Talk:Roe v. Wade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roe v. Wade is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Roe v. Wade appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2005.

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Featured on Template:January 22 selected anniversaries (may be in an HTML comment)

[edit] Opinion of the Court?

This article features very little on the actual majority opinion of the court. Whats the deal? Someone should update it to include that. If no one else would like to, I can. However, section V of the opinion summarizes it up nicely if someone else would like to. It's a little bit disappointing that this article doesn't have it, considering this is one of the most important recent cases in American law.

Jcp20 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is vandalised so often no one seemed to notice the actual substance of the decision was deleted. I've replaced it, but don't blink or it'll be gone! Caveat lector 00:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content Box

Just something I noticed - I was comparing the 'Roe v. Wade' page with that 'Miranda v. Arizona' to see if the formatting was the same for both supreme court cases, when I noticed that on Miranda v. Arizona the content box showed as follows:

Contents [hide] 1 Background of the case 1.1 The Legal Aid Movement 1.2 Arrest and conviction 2 The Supreme Court's decision 2.1 Harlan's dissent 3 Effects of the decision 4 Subsequent history 5 Sources and further reading 6 External links

In Roe v. Wade, the first section is called 'History of the Case'. Is there any reason these are different? A minor matter, but I just thought I'd point it out. 67.162.149.163 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plaintiff's name

The correct name of the main plantiff is "Jane Roe," not "Jane Doe" as mentioned in "Background of the case." --Nick 17:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons with Canada

''I've looked at the Abortion the US page and i'm really not sure what is better here and there...i'm going to copy the commment there too"--Marcie 23:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hello. I'm a Cannuck that has done some changes on the page. Hope you don't mind...a course i took compared the Roe vs. Wade decision to the Canadian case, and i wanted to try and add in some of what we learned which was basically that your decision came a hell of a lot earlier than ours (in terms of decriminalizing...abortions were available in Canada somewhat earlier but only under an except under the criminal code that required a lot of things...see the abortion in Canada page for info (i'm still learning to link...not quite sure how to do that one). Since the most important part of the US ruling was regarding privacy, AND since the decision regarding trimesters was based on viability there are different results. Not that it would not be impossible to write an abortion law in Canada, it just impossible politically since the last one went down on a tie in the Senate and any party that passes such a law knows they aren't going to last long (POV but on a talk page ok i think?). Probably the fact that we have a multiparty system (4 parties at the moment) AND a minority governement at the moment(2004 June) , although its the first in 25 years. While only two parties have ever been the federal government, there has been difference on which party is the opposition and the dynamics are quite different.

Also, again from a Canadian standpoint, i don't understand why the different rules from state to state regarding abortion, medicade coverage for abortion and even using city or state water is not discussed. I've read of many strange ways that the rights have been restricted in the US including clinics being denied access to the water of an area thus having to dig a well...but then they aren't allowed to use the general sewage if they get the water. I would think the fact that medicade often doesn't cover abortion would be an issue of class access, something that we are trying to address on the Canadian abortion page.

I guess these are ramifications of the law? Would there be a more appropriate spot to discuss this (and leave you alone if its the wrong spot). I did add in the effect of the trimester part of the ruling but left the rest out so i could ask, and start a discussion before just posting it up---if i've got the right spot even. Looks good though...i'm sure it was contentious to write!--Marcie 23:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV??

I've read over this page, and I'm not exactly sure that it could qualify as NPOV. Consider this one sentence in particular:

"Abortion doctors have been the targets of harrassment and even murder by pro-life zealots who claim that by taking the life of an abortion doctor they are actually saving many fetus' lifes."

