Talk:Abortion debate/Archive 6

Merger of pro-life and pro-choice to this article.
First of all, I want to thank User:Eraserhead1 for being bold and merging Pro-choice movement (or as it was known most recently, Abortion rights movement) with Pro-life movement, a suggestion that I first saw advanced by User:DeCausa. I would imagine that in time, probably not too long, there will be those who were not here for the discussion on the matter and may object, or who simply may want to create new articles at Pro-choice and/or Pro-life.

Because those titles are now redirects, it will be easy for someone to miss the discussion that led to this merger. For that reason, I have preserved the discussion at User talk:HuskyHuskie/Abortion debate. There are two main sections, one taken from the talk page of Abortion rights movement and the other from the talk page of Pro-life movement. I ask that anyone considering a fork (is that the right use of the term?) read the prior discussion and achieving consensus here before attempting such.

In short, those who supported this merger saw it as a win-win situation. We believe that, in one fell swoop,
 * The incessant debate about whether the use of the propagandic self-labeling names of both organizations is now laid to rest.
 * The concerns of some that calling one group "anti-" anything is inherently negative is hereby rendered moot.
 * The chances that Wikipedia's treatment of the entire abortion issue will more likely meet the standards of WP:NPOV is enhanced, since both sides will be editing the same article, and checking each other.

Having said this, this article is not a quality article, by any stretch of the imagination. It is unwieldy, not well-organized, and I see a lot of improvement in its future. But we hope now that the focus will be on improving the content, rather than worrying about the title. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So how do we now talk about the actions of the pro-life and pro-choice movements? I didn't follow the discussion as much as I should have, but consensus was clearly against moving pro-life, for one thing. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I had actually hoped for more discussion about the organization of this article before this merger was consummated. But I don't see any problems with what you bring up.  By actions, do you mean legal moves, strategic publicity, or what?  If what they are doing pertains to the abortion debate, there should be a place for it in here.  This will be a large article, there's no getting around that.  But it should still be smaller and fairer than the three articles were before this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought the discussion was over as there hadn't been any further comments for a while :o.
 * There was no consensus to move pro-life movement to anti-abortion movement due to issues with the name. But no objections were raised against merging the articles together. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, E-head, you were perfectly fine in what you did. I think that there was consensus for what you did; I would have simply organized it more first.  But what you did was definitely okay; had I been making the decision when it was okay to do the merge we'd probably have had to wait until 2012 (or later). HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51 raises a good point about how to write about the history of each movement, as opposed to their beliefs. Not that the separate articles contained so much information on that, but it's definitely information worth including if anyone bothers to write it. I'm not sure it's really within the scope of this article, but obviously trying to create separate articles on the history of the movements would run into the same problem with titles. How can we address this, should such content ever be written? An article called "History of abortion-related activism" or something? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your idea, History of abortion-related activism, which you may or may not have meant seriously, would be perfectly fine. Or perhaps, just History of abortion activism.  Either way, the article isn't needed yet, but can be split off later on, when there is enough. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see it as easily dealt with like any growing article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant it semi-seriously - it could be good, but seems like it would be combining two overly-different topics just for the purpose of avoiding a title debacle. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the debate over the title was one of the biggest wastes of human resources I've even seen around here, so it might be worth it even for that reason alone. But quite truthfully, I think they belong together, as each was changed by its own responses to the other. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given how little additional content had to be added to this article to make it complete - I added about 10000 characters of readable prose to this article but removed 34000 characters from Pro-life and Pro-choice, meaning that unless significant content was missed in the merge it looks like there was a lot of WP:POVFORKing going on before. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Starting over
I don't think very many of the 40 plus editors who have worked on these 3 articles realized there was a merge discussion underway. Lionel (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Lionelt, I respect what you're saying, and understand why you reverted the merge. But what then, is your position on the proposed merger?  Is it safe to say that you object?  And if so, could you please provide your thinking? HuskyHuskie (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge tags were added to the relevant articles. How long should they have stayed there? And it's not as if any of the content has gone missing. If there's anything missing here feel free to copy it over. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the merge has been reverted, and the reversion has not been reverted, I'll redirect pro-life to the pro-life movement article until we can sort everything out. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the merge, it seemed there were so many different move/merge discussions that it was hard to keep track of which was the central one. That's nobody's fault since we have three different articles. I think it would be good if we could get a centralized discussion going, and we could add a notification on the articles and perhaps individually notify some of the most frequent contributors. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't re-reverted the merge because I think its worth giving a bit of time for people to comment on the merge as a curtesy, it was a little quick. There is currently a notification on all the articles. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an old saying ... "When in doubt, don't" which applies here. With people suggesting that the merge will provide less utility to readers, that is sufficient. Collect (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In contrast there is the editing guideline WP:BOLD. If people aren't bold then nothing ever gets achieved other than endless pointless debates.
 * And I haven't seen anyone suggesting the the merge will provide less utility, mind pointing out to me where that claim has been made. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Along with that while the naming issue may not be a policy issue it is a common sense issue. Minimising drama and endless debate is a good thing. Pro-life is fairly clearly a POV term, and in retrospect the same applies in the opposite direction to anti-abortion movement. As neither name is ideal you are highly likely to end up discussing it endlessly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The timing of the merge proposal was bad. It appeared to run concurrently with, what, 2 move discussions? And the formation of the merge proposal was problematic. Is it within policy to have a discussion such as this on a user talk page? In userspace? The owner of a talk page can remove any comment (except sanction notices) for any reason. There is also the issue of archival. Is the talkpage configured for bot archival? Is there access to archives? I would've opened discussion on the Aborion debate talkpage. What do I think about the merge? I'd realy like to take a break from moving/merging/whatever these pages for a while.Lionel (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The merge proposal only really got going after the move discussions were over. The discussion itself was originally held on Talk:Pro-life movement and now here, and merge templates were added to Abortion Rights movement and Pro life movement on the 17th, 4.5 days before I merged the articles on the 22nd. Now maybe I should have given more time but . They have only been copied to a user page as the discussion on Pro-life movement would be hidden by the fact that that article was becoming a redirect.
 * The merge proposal grew out of the final part of the move request, so just waiting around for ages seemed unnecessary. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the merge proposal. Just repeating what I said elsewhere: To me, abortion-rights movement and pro-life movement are legitimate independent articles, and merging them just to avoid naming debates seems excessive. I suggest we have a discussion over the merge before jumping in and doing it. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain for us how it is that these two are not simply a wp:POV fork from this article? LeadSongDog come howl!  03:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many reliable sources that talk about each movement separately. You see news reports all the time about protests either for or against abortion, and they are not usually in tandem, except for on the Roe v. Wade anniversary. In my mind that justifies two separate articles. There is a lot of material to be said about each movement that would not fit well in a unified abortion debate article. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which content didn't fit well in the merged article? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Some replies to some of the comments above
Copied from talk:Pro-life movement -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it seemed there were so many different move/merge discussions that it was hard to keep track of which was the central one You are so right about that, NYyankees51.  I hope now we have found a place for a central discussion (see below).HuskyHuskie (talk)
 * Is it within policy to have a discussion such as this on a user talk page? In userspace? Lionel, I think you must be referring to User:HuskyHuskie/Abortion debate, but my intention was never to have the discussion there; I created that space for the purpose of creating a new draft of Abortion debate that would incorporate the material from pro-life and pro-choice, just as any user can create in his userspace a page for working on an article. The only difference was that I invited others to work on it as well.  I never intended for it to get slammed into the article so quickly--my original expectation was that it would take many weeks at least, which would include having all concerned editors visit and take a look and make suggestions, before it would be placed in this space and the merger consummated.  I think Eraserhead1 was acting withing the allowable parameters of WP:BOLD, but part of that is also recognizing WP:BRD, which is what you and others have applied here, which is also perfectly reasonable.  Now I hope we can talk this out and reach consensus.  But it will take time. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case - note carefully in every page (as I do not wish to post elsewhere than here) that I oppose any such merger, and note the prior discussions about merger and renaming which did not get consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally, we're ready for a mature discussion (I hope)
I think that the level of interest in the discussion above is good. It is also true that, until this point, the discussion has been framented (to say the least) and that discussing these issues on multiple talk pages cannot hope to be a path to consensus. I believe that we now have at least discovered the venue for discussing the proposal to merge Abortion rights movement and Pro-life movement, and that is here.

