Talk:Abortion debate/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

POV overemphasis of violence.

According to statistics documented here: https://www.prochoice.org/documents/Stats_Table.pdf from the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 8 murders (17 attempted), 426 death threats, 198 incidents of assault or battery, and 4 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.

That's a 35 year time scale. To give the yearly abortion-industry statistics, that's about:

• A dozen death threats
• 5 or 6 assaults/batteries
• 0.2 murders (0.5 attempted)
• 0.1 attempted kidnappings

(As an aside, a dozen death threats a year puts it at a level of political importance equivalent to: the ruling Republicans of Wisconsin during Gov. Walker's controversial 2011 budget bill; various employees of AIG during the AIG bonus payments controversy; to Dennis Stinchcombe, who removed a Banksy artwork from a wall; and to British soccer players like David Beckham and Michael Owen.) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262428/death-threats-dozens-wisconsin-deroy-murdock http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/apr/16/man-removed-banksy-issued-death-threats http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-259443/Owens-dozens-death-threats.html

To compare that with all totals, the FBI lists here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10 ...that in 2011, there were 1481 instances where someone murdered a complete stranger, and 5588 instances where the relationship between killer and victim was "unknown." Assuming that 2011 was representative year for random killings (which is probably false, because as I mentioned before, crime has been down recently) that still gives us that ~0.013% of random murders are inspired to any degree by the actual abortion debate. (And we don't know how many of the people supposedly killing "against abortion" are actually killing due to undiagnosed cases of mental illness, etc.)

In any case, the statistics cited above are skewed by the fact, documented on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime ...that the period from 1977 to ~1993 was significantly more violent than the past decade and a half. For example, since 2001, in the past thirteen years, there has been exactly one abortion related murder.

That fact is crucially relevant to the notion of "anti-abortion violence" as a coherent phenomenon separable from other types of violence. According to the violence statistics above, together with a Gallup poll published here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx ...the period from ~1993 to today saw a drastic decrease in the amount of anti-abortion violence go hand-in-hand with a slight increase in the amount of anti-abortion sentiment. Around 1993, about 30% of Americans said they thought abortion should be legal "under any circumstances;" two decades later, that number is around 25%. The equivalent numbers for people who think abortion should be illegal "under any circumstances" is equivalent, from ~15% in 1993 to ~20% in 2013.

In my mind, this provides evidence against the notion that anti-abortion violence is actually or primarily tied to anti-abortion sentiment; if it were, an increase in such sentiment should result in higher rates of specifically anti-abortion violence.

Now, if you don't agree with me that this makes anti-abortion violence "non-notable" in the sense that it shouldn't even have a Wikipedia article at all, then so be it. But I'm definitely thinking that it's a bit of a POV-slant to have the first paragraph of the article on the abortion debate end with an underhanded AND UNSOURCED suggestion that people against abortion are notably willing to kill for their beliefs. The numbers I've cited above just don't support that conclusion; Freud would wonder whether the pro-choice movement might not be projecting a bit.

I know this issue is "controversial," but that's no excuse to let sloppy points of view get away with sticking to the facts. If anything, it makes such lenience all the more inexcusable for a supposedly-objective encyclopedia. And even if we think abortion violence is notable in an academic sense, I would argue that it is irrelevant to the subject addressed here, public discourse regarding abortion. This page should be an objective and encyclopedic description of the way two sides have attempted to shape public opinion; it should not be a general litany of controversial events and individuals that had relation to abortion (unlike the page to which I previously linked).

Accordingly, I'm just giving everyone a heads up that I'm deleting the phrase "with some anti-abortion advocates even going as far as using violence." Anyone who wants to say that violence is a notable facet of the anti-abortion movement can dispute me here.SvenTheBold (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your removal was in line with the WP:LEAD guideline which says that the lead section should contain a summary of article information. There is nothing in the body of the article about violence.

However, your long argument here ignores the fact that the reliable sources give a lot of attention to anti-abortion violence, how even a few instances of such violence makes for a fearful atmosphere, and how pro-choice violence is virtually absent in comparison. If the body of the article discussed violence (and it certainly could), then the lead section would summarize it. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your calculation of how unimportant is anti-abortion violence is sheer original research, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Instead, you should look to reliable sources commenting on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice that I was explicitly not suggesting that violence is not committed in the name of anti-abortion activism. Nor am I suggesting it's culturally unimportant; that'd indeed be a stupid claim. What I'm merely claiming is that I have seen no statistically significant correlation shown between such violence and times of higher anti-abortion belief. Nor have I seen any other evidence to any such effect has been presented to give any kind of credence to the very classification of anti-abortion violence as a separate and distinct phenomenon from the general violence of everyday society. Show me from among the references here where anyone gives any evidence for the notion that anti-abortion violence is anything more than the interaction between the usual violent tendencies of society and the specific controversy of abortion. You do indeed see quite clearly that anti-abortion violence exists, in greater or lesser numbers as correlated strongly with total violence; but you do not see it acting as if it were distinct from general violence.