Whether or not I agree with those sentiments is irrelevant; it's not NPOV, and I suspect a lot of the rest of the article isn't, either. I'm also not sure that I could rewrite this article to BE NPOV. Thanks. --Fermatprime 12:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A lot of this page is in need of re-writing for bad grammar, inaccuracy, lack of information and NPOV correction. I have hesitated to put it on my To-Do list for the Supreme Court case WikiProject because it is a very controversial decision, but it has gotten too far out of hand now. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Skyler 1534 13:52, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Intersting. I wrote the article (well the original) on doctors being shot for the Canadian page and the Roe. page. I deliberately put it under other saying it could not be the general position of the pro life movement to kill. Its stayed all right on the Canadian page...maybe people just change stuff less there. There was no mention of "zealots"...guess its a wiki thing eh?--Marcie 22:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This page is really rather biased. It would be improved if the many x say this and many Y say that could be removed. But the main problem is structure. The focus on the 'aftermath' is on attempts to overturn the legislation. Should attempts to maintain the legislation and the various movements for this also be included.

I have tried to remove some of the overt evaluative claims such as legislation to overturn X is "being tied up" in court. Perhaps specific arguments should be removed: E.g., ending the first section with a large quote from Renquist is just overt (I have removed this).

I get the feeling that this is a page that is going to flip-flop a lot between fair an balanced to balanced one way or the other, but perhaps a good faith effort could be made to keep it neutral. [From IP address 151.141.67.24 on 14:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)]

The fact is that there were not many attempts made in the wake of Roe to pass pro-choice legislation. It is also a fact that Roe v. Wade sparked a huge backlash across the country. Whether or not you agree with that backlash is irrelevent to its POV. The focus on the subsequent history is appropriate because when people speak of "Roe v. Wade" they are often referring to the subsequent controversy and not the original decision.

However, I admit the article could previously be read as biased. I have done my best to be NPOV while making the article interesting. Therefore, I have changed the name of the section to "Controversy over Roe" and included mention of Roe supporters. I think the article is quite comprehensive and well-written at this point and would like to nominate it for featured article status. NP 05:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV link removed

"RoevWade.org" is an anti-abortion advocacy site that makes numerous substantive claims that are either plainly political POV or else hotly contested. To link to it as a resource on Roe v. Wade while not providing balancing links to pro-choice resources on Roe v. Wade is manifestly a violation of NPOV. If others feel that discussions by advocates are a good resource to link, then let them add it along with pro-choice advocacy sites that discuss Roe v. Wade and the surrounding legal framework; if not, then let both be removed in favor of NPOV legal information on the decision. Radgeek 03:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article should stand by itself and neither pro nor anti links to outside fundraising/political organizations (overt or not which is why I have deleted a picture that shows a web address from the page since it was less information than subtle if unintended advocacy of one pov over another)Awotter

I think a better solution than removing the pro-Roe photo would be to balance it with a photo of protesters opposing Roe, or better yet, find a single picture that shows both sides counter-demonstrating. That would highlight the strength of the controversy, and make the article pop out more as well. Just my opinion. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major edits to "Abortion" section

I eliminated the title of "Abortion" since it really didn't make sense. The section is about a Supreme Court decision, not abortion itself.--Elizabeth 16:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The "Abortion" section under "The Supreme Court's decision" heading was overly brief and not quite correct. The decision itself was fairly lengthy and deserved more than a paragraph. I suspect the author of that section had a political bias since the dissent was also given an entire paragraph, even though it was about a tenth the size. I edited this page to put the Nov. 23 and Jan 9 discussions in chronological order. Pencil Pusher 06:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical revisionism

It should be noted that the above comment was by a know sockpuppet of a baned vandal, the vandal was baed from making extreme POV edits, see Captain Liberty (talk • contribs) and Cap. Freedom (talk • contribs) for refrence of some this users previous activity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moral Clarity (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned JoeM (talk • contribs), and therefore the comments have been removed, --SqueakBox 17:08, May 2, 2005

•°•§°•°

[edit] Catholicism and Roe v. Wade

It should be noted that all, not many, Catholics are opposed to abortion. According to the teachings of the Church, it is the killing of a human being, and if one were to deny that, one would excommunicate himself and thereby no longer be a Catholic. Harboring thoughts of infanticide is a mortal sin.

