ant - and some would say fetus) is not murder. But it is killing, nevertheless. Kelling does not equal murder. An abortion requires the deliberate killing of the fetus, in fact, it is considered malpractice to not kill the fetus prior to removing it from the woman's body. And it is not considered an abortion for a doctor to remove a dead fetus from a woman's body. This is factual, if unpleasant, information. NPOV

Not arguing with you there. But the labelling of an embryo / fetus as living is inherently POV, surely? Also please sign your comments with four tildes. (Like this: ~~~~) Proto 09:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no deliberately induced abortion (the subject of this entry) unless there is a deliberate killing of the fetus. A woman can have a dead or living fetus in her body. Only living fetuses need to be aborted.

This argument stems from a moral or religious belief about when conception or life occurs, just because you "believe" that a fetus has what you consider "life" doesn't make it so. That is why if you were put in a situation faced with an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy, you have the choice to decide not to have an abortion, a choice that should be made based on personal beliefs by the person(s) in the situation (that is why abortion is protected as a choice to be decided by the people responsible for the pregnancy, not by a government agency or any other person who is not; 1. pregnant 2. a contributing partner to the pregnancy). Moral beliefs / (moral) judgements have no place in a forum of imformation. Since science can not prove when "life" begins, when "conciousness" is achieved, the word "living" should only be applied to organic beings that are able to sustain life without a "host body" or that are in gestation (utero). If you morally object to abortion then that is your right, as it is another's right to morally support it. Words that imply something that is unknowable by scientific means should not be included in a informational forum. since we can not scientifically prove that what a fetus experiences is "life" as in the organic definition of such, no matter what spiritual beliefs you hold this is why spirituality and science are seperated until spiritual beliefs can be proven on scientific grounds they shall continue to be seperate, and the word "living" as in "living fetus" should be avoided while conveying facts and information on this topic, it is a moral, religious, or semantic issue and should be brought up and discussed in forums of moral, religious, or semantic debate, not one where clear and scientifically provable information is being conveyed. And if the definition of abortion is the removal of a embryo or fetus from a woman's body during the gestational period, then a "deceased" ( I use this word for lack of a better word and hesitantly since it implies that prior "life" existed) fetus or embryo can most definately have a need to be aborted. If a fetus or embryo is found to have no organic function and has not "survived" (hesitantlty yet again) inside the woman's womb, "a deliberately induced abortion" and abortive procedures is and are "needed" and necessary to protect the health of the woman. Also, medical and dictionary definitions have been and will continuely be changed and amended over the years to incorporate newly discovered information and changes in our knowledge as a people. But until the key to the origin of life is discovered you can not difinitively state that an embryo or fetus is living until the point at which it is capable of being without reliance of anothers body to sustain it's being. I can already guess the argument to this will sound something like "but a newborn can not survive without the care and attention of another person to feed, shelter and love the child so is a newborn by your definition not alive? ... ect." No a newborn is alive by this definition, let me cut this off at the pass by saying what I mean by the capability to sustain life independent of another body is the ability of the body to independently function i.e, biologically and chemically function without relying on another person, the ability for the being's organs, bodily processes, and functions to independently operate without being in the womb. Without a mothers womb a fetus would have no heartbeat therefore the ability to sustain is provided by the mother, not the fetus, it can not be sustained independently of her. - Sarah (one question, i dont do this much and dont understand the terms POV and npov.. point of value maybe? let me know someone... thanks)

I agree with proto and there is also another factor: at the time the doctor terminates the pregnancy there is no way of knowing if the embryo isn't already dead and a miscarriage would have followed at some point. Abortions are usually carried out early in the pregnancy when the risk of the embryo dying off is still high.--Fenice 09:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the point here, the point is that labelling a fetus as living is inherently POV and so use of the term should be avoided. Please stop changing it. Proto 10:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Living does belong there, several states have laws that if an abortion goes wrong and results in a live birth it must then receive proper medical care. Obviously this is not applicable to stillbirths and using the word "fetus" by itself is not specific. By living they did not mean that it is human but rather that it has a heartbeat, brainwaves and still has the potential to one day be fully viable. 67.77.73.78

In the Health risks section, under physical health, the sentence "women who had had an abortion were 40 percent more likely to have a very pre-term delivery" is bolded. While I believe the conclusions of the report should be included, the emphasis leads to a POV. Also, the bold words in the following paragraph seems unnecessary to me.--Kristjan Wager 20:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why those words needs to be bolded? Someone fixed it when I mentioned it, but it has since been reversed.--Kristjan Wager 13:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree on the fact that the bolding of those words - including murder in the first paragraph - and other words in the article - is extremely POV. --Nadsat 19:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Feminism section

