Talk:Abortion/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Terminology preferences 2 ABC hypothesis 3 KBecks, a new user, has a Question? 4 Removed addition 5 World Religions 6 Good Job!

Terminology preferences

Please list terminology preferences and a brief statement as to why. Extremely civil discussion is welcome, but be very judicuous about WP:NPA and WP:Civility.

Tznkai's preferences.

• Death - The term is reasonably sterile, neutral and factual. Cells die. Fetuses die. Humans die. The only we don't know if it dies is a virus because we're not sure if its alive to begin with.
• Fetus/unborn - I prefer fetus, but unborn is fine.
• In favor of legalization/Against legalization. Non of this pro-choice pro-life prattle. we'll mention it once, then give a breif, neutral report of positions.
• In general, sterile terms are prefered in this and in most articles. I feel this focuses on facts and allows the reader to make his or her own decisions without out interference.

--Tznkai 15:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

MamaGeek's preferences:

• Death - fine with me
• Fetus/Unborn - I prefer unborn, as fetus only refers to one particular stage of prenatal development. However, when that stage is being discussed, fetus is acceptable, but I suggest using "human fetus" occasionally to distinguish from other life forms.
• In favor of legalization/Against legalization. Isn't it already legal? These terms seems to imply that it is not. Comments?

Sorta. It depends on where. I assume you're from the States? It varies by country to country, and the restrictions in various parts of the US might make it as good as illegal as I understand it. We're just trying to avoid advocacy phrases.--Tznkai 18:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point about different laws in different countries. With that in mind, I will agree to the terminology "In favor of legalization/Against legalization. You are mistaken, however, about restrictions in various parts of the US. There are actually very very few restrictions anywhere, and they can only actually prohibit abortion on minors without their parents consent, if a state so decides. They cannot prohibit it for any other circumstances, (Partial-birth abortion laws were all struck down, but they only applied to very rare abortion types anyway) only require things such as informed consent. There is noplace in the U.S. where a legally adult woman can be legally denied an abortion.--MamaGeek 14:33, 27 July 2005 (EST)

--MamaGeek 14:06, 27 July 2005 (EST)

Thats what I thought RoeV.Wade did, but I recall hearing stories about laws that interfere with the processes somehow (papers to be signed, have to gain consent from fathers). They may have just been proposed laws though, I'm not really up to date. At anyrate, we're looking at a termniology shift away from advocacy phrases as the goal--Tznkai 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

-- 198's preferences:

• Death is not fine. We are trying to write from a neutral point of view, right? No advocacy, no loaded terms, no cheap rhetorical tricks…. This is a reasonable starting point. So, why then do we need to begin this definition by using highly questionable terminology. Stating right off the bat that embryo/fetus (EF) dies or is capable of dying insinuates that EF is a living entity in more than bio/med terms. This clause establishes the personhood, “individuality” (sic), and bestows distinct ontological being to EF. If reproductive rights/abortion industry people accept this assertion, they have already lost the argument. Hence, this is POV.
• Furthermore, the usage in question is really a not-so-subtle rhetorical maneuver: the word “death” is here selected and agreed upon on the basis of a limited definition void of its full context, other meanings and connotations, and the history of its usage... The argument goes something like this: if we can agree that a living cell can “die,” then everything that’s made of living cells must “die” as well (including EF). Or, in the words of Tznkai, “Cells die. Fetuses die. Humans die.” “Die” would appear to be the same word here used indiscriminately. However, in Tznkai’s example, “die” signifies three different things as its connotations vary. “Die” or “death” cannot be statically defined by the definition I suggested above; its meaning changes with its usage and depends on its relation to the words and context around it. “The death and premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus” comes straight out of the pro-life/anti-choice orientation manual. Remember, whoever defines/frames the terms in a debate, wins! Wiki is nobody’s patsy :)