It's pretty obvious that not all self-identifying Catholics believe abortion is wrong, notwithstanding the official Vatican position, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the moment one deviates from official Church doctrine, one automatically ceases to be a Catholic, particularly considering how the Church hasn't itself actively excommunicated every Catholic who have supported abortion rights (including certain priests). See no true Scotsman. Postdlf 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I am a Catholic Son of an Irish ex nun, and I see abortion as being a bad thing, but necessary. Such swooping gereralism's are totally POV, and have no grounding. You may possibly say that "most" Catholics are opposed to abortion, though then I would like to see exact polls. I am here, however, to state that you are definitely wrong in stating "all, not many, Catholics are opposed to abortion", since I am Catholic, and I most definitely agree with Roe Vs Wade.

No offence intended, but what you mean is that you consider yourself Catholic. The Pope would disagree because of your views in this matter. Toby Douglass 10:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As for excomunication, if you were to research the subject, (as I have), you would realise that excomunication only comes under a certain number of prerequisites. None of the prerequisites include supporting abortion. The latest addition to the list does include "physically assaulting the pope", but there is nothing about abortion. I personally, would love to be excommunicated, but have been informed by my Priest, that my views alone are not enough to warrant excommunication. If I were to attack the Pope for example, I could be, but my views alone are not enough. Indeed, if abortion were enough to warrant excommunication, then merely wearing a condom would be enough, which would automatically excommunicate 99% of the worlds Catholics.

Why would abortion ever be necessary? And why would anyone want to be excommunicated (sheesh)? Doesn't excommunication mean you can't receive the sacraments? Hence wearing a condom (a sin since sex can't be separated from its reproductive, marriage-related purpose, and people shouldn't be treated as objects) does not mean you can't go to confession since the Church doesn't hold anything to be unforgiveable. Even formal excommunication (which is extremely rare, BTW) can be undone.

P.S. Supposedly, you used to have to get the Bishop to pardon an abortion, but that requirement has been lifted and passed to the general priests because of the exponential growth of its use (yuk). Armslurp 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Inviolability" or "personhood" of the fetus

I changed the phrase "religious groups who believed very strongly in the inviolability of the fetus" to "religious groups who believed very strongly in the personhood of the fetus." Elizabeyth changed it back: [1], citing NPOV.

Why is this a NPOV problem? I'm not asserting anything about the personhood of the fetus. I'm simply trying to clarify what those religious groups actually believe. They believe that a fetus is a human being and should be entitled to the same rights and protections as any other human being. I believe using the word "inviolability" obfuscates what these groups believe.

Since my edit was not actually a POV problem, being properly contextualized and also being a true and accurate representation of what those religious groups believe, I am going to make the change again. I'll watch here on the talk page to see if anyone wants to point out an actual POV problem with the wording. Jdavidb 14:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV (or, as I typed it, "NVOP") summary was an error. I was going to rework something else, then decided to take this change first.

First of all, in all honesty, I just don't like the word "personhood". It's one of those forced words created to satisfy political correctness, and it just jumps out at you when you read it.

According to Wikipedia, "In philosophy, there have been debates over the precise meaning and correct usage of the word, and what the criteria for personhood are." That's in the article I linked to from the word personhood. Maybe you feel that the word has been crafted, but it's the word commonly in use. Wikipedia even has an article on Great ape personhood. This is in no way a word made up solely for the abortion debate. Jdavidb 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, I disagree that your characterization is a true and accurate representation of the beliefs of every religious group that opposes abortion. I find it hard to believe that they all think it's a "person"; it's a potential human life, but I can't imagine anyone successfully arguing that anything the size of a lentil is a person.

Please note Elizabeyth's argument; she "can't imagine" something, so therefore it must be false. If she is truly so incapable of dispassionate thought, she ought not to contribute to this article.

I think it's fairer to say that they all would agree it is inviolable; that is, it just shouldn't be messed with. "Inviolability" is a broader term and hence more accurate. Plus, the definition of "person" is a major point in the decision and its use here is confusing.

Note Elizabeyth's failure to understand that this is not an argument about legalistic word choice; it is a discussion about whether a group's views are represented correctly. I don't believe there is any significant element of "choice" involved in elective abortion; does this therefore mean that, like Elizabeyth, I can expunge the use of that word with respect to the so-called "pro-choice" groups? The hypocritical double-standard is breathtaking.