Dear IP, The section "feminism" should actually include information on feminism. Pro-Life-info goes under the heading of "pro-life". If you wish, you can insert the pro-life-info I just removed in the pro-life section. For a detailed description of the meaning of the term Feminism click here--Fenice 08:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It is POV to deny pro-life women the ability to label themselves as feminists. The star of the most popular sit-com in the nation is a vocal member of Feminists fo Life.

you've got it!!!!! label is the right term--Fenice 09:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no authority that can claim to define who holds feminist views. In light of this, and the fact the Feminists for Life is absolutely fighting to improve the condition of women, it is inherently POV to allow only certain groups to be described by that term.

From the "mission" page of Feminists For Life: "If you believe in the strength of women and the potenetial of every life, if you refuse to choose between women and children, if you believe no woman should be forced to choose between pursuing her education and career plans and sacrificing her child, if you reject violence and exploitation, join us in challenging the staus quo, becuase women deserve better choices." It continues: "FFL recognizes that abortion is a relfection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women. We are dedicated to systematically elminating the root causes that drive women to abortion"

Sounds like advocacy for better conditions for all women - sounds like classic feminism - in the style of Susan B. Anthony.

Do you know when Susan B. Anthony died?? _ in 1906.
- Karl Marx died in 1883, but like Susan B. Anthony his ideas are still relevant to a movement he helped establish.

Violence and even some forms of exploitation are criminal offences in most western countries. Most people in our society say that they reject violence and exploitation. This is not a feminist characteristic. Feminists typically deal with such things as giving women the same job oportunities as men and an equal share in wealth. If you read further you will find out that what they mean by root causes are the treatment of pregnant women in our society. Even I was disappointed that they hardly go any further - supporting women who already have children is underrepresented on this site - even though the problems of women with children add to what they call root problem in a much more drastic way.--Fenice 16:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- But violence in the womb against the fetal child - that too is violence. Abortion is always violent in that it always kills a unique human being - and often it is overtly and undeniably violent because the method of abortion is simply painful to both the mom and baby. Some feminissts reject such violence as any sort of solution or form of eqaulity.

- - It is not about relevance but about time and misrepresentation of facts. If I had to write this article on Marxian economics I would put Marx in the 'early Marxians' section and Sweezy into the section 'Marxian economic today'. --Fenice 17:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

- - Since you have looked at their site, I am sure you have seen that the feminists for life see themselves as in the tradition of the early feminists, so I think this discussion comes to same result as before, that they should be added as the last sentence in early feminism. Also from a stylistic point of view this is a professional way to tie the two paragraphs together.--Fenice 06:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

But still FFL are a group around today, so they are also part of "Feminsm today". This separation into two sections is problematic anyway. Str1977 08:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Feminism today

Dear IP - please do not add nonsensical remarks like this ***other things that feminists support are not relevant in this line - already covered above. because they can even be considered vandalism, but are at least obviously disruptive.
Maybe the sentence means you have some kind of trouble understanding the content of this section? Let me explain: It is of the absolute essence to mention that most women don't particularly enjoy their rights being infringed on in any way, as it happens by abortion laws. If you eliminate this statement it would be as if I tried to delete from the pro-life-section that pro-lifers think that the fetus is a living human being. It is also false to claim that all feminists want a right to abortion - some are content with abortion laws.--Fenice 10:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am just wondering, since you have only been here for a couple of days - has anyone ever told you that our complaints about your constant reversals are not just a hint at your lack of courtesy. At some point someone less patient than me can let you be blocked from editing for that.--Fenice 10:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fenice, I don't think it's appropriate to divide the Feminism article into Historic Feminism and Feminism Today, and if it were, Feminists For Life belong into the second section, since they are a thing of the present, not of the past. Unfortunately, you seem to be pushing your POV that FFL are not "real" feminists and want to relegate into some "Historic Feminism" museum section. You say: "Feminists today oppose limitations of women's rights" - Yes, that's right. I guess that's the (or at least some) definition of feminism, but I think that includes FFL. The difference is over what women's rights are and what they encompass and what they don't. Str1977 15:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the omission of limitation of rights: No there is _absolutely_no_ difference about what women's rights are, not even the extremist extremist within the pro-life-group would claim that. I think an outsider view like that that does not respect the constitutions of just about any western nations in this world just doesn't need to be considered here. And then I'd like to see a source for that.