Wikipedia does not have a page devoted to violence against soccer players, despite the numerous death threats and other threatening language used to describe players that make bad decisions or perform poorly on the field. The only reason death threats against abortionists get a page here is because of the uniquely aggressive cultural experience surrounding abortion providers and their supporters, in particular regarding and attacking the frequent picketing from people who believe murder is happening inside the building. I agree wholeheartedly that abortionists who encounter the violent tendencies of society directed at them are indeed highly intimidated by those actions; but unless "anti-abortion violence" can be shown to be a distinct phenomenon from everyday violent tendencies, the article should be titled something along the lines of "effects of violence on pro-choice culture" or something else showing this to be an analysis of a cultural experience, instead of a unique and independent cultural phenomenon.

Is this original research to say so? Maybe, but since the offending phrase was unsourced anyway, as is your current assertion that "reliable sources give a lot of attention to anti-abortion violence," I'll assume that we're not being too concerned about consensus and non-consensus here. When choosing between competing forms of original research activism (which any edit on a controversial page is liable to come down to) it seems prudent to choose the original research that at least has a few decent statistics with which to back itself up. It's not policy, but it is practicality. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Oh, and you want some examples of pro-choice violence?

Assault: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCHURyVuJTI Notice the comment by Michael Benny below the video: "+Rhology, you people are pathetic. I hope one day someone brings an aborted fetus out of a clinic and urinates all over it in front of you morons." Michael Benny doesn't seem to be any more caring or more sensitive towards a difficult life choice than the folks picketing the abortion center.

But then again, tensions can run high when people picket at abortion clinics. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/the-left-reveals-an-ugly-face-in-antiabortion-rally/story-fni0ffxg-1226739222330

... or on random roadsides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0SdRfVVlz8

Again, tensions can run high at rallies, explaining why this abortion doctor pulled a gun at a peaceful anti-abortion rally in Tennessee. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20101003/PC1602/310039951

75-year old pro-choice Wisconsin pastor Anne Gordon was murdered by her step-grandson when she refused to give the kid abortion money. http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/12628596.html

Hey, look! This one has its own Wikipedia page! http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-pouillon-anti-abortion-activist-murdered-in-front-of-school/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jim_Pouillon

Pro-choicer allegedly attempts to run over pro-lifers at a protest, then allegedly tries to kill his wife. He was in jail as of the article's posting; sorry, though, couldn't find a court verdict for you. http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/801712.html

Pro-choicer Theodore Shulman was arrested and charged with making interstate threats. "This is a huge relief to us that Ted Shulman is behind bars where he belongs," Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, a prominent anti-abortion organization, said in a story on the group's website. "He often posted threatening comments to our website and called me on my cell phone too many times to count." http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/26/pro-choice-extremist-reportedly-arrested-by-fbi-for-threats-to-p/ He later pled guilty to making death threats against the pro-lifers. http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2012/manhattan-man-pleads-guilty-in-manhattan-federal-court-to-illegally-threatening-pro-life-advocates

Given that the bulk of the "indicents" from the NAF involve "butyric acid attacks" (stink bombs), and "disruptions" like hate mail, I might as well include a few instances of threatening language, property damage, and the like. This article pertains to Students For Life of America, a secular organization nevertheless told in no uncertain terms by an unnamed man (in a video also documented below) that its goals were "in conflict with the world that I want, which is a world where all your churches burn." http://www.christianpost.com/news/i-want-your-churches-to-burn-comment-cross-vandalism-at-pro-life-events-increasingly-common-says-pro-life-student-group-105814/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJbwbOqqGXQ&list=UUfkzsfj7Go1Q_kRFZmJptsw

Speaking of churches, here's a pro-life sign vandalized at a church in Ohio... http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-geauga/vandals-destory-pro-life-display-outside-geauga-county-church

...and one in Pennsylvania... http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/02/a-disturbing-trend-of-vandalism-to.html

... and one in North Carolina... http://catholicnewsherald.com/schools/53-news/roknewspager-local/1286--pro-life-display-at-st-vincent-de-paul-vandalized-

... and one in Iowa... http://www.enterprisepub.com/movalley/news/pro-life-sign-vandalized-at-st-patrick-s-catholic-church/article_b250f7fa-9b0c-11e3-baaa-001a4bcf6878.html

