Talk:Abortion/Archive 5

Squeekbox's Edits and the Bible On Abortion
Twice, I've added a link to a page that gives a number of scriptures pertinent to abortion. Both times, Squeekbox has deleted them for no good reason.

They clearly belong on this page. I submit this to an admin and suggest they warn Squeebox for his unwarranted edits.

jcsm.org/biblelessons/abortioniswrong.htm Bible On Abortion

This is not an issue for admins, who don't have special privileges in deciding what is and what is not POV. I don't believe the Bible talks about abortion, but if it does I still do not believe this is appropriate in an article on abortion, which is not a religious issue, --SqueakBox 22:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * 90% of the world believes in God. 80% of America is Christian.  People want to know what God thinks about abortion.  The link is relevant. -- Big Hurt

The article is about abortion, not about your opinions on the subject. stop POVing, --SqueakBox 22:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

We now have the same link twice and big hurt engaging in personal attacks. Please withdraw your vandalism claims NOW, --SqueakBox 22:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have protected this article due to the dispute between the two of you. I am of the opinion that the link being added by User:Big Hurt is both spam and POV pushing (he has added links to the same site on other similar articles. User:Squeakbox is not vandalising, he is merely enforcing our policy regarding these issues. The page being linked to offers merely an interpretation of the bible, and is therefore not appropriate for this article; it does not offer the official position of the church or major political group, but that of one person and is therefore spam. I think it should therefore be removed, if Big Hurt is not happy with my analysis I am willing to take this to Requests for comment. Rje 22:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I support Rje in this, --SqueakBox 22:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

has 5 times reverted his spam about what he alleges the Bible says on abortion. please can the spam be removed and he be given a block, as this is the 2nd time he has done this, --SqueakBox 15:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Spam removed; Big Hurt given a short block. hopefully this will see the ned of the situation. As the Bible has nothing to say on Abortion this link should, I feel, be kept out of the article, --SqueakBox 16:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Paternal Rights
Major Rewrite Needed. Missing is a discussion of the father's rights in abortion. For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, why is this a unilateral decision. What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights?

Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, which is this a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years. If they decided to have unprotected sex, why would one party have 100% of the rights? Rex Judicata 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * For a discussion of this topic, please read Oklahoma Law Review, Abortions of the Paternal Prerogatives Of Unwed Natural Fathers, 2000. Rex Judicata 20:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

See Morality and legality of abortion, --SqueakBox 13:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Almost hopelessly NPOV
With the exception of the 'medical' discussions, this article is almost hopelessly NPOV.

New sentence added about legality of US abortions
First off i'm not sure the reference is related to the site, and in fact it has already been added and deleted before (see above discussion)...it seems something that generally should be on the American site. Canada was chosen before i turned up on the Wiki, i would assume as an example, as having no laws because there is no law whatsoever concerning abortion. However if you looked further down the page (or it may have moved to the US page) you will find that there is no Doctor currently in Quebec that will do a third term abortion unless the women is about to die or there are genetic abnormalities---and the concern from what i can tell is not being sued...it ethical. Quebec is currently sending the few patients that need third term abortions to the US...which strongly suggests the service isn't available elsewhere in Canada (Quebec tends to be a very liberal province on "values" issues).

Discussion anyone? Otherwise i think moving the comment to the US page might make better sense. Although i'm not totally up to date on the Planned Parenthood case, at least until then under the Roe. v. Wade decision the government DID get a say to a certain extent in second trimester abortions (in a limited way) and a less limited (but not perhaps total) say in the 3rd trimester.

Also the US federal ammendment on "partial birth abortions" (i hate the term personally) has to my knowledge only been overturned in 3 states...so it would then actually be active in the other remaining states from what i understand although there is now good precendent if there are further lawsuits.

So unless there is some discussion i'm going to take the new addition out in a day or two--Marcie 02:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm taking the reference out today. Come to my talk page if you want to discuss it or put it up here.--Marcie 03:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abortion History (focusing on illegal abortion practices)
I noticed the following vandalism was just reverted: "In days of yore, unwed mothers were often hit, hard, in the stomach with a shovel, or kicked down a flight of stairs in an effort to abort the unwanted child." But it did get me thinking that there is not an "Abortion history" article focusing on the practices/myths of abortion prior to legalization. This should cover how/who/where these abortions occurred but also provide a more complete telling of the complications as a result. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When we talk about abortions prior to legalization, we have to consider the whole world and all of recorded history. That said, I was just thinking about the history of abortion myself, and how best to make note of it on Wikipedia. Would it warrant a whole article or just a section on the main abortion page? I know the ancient Greeks mentioned it on occassion, and there is a little talk about points of view before its legality in the U.S.A. in the article. It's an interesting topic. I will take your lead on this... - Chadofborg


 * Hmmmmm my lead... I can feel the power already, the creative juices flowing; opps, lost it in the dead end pages I've been hacking away at with a rusty machete and curling iron. Well since I got a vote of confidence and I concur with the necessity to have an article of global proportions... I'll create a stub! The format follows a historical timeline but will certainly evolve as the article gets a sense of itself. Future discussion on this should be made @ History of abortion. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 05:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MamaGeek's edit
MamaGeek made an edit labelled "Postabortion physical issues - remove quote from biased source, added statistical information". I'll explain why I have reverted it.