But this discussion must stay organized, insofar as that is possible. I am going to create some sections in an attempt to keep the discussion focused and on task. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopeless
Well, I guess this sums up rather well why this issue has been so contentious for so long. I thought that this was an obvious way to enhance the level of NPOV, by removing the labels. But everyone wants to protect their own turf. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The debate is just so doggone messy that it's too hard to find consensus for any change. As such, the status quo must remain for now. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Pro-life movement and Abortion-rights movement both be merged into Abortion debate. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A. Brief statements in favor of the merge proposal

 * 1) Merging the pro-life movement and abortion rights movement articles into abortion debate will end the incessant arguing about those articles titles
 * 2) "Abortion debate" is a "neutral" title
 * 3) pro-life movement and abortion rights movement are merely POV forks of Abortion debate

B. Brief statements in opposition to the merge proposal

 * 1) Pro-life movement and Abortion rights movement are legitimate independent articles
 * 2) Merging the articles to avoid a naming controversy is extreme

Extended discussion of the above points
Regarding point B2, I don't believe that this is "extreme". I think that our goal here is to produce the highest quality articles possible, and the Pro life and Abortion rights articles will likely never get past the issues surrounding their names. No one is happy with the two names, so the vast majority of the energy that should be spent on improving the articles' content ends up wasted on a purely semantic issue. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that many people are fine with the naming of the articles as is...that is why the name of the pro-life article hasn't changed and why so many people stated that they don't have a problem with the names as they are, even if they have other preferences. What we have is a small, incredibly dedicated group of editors which is bringing this issue to every forum possible to ensure that the name "pro-life" doesn't exist on Wikipedia.  The best course of action is to let the current consensus stand, and inform these editors that their actions are not appropriate.  It is definitely extreme to merge three, independent articles into one just to placate a small group of misguided editors.LedRush (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are independent and are essentially WP:POVFORK's of each other, otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to condense 34000 words from pro-life and abortion-rights into 10000 words in Abortion debate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always possible to condense articles into shorter ones. Always.  That says nothing about the current situation and is a clear strawman.LedRush (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A valid point. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So which content did I miss out? If they aren't POV forks of each other it should be easy to find unique content in the 25000 characters I didn't move. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Could you give me a blackline?LedRush (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's that? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A before and after comparison that clearly shows (usually through strikethroughs) what's been deleted and added. Essentially, it's a dif on Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My two-or-three-cents-worth: It has occurred to me that even if the two articles were merged, and that separate Debate-topic sub-articles be created, in each one of those sub-articles there would be two sections that have to be named (one section for each side of that aspect of the overall Debate).  So all the title-argumentation might be expected to expand to all those sub-articles.  On the other hand, though, section titles don't have to be short-and-sweet; they can be long and precisely descriptive, such as "Arguments why deliberate abortion [can][cannot] be socially acceptable".  (For anyone interested, I've created a User:Objectivist/Abortion Debate page that contains topic-related subsections (equivalent to sub-articles), and all opponents of abortion are invited to post their arguments there --even Original Research arguments!.  I'm quite certain, though, that all their arguments are based on faulty data or faulty reasoning, or both, and I'm quite willing to provide evidence supporting that certainty.) V (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * V's statement regarding anti-abortion activists,
 * I'm quite certain, though, that all their arguments are based on faulty data or faulty reasoning
 * is not helpful in this discussion. Wikipedia is not a place to settle--nor even attempt to debate--the argument over this or any other issue.  We exist to document what is being said in the world, not to be the decider of issues. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To LedRush: I think that a good faith discussion here would not, at this point, be phrased in terms of the number of proponents and opponents. I know that I have only recently enjoined this discussion, and I am not part of any "small, incredibly dedicated group of editors". I am an intelligent, reasoning individual who would like this matter discussed on the merits of the case, not in terms of who is supporting it. I respectfully suggest that the time to discuss numbers is when the discussion is approaching its end and we are seeking consensus, not now.HuskyHuskie (talk)

And if, by chance, LedRush, you think that the people behind this are opposed to the use of the term "pro-life" because they are on the other side, know that that too, is untrue. I have been a pro-lifer since 1973, and always will be. I think that the term "pro-life" is a good term, a term that says what we are about. That does not automatically translate, however, into its inclusion in Wikipedia. Of course, the fact that it's a self-chosen term does not automatically preclude its inclusion, either. I am simply looking for an honest and open discussion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Husky, I appreciate your sentiment and self-assessment, but I think it's better to deal with what I actually say and not what you think are the motiviations for why I said it. You've stated that no one is happy with the current naming, but anyone who has been part of these discussions know that to be completely untrue.  Many people are ok with the current naming, many people would prefer the current name of "pro-life" and the a change back to "pro-choice" and many people want "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".  It's primarily the last group which has been forum shopping this issue and attacking it from multiple angles.  That's why the best thing to do is just ignore them.LedRush (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LedRush, I see now how my statement that no one likes the names came across, and you were right to call me on it. Especially since I invoked an absolute ("no one").  But I meant something slightly different than what I think I said.  I mean that very few advocates for these opposite viewpoints have true respect for the first choice of the other side's label choices.  In other words, most "pro-lifers" think that the term "pro-choice" is selectively used to provide a positive spin on the abortion rights movement, and most pro-choicers say the same about us so-called pro-lifers.  While the two sides may accept the label of their opponents, I think that they do so largely because they want their own self-label to go unchallenged.  Similar, but less problematic, issues exist with "abortion rights movement" vs. "anti-abortion movement" (although I personally take pride in being anti-abortion, and I am positively flummoxed by pro-lifers who worry that it casts us in a negative light). HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think there are issues with pro-life as a name, but I also think (which I hadn't considered before) that there are issues with anti-abortion as a name as well. Frankly I think neither is ideal.
 * With regards to doing a blackline I am happy to have a go - probably at the weekend, that sounds like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We need somewhere to talk about the activities of the two movements and their proponents. Pro-life and pro-choice have merit and notability on their own. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit I can see a need to list the affiliated organizations, as well as their leadership. But I see that as a list.  Their activities and strategies should, IMMHO, be discussed here.HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LeadSongDog's edits
Thank you for cleaning up my citations.