Concerning Feminists for life: Look at the website of this formation and try to find the slightest bit of evidence that they could actually be fighting for the equlity of women. You will see that they aren't even trying to pretend. You will find a single link called 'Womens equality in the work place' - it leads to nowhere except to a registration form, that is there is no text on this issue on that site. The rest of what they in some places on their site call a fight for womens rights is that they say they help pregnant women (Don't we all?). This is by no means feminism. You will also find in some of their press statements that they believe pro-life and feminism were essentially the same thing, two sides of the same coin. The only thing that ties them to feminism is that they claim they are in the tradition of early feminists (which they are by no means, I think). Even the person who originally placed this advertisement in the text admitted that its just a label.--Fenice 15:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The definition of Feminism is not limited to your POV. FFL is for the empowerment of women by ensuring they are not pressured to treat their fetal child as if it were disposable (as countless thousands of women on campus are pressured each year) or pressured into killing their unborn child in order to get an education and develop a career. Your POV cannot accept that this is one brand of feminism.

Concerning your reproach that I am pushing my POV: The insertion of this club Feminists for life is advertisment, promotion. It's a minor organization that does not represent the majority view of the pro-life-movement. Within the scope of this text, it should be left out. Actually, the entire discussion on the debate about abortion doesn't belong here. There should only be a short paragraph on the debate in this article because there's a separate article on the debate. Still I did not kick it out and even placed it in the early feminist section after discussion, as a compromise. To claim that I am pushing my POV is not even sad, it's almost funny.--Fenice 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Where does anyone except you accuse FFL of just using a label? Certainly not up in the section 3. It's not up to you to decide who's a proper feminist and who's not, even if their website is not good. There definitely is disagreement about what rights a woman can legitimately claim and what rights she can't. The POV was just an observation, not (yet) and accusation. Str1977 15:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Where does anyone except you accuse FFL of just using a label? You will find this in the section above this one on this very page, the section is called "Feminism section".--Fenice 16:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Allright, Fenice, let's read a bit:

Anon said: "It is POV to deny pro-life women the ability to label themselves as feminists." Is it that you are talking about? Probably yes, since you answer: "label is the right term" Well, Anon didn't say that FFL just use feminism as a label, but that they call themselves FFL, that that's the name they use. Anon does not comment on the validity of that name. Only you did.

I have seen this passage before and this is why I wrote: "Certainly not up in the section 3."

Str1977 16:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

yes, i see and i didn't realize what you meant by section three. Still, I didn't call it a label, the anon IP did.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC) And I repeated it. --Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)This part of the discussion is idle, I will continue my argumentation on the pro-choice-feminism above in section 3.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)And of course I don't deny anyone the right to label themselves as anything they like. But if I label myself the queen of the world this will not be encyclopedic unless I really am the queen of the world according to the widely accepted description of 'Queen of the world'.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, the feminsts for life label themselves as in the tradition of the early feminists on their website. So there is just no argument for your change.--Fenice 06:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

There definitely is disagreement about what rights a woman can legitimately claim and what rights she can't.
Not in western countries. The situation you are describing is usually criminal in Europe and the US. In these countries there are laws that grant womwn the same rights as men. I am not saying we have to ignore the unfortunate dispute you describe, but tell us what country that is and we will put something like "In western industrialized countries womens rights are not limited, but in .....(whichever one you are going to tell us) the situation is different."--Fenice 16:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain: "Pro-choice" feminists consider it a woman's right to abort their child. Pro-life feminists don't consider this a right a woman can claim - that's the difference, regardless of country or hemisphere. Laws don't mean anything in that debate. I don't think an Irish "Pro-choice" feminist will waive her claim to this supposed right, neither does an American Pro-life feminist will agree this to be a right. Either will disagree with the currently existing laws and argue their point. Either will say, they oppose limitations on women's rights. Str1977 17:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, and then: this is the feminism section we discuss, not pro-life and pro-choice.

First: Pro-choice and pro-life are american terms. no such groups exist in central Europe, not at that scale anyway. Pro-life is much more identified with a church stance. And I am pretty sure pro-life does want laws to prohibit abortion in the US. Feminists (including of course the historic feminists) are the group who changed the situtation in such a way that I can say today: laws grant us equal rights. This is the reason why I think it fits in this section. Then again: an even better place to have the sentence "Abortion laws limit womens right to self-determination" is the introduction to the debate-paragraph. Because that is the core issue of the pro-life and pro-choice debate. Both will agree that women have the right to self-determination. But Pro-lifers argue that the embryo is a person and therefore has the same constitutional rights as everybody else, in this case, the right to life. Pro-lifers then claim that the right to life weighs more than the right to self-determination. Because everybody agrees that women have a right to self-determination, this means that abortion laws limit that right.