What alternative do we have to the term death? I certainly don't think saying "the cessation of life defining characteristics" is NPOV, its silly. When I say my dog died, and when I say the bacteria died, and when I say the skin died, or I have dead skin all over me, or I say "programmed cell death" we're using the same word but we depend on the context to explain exactly what we mean. To use your own argument, saying that an EF dies does not give it personhood any more than saying bacteria or a dog dies gives bacteria or a dog personhood. The second paragraph of death points out exactly what it is. I take exception to your suggestion that "The death and premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus” comes straight out of the pro-life/anti-choice orientation manual." Dig through the history and you'll see I've been repeatedly attacked as prochoice sympathizer. What the hell else is an abortion? The death of an unborn human, thats pov. The expuslion of tissue. Thats POV. Both are strictly accurate, but obscure facts. NPOV does not allow us to lie or obscure. The embryo and the fetus, when an abortion happens, DIE. Period. Cessation of life. No more living. No longer living cells. Dead. Inert. Ex-cell. Whether we ascribe personhood to it, whether we are killing, that is a matter of POV and the meat of the debate. To say that an embryo dies is stating a neutral medical fact. I'm sorry if I seem heated, but I really can't see a way to remain accurate without treating abortion like the elephant in the corner.--Tznkai 03:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai, your response in not heated and there is no need to apologize. I have tremendous respect for the work you’re doing here. Below is my counter-argument which I would like you to consider. I am NOT going to make further edits and will instead refer to your better judgment. Also, it has not occurred to me to question your pro-life/choice credentials – this really is only about the definition in question (not politics). It may be naïve of me to hope to have a semiotic discussion about such a hot issue. In any event, I agree with you when you say that “we're using the same word” the meaning of which “depend[s] on the context.” However, the context (both synchronic and diachronic) is not something that’s at our disposal to use “to explain exactly what we mean.” In other words, some of the meaning “happens” before or regardless of our efforts to explain it. It’s independent of the context WE intend to create around it. In our example here, one of the involved parties sees and refers to itself as favorable to “Life” (“Pro-Life”). The meaning of the linguistic sign “Life” in the community of language users is intrinsically tied to its binary opposite, “Death.” We think of these two signs always and already in terms of each other (whether this is right or not is beside the point here). Thus, while it may be biologically accurate to refer to the death of a cell/organ/organism, its application here also infers the logic of one and only one side in this contentious debate. You see, my suggestions here are not political or ethical in nature; I am not trying to argue either/any of the sides and would be equally opposed to adding any language that comes from the “Choice” side of the argument. My suggestions are linguistic/semiotic in nature. Thanks again for you diligent work. Cheers. 198 --198.104.64.238 21:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I see where your argument is going, although I disagree slightly that the context gives the argument to the pro-life camp. Ultimatly though, I think the problem is we don't have a better word for cell death other than death. Using dictionary.com's thesarus we get...

afterlife, annihilation, bereavement, casualty, cessation, curtains, darkness, decease, demise, departure, destruction, dissolution, downfall, dying, end, ending, eradication, eternal rest, euthanasia, exit, expiration, extermination, extinction, fatality, finis, finish, future home, grave, grim reaper, heaven, loss, mortality, necrosis, obliteration, oblivion, paradise, parting, passing, passing over, quietus, release, repose, ruin, ruination, silence, sleep, termination, tomb, un

None of which I find particularly useful. I think a neutral presentation of facts is not a balanced view in the case of abortion. The facts give each side an advantage at certain points. The majority of abortions are elective. Fetuses die. Abortion probably helps cause depression (come on people. If having a freaking successful pregnancy causes short term depression, miscarraiges cause depression, I have no doubt an induced abortion causes depression). At the same time, rape and incest happen. Adoption programs are horrific. Abortions are done with excellent clincial standards. Ectopic pregnancies happen. All of these are pretty much the facts, each side gaining a slight advantage depending on what you're reading. We need to focus first on accuracy. To quote from WP:NPOV "The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." By avoiding partisan commentary during the bare bones facts sections of these articles, we allow people to make their own intelligent decisions. Simply by knowing information on partial birth abortion may sway people towards pro life or information on Eisenmenger's Syndrome may swing pro choice does not allow us to cherry pick facts and terms.

Ultimatly, my point can be summed up in one of my favorite phrases: Reader's Aren't Stupid.--Tznkai 16:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, kudos to you for being even-handed. I am happy to see that you seek a truly neutral presentation of the factual information about this topic. 214.13.4.151 15:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

How about "An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy not resulting in live childbirth."

Make it ""An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy, not resulting in live childbirth." I think that's the correct grammar. ;-) Daemon8666 13:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

ABC hypothesis

Generally you don't use other points (bullets) to argue against a previous bullet. Furthermore it's my position that one point should be made in the lead to clarify the status of the ABC hypothesis; not multiple points. I moved your text and replaced the previous point, but if the National Institutes of Health based their findings on the NCI workshop; then it is the NCI which should be named, not the NIH. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Having just read the artivle at http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp (linked from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) it appears that the ABC hypothesis is pretty universally rejected by the scientific community.