Re: "logistics". The logistics of treating the fetus as "the object of direct action by another person" was what I had in mind, rather than the larger issues of fetal personhood also addressed by the case cited. It adds a dimension that is often lacking in the fetal personhood debate, which is why I cited this case rather than countless others dealing with the legal issue. If my wording is unclear, let me know and I'll change it. I was trying to be concise.

Re: underage unwed mothers. If your problem was unwieldy language, I will leave your edit. However, if you have problems with "not full persons under the law", it's jsut a fact that minors are not full persons under the law, as the beginning of that paragraph shows.

Re: Canada citation. I don't understand why I need a citation. The link leads to a discussion of the legality of abortion in Canada, which includes mention of public funding. Thanks. Ermadog (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Citegnoming is a low-stress high-value way to improve the 'pedia.
 * You might want to see logistics, either here or in a dictionary. I believe that you may have meant to use a different word.
 * Re underage and unwed mothers, the cited source makes no mention of them. Some other source might, but that isn't cited. We don't engage in wp:OR as a matter of policy. While you may know some "fact", your readers do not until you cite your sources for them to wp:verify.
 * Re Canada, the issues are manifold. First, what source supports singling out that country from all the others, otherwise wp:UNDUE? Second, wikilinking does not replace citation of wp:Reliable sources: which source out of the ones found at that wikilink is the one which supports the assertion being made in this article?

Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl!  03:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs coverage of economic arguments
Article needs more coverage of economic impacts/arguments relating to abortion legalization. (e.g., Legal abortion costs a lot less than prenatal/birth/child medical care (in the US these costs are much more likely to be born by the public for unintended pregnancies than for intended pregnancies, and the overwhelming majority of abortions result from unintended pregnancies - so prohibiting abortion (rather than preventing unintended pregnancy) can be expected to have significant costs). Not to mention the longer term costs of education, etc. ).  Also prevalence of abortion by socio-economic status, and effects of making it illegal on proportion of poor. (Most unintended pregnancies in US are to young/poor (not sure about abortions), and raising child significant financial cost, so limiting abortion (rather than preventing unintended pregnancy) may produce more poor people.) Would make sense under Effects of legalization/illegalization, or under Other factors. If this aspect is covered in another article, perhaps a brief mention here would make sense. Zodon (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to add any such material, Zodon; it clearly is a part of this issue. But please make sure that you verify your statments with reliable sources, as this is a very contentious topic and your work might otherwise be quickly deleted. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Section: Religious Beliefs
The section currently looks like this:

An anonymous edit a few days ago changed a whole bunch of stuff, including way too much history for a summary article, but he did notice and correct the odd passive voice phrasing in the sentence about the Roman Catholic Church. This change was lost in the course of reversions and re-edits by himself. Anyway, I would propose the following:

Thoughts?

Can-Dutch (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a step in the right direction. The first line also needs a cite to establish that these are the verses characteristically cited by pro-life Christians.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about:




 * Can-Dutch (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot read this.
I have tried hard - hard - to read this article. Someone sum it up for me. This article is a mess. -- Hinata  talk   15:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if an admin kept an eye on this user, who calls editors liars and seems to specialize in stirring up trouble, ordering people around and quitting wikipedia. -- W☯W t/c 17:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs section
I changed "Roman Catholics believe" to "The Roman Catholic Church believes". It is entirely unscholarly to attempt to report the beleifs of "Roman Catholics" as a group of people as this cannot be measured in any meaningful way. Instead, the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church should be reported, especially since the reference for that line is the cathecism. If the reference linked to a poll showing that 100% of people who affilliate as Roman Catholic follow the belief outlined by the church, then and only then could it be accurately stated what Roman Catholics believe. Ahp378 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The new phrasing is better. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still wrong to assert what anyone's beliefs are, as the assertion cannot be objectively verified. Far better to assert that "The Roman Catholic Church teaches..." or "Roman Catholic doctrine holds that..." which are fully verifiable. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is an assertation of their beliefs. Is that not correct?  I think your rewordings are acceptable but not substantially improved, there is no way to be correct about it without explicitly saying "The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states that..."  I was just attempting to make the sentence a little less terrible, I don't actually expect people to use this article as a source for Catholic doctrine or teachings.  Ahp378 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Double-Standard Between Genders
"Some argue that women's freedoms are limited until they can have the right to abortion on demand and to walk away from parenthood like men can."

I'm not sure this is correct. While it is true that a man has the natural ability to walk away from pregnancy, men actually are bound by law in many countries to provide for the child financially. Unwanted or not, he presumably also tacitly accepts that a pregnancy may result due to sex, and so accepts the responsibility to provide for the child financially. This seems to act as a sort of precedent that a parent has a responsibility to provide for a child, wanted or not. Could not an argument then be made that it is, in fact, a double-standard that a mother able to have an abortion is not forced to accept responsibility for an unwanted child if she so chooses, while a man is (or at least is subject to the mother's decision)? It seems two mutually exclusive positions: Either both a man and woman have the ability to opt out of their respective responsibilities (her via abortion, and the man via choosing not to support the child), or they both must fulfill their responsibilities towards the child (the woman, via her body, the man, financially). I'm not sure if this is really addressed and if there is some way to work this angle into the article. Thoughts? JPetersen (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to "Either both a man and woman have the ability to opt out of their respective responsibilities (her via abortion, and the man via choosing not to support the child)": Yes, but the woman would be considered a "murderer", whereas the father would be considered at worst a deadbeat dad. There's a big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.25.195 (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What about a mans right to be pregnant? Is that a double standard? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Violence
We should add a Non Biased section called "Violence associated with abortion" to this article. There we can add both Pro-abortion and Pro-life violence and get rid of the article Anti-abortion violence. Anyone agree? Greenble (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why Not? Greenble (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because WP:NPOV doesn't entail giving equal weight to every view, but rather giving weight to views as they are reflected in reliable sources. "Pro-abortion violence exists" is a fringe view, while the existence of anti-abortion violence is extremely well documented in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

right to body
Is it also legal for a conjoined twin to cut off their sibling? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ireland/Nicaragua
I note this change. While the rational for using Ireland as an example (rather than Nicaragua) makes sense, the citation used still refers to Nicaragua, not Ireland. Can we find a source on Ireland?