Essentially MamaGeek replaced this:


 * The Planned Parenthood website notes that "attempts to prove this theory, however, have failed," and in March 2004 Lancet published a meta-analysis of 53 epidemiological studies which concluded there was no ABC link. Nevertheless epidemiologic gaps remain in the research while the "ABC link" is still a hot campaigning issue in anti-abortion circles.

with this:


 * 28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters. The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk or 160% increased risk of breast cancer among women who'd had an induced abortion. [Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63] Nevertheless epidemiologic gaps remain in the research, and the "ABC link" is still a hot campaigning issue in anti-abortion circles. The best that one can definitively conclude is that more comprehensive studies by neutral objective sources are needed.

I'm prepared to be convinced on this edit, but it seemed a bit much to say that a "biased source" was being removed when two were being removed and one of those was The Lancet. I don't think a mere list of studies saying X out of Y concluded this or that is much. You need some kind of evaluation system; some studies are better than others. The statement that most of the studies were conducted by "abortion supporters" seems unnecessary and, frankly, sounds a little difficult to verify. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate, but it lends itself indeed to second guessing (which I could rebuff)... but would be more trouble than its worth in my opinion. I've come across these cites and rationale before and it is anti-abortion arguments. (again... it *IS* factually accurate) Actually MamaGeek helped point something out to me. The reason I included the Planned Parenthood quote is because it was offset immediately by something else; which has been subsequently removed by someone. So if that is to remain removed, then I indeed feel the quote should be removed.


 * The kicker though... is essentially I'd probably end up replacing it with the same thing (just not a quotation); because it is important to note it is not proven... however it is equally important to note it isn't disproven... hence the initial balance I tried to strike in previous versions. What seems to be clear is that MamaGeek has not read the article yet, and come across the rationale of why the Japanese study has not been cited in the intro... or even in the entire article for that matter. But that's fine, MamaGeek was being bold and that isn't a crime. :-) - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 10:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After some consideration I do think its appropriate to completely remove the theory not proved meme; because the article has been renamed to hypothesis that should make it clear it has yet to be scientifically verified. And if we are to keep the Lancet mention, then I'd replaced Planned Parenthood with something more general and less confrontational than MamaGeek's edit; but still indicating the majority of studies indicating a link. I think that would finally be a way to statisfy me on the intro; since I've been unsure of it ever since it was edited. It would go something like this...


 * ... "vulnerable" cells than prior to the pregnancy; resulting in an elevated risk of breast cancer. The majority of interview based studies have indicated a link, but there is a debate as to how reliable they are given the (controversial/personal?) nature of abortion (mention response bias here?). In March 2004 The Lancet published a meta-analysis of...

I also skipped the disambig page for the Lancet... should "the" be capitalized in this context? What does everyone think on the wording? - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 05:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lancet study
MamaGeek here: The Lancet's "meta-analysis" is hopelessly flawed. The analysis was conducted by UNFPA-funded scientists, and anyone doing a little research can see that the UNFPA is a big abortion backer. Furthermore, 15 published peer-reviewed studies were rejected from the analysis outright for unscientific reasons (i.e., they couldn't locate original authors of some studies). All of those studies concluded an average of 80% elevated risk of post-abortion cancer. In addition, these scientists included 28 new studies which were never published or peer-reviewed, which of course supported the no-link position.

I will not add my own text, but I will most certainly remove the PP and Lancet citations.


 * Hello MamaGeek. Your work is certainly appreciated and I actually share your concerns about the "Lancet" (I call it the Beral) study. However since you are new here you may not be aware of some of implications of your edits. For example this paragraph is also the introductory paragraph to the main Abortion-Breast_Cancer_(ABC)_hypothesis article which I wrote. In that main article in the meta-analysis section criticisms of the study (by Dr. Brind) are linked to. The reason I've agreed with Tony on letting that meta-analysis be in the introductory paragraph is because it is "recent news", and its prominence in the entry reflects its prominence in reality. Furthermore, I was not aware the meta-analysis was "UNFPA-funded" (I'm not even aware of who they are), but it hardly surprises me there are pro-choice conflicts of interest in the research. Could you please provide citations, ideally online citations, of the UNFPA funding and who they are so that it can be included in the main article further down.