Not all feminists argue for a right to abortion. Most believe that the realistic possibility to have a legal abortion within the first three months is sufficient whether they have a right to it or not. And others believe that the Canadian situation is ideal: no laws on abortion at all. --Fenice 17:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC) By 'legal' abortion I mean that it is not punished by law.--Fenice 17:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, "Not all feminists argue for a right to abortion." That's the point of groups like FFL, if you think them credible or not. Still there are difference of what women's rights are comprised of. Those pro-choice include abortion, those pro-life don't. If there is any other group I didn't think of, they have their view too. If some one wants to have a "realistic possibility to have a legal abortion" that IMO means they think that is covered by their rights. (By right I didn't mean that you can sue someone for it, but that you are free to do it.) Or they just don't think about rights at all. And the Canadian situation, as you describe it, is the same. No law means it is legal, doesn't it. Anyway, there is difference of opinion among feminists, as you yourself state, but IMO no difference about that women's rights should be upheld. Str1977 22:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Basically the misunderstanding is the following: you are trying to tell me that peoples opinion about what rights are is quite incoherent. Thats fine, but just isn't the issue here. (So I won't comment on that for now, also it belongs into the article right). This here is about civil, constitutional rights of course, I thought that goes without saying. I will add civil to the phrase then.

And of course if you want to add something about your more eclectic concept of the term right to the text, to this text, abortion I mean, we can go on disscussing it.--Fenice 06:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It certainly isn't my ecclectic concept. Just what I observe. My concept is really more "one package". But the real problem with your edit is this: "Feminists today oppose limitations of women's civil right of self determination ..." So Feminists yesterday didn't oppose limitations of women's civil rights, did they? Is that what you're saying? I think that's unjust to the Early feminists. "Support for women's rights" is not something that changed recently - it's rather the fundament of feminism. I have no objection with including some sentence about women's rights (never mind the civil), but it should include either stage of feminism. And again your banishing FFL out of the present - contrary to reality. Str1977 07:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I do not mind your concept. It's not unrealistic. It's just not what this is about. (If you have a problem in that direction, make a sentence and post it here, we will probably be able to include other concepts of right in the text.) By the way, if you are opposed to one word in a text (today) I do suggest it would be a lot easier to simply cancel it. Your constant reverting is just not good style.

Also, might I just add that it is really quite absurd (misleading?)to say in talk that you are not opposed to sentence and to delete it at the same time.

And: no, I do not oppose the adding of "early feminists oppose limitations of civil rights" to the section on early feminsm. (??Are you serious??) Go ahead.

For now, let us just put Feminists for life in their own section. So for the record, the earlier solution the IP and I worked out, is now obsolete and pro-choice-feminism will get its own section.--Fenice 07:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)edited--Fenice 07:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Npov-tag still needs to stay because the consensus sentence in the first line has been changed again.--Fenice 07:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a sentence saying that feminists oppose limiting women's rights (OLWR) they might differ about the content but that's not the point) - IMO that's what feminism - or rather political feminism - is all about. I'm opposed to a sentence saying that today feminists oppose ...

It's not about civil right but women's rights we're talking about.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a possible wording to include this where you'd have put it. A possibility would be to either include a reference to OLWR or to include one for feminism in general, though that's really stating the obvious, but if you want to, so be it.

Or maybe, sth along the line of: Today feminists, in line with the traditional feminist OLWR, typically claim a right to abortion.

Please consider.

Str1977 08:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 - we still don't communicate right. If I tell you, I am talking about civil rights it's quite absurd to tell me: "No you're not". As I said above, I am talking about civil, constitutional rights here. They are of the absolute essence. If you wantto include anything further that is your idea, not mine.

Google came up with about 1500 hits for this term OLWR - the first one was this: 'Office of Land and Water Resources', which accounts for the first 30 or so results and it is also a German title 'Oberlandwirtschaftsrat' (a farming expert) - there are hundreds. The search OLWR and feminism turned out a single result on the google test. So I am opposed to including that.