Abortion in the Republic of Ireland says citation needed. Abortion in Ireland is a disambig page which includes a link to Abortion in the United Kingdom, which offers this Lancet article, which says "Politicians from the unionist and nationalist parties in Northern Ireland joined forces on June 20 to block any extension of the 1967 British Abortion Act to the North where terminations are allowed on a restricted basis."

Yaris678 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Abortion controversy?
Having noticed one of the newspaper style guides I've recently been sifting through using the phrase "abortion controversy", I'm struck by that seeming like rather a better title for this article than "abortion debate" -- what with relatively little of the controversy involved being in a context anything like what we normally think of as a "debate". Anybody have thoughts on this? —chaos5023 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer debate, because the article is about about the back-and-forth arguments about the legality of abortion. Perhaps it could be titled Debate regarding legal abortion or Debate regarding abortion law. The word "controversy" can include other things such as how controversial it might be for white Americans to push racial abortion on African Americans as a form of genocide (this is an actual theme in some people's current thinking) or how controversial it is to provide abortion services to 17-year-old pregnant women without telling the parents of these legal minors, etc. Those things are just touched upon in this article, not explained in depth. Legal debate is this article, "Controversy" is a larger article that is not yet written. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. Certainly this article is large enough already.  Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel like "controversy" implies a specific incident. "Debate," as Binksternet said, is a better title for an article that sums up arguments from either side. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The "arguments in favor of..." section is not.
It's almost entirely critical of abortion. Would someone like to work on this with me? I am thinking of including research on the health of the woman and prevention of deaths caused by pregnancy, and the right to bodily autonomy under the law to make one's own medical decisions. There are several organizations around the world and in America arguing in favor of abortion and abortion laws and they are inadequately mentioned. Or maybe just rename the section "further criticisms of abortion"? Ongepotchket (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Has this been modified yet? If not I'd be able to work on it with you (although the section as it reads now doesn't seem very critical at all, and indeed includes one of the most powerful arguments for abortion, Thomson's violinist argument). --24.193.97.121 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Dave

Anti-abortion movement does not emphasize the right of the child to be born, as the introductory paragraph states
The right to life refers to the right to not to be killed, not to be born.

In addition, the doctrine of double effect is sometimes invoked when debating the extreme cases where carrying the pregnancy to term would put the mother's life in jeopardy. The act of doing harm (killing the fetus because inducing labor otherwise is not an option) conflicts with the act of doing good (saving the mother's life). Childbirth seems to be amoral in this debate.

Some additional things:

1) I have tried editing the introduction to include violence from both sides, but the edit was rejected for comparing the "small" instances of pro-choice violence to pro-life violence was not neutral. There are plenty of cases where pro-choice advocates/groups have resorted to violence, threats, and property crimes. For example, the website prochoiceviolence.com has plenty of those instances recorded. If anybody wants to help me create a Wikipedia page to outline pro-choice violence, please contact me.

2) A peer reviewed study in Chile has concluded that criminalizing abortion does not lead to an increase in maternal mortality. Thus, I believe it should be included under the "Effects of legalization/illegalization" section to show a contrast with the WHO study.

Here's the study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036613

3) Also, I believe the following line, and in particularly the reference to "the patriarch":

"In ancient times, abortion, along with infanticide, had been considered a matter of family planning, gender selection, population control, and the property rights of the patriarch."

should be either removed or edited to a neutral, non-feminist perspective.


 * If you would like to be considered seriously, please do not cite ridiculous sources like prochoiceviolence.com and Koch's bogus paper (PloS ONE does not meet our WP:MEDRS standards for a number of reasons, including lack of adequate peer review.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Potential life" argument against abortion?
Right now the Wiki article cites http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5187 to support the claim that pro-life people make a "potential life" argument. The cited website actually says the opposite of what the Wiki article says, saying that the term "potential life" is used by pro-choicers as a "rhetorical trick" to "dehumanize the unborn". The author is clearly a pro-life person who sees "potential life" as a pro-choice argument.

Also, when I do a quick web search for the terms "potential life" and abortion, I get a quotes from  Pres Obama and from a pro-choice group saying that a fetus is "only a potential life" and that abortions are permissible. I also get a Muslim Philosophy website which seems to say that the abortion debate is between people who say a fetus is a person and people who say a fetus is a potential person.

I've never read or heard a pro-life person argue against abortion on the grounds that it ends a "potential life", only that it ends a life. I have seen news articles, though, that claim that pro-lifers make this argument. Could someone please either find a good source for this section of the article, or remove the section? (I would, but I'm not a savvy Wikipedian yet.) --192.12.13.5 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback
Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

4.1 Question of Personhood
'Establishing the point in time when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a "person" is open to debate since the definition of personhood is not universally agreed upon.'

There may be debate on the subject in different parts of the world, but the definition of the legal term 'person' in the U.S. is quite clear. Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed., the most credible legal dictionary in the U.S., defines person as 'A human being.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophage (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a global encyclopaedia. We don't let US definitions be the rule for the other 95% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Possibly more to the point, that's not what the sentence means and Biophage has not made anything any more "clear". The sentence is about whether a ZEF is a person under definitions of personhood that include, eg., genetic individuality, status as a separate being, intelligence, whatever. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Black's did not become one of the foremost legal references in the English speaking world by giving such meaningless (i.e., useless to a lawyer or judge) definitions for a word as important as "person". Black's, like any good dictionary, usually provides quotes for reference and/or context. Here's the one for Person...
 * So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition. —John Salmond, Jurisprudence 318 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947) in Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2011)
 * Of course this does help explain why unborn entities have never, and will never, be granted legal personhood (also noting that the word "personhood" is a political fabrication that has no legal definition). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Source does not state that men can walk away from children
I have deleted a sentence that seems to be unsupported by the source nearest it that claims that men can walk away from children they father. Considering legal institutions enforcing child support this seems odd. Please provide the quotation that supports this statement or please leave it out of this article.Yhwhsks (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Another Argument Against: Sexual Equality/Privacy
Abortion gives women the ability to avoid a pregnancy in a way that men are not. While a woman could, in countries where it legal, get an abortion for any reason, a man cannot choose and may be subject to paying child support or other responsibilities, even if inability to support the children is the reason he wants an abortion. Still allowing abortions for rape and to prevent harm to the mother, any conception would be the result of a choice on both parties; an action that was conducted in private with no arbitrary interference from the government. In many places, a person is free to have consensual sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, and however they want. This act was covered by a person’s right to their body and privacy, but it’s consequences, which are known to most, are not necessarily so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.215.168 (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing the article, not the subject. If you're actually suggesting we put something like that in the article, I point out that men don't get pregnant, so talking of a man avoiding pregnancy is nonsense. You would also need a reliable source for any suggested content. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