 * However currently the meta-analysis will stay where it is until I can be satisfied this is the case. If it is then it will either be removed or re-edited to include the obvious conflict of interest. Also you can sign your entries with - ~ which provides your name and the time of your message. Also I should note that there is a 3 revert rule where, if necessary Tony or I would seek arbitration as a result of continued edits. If you read my main article on the ABC link I think you can appreciate I have more than an open mind on the ABC issue.


 * If you also read the talk history I had a debate with Tony and Marcie about raising one study to the introduction above all others. I conceded the argument because the Lancet study is news, and should be reflected as such in the encyclopedia. But that doesn't stop us from being critical of it. (this has been cc'd to Talk:MamaGeek's) -RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 18:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MamaGeek Joy The UNFPA is the United Nations Population Fund. While they deny promoting abortion, evidence suggests otherwise. Here is an article from the BBC Beral et al, the authors of the Lancet study, were recipients of UNFPA funding.


 * Excellent BBC citation. I entirely agree the UNFPA have a bias in favor of abortion as an option for women, hence any funding provided by them would naturally be a conflict of interest given their objectives; which I happen to agree with. But that would not excuse them for funding and influencing "scientific" research, nor would it excuse Lancet or the media of glossing it over. So is there a reliable online citation of UNFPA funding for the Beral study, or would I find that mentioned in the study itself? Requiring me to head down to the library again. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 20:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Being Bold
I bolded the sentence in the article that i did (which pointed out that the women who had the most problems were those who already gone through trauma) because i thought it was an important point and it wasn't brought clearly to attention. To be honest i missed it the first few reads...and i read carefully. If it being bolded is objected to can we agree on some way of making it a bit easier to see among the quotes? If you go back i was concerned earlier...its in the rewording area although that was a while ago and i was still worried with it when i came across it later...it seems though that the sentence i wrote about dentists was pulled out (i don't think it was originally but who knows)...looking at it now i figure there isn't a problem in that area--Marcie 08:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Mamageek changed that, I kept the change because an entire segment of a sentence being bolded isn't necessary to highlight a point which is fairly logical and self evident. I recommend if you still wish to emphasize the second part simply focus on the word "particularly" by making it italics/bold or both. I'm unsure which would be most appropriate. - RoyBoy [ ∞ ] 20:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An intro sentence
There's a sentence in the intro:
 * "Morning after" or "emergency" contraceptive drugs that are taken within 72 hours of sex interfere with the release of eggs from the ovary or with fertilization, and so are will be released anyway; in these cases, if conceptions occurs the zygote will implant successfully regardless of emergency contraception use.

I'm not sure what's meant by "and so are will be released anyway," and I didn't want to change it for fear of changing the intended meaning. Any thoughts? T IMBO  ( T A L K )  01:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence which describes abortion as "termination of pregnancy" does not say what abortion is. To put it another way, if there were an article called "car accident" and the first sentence said that a car accident is a "termination of a journey" I am quite certain that we would revise that sentence to make it more accurate and relevant to the true core subject of the article. - JW

Lack of Reference to Fetus in First Paragraph
Can I ask why no reference is made to a fetus in the introduction paragraph to this article? While we need to stay within our NPOV policy, this seems excessive. Even Encarta refer to it within their introduction:-

Abortion, termination of a pregnancy before birth, resulting in the death of the fetus.

Why do we refuse use this term or zygote until right near the end of the second paragraph? David Pendray dpen2000 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see anybody refusing anything. Why don't you edit it? I suggest wording of the type: "...resulting in the death of a fetus, zygote or implanted embryo." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The word "death" begs the fundamental question which is at the root of the debate about abortion -- specifically, whether a fetus, embryo, etc is "alive" and whether abortion is therefore "killing". The present wording is more neutral, and superior to the Encarta wording. --BM 13:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think "death" begs any question. The issue is not whether the fetus is alive (which it clearly is in the same way your organs are alive) but whether it is a human being.  Also, the issue is not whether abortion is killing, but whether it is unjustifiable killing.

(Dunno who wrote the above)

