Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 1

= July 1 =

Planned Parenthood, hospitals, and doctors' clinics
I am not sure what the controversy of defunding Planned Parenthood is about. I know abortion plays a big role in the controversy. Anti-abortionists want to defund Planned Parenthood, because they argue that Planned Parenthood uses the government money (public money) to pay for abortion services. Pro-abortionists want to support Planned Parenthood, because Planned Parenthood offers sexual health services to poor people. But my concern is, how will defunding Planned Parenthood have an impact on abortion and sexual health services? Why does no one talk about the existence of hospitals and doctors' clinics? They exist too. They may also provide sexual health services. And both Planned Parenthood and hospitals accept health insurance as payment. So, what's the big fuss about defunding Planned Parenthood? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * PP fulfills a totemic function in American culture, and thus its role as an abortion provider is overstated by Christian conservatives. No one wants to talk about hospitals and clinics because that's not really sexy, and it's hard to make hospitals pawns in culture wars. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Aside from abortion, s-e-x is wicked so anyone who provides contraception or s-e-x-ual health services is doing the devil's work. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 0) Not all hospitals and clinics offer the services Planned Parenthood provide.


 * 1) Not all health insurance covers the services Planned Parenthood provides.


 * 2) Many Americans have no health insurance.


 * 3) In many red states, there are very few medical services offered for poor women, due to legal restrictions, and this will reduce that even further. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Point 0 and 1 sound very interesting. Do you have any sources about the number of hospitals and clinics? How much is "not all"? Is it possible to quantify that number? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 50.4.236.254 -- First off, the phrasing "pro-abortionist" is a little clumsy (and not what people refer to themselves as).
 * Second, Planned Parenthood actually very rarely uses federal funds to perform abortions, as mandated by the Hyde Amendment. Some GOP culture-warriors are trying to cut off all government funding of any kind from Planned Parenthood due to its overall organizational connection to abortion, even though in many areas Planned Parenthood clinics have been the main providers of care for women's health issues, and many of the clinics involved don't even do abortions.  Rather clumsy and heavy-handed attempts to defund Planned Parenthood in Texas corresponded with a sharp rise in maternal mortality there. -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * To elaborate, "anti-abortion" is a correct term, because it means "discouraging anyone from having an abortion" (although some do make exceptions for rape, incest, and health reasons), but "pro-abortion", which would mean "encouraging everyone to have an abortion," is not correct. (There are actually some radical groups that think people should all die off, leaving the Earth alone, and they might support such a stance, but this is not what the "pro-choice" groups support.) StuRat (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the OP, I wanted to avoid political framing, so I didn't want to use the term "pro-choice". I wanted to use a term that just meant "for legal abortion" and "against legal abortion". My use of "pro-abortion" means "for legal abortion", and my use of "anti-abortion" means "against legal abortion". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" are the closest to being accurate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Pro-abortion-legalization" would also work, although in cases where it is legal, it may sound a bit odd, but it means "keeping it legal" in those places. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but since AFAIK it isn't actually used, this is irrelevant. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The situation with Planned Parenthood is historically complex. Bear in mind that, as the article explains, its controversial status predates when they did abortions, or even when they dared discuss abortions because of the infamous Comstock Act; they were originally a birth control organization.  Margaret Sanger is described in the article as criticizing abortion, since she believed she could prevent it with adequate birth control (which is of course true, and remains the case today; Republicans may promise abortion bans but Democrats deliver declines in the actual abortion rate)  Sanger is widely criticized to this day for supporting eugenics, which originated in the U.S. (Indiana Plan) and was very popular in her time; and of course to this day abortion still takes more black fetuses than white.  The most mysterious part is trying to sort out the position of the organization versus competitors: somewhat relevant information can be found     I don't understand if the organization has preferential access to funding or won market dominance by more or less ordinary capitalism. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I find the links you provided most helpful. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A form of eugenics-lite was pretty mainstream in the United States in the 1920s, and supporters of Eugenics could be found among most broad social / cultural / political alignments in the U.S. at that time. If something is discredited because its precursor in the 1920s included prominent or vocal eugenics supporters, then a lot of things in the U.S. would be discredited, including both the Democratic and Republican parties, a number of state governments, the Supreme Court (Buck v. Bell) etc. etc.  We choose to remember the 1920s as the "Jazz Decade" instead of the "Scientific Racism Decade", but both names would be accurate... AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think abortion is a kind of eugenics. However, eugenics doesn't have to be a bad thing. If pregnant mothers are screened for birth defects, then they can check to see whether the baby has any birth defects. Raising a defected baby is very expensive, especially for the poor and uninsured. If that defected baby is born, then it will just consume resources, leaving the able-bodied individuals to care for that parasite. Meanwhile, investment in able-bodied children may yield a return: that they will take care of the parents in old age and contribute to society. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And eugenics itself isn't always totally evil. For example, we still legally discourage incest, as it may result in genetically damaged offspring.  The NAZIs having misused it to say that everyone besides them was genetically inferior and should be exterminated or enslaved certainly gave it a bad name, though. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Incest taboos have been pretty much universal among human societies for thousands of years before anyone knew much about scientific genetics... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Except for several royals lines, where they actually thought that concentrating their "superior traits" was a good thing. Cleopatra, for example, married her brothers.  StuRat (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That's kind of "incest as the privilege of an elite/royal few" in a small number of cultures. It's still the case that incest taboos long predate any form of scientific or pseudo-scientific eugenics. AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that the lingering legacy of eugenics should be taken seriously, because it does come up in some ugly contexts to this day. Most notably, it is frequently proposed to have "rape and incest" exceptions to various anti-abortion laws.  Yet the rationale given for anti-abortion laws is typically that "abortion is murder".  Does this mean that it is considered acceptable to murder a child because he or she is the product of rape or incest?  The best face I can put on it is that maybe the anti-abortion law in those circumstances is not really seen as a ban on murder, but just a way to punish women for screwing around - but proponents rarely admit such a thing, and there are some flaws to that idea e.g. the same groups don't openly object to contraception.  Another tangible but more philosophical expression of all this are some controversies (Richard Mourdock, George Faught) regarding whether pregnancy from rape is "God's will".   If "God's will" can be said to be behind the existence of one child, which would not have been possible without an endless number of wars, slavery, conquest, injustices that brought parents together (especially where a colony like the U.S. is concerned), then how can a child of rape not be God's will?  It would seem to imply that such children are seen as not even human.  (Personally I would be receptive to the story of Yeshu ben Pandera as a rational explanation for the Immaculate Conception, in which the miracle of Mary becomes a total, heartfelt love for her child without regard for any circumstance...) Wnt (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Re your closing sentence, Wnt, the article Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera might be a more useful link. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.58.120 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No - the Talmud mentioned some guy Panthera/Pandera/Pantera. Someone in Germany dug up a monument with that name.  But I know of no evidence that that is the Pantera - it was probably a common name.  It's like the question of whether that ossuary for the brother of Jesus was actually brother of the Jesus.  Now that said, it is theoretically possible to answer the question, because it is possible to get DNA out of soil under some circumstances, and it is possible to go through all the relics said to be the True Cross until some speck of actual DNA can be obtained.  Nanopore sequencing might help.  But the odds of success at this juncture seem unacceptably low... obviously, we don't want to ruin any material before we can get an authentic clone (to cite a film as much better than Dan Brown's imitation as its budget was less). Wnt (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor anyone else is suggesting that there's any proof that the Panthera buried in Germany is the same Panthera claimed by some near-contemporary Jewish reports to be the father of Ye'shua son of Miryam. It is nevertheless interesting that (a) from all the records of names from the Jewish milieu, Panthera is known but was not common (I believe there is only one other recorded instance of it, on a (clearly Jewish) burial in Judea; (b) the German-buried individual also corresponds with the reports, in being a soldier in the Roman army; (c) he was Jewish (Abdes being a Jewish name – he was also a freed slave, hence the "Tiberius Julius"); (d) he was from Sidon, which is only a couple or three days walk (60 miles) from Nazareth; (d) records of his unit suggest he was probably serving in Galilee at the right period, and; (e) he was a young man at that time.
 * Re the ossuary: there is circumstantial evidence that it came from the same family tomb as nine other ossuaries (it being stolen during their transit to a museum and being claimed as accidentally destroyed); names from the other ossuaries include all of the known names of Ye'shua's family in the right relationships, and while they're common for the milieu (though Miryam's's was one of the more unusual variations of the common form of hers), the odds of this particular combination are low. However, we have somewhat digressed from the OP's topic of enquiry! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.58.120 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera says that "Historically, the name Pantera is not unusual and was in use among Roman soldiers", citing two sources. You are quite welcome to take up your argument with it, and to make some of those other details you give above more clearly.  This is indeed interesting - please pursue it where it matters most! Wnt (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The odds that any object purported to be a piece of the True Cross is a piece of the True Cross is so small as to be equivalent to impossibility. Any DNA obtained from such an object is many magnitudes more likely to be contamination than it is to be something from the purported time of origin of the object. And it would be impossible to validate which of the many many DNA specimens you'd obtain in such a search would correspond to a historical figure from which you have no DNA. Similarly the DNA obtained from a Holy Foreskin. If you cloned something based on one of the many Holy Foreskins you're more likely to wind up with a pig or a cow than a human, let alone a deity. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand of course that skeptics have ruled the day on this one since Mark Twain... hmmm, I'm having a hard time running down that quote, not sure it's genuine! Well, yes, there's every reason to doubt.  