Would you consider "humanity" of the fetus? Elizabeyth 00:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why does your ability to imagine anyone successfully using the argument interfere with Wikipedia's need to report that people do use that argument? If you'll survey the pro-life literature, pretty much everyone is arguing for the personhood of the fetus, either from religious or scientific evidence. I'd say the burden is on you to find any evidence of a pro-lifer who argues in any other way. Personhood is the word nearly always used.

I don't think the word "inviolability" works as well in that sentence. Just saying they believe the fetus to be inviolable doesn't say why they believe that. Explaining they believe the fetus to be a person explains why.

I don't think it's confusing at all to use the term personhood there explaining in context that that's what many religious people say.

The word "humanity" would work, but the most commonly used word is "personhood." Why not report the arguments that people actually use? Jdavidb 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Inviolable doesn't mean shouldn't be messed with, it means can't be messed with. Clearly, that is not the case. The word you are looking for is sanctity.

Pencil Pusher 17:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so defensive of a single word. I have no counterargument. I just personally think it's not great writing. But hey, if it's what the religious groups use, then more power to them. Elizabeyth 21:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That must be it, Elizabeyth. It has nothing to do with representing the views of those who hold them; it's all about anal retentivity over the choice of a single word. I'm sure you have no such hangups. Pro-lifers are free to change every reference to "pro-choice" into "baby-killer", and you'll be perfectly okay with that.

As you are clearly incapable of taking a NPOV on this topic, you really ought to refrain from making any edits to it.

[edit] banned or significantly restricted in 46 states

I'd like to know what others think of this line from the article. The style guide Words to avoid advices to avoid representing statistics this way. I personally want to know how many states banned the practice altogether. Abortion in the United States says that 31 states allowed abortion to protect the mother's life only, 13 states had laws similar to Colorado's which was fairly liberal, and 2 more allowed abortion in limited instances. So, according to that article 46 states just restricted the practice. Where was it banned? --24.18.211.95 07:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree mostly with your point, I wouldn't call Colorado's laws fairly liberal. The Washington DC laws may have effectively been fairly liberal but the other laws were fairly restrictive from what I can tell Nil Einne 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "When life begins"

A phrase I've seen repeatedly in abortion discussions, and again in this article, is "when life begins" and variations thereof, as in "hotly debate when life actually begins". The phrase, in its various forms, seems to me to mean something quite different from what the authors are trying to convey. IMHO its poor use of language.

"When life begins" is an issue of ancient history, not contemporary conception. Life began in the magical moment of abiogenesis that preceded the lengthy evolutionary chain of events that led to us - or when a supernatural entity placed the first biengs on this earth, if that is more in line with your religious beliefs.

Its self evident that a sperm cell is alive, as is an egg. Thus, every stage of reproduction, including those prior to conception, is a part of the continuum of life stretching back to the first organisms.

What the authors of such phrases clearly wish to examine or comment on is when "personhood" or "humanity" begins. This is clear from the context of the phrase as used in the article. This concept is not at all the same as when "life" begins. If the language of the article reflects the actual language used by the US Supreme Court, I'm surprised that such an elevated group of erudite individuals would be so inarticulate. farrenh 01:10, 8 October 2005 (GMT+2)

Yes I agree. As a biologist, I always find it funny when people talk about when life begins. As for the question of personhood, I'm reminded of the words of a professor. Specifically how exactly abortion opponents who consider the single celled embryo formed upon fusion of the sperm and an egg a unique person the same as you and me explain what happens when the embryo splits giving rise to twins. Are these still a single unique person? Nil Einne 17:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I never thought of it that way.But since they share the same ginetics and things , in a way there are don't you think??? 3:26 PM Monday November 6th 2006 °•°§•°• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.104.69 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

You're equivocating on the meaning of the word "life" here. By that logic, saying that "life ends at brain death" would be just as nonsensical, since many of the body's cells are still alive at that point. Roughly speaking, "life" can mean either "the state of being alive" or "the period of existence of a living organism". Since the product of conception is clearly a different organism from the sperm and ovum, its "life" (in the second sense of the word) begins at conception. Miraculouschaos 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over abortion