Pro-life-ness gets vandalized at the University of Miami, too... http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/17241/

...and at the home of Joe Schidler, who was told in a note sent by brick through his window that "We [pro-choice activists] are crazy feminist bi***es who will destroy your sexist ideas" http://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=39416

Here, we see an example of rancid, rabid, vitriolic pro-life hate speech against women: the phrase "Abortion hurts women." How vile. http://www.christianpost.com/news/pro-life-banners-in-san-francisco-stir-controversy-dubbed-hate-speech-112873/

The statistics increase markedly if you include cases where women are killed for refusing to abort their children. Doubtless many of these cases are not an explicit ideological battle fueled by ideological differences between the two parties; but since perhaps the greatest travesty of anti-abortion violence is the cultural effect that women feel unsafe in making their own choices, I think it's perfectly relevant to note cases where violence causes the cultural effect that women feel unsafe in making their own choices, for the polar opposite reason.

Examples of men who killed or tried to kill women who refused to abort include:

Is this original research? Oh, sure, why not? But my point is this: if you want to make claims like "pro-choice violence is virtually absent in comparison," feel free to back 'em up.

SvenTheBold (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah right, because wanting to control women's reproduction is totally the opposite of the anti-abortion movement's goals. Look, you're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, so I won't waste much time on this; I'm just going to revert you because your personal feelings about statistics aren't relevant, while the sources' discussion of anti-abortion violence as a phenomenon are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Citing the fact that US government records that one abortionist is murdered approximately every ten years, and then disputing the notion that one-pro-life murderer every ten years can be accurately described as "some" pro-lifers... that definitely means that I was intending to do something other than build an encyclopedia.

Read this statement of mine again: "[S]ince perhaps the greatest travesty of anti-abortion violence is the cultural effect that women feel unsafe in making their own choices, I think it's perfectly relevant to note cases where violence causes the cultural effect that women feel unsafe in making their own choices, for the polar opposite reason."

...and then tell me what part you disagree with. You were the one to bring up my supposed political opinions, so tell me which part makes you think I'm even pro-life. Is it the fact that I think anyone can be a murderer, irrespective of their political opinions? Or is it the fact that I therefore reject the notion that pro-lifers are fundamentally different from / more violent than pro-choicers? Or is it the fact that I dared suggest that abortion is used to discriminate against women by preventing their birth? (Because Wikipedia has found that to be a notable fact. Excerpt from the second link: Ross Douthat claims over 160 million females are "missing" because of ultrasound screening followed by sex-selective abortion. Guilmoto claims about 40 million females are missing from Asia, Caucasus and Europe.)

What I tried to do in my prior lengthy post is bring attention to the fact that abortion-related violence is neither a unique thing, nor restricted to only one side of this debate. I was sarcastic in my tone, yes. You didn't like my sarcasm; indeed, anyone who does something that someone else doesn't like risks the other person's ire, and the more controversial the issue, the less strange (or notable) it is to see that passionate opinions can lead to action against the party performing the controversial act. In your case, my controversial suggestion led to a passive-aggressive edit revert, followed by an edit of the substance of the article after the revert was rejected.

Now consider that pro-lifers think abortion is murder. Most murderers have deep-seated mental issues, but moreover it's possible that one or more of the specific murderers in question here might have been the children of mothers who'd considered abortion. It's quite likely that some of the non-murderous violent people fell into this category. If you literally identified yourself as a person who was once in the position of the aborted fetus, how would you feel, knowing that millions of potential babies that could've developed into people like you have been aborted, and that some more such potential humans are being aborted in a building right in front of you?

I'm not too perturbed walking by an abortion office myself, but I know from personal experience that every time I see yet another news story about a young kid who committed suicide from being bullied, I get this deep, deep rage inside of me; because I was once that bullied kid, and I know just how sick-inside idiots can make you feel. This means that while I DO NOT under ANY circumstances condone murder (as murder is one of the ultimate forms of bullying) I cannot help but understand the sick rage that a person can get from seeing yourself in something that is dying due to circumstances beyond its control. It's the kind of feeling that makes you want to DO something.

In any case, I do not mind the article title as it currently stands, because it's 100% factually accurate; there are a small number of pro-choicers who do violence in the name of their beliefs.

So now that you have accused me essentially of being a jumped up troll simply because I lost my politeness while stating that I do not find it useful to have yet another page reiterating that controversy leads to violence, please do me the courtesy of telling me what part of my opinion disqualified me from contribution.