I think you are actually trying to claim that feminists don't support equal civil rights for women. But that there is only some weasel discussion going on about what women's rights could be perceived as by different groups. I do not deny that there a weasel discussions and eclectic views on this subject. But the core issue no one (except for you, so thas actually no one but one) would deny is that rights means at least the constitutional rights. As I said before, I do not think it is necessary to include the eclectic part of the discussion. Only the basics absolutely need to be there, which are the civil rights.--Fenice 08:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I am also quite amazed at your - well ...modesty... to decline a separate headline for the movement you think is so important. You can still have it if you change your mind. ;-) I did not add this headline grudgingly, but with honest conviction.--Fenice 08:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC) And it was supposed to be Pro-life-feminism of course, in cas you were wondering.--Fenice 09:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Since no solutions have been offered by str1977, and str1977 also declined a separate paragraph, there is another possiblity to secure an accurate representation of the facts. A separate paragraph could be written on the heretical sociological phenomenons like Feminsts for life. There is also a group called Catholics for a free choice. Both could be dealt with under the heading of "Organizations with an atypical stance on the issue".--Fenice 09:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fenice, IMO it doesn't matter whether the rights we dicuss are constitutional or civil. I'm not trying to claim that feminists don't support equal civil rights for women. Let me explain: Some feminists see abortion as a right, others don't. Yet both are feminists and both oppose limitations of women's rights (= OLWR, sorry I didn't explain). The same holds true for feminists of the past and of the present, hence it's unfair to include the OLWR statement only with the latter. As for modesty - I oppose erasing FFL from the fold of "feminists today", since they are feminists of today. You or pro-choice feminists might consider them heretics to the cause, but there is no authority that can legitimately deny them the term "feminist" (that's the difference to Catholics for a free choice) Str1977 20:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current wording, as of 19.42 - May 14 Str1977 20:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear str1977,

again: if I am saying I am talking about civil and constitutional rights, I am talking about civil and constitutional rights. Telling me I'm not is blatant nonsense, isn't it?
and, as I said, again: put the statement you want about 'early feminists opposing limitations of womens constitutional right to self-determination' in the early feminism-section. It is a waste of time to ask that again, when I have already told you to go ahead.
again: the term OLWR is absolute nonsense and your private invention - leave it out.
again: Who sees what as a right other than a constitutional right, I don't care, produce a text or something and post it on talk if you want to add that.
again: if you oppose having a separate pro-life-feminism-section for feminists for life, you should actually argue that on the talk page.

--Fenice 22:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Any questions?

Allright Fenice, I'll try to make myself understood again:

again: I'm not telling you what you are talking about - the thing is just that this is not our disagreement.
I think it nonsensical to include such statement in every paragraph, when in fact it fits for all.
the term OLWR is my invention, but it's not nonsense, it's just an abbreviation to save me from typing "opposition to limitation of women's rights" again and again and again. You'll be able to understand this, won't you? It is not meant for the wiki entry, just for the talk page.
Again: the thing is your wording says that feminists today are OLWR and implies that feministis of former times were not OLWR.
Actually I'd advocate having just one feminism section, but if you insist on having a separate one for "feminism today" than FFL and belong there. I have argued repeatedly for that on this very page. I'll repeat it for you: FFL are a feminist group around today, so they should be included in feminism today.

Str1977 20:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

the thing is your wording says that feminists today are OLWR

huh? - where??? I am talking about civil rights, remember??? feminists oppose limitations of women's civil rights means feminists oppose limitations of women's civil rights. --Fenice 21:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And, no, of course, I do not support your using 'OLWR'. --Fenice 21:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Fenice, I'll stop discussion with you, since you don't want to.

But don't call me back after this. Str1977 22:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Strange reaction to my saying:

feminists oppose limitations of women's civil rights means feminists oppose limitations of women's civil rights.

should go into the humorous archive.--Fenice 22:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick explanation, Fenice: You are supposing our discussion was on the wording, whether women's rights or civil rights or constitutional rights. It wasn't - qualify these rights what you will, that was not my point. And I will use any abbreviations I think fit, whether you support them or not. BTW, I don't object to the current wording, as it says they "consider abortion laws as limitations". So I think the case is closed. Str1977 10:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream

Mainstream: feminist ideology is not proven to be or generally accepted as mainstream - use of that word in this context is misleading and POV, and the word "most" is a neutral and accurate way to describe the current state of affairs. user:214.13.4.151

Just for the record, I am fine with 'most', didn't revert it.--Fenice 11:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional, civil rights - issue, continuation of core issue in section feminism-today

Constitutional: feminist theory is focused on a woman's right to self detemination, the word constitutional is extra and applies only to States that have a constitution, so the word is actually limitation on the general feminist theory that that movement applies universally to all women, regardless of the existence or contents of any constitution user:214.13.4.151

