Talk:Minors and abortion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
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. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
|||
| Archives | |||
|
|||
| About archives • Edit this box |
Contents |
[edit] Heritage Foundation and interstate travel
The Heritage Foundation did not find that minors seeking abortion did not travel out of state, therefore the argument still stands. The argument may not be as affective, but we don't make any positive claim regarding interstate travel and abortion rate. We just state that one argument used against the laws is that some women will travel out of state for an abortion. Seems simple enough? The edits are problematic because it is inserting text that is not an argument against in the argument against section. I believe the recent edits have addressed the concerns raised by the study, but I'm glad to discuss any further issues with this section.-Andrew c 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Problematic study
An anonymous editor has inserted information from a problematic study into this article. The anon has presented the findings of this study as the "mortality rate" for abortion, when, in fact, the study did not examine deaths that were directly caused by medical complications related to an abortion procedure. It simply compared the death rates for women who'd had an abortion, miscarriage, or given birth, but died for other reasons. Thus, these data cannot be used to represent the death rate of abortion, because the study did not tabulate deaths that were the result of abortion-related medical complications (and, thus, deaths that were directly caused by abortion). This issue has been discussed before at Talk:Abortion/Archive 25 and Talk:Abortion/Archive 20. -Severa (!!!) 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
RESPONSE --- In deleting this material citing peer reviewed studies, Severa and other censors who have wholesale removed citations I've supplied to peer reviewed studis are simply trying to prevent advocates of parental notice from putting forward their own evidence and arguments case for why they favor parental notice. The argument against parental notice claiming that notifcation delays abortion which increases the risk of death relies on far more problematic claims and "evidence."
Severa also miscontrues the study, which if he or she actually read the whole study, not just the abstract, examines the "preganancy associated mortality rates" as defined by US and international standards and is less subject to bias and misjudgement because it based on a record based analysis not just the "best guess" of the doctor filling out the death certificate.
For a thorough review of the literature on deaths associated with abortion and limits and misinformation involved in publcations related to this issue, see Deaths associated with abortion compared to childbirth: a review of new and old data and the medical and legal implications. Reardon DC, Strahan TW, Thorp JM, Shuping MW. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy. 2004; 20(2):279-327.
I could add even more studies showing that abortion is associated with higher death rates, including one published in the British Medical Journal showing that looked at rates of suicide attempts both before the pregnancy and after the pregnancy. Before the pregnancy, there was no significant difference between the two groups, but after the pregnancy those who had abortions had an elevated rate of sucide attempts compared to those who allowed the pregnancy to follow a natural course.
If there was something "problematic" about this study or other studies cited in the arguments for parental notice, they would not have been accepted in a top journals. What are the credentials of the anonymous "Severa" that give him or her more expertise in this area than Gissler, Reardon, and others? And by what right does Severa or others presume to censor the position put forward by parental notice advocates for their own position? Why the need to edit out our citations, arguments? Are you afraid your arguments won't look as good if we are given a fair opportunity to present our arguments?
Isn't it terribly ironic that abortion proponents say (1) teens should be able to have abortions without parent notice or consent because there are no signficant health risks of abortion, then, as put forward in the argument against parental notice (2) "Delaying an abortion even if only by a couple of days, increases the likelihood of complications.." So let's hurry it up and not waste time on gathering facts, options, and the involvement of parents?! Either there are not risks or there are risks. You can't have it both ways. If there is ANY danger at all, shouldn't parents be involved in weighing those risks....and also in questioning the abortion counselor since it is at least arguable that the counselor will be as biased as Severa and decide not to otherwise tell the girl about studies he or she dismisses as "problematic" and not worth of consideration?
Ask any of the post-abortion groups, whatever their political leanings, and you will learn that women who have actually had abortions -- perhaps especially when they were teens -- overwhelmingly report that the information they were given before hand was incomplete and biased toward an understatement of the emotional effects of abortion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.229.63 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 June 2007.
- First things first, please sign all comments you make on talk pages. You do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This way, everyone can keep track of who is saying what (also, indenting replies helps, you do this by typing a colon for each indent. try typing two colons before your next reply to indent twice under my reply). Next, wikipedia does not allow personal attacks on other editors, and we try to always assume good faith. This helps dialogs stay civil and friendly. Calling another editor biased or accusing others of censorship are serious accusations, and shouldn't be taken lightly. Next, you are obviously passionate about this topic, and sometimes personal passion can get in the way with neutral articles, and productive talk page discussions. A talk page should not be the place to argue specific positions. For example, we shouldn't be talking about the merits or weaknesses of parental notification legislation. We should be discussing how to improve the article.
- Now, onto your specific changes to the article. I believe you are using original research when you are citing these studies. The conclusions of these studies are not "There should be laws that make parents be involved in their minor child's abortion decision". You are not citing a source that says these are reasons for parental notification laws, therefore a reader will not be able to verify that these arguments are used in support for such legislation. While it may be true that abortion increases suicide rates, we don't have any source that related that statistic to parental notification. Connecting the dots like that is considered original research, and forbidden on wikipedia. So before we get into the meat of these studies themselves, can you find a source that actually related them to notification laws? Hope this helps.-Andrew c 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) 69.149.229.63, I'd ask you to please assume good faith before you characterise edits by other users as "vandalism" and "censorship." You have made only two edits, both to this article, so I will assume that you are new to Wikipedia and might not be familiar with some things yet. All content on Wikipedia must adhere to the standards set in policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V. Proposing an idea for an article on that article's Talk page is always a good idea, as this allows other users to comment and build consensus over what to do, and helps to prevent unproductive edit-warring. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum, so it is not the place for "advocates of parental notice to put forward their own evidence and arguments for why they favor parental notice." None of the studies added actually suggest suicide or mortality risk as a reason for parental notification. So, using these studies, which do not address parental notification, to support claims about parental notification is original research. A source would need to suggest, explicitly, that there should be parental notification for these reasons for it to be used to support these points in the article. -Severa (!!!) 22:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