SvenTheBold (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think your long post about your personal views and background is not contributing to any supposition that you are here to build an encyclopedia, but even so: recall that this is an article on the abortion debate. It's possible that we could build or expand an article or sub-article on domestic violence with discussion of men who kill or injure their partners who refuse to have abortions, because domestic violence surrounding pregnancy (both by men who wish their partners to have children and men who do not) is very common, but they obviously don't do so out of a philosophical belief that everyone should have abortions, unlike anti-abortion terrorists who kill for their political/philosophical beliefs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

From my end of things, your assertion that I was never here to build an encyclopedia, made while you ignored the reasoning I gave for my actions, made you seem perilously close to running afoul of WP: No personal attacks

But you are right. I should have found a way to address your claims about my motivations in a way other than running afoul of WP: Wikipedia is not facebook.

I think we would both do well to note that WP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. For me, that includes the length and content of my posts. For you, I think language like "anti-abortion terrorists" may qualify. (Use of the term is no different than use of the term "Muslim terrorist," in that while it certainly might accurately describe the terrorists' specific reasoning, it unfairly categorizes and stereotypes a much broader group of people, most of whom are not terrorists and are vehemently against such action.)

Edit: Sorry, I spoke in haste before; you have not continued to ignore all my reasonings for my actions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenTheBold (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sven, we look to reliable sources for analysis, not personal reflections. I see nothing useful in your latest posts. If there is some reliable source to back up your viewpoint, then by all means share it. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My viewpoint that I was curious to know the reasoning behind Roscelese's reversion of my edit? If so, you have my apologies. That was the only reason I'd posted here today; I was unaware that Wikipedia expects me to ignore such things. I will keep this in mind for the future.

Regarding my other notions, I have already chastised myself that WP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If Susan B. Anthony List's analysis [1] here of statistics given [2] here is not considered reputable enough, then I'd love to know why the National Abortion Federation's statistics [3] here cited here are considered reputable, given that all parties given in this sentence are organizations with a conflict of interest under WP: Questionable sources. Is it mere reputation that differentiates them, and if so, reputation among whom? SvenTheBold (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the article meant to conjoin the best pro-life arguments and the best pro-choice arguments (I don't think that is the purpose of the article.) I believe that the purpose of the article is to tell the history of a controversy which is ongoing. But the fact that it is ongoing does not mean that one cannot speak in a scientific/historical/objective way about it. This can be done and ought to be done. Wikipedia is about facts and science, and in this case about history, but not about philosophy. In this case it is about the history of a controversy. But if you are going to tell the history, you are going to have to tell it in a different way than it is told here: not only analyzing the historical dynamics of the pro-life movement (including the strange phenomenon of its moments of bad civic behaviour and violence), but also the historical dynamics of the (so called) pro-choice movement, its structurally violent nature (rooted in the oppressive and structurually violent forces that brought institutionalized abortion to the world, not as the answer to back alley abortion, but as a means of systematizing abortion, so as to eliminate unwanted human life. That is the actual history, and the words oppressive and violent are meant as an objective description, not as ideologically loaded.). Historically, the pro-life movement is not responsible for back alley abortions of past and present. The historian will also reject the myth that institutionalized abortion arose as from a sort of civil rights movement, though it has tried to depict itself as that. The historian will have to admit that the pro-life movement is something essentially modern and progressive (though unfortunately polluted with the reactionary ideology of a simple return to the situation status quo ante bellum in which women were repressed and forced into back alley abortions by a society which biologized them), whereas the pro-abortion movement (having devised the sophism of an inherent opposition between choice and life, that allows forces which are anti-life to call themselves pro-choice) is something artificial and contrived. The historian would have to begin with the historical phenomenon of abortion by choice its relation to the social structures and institutions that shape history, and then go on to show how it has emerged on the political stage, and how the pro-life movement came to be as a reaction to institutionalized abortion, and the reasons why the pro-life movement has advanced, and the reasons why it has not advanced further. The historian should not begin by saying "abortion is something controversial"; it should begin by telling us in the first place what reality we are speaking of: that is the only way a mature opinion can be formed. The article is based on the idea that abortion is some vague, hard to define thing (which is absolutely untrue, there is nothing vague about abortion) which being vague, is controversial, suggesting also that that the controversy would not exist if one could cure the religious fanaticism inherent to those minds who do not accept insitutionalized abortion. Historically, it is just to say that the pro-life movement has religious roots, as did the anti-slavery movement, but it is unjust to say that it arose as a mere product of (fanatical) religion. Historically, the pro-life movement is connected to the most pure humanism, just as the anti-slavery movement was. And we must acknowledge the existence and significance of those who are pro-life without motive in religion. The cure to all this is history, rightly done, which dares to look the thing in the eye, dispassionately, but clearly The historian will ensure that the fog lifts.(CKuss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cklc (talk • contribs) November 24, 2014