Even so, there seems a chance that genuine pieces were maintained, and being made of wood, they can readily be dated...  I would not discard the idea out of hand. Wnt (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While most Mark Twain quotations are falsely attributed, I would agree that one can actually find an occasional actual Mark Twain quote in the wild. But you won't find any real 2000 year old relics. And frankly, regarding the "True Cross" there's no chance that the "genuine pieces" were even found 200 years after the crucifixion.  - Nunh-huh 01:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The whole "Panthera" thing originated as a Greek-language joke -- the word παρθενος means "virgin, maiden" while the word πανθηρ means "panther". Some Greek-speaking scoffers claimed that the word παρθενος was inserted into Christian texts by consonant metathesis (the letters nun and rho switching places), and this was picked up by various non-Christians... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As of 2014, 59% of US abortions occurred in specialist clinics (defined as clinics where more than half of all patient visits were related to abortion services). A further 36% of abortions occurred in non-specialist clinics (defined as clinics where less than half of patient visits where related to abortion).  Just 4% of abortions were performed in hospitals and just 1% were performed in the offices of a doctor in private practice.    Due to political pressure, many hospitals have decided they won't allow elective abortions to be performed in their facilities.    The 650 Planned Parenthood affiliated facilities in the US account for ~75% of the medical clinics that are performing abortions.  Planned Parenthood provides a very large share of the abortions provided in the US.  For some communities, they are also the primary provider of other sexual and women's health services, especially among poorer communities.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, abortion is a relatively new phenomenon. Humans have always been plagued with infant and maternal mortality during childbirth, and during childrearing, not all children survive infancy. So, even if there is no abortion, a sick child or malnourished child will just succumb to disease. The only difference between elective abortion and die-by-disease is that the former involves human intention and the latter is just a process of natural selection. High infant and maternal mortality may limit the amount of humans entering the world and counterbalance with the number of humans exiting the world, putting a population in check. Without legal abortion, women will probably choose the illegal route to obtain an abortion, thus harming herself and the unborn. In such a case, both lives may perish. In a situation where there is legal, safe abortions, only one life perishes. If you want to control the population, then eliminating 2 lives is the better way to go. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, abortion is not "a relatively new phenomenon." It is referenced in the Hippocratic Oath (ca. 200-400 BC) and the earliest mention goes back more than a millennium before that.  See History of abortion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected on that one. Your History of abortion link points to pro-abortion. There really is such a term to describe the abortion rights movement. So, a supporter of the pro-abortion stance is pro-abortionist, and a supporter of the anti-abortion stance is anti-abortionist. Pro-life/anti-choice/pro-choice/anti-life words are just political framing words. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that link redirects to Abortion-rights movements, a much better title. Sure, the term "pro-abortion" is used, but it is neither accurate nor politically neutral. A support of abortion rights is, arguably, "pro-abortion-rights", but very few, if any, are "pro-abortion". Let me say that if the occurrence of one link (to a non-existing article) sways your opinion, it may be because it was pre-swayed ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. I'm making up my own terms. "Anti-legal-abortion" and "pro-legal-abortion" are the terms I will use to describe the groups against and for legal abortion. That's what politics is about anyway. People who are against legal abortion are "anti-legal-abortionists", and people who are for legal abortion are "pro-legal-abortionists". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sexual health services for poor people
Aside from abortion, Planned Parenthood offers contraception, especially to poor people, and accepts payment from patients' health insurance companies. But, there are also hospitals that have sexual health clinics. Is there a difference between how a hospital conducts business with patients and how Planned Parenthood conducts business with patients? Does Planned Parenthood have the ability to lower prices because it is government-funded while hospitals are privately funded? But what about public/state hospitals? Those are government-funded too. Okay, now I'm really confused. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that some conservatives also oppose contraception and providing info regarding the human reproductive system. This may lead some hospitals and clinics to avoid providing it, so as to not be punished by politicians and protesters, especially in red states.  As for US hospitals, they all pretty much accept all private medical insurance, but not the government Medicare/Medicaid plans, which at times pay too little.  I believe PP also acts as a charity, taking donations from individuals to provide services for free or low cost to those who can't pay.  StuRat (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds like social conservatism mixed in with financial conservatism. Rich people have boatloads of money, so they can afford luxuries, a comfy lifestyle, and a longer life. Poor people want what rich people have and think they are entitled to it. The government may force rich people to pay for the expenses of poor people (such as healthcare) by raising their taxes, but then this raises a problem of having freeloaders. So, rich people try to use their power to prevent that from happening, but still give in to poor people enough to keep them satisfied and the system running smoothly. Yep, another class conflict between the rich and the poor. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Tsuchida Gozen: Conflicting info?
Hi.