First, men avoiding pregnancy is not nonsense, men can get women pregnant and have the ability to make this less likely so they can avoid it. Additionally, men can be affected by pregnancy (financially, socially, emotionally) so they can avoid it because they can avoid the effects. You misunderstood how the word avoid was used. Abortion grants women an ability to decide that men don't have; motherhood becomes an entirely willing choice, but fatherhood does not. I wasn't sure where to talk about the content as opposed to the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.215.168 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua is right. This is not the place to debate to topic. You may, if you wish, make specific recommendations to improve the article, so long as you have appropriate sources. But your opinions on abortion, for men or women or trees, have no place here. HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a debate article, so bringing up opinions in this debate is a suggestion for the article. I understand that this is a controversial topic and that this page must get some bad moments, but I presented a coherent opinion that it turns it people do have.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html http://voices.yahoo.com/the-right-choose-fathers-abortions-478274.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.215.168 (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting when it comes to insulting me or my suggestions that the answer is swift, however when I come back with sources it is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.50.211 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr anonymous IP, please sign your post with four tildes and indent it with colons. As for the argument against abortion, you don't need to preach here. If there is a source espousing this view, put it in the article and cite the source. Connor Behan (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

the political debate usually surrounds a right to privacy, and when or how a government may regulate abortion
This needs a citation of some sort, or it will be removed. The political and ethical debates both include issues of privacy AND issues of personhood. In fact, personhood isn't even in the political section at all. Rip-Saw (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional Arguments section(s) needed
I would like to work with others who are willing - to construct and add a section for the Constitutional Arguments for and against abortion for this page. I understand that Wiki is a global reference and that the addition would have to be titled accordingly. (example; "The U.S. Constitutional Arguments for and against abortion") I am willing (and able) to write a secular Constitutional Argument against abortion - with references to "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" - myself.

Would anyone else be interested in adding a (secular) Constitutional Argument in support of abortion rights? Or, would it be okay if I present both sides? I believe that I am able to present the Constitutional arguments of both sides of the debate fairly, myself. Your thoughts are welcome. L.L. Brown (aka Chuz Life) 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuz Life (talk • contribs)


 * Does anybody object or want to work with me on this? L.L. Brown (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked for sources which discuss this aspect and I found nothing good. What were you thinking of using as a source? Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for responding. I'm hoping to present the Constitutional arguments myself. Not by citing myself of course, but I can present the Constitutional arguments without doing that. I have presented the arguments before - here -. And it wouldn't take much to reformat the same for this article. L.L. Brown (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I would not go into near that level of detail for an article here. Just the basic outline of how the Constitutional are currently framed and presented along with references and links to the related text. L.L. Brown (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a completely unreliable source per Wikipedia's standards. You simply cannot shoot from the hip and write what you want to write. This article is about previously published debate from WP:Reliable sources, not a forum for debate. You would be violating the iron-clad policy of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not that I can't find one, but why do you think a source is necessary to write a paragraph to lay out the basic constitutional arguments for and against abortion? The pro-lifers feel that abortion violates the equal protections clause of the 4th and 14th Amendments (those can be cited) because they (abortions) deny the personhood of children in the womb along with the equal protections of their rights. The following paragraph would likely explain why abortion proponents believe the Constitution supports keeping abortion legal and the author of that would cite and find references to support that view. Please remember, the purpose of this article is not to engage in the arguments - but to present (as accurately as possible) what the arguments are. L.L. Brown (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's now clear to me that you are looking for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one which defines personhood as beginning at conception and thus forbids abortion in the USA. The article about that effort (various efforts, actually) is Human Life Amendment. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Binksternet, that is not my goal at all. I don't even believe a Constitutional Amendment is necessary for the Supreme Court to revisit Roe or to overturn their previous rulings. I am only interested in presenting the Secular / Constitutional arguments in an appropriate section of this article and I have asked for interested parties to work with me on that addition. Are you interested in working with me on it? L.L. Brown (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean present arguments as if we were arguing the notional Supreme Court case to overturn Roe? No, Wikipedia is not a moot court. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep that purely American detail out of this global article please. There's already far too much emphasis on debate in that one country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, Please. This is a genuine effort to present the secular and Constitutional arguments FOR and AGAINST abortion to the readers. Is there really no more room in the article for that addition? Is there only room for the moral and philosophical aspects - already included? L.L. Brown (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Have a good think. This is a global article. 95% of people don't live in the USA. Do you really think they care about constitutional arguments in a country other than their own? Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On this issue? Absolutely. I discuss and debate this issue with people all over the world almost every day. 90% or more is based on Roe v Wade (American ruling) and related laws and courts decisions which are related to it. Also, there is plenty of room for constitutional debates from other countries each in their own sub section. Isn't there? I for one would like to see a similar effort from Canada, Mexico, the U.K. - etc. Please tell me what the harm would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuz Life (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 90% or more is based on Roe v Wade? LOL. That's ridiculous. It's precisely the kind of nonsensical, arrogant claim that gives all the good American editors a bad image. Grow up. We are not all slaves to your country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are making personal attacks now and you are not addressing the constructive points that I am making for a productive change to the article. "Is there or is there not room for Constitutional arguments to be presented from a U.S. and other nations perspectives?" Either there is or there is not. What would be the downside to having that information included into the article? L.L. Brown (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No personal attack there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * HiLo48 - Agree to disagree. Now, please answer my question about the article.L.L. Brown (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You know, it really is difficult not to have concerns about another editor's competence when they ask questions like that. If you don't know my answer yet, there is no point in me discussing it any further with you. You are simply not getting it. Goodnight HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again with the ad hominem personal attacks when all I am trying to do is improve on the article. The existing article already makes references to the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment, etc. as it addresses the issue of privacy and that's okay with you (presumably because of your support for abortion) but the thought of someone like myself making a U.S. Constitutional argument against abortion is just too much for you personally to consider? That's fine. maybe I can get someone else to work on it with me.L.L. Brown (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that. Obviously at this point you do not have consensus to add it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * New Start. At the end of the day, abortion and personhood are legal and Constitutional decisions. Are there any editors who would like to work with me to add a secular / Constitutional Arguments section to the page?L.L. Brown (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No. That might belong in the U.S. Focused subpages, but not here.  In any case, please review wp:Battleground. LeadSongDog  come howl!  14:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not doing any of the things mentioned there, LeadSongDog. Furthermore this section would not be limited to the United States Constitutional Arguments. I thought this encyclopedia entry was interesting about the Canadian Constitution. It says;


 * "The Charter's Section 7 guarantee of personal liberty led the Supreme Court to strike down the Criminal Code provision against abortion in 1988, transforming women's reproductive rights."


 * That comments was immediately followed by


 * "The Charter's Section 15 anti-discrimination clause led to a series of rulings that changed the legal landscape for gays and lesbians..."