Are there any thoughts over the final two sentences in the first paragraph of this section? (That is, the part starting "Some abortion opponents have claimed that there exists a link between abortion and breast cancer...") To me it seems to inappropriately highlight controversial claims of one side without providing any counterbalance or even a mention of the fact that these claims are not generally accepted. I hesitate to insert qualifying statements myself if someone out there with more competence to evaluate competing medical claims wants to make a stab at it. David 08:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about making the following edit to the sentence. In addition to the subtle slant about breast cancer that I see, the sentence itself is awfully cumbersome and too long, in my opinion.

Some abortion opponents have claimed that there exists a link between abortion and breast cancer, and Texas has enacted a law requiring literature advancing this theory be distributed to women considering abortion. However, the National Cancer Institute (a division of the U.S. National Institutes of Health) advises that the available medical research does not support this conclusion at this time [2]. More credibly abortion has been linked to some psychological problems and to a higher risk of future infertility [3].

I'm kind of new to this, so I'm not sure about the advisability of in-line external links. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm completely open before I make the edits. David 05:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes since there seemed to be activity on the page, and there were no objections to the above text. The only changes I made to the above were very minor or were made to retain the existing Wiki links in the text. David 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Upon vs. as early as

I'm inclined to change back the edits made by 128.187.179.214. While all parties participating in the debate might be characterized as believing that life begins "as early as" conception, the sentence as it currently stands refers specifically to the Pro-Life position. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of this group believes instead that life begins upon conception. I can try to dig up cites for this if there's any feeling that this is not the case. I'll hold off making the relevant changes until tomorrow evening to see if there's any community dissent. Thanks David 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "fetal life" to "fetal human life"

This is a necessary clarification given the definition of "fetus". Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with allowing the abortion of fetal canine life or fetal bovine life, rather only fetal human life. Nor does the pro-life community concern itself with protecting the "fetal life" of any mammals other than humans. Hence the clarification. This is about as NPOV as can get, given that the unnecessarily latinized term "fetal" seems to be a must-have to those favoring choice in regard to abortion. -- Chris 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your modifcation, you seem to be missing the point. The fetus is a common medical and scientific term used all the time. It is not some odd latin term. The word is important (as is the word human) because we are talking about a fetus here. Nil Einne 17:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roe's role in subsequent decisions and politics

The use of 'explicitly' as applied to the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenhood v. Casey struck me oddly. I checked the definition:

1: Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. 2: Fully and clearly defined or formulated: “generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit”(www.dictionary.com)

1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films> 2 : fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective> 3 : unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave> (Merriam-Webster, www.m-w.com)

In this instances, and based on Wikipedia's own page on PP v. Casey, I don't think Roe was 'explicitly upheld' in that decisions. Barring objections, I've removed it.

[edit] Updates since the Alito Confirmation

I made a small change to eliminate what I perceived as a bit of bias. The sentence that once read:

"With the changes to the Supreme Court that have occurred recently (the death of William Rehnquist in 2005, the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, and their replacement on the Court by John Roberts and Samuel Alito respectively in 2005 and 2006), it remains to be seen whether the current interpretation of Roe will hold much longer."

Now reads: "...it remains to be seen whether the current interpretation of Roe will continue to hold." The original structure seems to imply that the Roe decision is close to being overturned and, more subtly, that it should be overturned. I believe my revision is more objective. ---Bryan Jones

Isn't it axiomatic that all supreme court decision are subject to review and at risk of being overturned by some future court? So if this paragraph is going to be a mini-civics lesson, maybe it should be more timeless, something like: "Roe, like all Supreme Court decisions, will always be periodically revisited with the possibility of being overturned. As the personality of the court changes over time, it remains to be seem whether the current interpretations in all decisions will continue to hold." --JJLatWiki 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] partial-birth abortion - impacted

I was horriffied when I found out what partial-birth abortion meant. And now, I am really glad that case Roe v. Wade affected that case. (Add your opinions)