I don't see a proposed edit in there anywhere. Please read wp:TPG. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) (or just look at the bottom of teh edit window) to get a system generated timestamped signature like this: LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding proposed edits: I am in favor of a different architecture, not just some minor changes. I will give you an analogy. Suppose Creationists attacked Wikipedia in order to present evolution as simply "a theory" and to insist as they indeed do that "the controversy ought to be taught." This would be rightly considered an attack against the scientific character of Wikipedia. Something similar has happened here. Here one insists that "the controversy must be taught", and by insisting on this one disguises the true nature of the controversy. And that is why the architecture of the article is the important question. The solution is presenting the authentic history of the controversy, that one does not ideologize history. History is an effort to present the phenomenology of historical forces, of the forces that have actually shaped history. This does not mean that one is against the abortion debate, it means that Wikipedia gives to the abortion debate the tool that it deserves, instead of manipulating things in order to perpetuate confusion. In my above comments I have now made some improvements which it would be useful to take notice of.Cklc (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone has replied to your post, then please do not refactor it significantly as you have done. Instead, make a new post encapsulating your new thoughts. See WP:TPG for further information about how to conduct yourself on a talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I wanted to go back and strengthen and improve the tone of the first version; I was not particularly motivated by the comment of LeadSongDog in doing so, but I will reproduce below the original version to which the comment of LeadSongDog was directed:

"Is the article meant to conjoin the best pro-life arguments and the best pro-choice arguments (I don't think that is the purpose of the article.) Or is it meant to tell the story of the conflict ot two points of view, or two forces, in the political sphere? This can be done and ought to be done. Wikipedia is about facts and science, not about philosophy. But if you are going to tell the history, you are going to have to tell it in a different way than it is told here: not only mentioning the bad civic behavior of pro-life protesters, but also telling the bad civic behavior of the forces that foisted institutionalized abortion on the nation and the world. Oh yes, and also the ugly story of the practice of back-alley abortions before the legalizations, because that is also part of the story of abortion, but not insinuating the historical untruth the pro-life movement is responsible for back alley abortions of past and present. The historian will also reject therefore the myth that institutionalized abortion arose as a sort of civil rights movement. The historian will record that the pro-abortion movement has tried to paint itself as that. The historian will have to admit that the pro-life movement is something essentially modern and progressive, whereas the so called pro-abortion movement is something artificial and contrived. The historian would have to beging with the phenomenon of abortus provocatus, and then go on to show how it has emerged on the political stage, and how the pro-life movement came to be as a reaction to it. The historian should not begin by saying "abortion is something controversial"; it should begin by telling us in the first place what reality we are speaking of: that is the only way a mature opinion can be formed. The article is based on the idea that abortion is some ethereal thing, that for some strange reason, is controversial, hinting that this is because of the warped minds of the religious fanatics who do not accept our practice of abortion. There is a pseudo-gentlemanliness. "Now boys and girls, let us describe the debate, let us keep calm (not like those religious fanatics who oppose abortion); you will note that this is a controversial subject therefore some compromise is surely necessary" But the subtext of "compromise" is that it is necessary to keep people in the fog, so that nothing happens. It is all very controversial, you see. So go back to your homes and watch some more television. The cure to all this is history, rightly done, which dares to look the thing in the eye. The historian will ensure that the fog lifts.." H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cklc (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Cklc (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the anti-abortion violence section belong in article?