If you read the discussion above with str1977 you will see that it is by no means clear that the discussion on women's rights is about constitutional/civil rights. str1977 believes that for most people it includes all kinds of different concepts on top of civil rights. And str1977 wants to focus on that. I having been saying that I do not care to include anything but the core issue, which is civil rights. This is not the place to do have a review of the discussion on what people claim to be women's right other than civil/constitutional. This further discussion should be in the main article Morality and legality of abortion. Civil rights is the lowest common denominator. All western states of course have constitutions by the way. Which one did you think doesn't have one?--Fenice 11:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

so the word is actually limitation on the general feminist theory that that movement applies universally to all women, regardless of the existence or contents of any constitution sorry?? This part of the sentence is incomprehensible. There is either a word missing somewhere or the argument is circular. And can you clarify "that movement". --Fenice 11:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

We can also go back to the word I used initially, civil, instead of constitutional. The word 'civil' you didn't like.--Fenice 11:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

just a thought

the american heritage dictionary defines abortion as

  1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of
     survival.
  2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced
     abortion.
  3. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
  4. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full
     development or maturation.
  5. An aborted organism.
  6. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

===and a reflection on your thought:

The descriptors "incapable of survival" [in definitions # 1 & 2 above] and "nonviable" [in def # 3, above] do not accurately describe thousands of legal abortions that occur in the USA, China, and elswhere (a large majority of children born at a gestational age of 24 to 34 weeks survives - yet thousands of fetuses are killed at this stage each year through legal abortion in the USA alone).

And none of these describe what is medically required for an induced abortion to occur - the doctor must first kill, not just cease the growth of, the fetus [I have a friend whose endocrine system is flawed and therefore his body ceased normal growth prior to reaching full development, but he is not dead].

Webster's Medical dictionary is more technically accurate:

1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation: b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

I don't have a problem with kill; but you should recognize humans aren't the only species that can be aborted. The medical dictionary is making the definition within a medical context; Wikipedia does not need to follow suit since abortions can happen other species. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Royboy, this article is specifically about abortion in humans - otherwise the mention of rights, fminism, policitcs, etc. is misplaced.

Quite, so long as the intro specifies "generally" or "commonly" etc. refers to human abortion I'm fine with it. Just making sure you kept in mind the scope and context of your evidence. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Name change

Where is the debate about the name change? If there isn't any can it be changed back. I feel this is wrong and strongly oppose it, --SqueakBox 00:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC). Nauseam (talk · contribs) is a new user (approx 20 edits) who has made no attempt at gainibng consensus. Please can this move be reverted asap, --SqueakBox 00:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I moved it back. 10qwerty 00:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

External links

Where did they all go? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

They were removed without anyone noticing. not all vandalism gets reverted in a few mins. i can't be bothered to figure out who did it, but I had to go back to about the 11th. We all need to be more vigilant, except for the vandal who needs to desist, --SqueakBox 00:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fenice (talk · contribs) removed the links here. i think this is not on myself, as she did it with no explanation or attempt to gain consensus, though i recognise it was done in good faith. I oppose any move of the links, --SqueakBox 17:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fenice and I agree on little. But I am not opposed to keeping the links to activist groups off this page. Anon.

Fenice didn't seem to read the template at the top of the page about substantial changes being referred to the talk page first. What he did was a substantial change. By all means let us have a discussion on the issue, --SqueakBox 04:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just Facts link

I don't think that the link to the Just Facts site should be under the section "Politically Neutral". The site does present facts for both for and against, but certainly the majority of the facts cast a negative light on abortion. It's a valid link as it had great information, but I just dispute it being entirely neutral. --K. 05:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The only bias at that site is one toward objectiveity. The site editor acknowledges that it refers to the fetus or unborn baby as an preborn human, a term that neither "side" prefers. The entire site is all objective factual information about abortion. Neutral objective facts are non-POV. And that website, like this one, aims at being non-POV.