I agree. The embryo, zygote and fetus are all living and are all killed by abortion. This isn't the issue in the pro- anti- abortion debate since most of us agree that in some circumstances killing is justified. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mmm... I think I'll do some research(of the history of this page and the archive of these talk pages) as this is one page that one is not supposed to jump into and change. If this sentence hasn't been the focus of debate before, I'll see what could be done to change it. This is just me personally though. If anyone wants to jump in themselves... David Pendray 82.42.81.187 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This first paragraph has been through a great deal of change. The current version has held now for a couple of months, however. If you are planning to get involved in editing this page, it would be nice if you registered as a member and got yourself a login-name, so that people can keep track of the players. --BM 21:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry that last comment with an ip address and my name should have been with my username - David Pendray dpen2000 22:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The decision to include or not include a reference to the fetus is not something which can be completely objective. By the time you set the terms of the language, you've already biased the article. Right now, by not mentioning the unborn child in the introduction, this whole article takes on a pro-abortion stance. But by mentioning the unborn child, and especially by using the word "kill" to describe what the mother does to her child, then that makes the article have a pro-life stance. - JW
 * It's simply not true that the article takes a pro-abortion stance by not using the term "unborn child" in the first paragraph. Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct, the solution to correcting bias is not to add more, opposing bias, but to remove the current bias.  Regardless, I fail to see the bias here.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am an opponent of abortion but a proponent of neutrality on wikipedia. - Jersyko 15:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. By "unborn child" I didn't only mean that exact term.  I mean that no mention is made of the unborn child, fetus, embryo, or whatever other term that life might be called. - JW
 * Well, I still fail to see how making such a reference will make the opening paragraph more neutral. The term "pregnancy" gives the reader a clear indication of what is involved. - Jersyko 18:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * After reflecting on the question more, I figured out what was truly bugging me. The real issue is that the opening sentence of the article calls abortion the "termination of a pregnancy" which is like calling a car accident the "termination of a journey."  Calling a car accident the "termination of a journey" really doesn't describe what a car accident is. And if such a sentence were put as the first sentence of an article about car accidents, I am quite certain it would be revised and improved.  - JW
 * I understand your analogy, and am rather sympathetic to what you are saying, actually. However, I will have to disagree for the purpose of retaining a neutral article. - Jersyko 18:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Pregnant means a foetus is involved by definition. Self evident statements should always be avoided as we are a concise encyclopedia. FThose who don't know that pregnancy involves a foetus can find out by following the pregnancy link, --SqueakBox 18:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Termination of a fetus means the termination of pregnancy. Those who don't know that terminating a fetus involves terminating a pregnancy can find out by following the pregnancy link, -- JW
 * But the term pregnancy implicates both sides of the abortion debate because pregnancy involves both a mother and a child or fetus. By using a term to describe only one of the two actors involved in abortion, subtle bias is inserted into the article. - Jersyko 19:02, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I believe we need a whole new sentence that actually gets closer to describing what abortion is - beyond the nebulous "termination of a pregnancy." I appreciate what you have explained thus far, and I am fast appreciating what you mean by article neutrality.  Thank you for being patient! - JW

Why not bring your sentence here first and we can discuss it? --SqueakBox 19:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mistype
Second paragraph: "and so are will be released anyway". Don't really want to hack someone else's writing so I'll just mention it here.

Wording Change Needed
I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say: "Morning after" or "emergency" contraceptive drugs that are taken within 72 hours of sex interfere with the release of eggs from the ovary or with fertilization, and so are will be released anyway;[...] --Sdfisher 17:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what it's trying to say either!!! Haha that's the third time that sentence has caused a talk page note. I guess someone should just be bold and change it. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  01:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed it. Have a look and see if it makes sense.  :)  --Chadofborg 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. :) T IMBO  ( T A L K )  02:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Permisiveness and terrorism
I have removed the POV statemnent about the permissiveness of UK abortion laws, and added a little something about the terrorist murders committed by anti-abortionists, though a lot more info could ber given on this subject. --SqueakBox 18:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) I have also removed 2 anti-abortion statements from the opening because they were not relevant there. Put them in the debate on abortion section if you like but don't insert them unnaturally in the opening. have changed the title of abortion and feminism to The debate on abortion, as the section contains both sides of the argument, thus more NPOV. Finally it is completely wrong to have 15 pro-choice links and no pro-life links. This is blatantly POV. Women have a right to a free life! has, of course, been removed as blatantly POV. Even though I happen to agree with the sentiments a POV article will not help the pro-choice cause, or the famed neutrality of Wikipedia.--SqueakBox 15:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC) Actually the links section had been vandalised by 137.132.3.11, and his/her efforrts have been reverted.--SqueakBox 15:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

First and second sentences.
It's redundant. "... usage, refers to the voluntary or induced termination of pregnancy, generally ..." and then it goes to say that "... As a result, birth does not take place. ..." Isn't it obvious that a birth won't take place if there's a termination of the pregnancy? I don't want to edit it myself, as im sure this is a "heated" topic, but i think someone who frequents this topic should take a look at it.

Paulr 17:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right and have removed, "As a result, birth does not take place."