I've just made a couple of edits to the "Anti-abortion violence" section of the article, but I wonder if this section even belongs in an article entitled "Abortion debate"? If the article were about the "Abortion issue" more broadly, or the "Abortion conflict" more specifically then I could easily see such a section but it seems to me that "Abortion debate" should be about the conflict of ideas rather than physical conflict. I went back in the history of the article and it seems that this section is relatively new. I also notice that stand-alone article on Anti-abortion violence and Anti-abortion violence in the United States already exist on Wikipedia so it's not as if this topic is being ignored. Incidentally, I looked up Anti-war violence in Wikipedia and noticed that such an article is missing among the millions. KatieHepPal (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was out of place, too. It even appears in the lead. Acts of violence are not "debate," nor are they advocated by either side in the "debate" who are arguing about policy and philosophy using words and ideas.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that a section on anti-abortion violence is also found in the general Wikipedia article on abortion, so we have that as well as two separate articles on anti-abortion violence as well as the section in this article. Seems as if some editors want to include the topic wherever they can, I don't think it belongs under "Abortion debate" so I am about to remove it. People who disagree can join the discussion it they wish. KatieHepPal (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the removal was appropriate, and suggest that if you felt the section's relevance was unclear, you re-tailor it to include more information about the debate on whether this violence is warranted and what means are appropriate to prevent it (clinic access laws, etc.) Your edit, in light of the dispute on "pro-choice violence", is extremely WP:POINTy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The question of anti-abortion violence is a part of the abortion debate, and is discussed as such by academic and reliable sources. See, for example, the Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence, which includes a chapter entitled "Religiously Motivated Violence in the Abortion Debate". Reliable mass-media sources likewise link anti-abortion violence to the abortion debate. See "The murder of Dr. George Tiller has reignited the abortion debate" (PBS), "The killing of an abortion doctor has once again highlighted the aggressive and emotional nature of the abortion debate in the US" (BBC), and so on. That said, I understand KatieHepPal's point that this coverage is spread over a number of articles, and it does make sense to centralize it in one place. Perhaps it would be best to include a short paragraph here, with a {{main}} link to Anti-abortion violence, in order to reduce redundancy. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That was what we had. [4] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To Roscelese. I have not participated in the above back and forth about whether there should be a "pro-choice violence" section in this article and am not interested in including one even if the anti-abortion violence section here is eventually retained (though, perhaps, if it is, it could be retitled something like "abortion related violence"). Going back in the history of the article, I see that it was you who rather recently added the section on anti-abortion violence to an article that had long existed without one. Apparently, two separate existing Wikipedia articles on this phenomenon as well as a section on it in the main abortion article were not enough for you. No, I would recommend that if a section in the main abortion article already refers readers to stand-alone articles on anti-abortion violence and anti-abortion violence in the United States we have done due diligence to our readers. We don't need to cram an anti-abortion violence section into every article touching on the subject. As for your suggestions that I add more material on "whether this violence is warranted," why would I ever want to do that? There IS NO debate, worthy of name, here. Of course, if one is mainly interested in making the whole pro-life movement look extreme then adding such material would make sense, I guess.

To MastCell. Actually, yes, I think that the material on anti-abortion violence should be consolidated . For example, two separate articles on it really are not needed, one should suffice. If most of the violence takes place in the U.S. then put it all in one article. As for having sections on it in other abortion related articles, I think a reference to it in the main abortion article should suffice. If we were to place it in another abortion related article then it should probably be Abortion in the United States not the Abortion debate. Placing it in the "Abortion debate" article creates the impression that violence is a staple of the movement which many within it justify. Instead it is done by a unbalanced miniscule minority, who are almost universally condemned. KatieHepPal (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the section. The lead of this article starts: The abortion debate is the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion. As explained above, violence is a big part of that discourse and plays a prominent role in the way reliable sources have talked about the debate. The problem is that throughout this thread you've been explaining your edits in terms of what other editors' agendas and righting perceived wrongs. e.g. Seems as if some editors want to include the topic wherever they can and Apparently, two separate existing Wikipedia articles on this phenomenon as well as a section on it in the main abortion article were not enough for you. and We don't need to cram an anti-abortion violence section into every article touching on the subject. The number of places it appears is irrelevant if it makes sense to talk about it per reliable sources on the subject. That it appears in multiple places does not mean it was "crammed". It's because it's relevant to the article. The article anti-abortion violence is not reproduced here but summarized in two paragraphs, given due weight as it relates to this article. I don't know why that's controversial. Are you saying that anti-abortion violence is not talked about in any meaningful way in literature about "the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion"? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

When a section on anti-abortion violence (already covered in several other Wikipedia articles) is added to an article which had existed without one for over a decade, but which had instead focused on the intellectual debate over legal abortion, then, yes, I would call that going on of one's way to bring up the subject. Yes, anti-abortion violence is "talked about." It is not really "debated," however, at least not in anything like the same way that the political, legal, moral, and practical implications of legal abortion are debated. KatieHepPal (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

then, yes, I would call that going on of one's way to bring up the subject You're still making comments about what should happen to the content based on the intentions you're ascribing to other editors. It is not really "debated," however -- I quoted the lead above to address this. The article is not about a literal verbal debate; it's about "the ongoing controversy". Violence is part of that. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Pro-abortion violence section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus against inclusion. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