Certainly not the impression I got from reading the coverage in this article, which has one line quoting the NIH as dismissing the link, and implies that the issue is disputed rather more than the CJR article does.

Is there a POV problem here? Roy Badami 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes POV problems all the way around; in the article you cited. The article you read is pretty bad in its ABC coverage; and I'd point out bias isn't restricted to fringe scientists. For example this reporter could have taken heed of Carroll's advice and tried to find a scientist willing to comment. I'll take two quotes from the beginning of the article:

"Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists — only anti-abortion activists do."

Dr. Daling, who you can read about inside the ABC article (not referred to here in abortion) is a mainstream scientist.

"but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it.... Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it."

There is, Dr. Daling; and the ABC argument isn't absurd; however cheap criticism of it makes it look that way for anybody not willing to invest time in actually researching the issue. This is most aptly illustrated in the religious tolerance article on the ABC issue. [1] If you need me to point out the flaw in its premise, please ask.

And I find it humourous; since his offhand judgement of anti-abortion opinion being "absurd" confirms the liberal bias he is so concerned of avoiding in print. But as he notes later it is important for journalists to avoid reflecting the opinions "shared by the crowd he or she happens to be hanging around with." Essentially he was probably right (I'd like to see the article before trying to critique it), but its likely Gold didn't do his homework (meaning didn't consider seriously if there is an ABC link, but rather provided a simplistic political analysis of the subject, and threw in some science to justify his predetermination); but that's hardly surprising given the progressive bias of journalists which was noted in another Los Angeles Times article by David Shaw.

To put it simply this article focuses on the people and the politics, rather than the science or even the ABC issue itself. This invalidity by association is piss poor reporting regarding the ABC issue; but for the focus of the article regarding the independance of journalists; its a good article since he let Carroll explain his position... which as far as I'm concerned was pretty reasonable given journalistic bias; if one conceeds it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

KBecks, a new user, has a Question?

I see the following sentence under "surgical abortion" that doesn't appear to be accurate. D & C) is a standard gynaecological procedure performed for a variety of reasons, such as examination. I've never heard of D&C being used for a basic examination, or any kind of examination, and this information needs to be checked/clarified. My understanding of D&C is that it is used for abortion, post-miscarriage, and possibly for other unusual uterine conditions. This comment makes it sound like D&C is a routine procedure for any woman, which it is not.

Sorry about editing this page, I'm new and didn't know where to ask the question, but wanted to check this out before going in for an edit on this topic. --KBecks 03:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: New User has question -placing at bottom of page -you can click on "+" at top of page to open up new topic dialogue. I would tend to agree with you that this is not "routine," but I am merely placing your comment here at the bottom of the page in a new topic (the normal way to post) for others to see.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed addition

I removed this paragraph because the first statement is quite biased.

The right to life, which is guaranteed in many basic legal and political documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United States' Declaration of Independence, is the basis of laws against murder, and, some would argue, against abortion. Twenty-five member nations of the Organization of American States (OAS) have ratified the "American Convention on Human Rights", which the United States has signed but not ratified; this Convention states in Article 4: "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception."

This was added by 214.13.4.151 (Special:Contributions/214.13.4.151) who has a history of changing abortion articles into POV nightmares. I have no issue with the second part of this addition per se, but it needs to be relavent to the context. --Quasipalm 14:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote the abortion law section in response to Tznkai's request for a shortened summary. My goal was to pare it down to the bare bones of the subject. So, nothing that isn't directly related to the history of abortion law, or how it stands today. Tacking on additions that are more statements of someone's legal ideal (i.e. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees a right to life, which some people interpret to mean from conception, and thus abortion should be illegal) rather than statements of legal fact (i.e. abortion is illegal in Ireland and their Constitution guarantees the right to life of the unborn), seems to me unnecessary and superfluous — and POV, in the absence of an attending paragraph on the implications of various legal documents for reproductive rights. Anyone who thinks I'm trying to advance one position in favour of another via Wikipedia should see the original edit above that inspired this one (largely baseless speculations on the "anti-feminist climate" of nineteenth century medicine that might've influenced abortion laws of the time). I tried to be even-handed and show that courts around the world have reached both pro-choice (ex: Canada, America) and pro-life verdicts (ex: Ireland). Of course, I can't form a one-person consensus, so if 214 and others genuinely feel that this addition would benefit the article, then I'm sure something more NPOV and all-inclusive could be written. --Kyd 19:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Since Abortion is largley a summary article, I believe the shorter and terser the better. Any worldwide conventions that either have the power of law, or are likley to lead to a law would be relevant, but only a few sentances. Likewise, we can't speculate on what will happen in the future. The Abortion Law section should be a summary of the current status of laws, Laws In Progress (things that are widely considered likley to pass) and and other significant and recent changes. Everything else should be left to a diffrent section (IMNSHO)--Tznkai 20:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% --Quasipalm 14:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In light of the dicussion, and in accord with Tznkai's comment and Quasipalm's agreement, I will insert this shortened version which pertains to a human rights convention that has status under international law:

Twenty-four member nations of the Organization of American States (OAS) have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, which entered into force in 1978 and which the United States has signed but not ratified; this Convention states in Article 4: "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception."214.13.4.151 17:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

214, I relocated your addition to the end of the section to fit better with its new flow (discuss the history of abortion law, segue to current laws, then cover international law). Also, I added info on the Beijing Platform for Action. I don't know if either of these treaties have actual bearing on abortion law -- not just implied rights either way. Thus the text, "A number of international treaties have factored into the debate over abortion legislation." Perhaps this information would be better moved to the abortion debate section? --Kyd 01:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed PFA pending further discussion for two reasons: 1) it does not have the same status as a Convention (the PFA is more wishful political thinking and sentiments; and 2) the definitions within the PFA are controversial and not clearly defined such that it lacks clarity and its meaning continues to be debated 214.13.4.151 02:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

214's awkward, shoehorned, blatantly POV addition has been removed pending further discussion, now that 214's true colours have been revealed. 214 obviously has no vested interest whatsoever in maintaining NPOV policy and is more interested in supressing viewpoints that are counter to her own. I have attempted to be patient, fair-minded, and considerate. I've chosen to simply "show the other side" in an effort "please everyone": avoiding an edit war, yet curbing the POV nightmare that 214 seems intent upon creating. I have, in the interest of "community" and "inclusiveness," attempted to incoporate information that I believe has no bearing on the topic at hand: abortion law. It is my opinion that the OAS Convention has nothing to do with abortion, only contains an implication of a "fetal/zygotic right to life," if one chooses to selectively interpret the term "conception" in a manner that is favourable to her own view point (which, in the opinion of some, might be considered no less "controversial" than the PFA -- and "controversy" is certainly no grounds for censoring information: that, if anything, is the most egregious example of POV I've encountered yet).--Kyd 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Pleaase explain your rationale. The "right to life" from the "moment of conception" is a plain-language acknowledgement of the personhood of the human being from the moment the sperm unites with the egg. If a person (embryo or fetus according to this convention) has the right to life, she cannot be killed (aborted). Its not too difficult to see that. Not sure what your argument is. The OSA document is a Convention - which has a recognized legal status under international law as "binding" on nations that have ratified it. This is unequivocal and incontrovertible fact. Your comments indicate that you don't agree with this Convention. Fine. We all have our opinions. Another fact is that there is no document that has the force of law under international law that enshrines the right to abortion. Any document that has attempted to create such a right has caused extreme contorversy and the issue is not settled as a matter of international law. Tznkai noted (and you agreed) that any laws or binding international law could be listed - but speculative international law should not. The OSA document falls into that category - the PFA does not. What is your point - why do you insist that the PFA be added when it does not fall into Tznakai's inclusion framework that you voiced agreement for? 214.13.4.151 05:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The language isn't unambiguous enough to convince me it specifically refers to a "right to life from conception" in such a manner that abortion would be rendered illegal/immoral. Also, reading the Article on the American Convention of Human Rights, the fact that only 24/35 member nations and the fact that Trinidad and Tobago are mentioned as having pulled out of the Convention over its provisions on the death penalty would suggest to me that it isn't without controversy itself. And, as I've mentioned, controversy is hardly grounds for complaint. I'm not objecting to the presentation of this information, per se, but I specifically remember objecting to the presentation of speculations or interpretation. And it's my opinion that you're being no less "interpretive" (for want of a better term) than I. It's your interpretation of the implications of an international law for abortion versus my interpretations of another international law for abortion. So I tried to "smooth" things out, yes, because I thought just presenting the other side (even if it seemed sort of irrelevant to the topic) would make everyone happy. Call me a fool. I don't like singling people out. Also, I spent three hours researching my one paragraph addition to the abortion law section, and, from what I understood, ratification by 189 members of the U.N. means it was international law. Correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, I don't know what you mean by Tznkai's "inclusive framework," unless you're referring to this: "Any worldwide conventions that either have the power of law, or are likley to lead to a law would be relevant..." I never agreed with that outright. That was Quasipalm.--Kyd 05:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I did mistake you for Quasi. Sorry. The OSA Convention is in force and binding on ratifying nations. The PFA is not a Convention, and does not carry the weight of a Convention. Thats why it does not have the same legal force under international law. This distinction is extremely significant, legally speaking. Liekwise, legally speaking, the OSA Convention on it face grants the right to life from the moment of conception. This is, legally speaking, unequivocal language that grants personhood to the fetus and the right to not be killed. This disallows abortion. Your personal interpretation is not at issue. You seem to be grasping at straws to downplay the significance of the OSA convention. At the very lest you should be willing to admit that the OSA Convention places a burden on anyone who wishes to kill an embryo or fetus to prove that killing that embryonic or fetal person is somehow legally justifiable. 214.13.4.151 06:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's okay, we all make mistakes. I'm still looking for info on the PFA's "bindingness." FYI, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you referred to in an earlier version of your edit is nonbinding, according to the Wikipedia article on the [U.N.] (which, in my opinion, is a rather frightening consideration -- I think we can both agree on that). You seem to have shifted your footing now that you've chanced upon a technicality (binding vs. nonbinding treaties) that may or may not be to your advantage. But, in accordance with my own "3RR" (Three Response Rule), I'm not going to push this any further with you for the time being. Mostly because I'm tired, hungry, and rather worried about the safety of two of my friends. It's a pleasant distraction, I admit, but I'm finally starting to feel the stings after sticking my hand into this particular hornet's nest. The rest of you can untangle this one, I'm sure. All I ask is that, if anyone feels the need to reinsert the OSA and/or PFA info, at least stick with the flow of the article that I had laid down: "discuss the history of abortion law, segue to current laws, then cover international law." More coherant format, IMHO. --Kyd 07:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