Links
I'm putting in a link to planned parenthood's abortion info. Although planned parenthood as an organization has pro-choice arms, this link is to decidedly complete and factual information. I think it's a shame to taint it by painting it as part of an agenda, so I'm putting it in the neutral links. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  03:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I disagree that that infformation is neutral.
 * Seeing the links that you've added to the article, I'm not too surprised. How, though, is it not neutral? I'm willing to entertain the possibility, though I really do think it is neutral. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  14:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, please note that in the past I've added pro-choice links as well. I've made edits against pro-life leaning language, etc.  It's coincidence that I added those articles today before I made reply to your post here.  I havn't changed the link to Planned Parenthood, because I can in fact see why you might believe it to be neutral.  But the language used in their FAQs (ex. "anti-abortion laws kill women") is more than a simple presentation of "facts".  Also, don't you think that an organization that provides abortion is inherently on the side of the pro-choice movement?  Not that they shouldn't be, just saying...


 * Oh, I think Planned Parenthood is unquestionably pro-choice, which is why the general site link is in the pro-choice links. However, the perhaps non-neutral language is quite minimal, IMHO, and the abortion info is impeccably accurate (which is unlike most pro-life "abortion information" links I've seen). I think there is a need to have neutral medical information linked to up top, and I'd settle for changing the link to a comparably scientific, medical site such as JAMA or something. In fact, I think I'll look around right now. P.S. sorry if I (mis)characterized you. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  01:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV help: legislative effectiveness arguments
I'm about to add notes on the effectiveness of Prohibition on reducing admissions to hospitals for liver disease as a counter-argument/rebuttal, since I added information about legislative effectiveness arguments. Please help, folks from both sides of the fence. Sandbody 23:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of Sandbody's revert of 204.60.237.72's removal of reference of a statement of the beliefs of *some* people who are opposed to abortion.==

Summary: 204.60.237.72 changed the following text:


 * Since 1972, the medical definition of pregnancy in the United States requires that implantation has already occurred. According to this definition, emergency contraceptives do not interfere with pregnancy. Some people believe the zygote is a human being with the same moral standing as an implanted embryo before pregnancy actually starts.

to


 * Since 1972, the medical definition of pregnancy in the United States requires that implantation has already occurred. According to this definition, emergency contraceptives do not interfere with pregnancy.

Sandbody's changed it back, with the edit summary "rv Some pro-lifers -do- believe that a zygote is a human being (article must be representing all POV)"

However, this statement when juxtaposed against the medical opinion only represents the beliefs of one faction in a moral debate--it's extremely POV. The morality of abortion is covered in depth in another article Morality and legality of abortion, where all significant moral views of abortion should be represented. A one-sided representation of human beliefs with respect to abortion (whether related to pre-implantation contraception or not) should not be presented here. Therefore I have reverted, with the edit summary "Revert. Juxtaposing the medical definition against the beliefs of *one* faction is POV. Leave the beliefs for the appropriate articles and cover *all* significant ones." The medical definition of pregnancy is given solely to explain why abortion is distinguished from contraception as a matter of medical classification. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with Tony Sidaway, --SqueakBox 15:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. - RoyBoy 800 00:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that - the question might well be asked, "Why not also juxtapose the belief that the unimplanted zygote is not a human being?" I do wonder under what circumstances the phrase was added so that I saw it when first I read the article.  I know that you guys probably have a pretty elaborate understanding here; it helps to know what some of the particular points are.  Thanks. Sandbody 16:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see that planned parenthood has been added to the politically neutral section again. I followed the link, and found statements like these: "Public opinion polls show that a strong majority of Americans favor preserving safe, legal abortions, but there is still a vocal minority that does not. They want to make abortion a crime, robbing women of the right to decide for themselves when or whether to have children." How anyone can think that is neutral with respect to the pro-life/choice debate is beyond me. This is vandalism, pure and simple. Vintermann 10:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Paternal Rights
Major Rewrite Needed. Missing is a discussion of the father's rights in abortion. For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, why is this a unilateral decision. What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights?

Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, which is this a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years. If they decided to have unprotected sex, why would one party have 100% of the rights? Rex Judicata 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * For a discussion of this topic, please read Oklahoma Law Review, Abortions of the Paternal Prerogatives Of Unwed Natural Fathers, 2000. Rex Judicata 20:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think something is missing from the article which needs to be there feel free to add it to the article. But please do not put up a NPOV sign before discussing it on the talk page with other people who maintain the article. The text in the article right now has no major POV problems in the issues it is discussing. If it is missing a discussion on something, it does not mean that the article violates NPOV. kaal 21:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is NPOV. With a minor exception, it is written from a gender-biased perspective. It is NPOV and needs a major rewrite.