---

In order to provide WP:NPOV the section on Pro-Abortion Violence should be included. To say it never happens provides a strong bias making it look as if only Pro-Life Violence is taking place. I think both forms of violence are wrong and simply would like both mentioned for academic and historical purposes on Wikipedia; the article should provide a neutral look at both forms of violence. My attempt of WP:BOLD has been reverted due to an unintended edit war with User:Roscelese suggesting there was not enough Cited sources, no Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the 20 given, and not enough WP:WEIGHT. See also the Revision history . We should attempt to reach a consensus to determine the outcome of this issue and the level of importance on including this information. - Gaming4JC (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose - I'm just coming to this via the dashboard, but it looks like a potential issue here is that most of the sources included in the edit you've linked seem to be covering instances of violence rather than the phenomenon of pro-abortion violence whereas there are many sources discussing anti-abortion violence beyond individual news stories. I'm commenting rather than opposing, however, because I frankly don't know about the availability of such sources and wonder if you could compile some for the purpose of this RfC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: Additional sources were provided, but simply added additional news reports of other incidents. I struck my comment and changed it to oppose given the apparently unlikelihood appropriate sourcing will be provided, though would be willing to strike it again if I'm shown to be incorrect on that. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, of course we shouldn't include this nonsense. I'll copy/paste here what I wrote to Gaming4JC. These sources don't support the text you added and/or are inadmissibly poor. It's going to be difficult to even source a paragraph on "pro-abortion violence" because it simply is not a phenomenon, while anti-abortion violence is widespread. Even if you could come up with the sources, you'd never be able to observe due weight and neutrality; the whole reason the three incidents you cite (Pouillon's murder, which we know was not politically motivated; Miller-Young's taking the protester's sign; and Theodore Shulman's threats) get so hyped up by anti-abortion bloggers is because there's literally nothing else to point to, while scholars writing about anti-abortion violence are, pardon the pun, spoiled for choice, when you look at the number of high-profile murders, assaults, hundreds of bombings, presence of several on the FBI Most Wanted, etc. + You continue adding extremely poor sources in order to claim that minor isolated incidents are a phenomenon. Please read WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT and do not add this material back. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and larger neutrality issues. By far the greater violence in the abortion debate is from pro-lifers who act against abortion clinic personnel, including some who prominently foment violence. Any text which tries to counterbalance this preponderance is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support on NPOV grounds. Gaming4JC's text could use better sources, but the topic has been covered enough in the news to merit mention. Juno (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "News" is exactly the problem. Because this is not a real topic, its inclusion requires the synthesis of a bunch of local news-cycle stories into an imagined topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you have just restored the paragraph despite there being no consensus for it yet, and you have added a lot more sources. I think that's the wrong direction to take, as more sources give the reader the wrong impression about how much prominence this issue has in the political landscape. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support on NPOV grounds. Section is currently well sourced and seems relevant. However, the title of "pro-abortion violence" seemed POV and "pro-abortion" does not appear to be a phrase anyone uses to self-identify, so I tweaked the section title to "Violence against anti-abortion advocates" --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Gross violation of WP:UNDUE, and poor sourcing as well. Infinitesimally microscopic in relation to violence by anti-abortion activists, if it even exists at all. sorry, but nonsense like this belongs on Conservapedia, not here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: If it even exists at all; I would encourage you to research this topic. I myself do not agree with so-called Conservapedia but feel this issue is notable enough for inclusion. A quick search for "pro-abortion violence exist?" brought me several new articles for reference. Here's one from a Canadian newspaper TheInterim; this is an international topic. Gaming4JC (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

From that source's About page: The Interim exists is to report and comment on the many offences against human dignity our society has experienced: abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, contraception, sexual promiscuity, the decline of the traditional family, and the rise of radical environmentalism and animal rights agendas that put non-human matters at the centre of public concern. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The debate around abortion and violence in protest of it are two entirely different states of engagement. The violence should be it's own article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support On NPOV grounds, but want the whole topic in WEIGHT to relevance of article and percentages. I would suggest a simpler sweeping approach too -- have one section Violence instead of two factional sections, and focus more on what it means re the article topic and politics, and perspective that it does occur with a small number of individuals. We don't need this article to define what violence is or list out each occurrence - that should be in different articles. Markbassett (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I second this proposal, combine under one header for both topics; rather than either or. - Freemindfreeworld (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that this could be a reasonable solution.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. If mentioned at all in proportion with its actual prevalence it would have to be so small that it would not be worth having. Jschnur (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. The lack of legitimate sources on the topic is telling. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support It violates NPOV to include only acts of violence on one side. Markbassett's suggestion should be considered.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "It violates NPOV to include only acts of violence on one side." This sentiment, which runs throughout the Support arguments, is explicitly incorrect when it comes to NPOV, as even a brief skimming of WP:NPOV will make clear. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Flies in the face of WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. There's no RS that refers to "pro-abortion violence" as an actual phenomenon. Capeo (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I notice multiple votes above saying reliable sources do not support the existence of violence against pro-life advocates, or pro-choice violence (calling it "pro-abortion violence" seems POV, so I won't phrase it that way). Anyway, it seems to me these arguments may be being made while unaware of the text for the proposed section and it's accompanying 30 references which Juno added [5] and Roscelese deleted [6]. Since this isn't a vote, but rather to be based on soundness of various policy based arguments, I'd ask any reviewing admins closing to first look at the multitude of sources used to support brief text proposed, to see if the undue or lack of reliable sources reasons given against this brief addition represent accurate policy based arguments. Please see hatted section (which I tweaked before it was outright deleted to remove the phrase "pro-abortion") [7]