 * I found it interesting because our own article here says that Pro Lifers view abortions AS an act of discrimination against the child aborted. I'll tell you what. I'm going to write the addition and share it here for everyone to consider. I think that once you see it, you may reconsider your opposition to having a section like this. L.L. Brown (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

4.2.2 Fetal Personhood debate edit request
Upon having my (what I thought were productive and contributive) edits to this section removed and the original content restored, (revert) - I am hoping to re-present the changes here in the hopes of improving this Wikipedia article. Please review and comment on my edit. I am anxious to find out what the reluctance to let it stand as submitted was.

"Although the two main sides of the abortion debate tend to agree that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are biologically and genetically human (that is, of the human species), they often differ in their view on whether or not a human organism  in those stages of life, is in any way, a person.  Pro-life supporters argue that voluntary abortion is morally and Constitutionally wrong and that abortion should be illegal because a prenatal child is an innocent human person entitled to equal protections by law; Or because a prenatal child is at the very least a potential life that will, in most cases, develop into a fully functional human being. In support of this position, abortion opponents may point to the text of the United States; Unborn Victims of Violence Act and to the 38 States laws which make it a crime of murder to illegally kill a "child in the womb" at "any time during the child's development." To date, Constitutional challenges to U.S. Fetal Homicide Laws have been unsuccessful. "

Constructive comments welcome. L.L. Brown (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * At the very least, you would need to provide reliable sources which indicate that anti-abortion advocates cite fetal homicide laws, the UDHR, etc. as "evidence" that a fetus is a person. Your personal say-so is out of the question. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The last link in my edit is to the National Right to Life source which sites the numbers and details of Prenatal Homicide laws which have been challenged on the basis that they violated the Courts position with Roe. And, those challenges (as I cited) have so far failed. So, how is the National Right to Life and the State's governments not writing these laws to go after Roe? I thought the evidence was sufficient to show that they are. L.L. Brown (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_debate&diff=591506408&oldid=591505925 This is the diff] of your changes and additions. Here are the problems I recognized in the various changes:
 * Fetus versus Zygote/Embryo/Fetus. This is unneeded complication. Nobody is arguing that there is a difference relative to the abortion debate, so it is not part of the topic. Everybody knows that an elective abortion is typically a fetus that is, on the average, around 9–12 weeks old.
 * You wrote "Pro-life supporters argue that voluntary abortion is morally and Constitutionally wrong and that abortion should be illegal because a prenatal child is an innocent human person entitled to equal protections by law" (my emphasis). However, you cited the United Nations which did not comment on the constitutionality of U.S. law, and would not have been an expert source on that subject regardless. Furthermore, the sentence was worded in a way that made the conclusion too settled, a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * By far the most egregious violation was found in the following sentence that you added: "In support of this position, abortion opponents may point to the text of the United States; Unborn Victims of Violence Act and to the 38 States laws which make it a crime of murder to illegally kill a "child in the womb" at "any time during the child's development." (Your emphasis.) This misuse of the sources cannot stand. The law expressly allows abortion!
 * Restoring this gross misrepresentation to the article should be a blockable offense. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. The reason the distinction (zygote/ embryo/ fetus) is necessary is because in reality, the debate is quite the opposite of what you claim. Proponents on BOTH sides argue the differences relative to the abortion debate, every day. Some believe life begins at conception, some say not until it can feel pain, etc. The use of the word "fetus" alone - misses those important distinctions.


 * 2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was only cited to support the fact that "equal rights" and "equal protections" are more than just a U.S. concept. If there s a better way of supporting that point, I would like to see how you can word it.


 * 3. It's not a misuse of sources just because you think it is so. There is no question that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - for now - makes exceptions to keep abortion legal. Nothinfg I posted or linked to pretends that it doesn't. However, the parts of the UVVA that relate to the "personhood" of an unborn child and to the fact that a person can be charged with murder for illegally killing a child in the womb... comes directly from the text of the law itself.


 * YES, the UVVA makes an exception to allow for abortions to continue. IT also defines children in the womb as "human beings in ANY stage of their development" and it also makes it a crime of murder (U.S. Code 1111) to illegally kill one. L.L. Brown (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a violation of WP:NPOV to misrepresent a source as you did with the UVVA law. The tone of your addition tells the reader that killing a child in the womb at any stage of development is murder, which makes them think the law defines abortion as murder. Your wording did not emphasize that abortions are specifically allowed under the law. You wrote that "illegal killing" (your term) is what is defined as murder. The law does not use the strange formulation of "illegal killing"—this is your own fabrication and obfuscation. You are twisting the source to push a point of view. Again, this is a violation of WP:NPOV, and such text is not acceptable. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. I cited the actual text of the law. (the UVVA) and by doing so, I did not misrepresent it in any way. In addition, I shared this link which records the unsuccessful challenges to the UVVA. Those were MURDER convictions. They were trying to get them overturned because they THOUGHT that the UVVA goes against Roe v Wade and they lost. 2. How much trouble would be - to just remind myself that the UVVA makes an exception for abortions and to then add that language yourself or ask for me to do it? 3. The actual text of the law says: "(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 (murder), 1112(manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted murder/ manslaughter) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."


 * The UVVA does not allow for punishments for abortions but it does allow for the charge of murder as I quoted - in cases where a crime was actually committed. So, how was my use of the words  illegal killing  even a stretch? It isn't. L.L. Brown (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't care to debate you further. You have not formed a consensus for inclusion of your preferred text, so until that happens please don't touch the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you see this as a debate, Binksternet. It has not been a debate on my end. We have only been discussing my edit and the supportive facts about the references. As we are clearly at an impasse and it appears that you and others have not tried to be constructive in your criticisms, I intend to appeal this to a higher authority. I read in one of the help articles that I am required to let you know that.L.L. Brown (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Activism by Chuz Life
With [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_debate&diff=591605814&oldid=591597953 this edit], User:Chuz Life has opted to put forward activist viewpoints, using an unreliable source: www.endroe.org which is run by the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. I am at wits' end dealing with this material, having violated the 1RR abortion-topic limit. Our new friend does not appear to be here to build the encyclopedia, but to advance a political position. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Binksternet, I don't think that you understand the context of the link/ cite. The abortion article that we are working on and talking about is titled: Fetal Personhood DEBATE. www.endroe.org was cited (per YOUR request) as a "Pro-Life" organization that challenges the CONSTITUTIONALITY of abortion as indicated in the article. They are not being cited as an actual authority on ANYTHING. Again, the cite is only to show (per your own revert request) - that Pro-Life groups challenge the Constitutionality of abortion. L.L. Brown (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Arguments "For" and "Against" sections
Users and Admins, may we please have a conversation about these two sections? I have some concerns that I would like to discuss and I will lest them here for your consideration and comments.