 * Reverted to prior edit - with addition of Paternal Rights. Rex Judicata 12:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

(reverted political hijacking - Caution! do not violate the 3 reversion rule.)
The entire non-medical discussion of abortion is hopeless NPOV as it is from a 100% female perspective. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Explain yourself. Why do we need to be reminded about (3RR). The only person on course to break it is yourself, --SqueakBox 13:50, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, --SqueakBox since you broke the three reversion rule, it seems that reminding you did not work. Agwiii 20:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help us understand Which part of "entire non-medical discussion of abortion" is it you don't understand. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caution - do not violate the 3 reversion rule
This article need attention to eliminate the overt gender bias. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't, there is no gender bias until you put it in. You are the only person on course to break the 3RR rule. When you fully explain your reasoning for this being a gender biased POV article we can have a discussion on it, and maybe eventually put something neutral in the article. but discussion first please, as reverting is not a right in order to put one's POV across, --SqueakBox 13:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Of course you can't see it because you suffer from the gender bias. Pregnancy is a necessary condition for abortion. Pregnancy in humans requires egg (from the female) and sperm (from the male). Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can you fail to see there is a paternal rights issue, as well as maternal. Read the Oklahoma Law Review article and you will understand. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If an entirely neutral point of view sentence or two is inserted into the article regarding paternal rights, I think SqueakBox and others would be fine with its inclusion. For instance, using wording like "Some have argued that there are significant paternal rights at stake in the abortion debate . . ." would remove the bias inherent in statements like "They fail to see the father's rights in abortion" and rhetorical questions that are laced with animosity. Ad hominem attacks on other users aren't necessary, especially when this section could be reworded and be a valuable addition to this article. - Jersyko 00:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Jersyko - good suggestions. There was no ad hominem attack. I believe the new wording will be acceptable. However, what is NOT ACCEPTABLE is the fact that --SqueakBox violated the 3 REVERSION RULE. Agwiii 20:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How dare you falsely accuse me of violating the 3RR rule. Prove your allegations or withdraw them. This is not the place for personal attacks, --SqueakBox 20:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Edits
However, natural pregnancies involve the participation of a man and a woman. removed as self evident and therefore unnecessary. Both parties in the pregnancy have rights with respect to a potential abortion. removed as POV.

''For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, should this be a unilateral decision? What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights? Who is the champion for the rights of the father?'' removed as we must not ask questions, --SqueakBox 20:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

''Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, should this be a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years? If both parties decided to have sex, which always has the potential for pregnancy, is there a moral or legal reason for the rights to be anything other than equal?'' are more questions and should not be here. It is unwiki to ask questions like this, --SqueakBox 20:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Political sabotage repaired. Agwiii 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good! I like Jersyko's edit, --SqueakBox 23:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Political Sabotage by SqueakBox
Political sabotage repaired. Agwiii 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Agwiii 00:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To SqueakBox: I have one word for you. STOP! Agwiii 01:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This was not signed by me, --SqueakBox 00:59, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

The current version of the article includes a neutral section on paternal rights. I fail to see how neutrality = political sabotage. - Jersyko 01:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

That is because I corrected the political sabotage to the article by SqueakBox -- Agwiii 01:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my query. - Jersyko 01:22, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jersyko, but you did not ask a question, you made a statement. Neutrality is not political sabotage. Many of your edits have been neutral, while those of SqueakBox have not. Deleting factual information is not neutral. Violating the 3RR is not neutral. ==> Agwiii 01:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But you have misstated the facts. You have reverted my edits, which you now say are neutral.  You are technically correct that I didn't ask a question since I did not use a question mark.  Regardless, the reasoning behind reverting my neutral edits has not been explained. - Jersyko 01:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Question to jersyko
I did not revert your neutral edits. This article has so much dog posting by squeakbox that your neutral edits must have been caught in the middle. Please restore them - your sentence in the first paragraph about the Father's rights in Abortion was appropriate. ==> Agwiii 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not violated 3RR, Agwiii. Prove your allegation. You do not know my political opinions. In my opinion where fathers do have rights in this case is where abortion is illegal, like where I live, which may be your subtle agenda, --SqueakBox 01:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry SqueakBox, but you are mistaken. Stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia. I have no agenda, unlike you. Again I repeat STOP CYBER STALKING ME! ==> Agwiii 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not cyber stalking you. Just because I legitimately looked at your contributions and Vfd on Ron Branson does not give you the right to accuse me of cyber stalking. If you have any real allegations you must prove them or wikipedia will take no notice of your allegations, --SqueakBox 01:50, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Time out, folks. I suggest we all cool off for a while, as the reversion war will only get people temp-blocked or the page protected. There is a neutral version from Jersyko in place, let's leave it as is for now, please... Fire Star 01:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry SqueakBox, but you continue to be mistaken. Stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia. Again I repeat STOP CYBER STALKING ME! ==> Agwiii 02:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explain what you mean by cyberstalking, with evidence, because watching others contributions is allowed here, --SqueakBox 02:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

FS 784 Cyberstalking Statute
To SqueakBox, Stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia.

I am directing you to immediatly stop harassing, dog-posting and cyberstalking me.