After Tznkai's edit, I reworked the PFA info into the article again with a note that it's nonbinding. I have addressed 214's concerns and incorporated the information that she considers to be relevant to the article. It is my belief that the Beijing Platform for Action is as relevant of an example as the OSA Convention. I have an interest in portraying both sides, and, if 214 continues with the apparent action of withdrawing information she doesn't agree with on a technicality that has been duly noted and addressed, it will only be further evidence that she does not seem to have an interest in maintaining NPOV policy. Thank you. --Kyd 18:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It was agreed that editors would avoid pure speculation or interpretation of legal documents. Now, it is my opinion that we are both interpreting the OAS and PFA in such ways that they become relevant to the abortion debate, but the texts are slightly less ambiguous in their presumed relevance to "rights to life from conception" and "rights to reproductive choice." I have conceded to allow the inclusion of information on the OAS (and, conversely, PFA) only because 214 has made a point about the word "conception." An addition such the one below, which I removed, is an example of 214's constant, inexorable need to editorialize: "The right to life, which is guaranteed in many basic legal and political documents such as the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United States' Declaration of Independence, is the basis of laws against murder, and, some would argue, against abortion." Let me, as a demonstration, run this line of thought in reverse: "Security of person, which is guaranteed in Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the basis for bodily integrity, and, some would argue, the universal nature of the right to choose abortion." Because baseless, POV speculations of this nature are essentially what you're asking us to allow, isn't it? --Kyd 14:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The sentences you added are a great resolution to this issue, Tznkai. Thanks! --Kyd 14:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

World Religions

The generic information about world religions generally supporting restriction on most abortions (that is simply a fact) is extremely relevant to the poll results. Of course an expansion of those religious views is fond elswhere, but this short addition seems appropriate here. Why is it not appropriate, quasi, other than your pro-abortion leanings not liking those facts? 214.13.4.151 17:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

214, I'm pretty fine as far as the POV of your entry, but it is speculation not fact reporting. I will try to roll what you're trying to say in somewhere in the debate section.--Tznkai 20:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. 214.13.4.151 02:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Job!

Great job with the article folks, I'm very pleased with the changes as they have progressed. My 'puter 'sploded, so I'm going to be on only intermittently for the next week or so. Remember to keep the sections as terse as possible please, this is a summary article after all.

Kudos to everyone for their hard work.--Tznkai 18:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish your 'puter a speedy recovery. Did it combust spontaneously? JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope your computer is well soon, Tznkai. Thanks again for all your guidance. --Kyd 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Without your oversight of this article; I'd have another headache to deal with instead of contributing elsewhere. You the man! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)