 * Why are there opposing comments in these sections? The "Arguments for the right to abortion" should not have to contain any counter arguments to itself and likewise for the "Arguments against" It is very confusing to see arguments from both sides in both sections.
 * The titles are a bit misleading. I'm sure that there are many "Pro-Choicers" who do not think abortions should be permitted very late in pregnancy, just as there are many "pro-lifers" who would not deny a woman the right to an abortion to save her life. These titles frame the debates too narrowly by failing to recognize the middle ground on the issue.
 * (Background; I used to be "Pro-Choice" on abortion before I later became opposed to it. I do not consider myself to be "Pro-Life" but that is a discussion for a later time) My point is that even I (an opponent of abortion) could form a better argument for BOTH sides of the debate for this article. I know better than to do so and undo someone else's work here. I seriously do not mean to be disrespectful for the work that has gone into the article so far. I digress. Can we please have a discussion on the arguments from both sides?
 * It seems both sections would benefit by having at least the first three or four 'sub-sections' in common. For example, both sections could have as their first four subsections 'Bodily rights', 'Moral and or Religious', Constitutional, etc. It looks like this was actually attempted and I'm not trying to say what the subsections should be. I'm only asking that we discuss it.
 * General housekeeping. It is near impossible to discern where the "Arguments Against" section ends and the following "other factors" section begins. It appears that the 'Other factors' section is just another sub-section to the above. Comments? L.L. Brown (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's good to see discussion that doesn't come from an absolutist position. And you're right, the anti- and pro- arguments do not need their own opposing arguments. It does create a mess. And that's what we seem to have. I'd suggest doing a bit of editing, one small area at a time, over several days, to clean this up. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, HiLo48 - I'm glad we agree on the need for a clean up. I don't have any specifics yet. It's almost one of those 'where do we even begin?' kind of things. That's why I've tried to focus on identifying the areas in need - instead of just making edits.L.L. Brown (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the first edit I would like to suggest - would be to rename the two titles to something more general in meaning. My suggestions would be something along the lines of;
 * Arguments for the legality of abortion
 * Arguments against the legality of abortion
 * Abortion Arguments: Pro
 * Abortion Arguments: Con
 * Arguments in favor of legalized abortion
 * Arguments opposed to legalized abortion
 * Arguments: Pro
 * Arguments: Con
 * Arguments in support of keeping abortion legal
 * Arguments opposed to keeping abortion legal
 * These are only a few suggestionsL.L. Brown (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree, actually. We should present all aspects of a position together; in some cases moving the "rebuttal" elsewhere is merely inconvenient or weird (like, Boonin's remarks aren't in support of abortion as such so they don't belong in arguments for abortion rights - they specifically respond to an anti-abortion argument), but imagine if we were to present the claim that abortion shouldn't happen because a fetus feels pain without any of the scientific evidence showing it does not! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, major subjects like fetal pain already have a page (article) of their own. I don't think anyone would object to a link to that page for more information. Or, if the point that needs to be made is strong enough, you could add a sub section to counter the point - rather than having what we have now - a tit for tat tug of war that makes everything look like a bunch of bickering. Example.
 * 1. The "Opponents of Legalized Abortion Arguments" section in addition to any number of other arguments contains a claim (as you suggest) that abortion is wrong after a fetus can feel pain. A claim that you feel is countered by a reliable source.
 * 2. Rather than having a tit for tat in that immediate section itself, why can't we create a sub section to the existing "Opponents of Legalized Abortions" section and title it "Counter Arguments" and you could add the counter arguments there. Then as needed, do the same for the "Proponents of Legalized Abortion Arguments" section.L.L. Brown (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's is an example of what I think would be an improvement over what we have now.

Do you disagree that - that would be an improvement? Roscelese? L.L. Brown (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Anybody else?L.L. Brown (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do disagree; I've already specifically said that it is undesirable to artificially break up themes in this way. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Roscelese Can you explain the logic in having separate sections (pro and con) for arguments - if we are going to have the rebuttals against each one in there too? Allowing that makes no sense to me at all.L.L. Brown (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not inherently opposed to abandoning for/against, but the thing is that the arguments don't parallel each other in a way that allows the structure you propose. It's not pro-lifers going "fetuses feel pain so we shouldn't have abortions" and pro-choicers going "fetuses don't feel pain so we should have abortions"; the "fetuses don't actually feel pain, you know" point in the debate is a response to the first point, not in itself a justification for abortion. Similarly, pro-lifers don't generally lead off by arguing "you don't have bodily autonomy if there's a fetus involved," that's a response to the pro-choice argument from bodily autonomy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That was almost as confusing as the article itself, Roscelese. Is the purpose of this article to present the elements of the abortion debate or is the purpose of this article to actually argue the debate? Personally, I think it's the former. It's clear that you are skeptical and I don't blame you for that. I wish you would just give it a try because I think you will see that separating these comments and rebuttals can actually help readers appreciate the points- more. As an example, please look at these arguments from the 'Drug Legalization' Gateway Drug Theory page. In my view, it is a much easier read.L.L. Brown (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, even in that article editors have engaged in the same kind of tit for tat banter that (at least in my view) detracts from the articles. As a reader, I'm actually insulted that anyone would think that I have to have the counter points from either side of a debate shoved immediately into my face. I can't be the only one who feels that way. L.L. Brown (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My problem with this discussion is that Chuz Life has an obvious bias toward one point of view, which demonstrably[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_debate&diff=591506408&oldid=591505925] limited his ability to write neutrally on the topic. I do not expect that Chuz Life will be able to compose a neutrally worded section, one based entirely on reliable sources. Instead, I expect the wording will favor the pro-life argument, however obviously or subtly. Thus, I am against any kind of suggestion that involves Chuz Life editing the article. Binksternet (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have the same problem with your own bias and prejudices showing in an article too, Binksternet. That is a common problem with any article on any other controversial issue. My observation is that this article is already very one sided in favor of abortion and even though I believe that needs some attention, that is not what this specific edit is about. As HiLo48 sort of agreed, the article is a mess. I understand  why articles are supposed to be written and maintained with a neutral point of view and because this article is about the debate itself, it stands to reason that the arguments and related materials from  BOTH ALL sides should be fairly represented. I don't have a problem with that and if you do, then maybe you need to check yourself.L.L. Brown  (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we take the emphasis off the "both sides" view please? As we touched on earlier, there is a continuous spectrum of views on this matter, and chances are most people are closer to the middle than near either end. It's just that the minorities nearer the ends, particularly the anti-abortion end, make a lot of noise and get the media attention. We should not base our article on media noise but on the real spread of views in society. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder HiLo48. I did not intend to dismiss the middle ground. Though, as it is stated in the opening paragraph, the abortion debate is generally two sided (for and against) and that's the context that I was using. My bad for not making that point more clear.L.L. Brown (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014
Change dead link for the article (Sullivan, Dennis M (2003). "Ethics & Medicine, volume 19:1 – The conception view of personhood: a review") to https://www.cedarville.edu/~/media/Files/PDF/Center-for-Bioethics/conception.pdf

Mishash (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. I see that the author Dennis Sullivan is a professor at Cedarville University, so the Cedarville website hosting the file is apparently not violating the copyright. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing Bible verses
In the following section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate#Religious_beliefs some Bible verses are listed regarding abortion:

"Pro-life Christians support their views with Scripture references such as that of Luke 1:15; Jeremiah 1:4–5; Genesis 25:21–23; Matthew 1:18; and Psalm 139:13–16."