[edit] Dissenting opinions

For all the controversy over this page no analysis appears to be given to the dissenting opinions. Surely the point of an encyclopedic article is not just to quote the text of a decision! Caveat lector 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I once read that Justice Ginsburg considered Roe v Wade to be bad law. Seeing as how she is a strong supporter of abortion rights and would not seek to overturn the decision, I've been fascinated by this. Her opinions would be pretty obviously unbiased, seeing as how she is criticizing something she believes in, or at least would present a far more unbiased opinion than those who find abortion personally repugnant. I came to this article looking for some of the more reasoned and objective constitutional objections to Roe v Wade and came away disappointed. The bits about there being nothing specific in the constitution about it doesn't satisfy me. I'd like to learn about the specific arguments brought by each side of the case and why objective thinkers feel the state's case was the stronger.

[edit] Wade

As someone who had never known the intracacies of this case, I looked to this article for the details. However, I find it disturbing that after reading through the "History of case" section, just who Wade is is unclear. I had to go to the side info box to even find a wiki-link to read about him. However, even that article doesn't make it overly clear what his role was in the case. After using Wikipedia for over a year, this is the first time where it looks like I will have to go elsewhere to research the subject. Quite disappointing. JPG-GR 05:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Wars

I reverted the entire article bacj to a version from Nov 29th today (December 2), because in a series of edit wars where folks diligently tried to revert delet vandalism, several sections were lost. I don't believe I removed any legitimate edits, but if I have, let's get them back in and keep this article stable? Brad 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link

I removed the following broken link:

The Logical Shambles of Roe v. Wade, A Critical Analysis

Brad 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing in bias is useless, crass, and damaging to your argument.

I noticed recently that someone replaced "ruling that the right to abortion" with "ruling that the you are are dumb whore." I hardly need to examine the idiocy of trying to justify one's beliefs by temporarily cheapening an encylopedia. I write this only because I could find no other way to bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia authorities. I would have simply edited the selection back, but when I went to the "edit" page, I found it had the correct wording. Some assistance, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.184.128 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] By the way...

Whether you think people who have abortions are dumb whores doesn't matter to anybody. If this case is overturned, abortion will not end. Like prohibition and the war on drugs, practically all of the money spent on their prohibition will wind up raising the incentives of organized crime. Call Pro-choice people dumb whores, but I'll be damned if my tax dollars should encourage criminals to perform abortions in back alleys with coat hangers-- especially when the money could have been spent on educating teenagers about responsible contraception in the first place. Nobody--not George Bush, not the Supreme Court, not Tom DeLay-- can stop women from wanting abortions. Doctors will continue to perform them, and in the end everyone will be forced to learn all over again that prohibitions don't work. Get a clue. You don't understand the controversy at all. You're just a dumb whore yourself. At least my opinion is educated and has not been purchased by church money. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.184.128 (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] section on liberal criticism of Roe vs. Wade

First of all, someone remove the above "edit." It makes a mockery of wikipedia's attempts at un-biased information and is generally unhelpful. Secondly, I found the section on Ginsburg and other liberals' criticisms of the Roe decision to be very interesting but worded somewhat sneakily:

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and other liberals such as Massachusetts congressman John F. Tierney and editorial writer Michael Kinsley, have criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade as terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which they contend might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."

The obvious area of concern is the section "terminating a nascent" because this wording is so closely tied with the actual act of abortion. This wording could have various negative effects on the neutrality of the article and seems unnecessary, perhaps even employed as a rhetorical device. I would change the wording myself but because it is possible that Ginsburg, other noted individuals and many liberals in general have used similar wording in their disapproval of the Court's decision, that is, the type of wording that creates a connection between the act of abortion and the act of abandonment of a democratic movement, my assertion that "terminating a nascent" is creating a bias might not be entirely true as it could very well be the type of phrase used by these specific advocates. It's even possible this wording was used by accident and with no intended bias or reference to the act of abortion.

If anyone wants to find out more about this and make the appropriate edit, that would be great. If I find the time I'll invest a little energy into it as well.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/e/Talk%7ERoe_v._Wade_b746.html"