Florida Statutes 784.048(1)(d) defined the crime of "Cyberstalking". 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.--

(1) As used in this section, the term: (a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests. (c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (N.B. 775.082 (4) A person who has been convicted of a designated misdemeanor may be sentenced as follows: (a)  For a misdemeanor of the first degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year;

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

If you have any questions about your crime of cyberstalking, SqueakBox, let me know, but you are now directed to stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia.

==> Agwiii 13:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I have never in any way threatened Agwiii with death or bodily injury or with threats of any sort none of this has the slightest relevance to me, --SqueakBox 01:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Harassment, cyberstalking and dog posting by Squeakbox
No legal threats. Stop trying to intimidate me into not editing the articles that interest uyou. The PTB will not ban me as I have done nothing wrong. your threats are like water off a duck's back, and I am not American, anyway. I have committed no crimes, and advise you to stop hassling me by making up legal threats, --SqueakBox 15:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

STOP Breaking the harassment and cyberstalking law!
TO: SqueakBox. Directing you to stop breaking the law is not a threat. If you continue your course of illegal action, I will see the law is enforced. BTW, cyberstalking, SPAMMING, online harassment are crimes covered by our treaties of extradition. STOP BREAKING THE LAW! STOP HARASSING! Agwiii 15:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Harrassment
The evidence speaks louder than a thousand words about who is harrassing who. IO am building my case against you for possible use in arbcom. I will not tolerate your behaviour towards me in this way. Calm down, and retract your ridiculous allegarttions about cyberstalking. In both law and wikipedia it is not people's assertions but evidence that dictates what happens. youn cannot ban me from here or get the police to act merely because you shout very loudly. Please stop, wikipedia is a collaborative project. I really dislike those Users who believe they can hijack wikipedia for their own beliefs. This is a powerfiul place, but it is an encyclopedia, --SqueakBox 16:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Continued harrassment
Actions speak lounder than words and the proof is here. I am building my case against you for action in arbcom. I will not tolerate your behaviour towards me in this way. Stop your cyberstalking. Stop your dog posting. Please stop! I dislike users who try to play the victim when they are the perpetrator. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and actions like yours, particularly changing my words on a Talk page, are simply inappropriate. I hope you can calm yourself, see the error of your ways, and apologize. Agwiii 18:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to apologise to me. I have done absolutely nothing to apologise about. Rather than building your arbcom case you should substantiate your allegations at Vandalism in progress and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You have made legal threats and compared me to the Khmer rouge and a murderous stalker, and attacked me at every opportunity. I am not amused. Who do you think you are to make such false allegations, --SqueakBox 19:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Terminated discussion
As I wrote elsewhere, I am terminating this discussion with you, Squeakbox. Any subsequent messages from you, directed to me, at me, or about me will be considered improper, intentional, wilful cyberstalking and harassment in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Agwiii 19:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I reiterate the above statement. Agwiii 21:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

When dealing with hostile witnesses, we find that if you give a witness enough rope, they will hang themselves. Squeak wrote the key words to those that are "holier than thou," when he wrote "I am not amused. Who do you think you are ... " Nothing more needs to be said about his attitude. Signed, Agwiii 21:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

is almost certainly the sockpuppet of, and thus was the one who had no legitimate purpose in cyberstalking me, merely a childish desire to get his own way, and not be caught cheating by using his Sockpuppet to get his own way. if either return to Wikipedia I will pursue an arbcom case against them, --SqueakBox 23:11, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Manado
I would by fine with Monado's edits if they were neutral, and I'd fix them myself, but it is next to impossible with the extremely large number of edits he/she has made. I would suggest rewording them to remove the POV. - JennaMarie83
 * A large portion of Monado's edits are neutral and are a welcome addition to this article. The problem is that such a large number of edits were made, making it very difficult to go through everything and remove the bias and POV contained in some of the edits.  Monado, could you possibly go back through your edits and try to make sure that the article remains a neutral discussion of this very sensitive topic?  I would recommend not creating a new "maternal health" section, as the article already contains a "side effects" section.  Maybe some of the information you added could be synthesized into that section?  Thanks again for your work on the article. - Jersyko 05:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Morning after pill
On reading this section it's clear that it doesn't belong under "abortion" because when it is used no implantation can have occurred. Perhaps it should be given an article of its own or described in a suitable article on pharmaceutical contraceptives. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversially
Is it NPOV to say that the use of the term 'Partial-Birth Abortion' is controversial? To me, the term itself 'partial birth abortion' is a weighted one, so is it fair to say that the term is controversial? Going back through various versions, people seem to keep removing and adding it ... that in itself would suggest the term is controversial. And it's not like the phrase 'partial birth abortion' has been expunged, it's still there, just with an addendum that its use can be controversial. Proto | 11:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user: the media and most of the American populace uses the term PBA when discussing this method of abortion - the man on the street rarely uses techincal medical terminology. The method of killing the fetus is cearly controversial - but the term PBA is well-established as the term of choice for the foolish masses, like me.

debate on abortion and feminism
The debate on abortion section spends a lot of time on pro-life feminists. As it stands, I think that this tilts the section away from NPOV. Basically, the article historicizes the pro-choice position in a damaging way -- one of the basic claims of pro-choice advocates is that pro-choice is a pro-woman position. This article as it is seems to linger on the fact that that has not always historically been the case.

