Category talk:Abortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page.
Category This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Category This article has been rated as Cat-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Politician categories

Should there be a third category, Category:Politicans with no clear abortion position? Some have differing personal views and politican records (i.e. personally pro-choice but votes pro-life due to local pressure, partially supportive - i.e. first trimester - but opposes PBA, in favor of referenda, etc.)? CrazyC83 04:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subcategory status

This is listed as a "subcategory" under Category:Birth Control. Recommend removing subcategory status, as abortion isn't (or shouldn't be) used as birth control. --Micahbrwn 14:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anonymous edits

someone keeps adding the abortion category to categories like "death" and "human rights abuses", and if those things are removed, they revert them back.

{{Editprotected}}.If you are seeking to have the category protected, go to WP:RFPP. Editprotected is for pages that are already protected. CMummert · talk 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Abortion does belong in the Death category because abortion is the death of a fetus, a human organism. There is no reason to leave abortion out of the death category unless you wish to hide the truth. 75.3.41.234 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View Policy. Putting abortion in the death category is a violation of that policy, as it is a controversial issue and not agreed upon, nor is it neutral.QuizzicalBee 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be factual, though. Why not remove murder from the death category? Some people might not agree that murder is death. So wikipedia does not have a neutral point on view on murder or capital punishment when it comes to death. Abortion is death, that's a fact, and wikipedia should not leave out facts just because there are a few ignorant people out there that refuse to recognize them. 75.3.41.234 04:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Your argument is incoherent. Saying that murder is death is obvious and universally agreed upon, not controversial. Pretending you don't know how controversial abortion, or that it's only "a few ignorant people" who feel differently from you is is simply disingenous. You are not allowed to revert edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You will be blocked if you do it again. QuizzicalBee 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be put in the Human rights abuses category as it does abuse the right to life. You cannot claim that it doesn't belong there because it is controversial, because everything in that category is controversial. Not putting abortion in the human rights abuses category would be siding with the pro abortion side. 75.3.41.234 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

by that argument, then anybody could consider anything to be a human rights abuse. But abortion is by no means considered as such except by a small minority of the world's population. None of the major human rights organizations consider it to be so. So there are not sufficient grounds. It is, however, in the "core issues in ethics" category, because there is sufficient debate about it ethically.QuizzicalBee 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a very narrow-minded view of the world. It's not just the United States and Canada on Earth. 75.3.41.234 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there was a time when a only a small minority thought slavery was a human rights abuse. That doesn't mean that it wasn't actually an abuse of human rights, and the same can be said for abortion. 75.3.41.234 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. As long as there has been a concept of human rights (i.e. since the Enlightenment), there has been a widespread belief that slavery was a violation of that right. The same cannot be said of abortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuizzicalBee (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

You are incorrect. Abortion has always been apart of the concept of what is a violation of human rights because abortion is killing. Abortion is the intentional killing of another human being. Abortion, like capital punishment, is legalized murder. We have also made advancements in the study of biology, where we are now able to know when life begins. Anti-life groups try to hide these biological facts and promote ignorance to get people to accept the violent and inhumane act of abortion. Any argument you make for abortion also applies to killing because it's the same thing. 75.3.41.234 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Something similar to this came up at Talk:Abortion in December of 2006 when a user added the article Abortion to Category:Causes of death. This was objected to by myself and other users (see Talk:Abortion, Archive 26). Although we aim to be inclusive of all perspectives when covering an issue of controversy, like abortion, under NPOV, we do not — moreover, cannot — take sides. Abortion-related articles must be written neutrally, not to conform with any personal perspective, be it pro-choice, pro-life, or middle of the road.
But a category is not an article. WP:CAT states, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." A category, by its very nature, cannot accommodate all the nuances of the abortion debate, so it shouldn't even try. That is the function of articles. Thus, sorting this category into Category:Death strikes me as rather POINT-ish, and Wikipedia is not a place to promote a particular point of view. It would not be appropriate to sort Category:Abortion into Category:Death under the policies I have mentioned (WP:CAT, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, and WP:NOT). -Severa (!!!) 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Severa, it seems more like Wikipedia is not a place to promote facts which conflict with your particular point of view. 75.3.41.234 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus. It is the established consensus of many editors that the abortion category does not belong inside death categories. While consensus can change, an editor seeking to sway opinions would need to offer reasoned arguments, not just state their disagreement with current policies. Lyrl Talk C 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia treats topics relating to death as a matter of opinion, then any death category should be deleted because claiming anything as death would be promoting a point of view. 75.3.41.234 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)