I visited the Tsuchida Gozen article and noticed the boldface reiteration of the title isn't the same as the article title. It reads Dota Gozen instead.

There are clues that tell me this isn't because of vandalism or anything. It is seemingly a matter of history or Japanese language that I seem not to understand.

Can anyone please shed a light on this matter?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The alternate name in bold text indicates a redirect for that term to the page. However, if you click on Dota Gozen, it should redirect to Tsuchida Gozen, but currently is a redlink. This matter might better be addressed over at the Help desk, but the article itself should mention the relation between the two names (if any), or perhaps there is an error (?). -- 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the page should be moved (renamed) to Dota Gozen and Tsuchida Gozen redirect there, since page names for people should be the name most commonly used. The article should probably begin something like:
 * Dota Gozen (土田 御前, Tsuchida Gozen, 1511 – February 26, 1594) was...
 * 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I already surmised as much. My question is: Why?
 * Let me clarify with an example: If I go to the "Dick Cheney" article, I see that the boldface name in the lead is "Richard Bruce Cheney". In this case, I exactly know why: "Dick" is the short form of "Richard". So, if one drops the middle name of Richard Bruce Cheney and convert the first name to its diminutive form, one would get Dick Cheney.
 * But in case of this Japanese first lady, I don't know why. How can a woman have two different family names and none of them be the family name of the husband? In this case, the husband is Oda Nobuhide. "Dota" is implied to have been the maiden family name.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the benefit of folks looking into this: The Tsuchida → Dota change in the article was made here by an IP editor who has made no other edits (at least with that IP address). Deor (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also note that articles about her husband and children—Oda Nobuhide, Oda Nobunaga, Oda Nobuyuki, Oda Nobukane, and Oda Hidetaka—all give her name as Tsuchida Gozen. Deor (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Tsuchi" is the common kun reading of 土, "do" a common on reading of it. Thus "Tsuchita" and "Toda" are both possible readings of 土田 (the difference in the final syllable is due to rendaku). Kun'yomi is normally used for names, but there are exceptions. I don't know if there is any reason why an on reading would be appropriate for this person. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you (or somebody) feel confident enough to fix the article? The IP that made the change did not have authority to move the page (nor do I).  Note Deor's link above; there were also other changes made. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a frustrating half an hour or so. The only thing close to a good source I can find was on the website of the Buddhist temple in Mie Prefecture where her grave is and that only says her actual family name might have been 花屋 (Hanaya or Hananoya). The corresponding article on the Japanese language (ja:土田御前) has どたごぜん (Dota Gozen) as the pronunciation. Tsuchida would be  what you'd expect it to be, though. Hmm... is actually improving articles what the ref desk is about? No, surely not. I'll go ahead  with the change. Pete AU (or ピ-マン, as the Minami-Chu junior high school kids nicknamed me. Yes, I know what it means. And yes, I was on the JET Program, so it's OK to hate me.) --Shirt58 (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't supposed to be about improving an article. The OP assumed that the article has no problems, only he/she can't understand it properly. To quote: "It is seemingly a matter of history or Japanese language that I seem not to understand." 37.255.80.119 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I suggested the Help desk. Often ref desks find something wrong or inadequate in an article. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)