Presenting "facts" such as suicide rates etc. without additional information or explanation is a POV presentation of the facts. I'll have to remember that line though... toward objectivity; you're confusing that website with Wikipedia (when it works, and eliminates its own self-acknowledged systematic biases), its Wikipedia not that website that approximates objectivity. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, when I first read the "Just Fact" page, I thought it had a pro-choice bias. I was jumping to quickly, I admit, being misled by the opening paragraph, that sounds very much like a anti-pro-life snear. But reading on, I had admit that I was wrong and that the page is indeed Just Facts. The site owners might have a POV (certainly) or even a bias, but apart from the first paragraph, it doesn't spoil the information. The page gives just facts, it might not be a comprehensive dealing with all issues related to abortion. It is not POV and it was the only neutral link posted here. Str1977 10:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the page does present "just facts"; there are no POV explanations or elaborations. However, a list of facts can be POV. If the facts presented are only for or only against an argument, then the list is POV. The page presents both, but IMO, the majority of facts still cast a negative light on abortion and especially Planned Parenthood. For the record, I am not a Planned Parenthood fan, but I do believe in Wikipedia being objective. I think it would be appropriate to rename the title of the section from "Politically Neutral" to something more like "Abortion-related Facts". --K. 02:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I am quite tolerant of differing opinions; I'm not tolerant of masquerades. "Just facts" is pompous title for an article that remains neutral factually, but pro-life in context through omission. Meaning it does not present many facts with the aim of a neutral assessment; and is missing (ommiting) facts that can help the reader do that. The article is biased, period. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. But where do we put the link? I'm not convinced it should be a plain pro-life link as it isn't openly pro-life. I think there should be an evaluation of the link headings; Pro-life vs. Pro-choice is too limiting. Some of the links present mostly pro-life or pro-choice facts, while others have a lot of POV rhetoric. Can we reorganise it into Facts and Opinions headings, then Pro-life and Pro-choice under that? --K. 04:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's valiant attempt at a compromise; but I do not see a compromise in this instance. The very labels of Fact and Opinion is a categorization we shouldn't be making; as any reference worthwhile likely contains both fact and opinions. As the link stands (with no header)... is "safest" thing to do; but it reflects poorly on Wikipedia being able to read between the lines on references with phrases: "The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation." "Preborn human" is pro-life terminology; and its not necessarily accurate since a pregnancy can spontaneously fail (hence not preborn, but preabortive). I'm moving it back to pro-life; attempts to move it back will be reverted. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Royboy is right; the page may be factually accurate in as far as it goes, but it is clearly pro-life through which facts it chooses to present. --Robert Merkel 23:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removal of pro-life-feminists

I just removed a sentence on a minor pro-life-organisation which was currently in the "current feminism" section. After weeks of discussion not a single reason was given why Feminists for life should be in this text. Other minor organisations or even bigger ones where not added for balance. Also no compromise whatsoever was accepted as to where to place this sentence. And then, the link is already at the bottom of the page. --Fenice 09:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fenice, you are misrepresenting the discussion. I (and others before me) gave reason for the sentence to be there. If you missed them I can repeat. - Though it is correct that most feminists today are "pro-choice", some are "pro-life", FFL being an example. That is proper balance - give the majority stance but also add that there is diversity, as they is no authority to define feminist orthodoxy. The FFL remark does belong in the "current feminism" section as it is part of the range of "current feminism". FFL are around today and today is not the 19th century. If you have a better example for pro-life feminists I wouldn't object to including them rather than FFL. It is just given as an example. I could also do without any example, but please then don't complain about there being no example to the general statement. Str1977 10:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I do see that you are in a desperate situation to find arguments here, but stop personal attacks, you can get banned for that. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. FFL is irrelevant, as you say yourself in your statement right here above: I could also do without any example --Fenice 10:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Dearest Fenice, I am neither desperate to find arguments, nor am I using personal attacks. I said I could do wihout an example (though I prefer to have one), but not without the sentence. It is not you who decides what is irrelevant. If it were, why do you bother? Is it so hard for you to accept that not all feminists are of your opinion? Str1977

Again, your argument here is not to the point but you're just posting some irrelevant out-of-the-blue assumptions on whoever you happen to 'talk' to. That is a clear sign that a person is running out of arguments to me. if calling me a vandal is not a personal attack I don't know what is...--Fenice 11:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Fenice.

I was tempted to call your revert vandalism the first time, but held back and only used the term after you kept on reverting again and again. I though it justified - and it's no personal attack but rather common wiki language, isn't it. Furtermore I am not aware of any personal attacks I directed against you (there are none in this talk section, are there?) Of course, my assumptions are just assumptions, but they are not unfounded, given your editing on this sentence.

Str1977 16:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Aren't you ever embarrassed about yourself? Everybody can check the history and see that your attacks are absolutely baseless, on the contrary. Vandal is definitely a personal attack and by no means common on Wikipedia, neither calling people vandals, nor attacking others personally. --Fenice 18:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, it seems to me that you are over-sensitive. Anyway, if I hurt you in anyway I do apologize. I don't know you and hence I never attacked you personally. At least, nothing that I said seems to me a "personal attack" - what I did do was attack (some of) your edit(s) - I used "vandalism" not "vandal" (and it is common on wiki).

