Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morality and legality of abortion

Morality and legality of abortion
I was pleasantly surprised by this article. I expected to be walking into a viper's pit of POV angst, but what I found was a well-written, informative and engrossing article. I found very little (if any) POV in most of the article. [Or at least, I thought there wasn't much.. your thoughts?] I started reading the philosophy section at about 5:30 in the morning and was really tired at the start, but by the end I was alert and really very interested in the whole topic. I think it's one of the best pieces I've seen on Wikipedia for awhile so I thought I'd nominate it and give it a shot a FA status. Take a read and tell me what you think about it. Cheers, -SocratesJedi | Talk 11:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object: Sorry to use this one but it's got a lot of US-bias. Needs internationalisation. violet/riga (t) 11:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only that, it needs a lead section too. Object. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Agree with violet/riga, and I'm also worried about a wiki page on a subject like this being inherently unstable. I mean, when you went there, you were pleasantly surprised; when I did, five minutes ago, I got this: "First off, it's just plain wrong. Okay, now the blah, blah. The morality and legality of abortion are controversial topics...". This may be seen as unfair to people who've worked on NPOV'ing the article, but I just worry about having a featured article that needs watching and nursing at intensive-care level.--Bishonen | Talk 20:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain: Sadly, this subject is too controversial, unless the page is protected it will be constantly vandalised. It must NEVER be on the front page for that reason. This is a subject that reaches people's souls,  it should not be treated lightly. Giano 21:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. In addition to the NPOV/Vandal & US-centrism issues &mdash; a quick ctrl+F search for "murder" didn't come up with any mention of abortion in relation to attacks/killings of pregnant women resulting in abortion of the foetus. This is often used in the pro-life campaigns.--ZayZayEM 01:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object for reasons already given. If this does ever become a FA, I agree that it shouldn't be front page featured.  -Sean Curtin 01:18, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, but could do with more discussion of non-US attitudes. I think that the achievement of coming up with a balanced appraisal of such an emotive topic is something worth celebrating. Even if we have to protect it, let's get it up there on the front page. We should not censor ourselves. GeorgeStepanek\talk  03:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be great if all main page articles were protected for their day of glory, and a couple or days afterwards while they are still mentioned on the front page. Serious "would be" editors can always make comment onthe talk page or return later. Giano 10:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. The level of vandalism on Main page features is unacceptable and unnecessary. Filiocht 12:46, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also agree, its been a long time since I've seen a FA that was improved much while on the main page. FA's are simply much better now. - Taxman 13:04, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object on the grounds that it's controversial an issue - the logistics (i.e., protecting, vandals, etc.) do not make it worthwhile. I haven't been around for a long time but I think I've learnt enough to know that this is a very big issue. --JuntungWu 16:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that objections must include an actionable criticism. "The topic is too controversial" is not actionable. GeorgeStepanek\talk  23:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)