But there are some missing:


 * Rights of the Unborn: Exodus 21:22-23


 * Unborn children are persons: You list Psalm 139:13-16, but you are missing Psalm 51:5.


 * Unborn children have consciousness and, by extension, person-hood: Luke 1:41; Luke 1:44


 * Killing is forbidden: Exodus 23:13; Deuteronomy 5:17:

Exodus 21:22-23 (Rights of the Unborn), King James Version (KJV), here & below

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Psalm 51:5 (Unborn children are persons)

5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Luke 1:41 (Unborn children have consciousness and, by extension, person-hood)

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: (The 'babe' lept, not the 'blob of tissue.')

Luke 1:44 (Unborn children have consciousness and, by extension, person-hood)

44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. (The 'babe' lept, not the 'blob of tissue.')

Exodus 20:13 (Killing is forbidden)

13 Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 5:17 (Killing is forbidden)

17 Thou shalt not kill.

Regards 71.101.63.202 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What?  HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove reference number 105 and relevant sentence citing it
I would like to request the removal of citation number 105, the sentence that goes with it and the rewording of the sentence before that. Specifically, the following two sentences:

''Each religion has many varying views on the moral implications of abortion. These views can often be in direct opposition to each other.[105]'' (emphasis my own)

should be replaced by something along the lines of:

''Different religions can have different views on matters of abortion. ''

Reasons:

1) The website appears to be dead for about 4 years. I had to go all the way to 2010 to find the content of it: https://web.archive.org/web/20100129003803/http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Topic-Page-Abortion.html

2) The original content was simply a collection of articles. I believe that this is a poor choice for backing up such a heavy sentence. It feels like the person citing it was saying "Go read these 20 articles written by 20 different authors. Once you are done reading, you'll see I was right".

3) Since, in general, one can be either for or against abortion, "many varying views" is a disingenuous phrase.

4) The rest of that paragraph does not show that religions have "many varying views". If anything, it seems to be that all big branches of Christianity and Islam consider abortion wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnikiforakis (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Merging this article into genetics and abortion
The article genetics and abortion could fit in a heading or subheading in abortion debate. Merging the pages could increase activity on the topic. See Merging. Waters.Justin (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"some anti-abortion advocates even going as far as using violence."
I question the neutrality on this and suggest changing it to some people rather than singling out one side of the debate as the source of the violence. Even if the the side against abortion is the source of most, but not all, of the violence, it is preferable to choose the neutral term. MrWonderphul (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should also edit the article on hate crimes to say that some people during the American civil rights movement committed hate crimes. After all, that would be more neutral than saying that white civil rights opponents committed hate crimes against black people and civil rights supporters. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By suggesting, via sarcasm, that it is preferable to single out whole groups for criticism based on the actions of their individual members, without taking into consideration whether or not the groups so-criticized condoned the actions taken of their members, you run afoul of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point-of-view. It is not neutral to assign blame. (It is, however, neutral to cite statistics that suggest blame; but you must always allow the facts to be the ones assigning any necessary blame.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenTheBold (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Wonderphul, this article has to cover both sides of that coin. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was actually a recent case regarding violence by pro-choice supporter/feminist studies professor against pro-life demonstrators:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSB#Controversies
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivors_of_the_Abortion_Holocaust#University_of_California_Santa_Barbara
 * http://www.independent.com/news/2014/mar/21/ucsb-professor-charged-theft-and-battery-after-con/
 * The criminal case against the professor is still pending so crimes alleged, but she made statements in police report that her Pro-choice views motivated incident because she apparently said in police report she initiated altercation because she was offended by the anti-abortion literature/pictures because she teaches reproductive rights.
 * --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Less recent but more severe case of pro-choice violence against pro-life advocates
 * http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/abortion-extremist-faces-4-year-jail-term-article-1.1076120
 * Clearly, these cases do not represent typical pro-choice advocates, but neither do acts/threats of violence represent typical pro-life advocates.
 * I agree, there is no reason to single out only anti-abortion side as occasionally resorting to violence, as reliable sources show that is not the case.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to suggest that you're proposing a false equivalence. So-called "pro-choice" violence is very much a man-bites-dog story, while anti-abortion violence is a depressingly regular phenomenon. The examples you've come up with underline the disparity. A professor was accosted by anti-abortion protesters and allegedly took away one of their signs? That's not really OK, but it's hardly in the same league as clinic bombings and the targeted murder of physicians. MastCell Talk 00:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you decided to focus on theft/battery case ignoring death threats from guy found with cyanide, but either way, no one is suggesting they are equivalent. I suspect it's true that we can find more reliable sources which report anti-abortion violence, than violence against pro-life advocates/demonstrators; however, unless reliable sources state that the former is more common, that would be original research.   There are also multiple cases of violence against pro-life advocates linked in the above "POV overemphasis of violence" section of this talk page. Currently, this article only includes examples and reference to anti-abortion violence when reliable sources show violence in both direction.    --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. There's a reason anti-abortion activists continually bring up Pouillon (whose murderer was not a pro-choice activist) and Shulman, and it's because there's nothing else to bring up, while attacks on abortion clinics and personnel occur constantly. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I can bring you a Himalayan avalanche of citations, if you really need them. I'm not convinced that this sentence fragment needs to be in the lead, particularly if we can't agree on what should be in it. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anti-abortion violence is clearly far more prominent in reliable sources than is so-called "pro-choice" violence. We don't do false equivalence here; we try to convey the content of reliable sources, accurately and proportionately. MastCell Talk 23:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To make a just comparison one should measure the violence committed by pro-life activists (which contradicts the essential non-violent nature of the pro-life cause) not simply against the violence committed against pro-life activists but against the sum total of abortion violence: one part of which is committed against pro-life activists,  and one part of which is committed against the unborn. Why does that latter violence not count? To say that pro-life violence is far more prominent is comparabale to saying that slave rebellions disturbed the order of society more than slavery itself did, accepting slavery as something natural, and not taking into account any argument that slavery itself represented instrinsic injustice; saying that the slaves who rebelled were very badly behaved, and so forth. Our government, and the oligarchal order fosters the violence of abortion, and by fostering it effectively muzzles those who argue against it ("They are religious fanatics"): this is the salient fact. This muzzling ought to be subject to profound analysis.CKUSSCklc (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC) November 24, 2014