I can see a couple of ways to clean this up. The easiest is to cut the pro-life feminist discussion drastically -- cutting it to a sentence, probably (which is I think a fair assessment of its importance in the current debate.) This is probably what I would do, personally, for reasons of time and expertise.

The other way would be to historicize the pro-life position as well, particularly discussing the link between advocates of pro-life positions and advocates of traditional family structures. This would raise questions about pro-life motivations (i.e., it's all about children's rights) similar to those raised about the pro-choice movement's motiviations (i.e., it's all about women's rights.)

It seems best to be clear about my own POV -- I'm pro-choice, though with qualms. NoahB 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evangelism
In my opinion a link to a page that contains nothing but a schedule of Biblical quotes constitutes evangelism, which is a form of POV pushing and inappropriate for this article. I have therefore removed the link in question. Kelly Martin 02:28, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Copied from big hurt's talk page, --SqueakBox 02:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believce the Bible has anything to say about abortion, and if it does that info is not appropriate in the article on abortion, --SqueakBox 21:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your Beliefs
Well, your beliefs on this issue have been noted. Nonetheless, the Bible does speak on abortion and the link should be added to the site to show what the Bible says on abortion.

The abortion entry is the perfect place to see what the Bible says on abortion.

The following link has a number of scriptures that obviously speak to abortion. If you read the page, you will see.

Link: jcsm.org/biblelessons/abortioniswrong.htm

I think your extreme POV has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article on abortion and you are using the article as a platform for your beliefs, --SqueakBox 22:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Calling my POV extreme is your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but opinions shouldn't influence Wikipedia or this entry.


 * As I just said, 90% of the world believes in God. 80% of America is Christian.  People want to know what God says on abortion.


 * The Bible talks on the issue of abortion. Whether you agree or not and whether you agree with what it says or not, it should still be linked, so others can see.  -- Big Hurt

I totaslly disagree. by your argument we should put god's alleged views into all articles. This is not Christianpedia, and I am not trying to push my views into this article, --SqueakBox 22:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * For those that believe in a Creator - which is 90% of the world - the giving and taking of life is important to them. It's an issue where God's opinion is consulted and necessary.  This is what makes the link to the Bible verses relevant.


 * Why didn't you capitalize God? Could it be representative of your bias that you're trying to bring into this article?  -- Big Hurt

Withdraw your false allegations of vandalism, --SqueakBox 22:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can withdraw them if you support educating people with the informative and relevant link. -- Big Hurt

I want you to withdraw them on the basis that they are not true. I can live with the current version, but I will not tolerate false claims of vandalism. Typing God with a small g was a typo. See User:SqueakBox for an idea of my religious beliefs (yes I believe in God) --SqueakBox 22:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Calm down!
I put your "Bible Lessons" link in the article, in the Pro-life links section. Since it is a pro-life link, that's the right place for it. So there's no need for any more edit wars. P Ingerson 22:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, P Ingerson -- Big Hurt

I am in agreement with this. please can you withdraw your vandalism allegations. Are you happy with P Ingerson's compromise. If so, say so and maybe we can get the article unprotected, --SqueakBox 22:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, what you did could be construed as vandalism, but I'll remove my allegation, nonetheless. -- Big Hurt

I have unprotected Abortion, unfortunatly the links you have added to this page, and others, are considered to be spam. If you feel I have acted unfairly you may take this dispute to Requests for comment. Rje 22:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * The following link isn't spam. It's a sound link and like none other on the page.  Why would you call it spam?


 * jcsm.org/biblelessons/abortioniswrong.htm Bible Lessons - Abortion is wrong


 * As far as I can see not a single verse refers to abortion. As such it is not pertinent to abortion; and the history of abortion makes it clear men of the church understood the Bible did not outlaw abortion. (The closest it comes to it is Exodus 21:22-25, but its unclear if that is commenting on the injury to the mother, the premature child or both... anyway it is clear in this example the pregnancy is far along if the child is born.) And to seal the deal even for POV pushers, this addresses the issue of an attack on a women; it does not in any way speak to abortion. It's akin to the issues raised in the Peterson case where a pregnant women was killed; not abortion. - RoyBoy 800 03:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, --SqueakBox 02:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)