(And anyway, you complained about personal attacks before I typed "vandalism" - "they exist, that's reason enough" is hardly a personal attack.)

What annoyed me most was your blunt statement that "after weeks of discussion not a single reason was given why Feminists for life should be in this text", when in fact I gave you reasons (and anybody can check the talk page and see) - that you chose to ignore them and sidetracking to "civil" vs. "constitutional" vs. "women's" rights and complained about abbreviations is another matter.

Str1977 18:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If you think that personal attacks and calling each other vandals are common phenomena here on wikipedia that is your perception - you've only been here for a month and it says nothing about wikipedia, but a lot about you.

No, personal attacks might be common or not, but they are nonetheless bad.

But I did not personally attack you ... or called you vandal.

What I did is call your secons revert today vandalism - and applying that term to some edits is common at wiki (sometimes justified, sometimes not - I know vandalism really is blanking a page or posting XXX all over). And I don't think that's a personal attack.

Also you really never have given a reason why FFL should be included in the text. You just took it for granted and went even further: you accepted no compromise. (Judging by your behaviour here: No wonder you think personal attacks are common)

It's probably useless to give you the reason again, since have "overheard" it so many times before: Not all (though most) feminists today are pro-choice, hence it should be included that there are pro-life feminists (as the entry now says) and FFL was an example for that.

sidetracking: if discussing two issues in one section is too much for you, make two sections, spread them up, tell the world you cannot live up to its demands, how can I know?

It's not too much. But you were discussing one question and I was discussing another.

And of course your calling me a vandal happened before my complaining about it. As I said: If you're not embarrassed about this there's really nothing I can do for you. --Fenice 20:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not call you a vandal. I called your post vandalism. I am embarassed about appearently messing up the time line (posting simultanouely at different articles), but I am not embarrassed for what I haven't done.

I'm also not over-sensitive, I forgot to add, it's an official policy, which you can read here: Wikipedia:No personal attacks--Fenice 20:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. There is a wiki policy against personal attacks. I subscribe to it. But I did not personally attack you.

Str1977 21:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

And a quote from it: Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded. Just don't do it again.--Fenice 05:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

To get a better feel for how careful people are about calling edits vandalistic - look at Special:Recentchanges - when in doubt and you revert something by a newcomer you call it 'reverting test' not 'reverting vandalism'. See here for how vandalism is defined: Wikipedia:Vandalism--Fenice 05:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Fenice,

All right, I apologizes for using the term "vandalism" rather loosely in my rage at your double rv.

I'll be more careful in the future and not imitate other's bad habits.

Please also acknowledge that I did not mean to attack you personally - I think one should really distinguish between people and their actions - and that I'm not alon in not considering my edit summary a personal attack (see Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks)

And please be careful next time not to summarize discussions incorrectly.

I hope that settles it?

Str1977 22:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Since we have the revert-warrior user:214.13.4.151 reaping havoc again to boycott the newly found solution, as always without argueing, we will simply put on the the sectFact sign, because this person will keep on reverting and will not argue anyway.--Fenice 12:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No Fenice, your attempt to ignore a branch of feminism and wipe out any mention that it exists is beyond the pale and certainly not the mark of an an open, tolerant member of a pluralistic society. 214.13.4.151

Try and stick to the facts. I suggested to give the branch a separate section, remember? FFL cannot stay, I will not agree to that any more.--Fenice 12:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So you "suggested to give the branch a separate section"? Yes, you did! All in order to separate what you consider "true feminism" from those FFL heretics. Or was there another reason?

Str1977 16:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The reasons, as given above, are of course: to not misrepresent the truth. FFL itself claims its primarily a pro-life-organisation, that sees itself in the tradition of early feminism. They aren't trying to claim or pretend that they are engaging in any typical feminist activity - that is your own personal private idea. You've had ample time to come up with a single 1 (one) hint that this might not be so. All you've done is avoiding the subject and escalating yourself into a personal attack.--Fenice 18:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That FFL might not be your typical feminist was already included by the statement about "most feminists". I never claimed they were typical - only that there is no way you can exclude them from the "current feminism" section.

Str1977 18:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument, not FFL themselves, and not even the DoD-IP thought they belong there. You're the only one. If you can see that they are not typical then you shouldn't have presented it that way.--Fenice 20:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

-->I changed feminists for life to pro-life-feminists, thats what this and related groups call themselves. --Fenice 16:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Despite all the hurly-burly about a little sentence, I am now more or less content (as long as it stays like this, and as long as the links including FFL stay too). Case closed, Phoenician? Str1977 16:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)