Here's deleted text along with the 30 deleted references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Violence against anti-abortion advocates is violence committed against individuals and organizations that identify as Pro-Life. Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, in the form of vandalism; crimes against people, including assault, attempted murder, and murder; and crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and bombings. In 2010, Theodore Shulman, a self-described "pro-choice terrorist", issued several death threats to pro-life organizations and was sentenced to 4 years in federal prison for interstate threats and we charges."

Regarding weight concerns, I do not see anyone suggesting violence against anti-abortion advocates is equal to anti-abortion violence, or should get as much text devoted to it as anti-abortion violence, but it is hard for me to understand the rationale behind attempting to prevent any mention of such violence and the opposition to including this small section (5 lines of text - referenced by 30 sources), when the anti-abortion violence section is considerably larger and also has an entire break away article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend that, if you want us to consider this text, you should first remove all unreliable sources and claims that aren't supported by the (reliable) sources. The proposed text is laughable on its face. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing WP:BIASED, with unreliable. According to WP:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". Also, plenty of the above sources do not even seem to qualify as biased. Roscelese, could you specify what you find "laughable"? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• • It's possible for sources to be both biased and unreliable, you know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• It violates the undue weight portion of NPOV to create a false equivalence between anti-abortion violence and "pro-choice" violence. These are not treated as remotely in the same league by independent, reputable sources, so it is inappropriate and non-neutral for editors to juxtapose them. I am willing to look at specific high-quality sources to the contrary, but the proposed edit was abysmally sourced (ten crappy sources are not equivalent to one good source, for the record); elements of it violated WP:BLP; and it was properly removed. MastCell ^Talk 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to see how five lines of text compared to a larger section, which is linked to a large break away article, "creates a false equivalence between anti-abortion violence and pro-choice violence". This doesn't seem to violate due weight or NPOV. Also, your BLP concerns are not clear to me. Theodore Shulman was the only person mentioned in the deleted text, and he already has a BLP containing this info. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources contain numerous allegations against specific private citizens, and many of the sources are beyond abysmal in terms of their quality and reputation for accuracy. For instance, breitbart.com is a hyper-partisan website with a documented history of concocting and spreading harmful falsehoods about its ideological opponents. To propose such a source as the basis for a serious encyclopedia article speaks volumes about editors' understanding of the goals and policies of this project. I'm concerned that we're going down the road that led to the recent Arbitration case. Specifically, editors don't seem interested in finding and following the best available sources. Instead, there's a scramble to dump a large volume of links without regard to their quality, in order to wedge a specific agenda-driven talking point into the article. Undoubtedly, the sourcing of this article could be improved across the board, but this is a clear step in the wrong direction. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BoboMeowCat that the sources already provided amply demonstrate that the issue of violence by pro-choice advocates is Notable and has been covered in reliable sources, even if many or most of those sources may fit within the reliable but biased category. I suspect that many of these incidents have also been covered in local media but are simply given more play in the national Christian media...which is why the editor finding these sources utilizes them rather than local news paper clippings. But the reliance on sources like the Christian Post (which employs trained journalists and editors) does not reduce the fact that this is a reliable source . . . not a personal blog.

Contrary to MastCell's assertion, I am not aware of any policy, or means of determining, "best sources" because that often just means sources that an editor prefers. WP editing policy, however, does admonish editors to WP:PRESERVE content and gives numerous ways to do so without reverting or blocking contributions in their entirety. The editor in this case has compiled an great number of sources discussing the incidents and allegations of violence . . . including at least one from the Huffington Post, hardly a bastion of anti-abortion conservative Christians, another from the New York Times, and another from Fox News. Criticism's of particular sources, such as brietbart.com, do not negate the fact that WP:BIASED sources that employ reporters and editors to gather facts and report on a POV regarding those facts are still clearly qualified as reliable sources . . . even if one disagrees with their POV. The proposed section is certainly subject to editing and improvement per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, but that process is best started by allowing the section to exist so it can be edited and improved. Issues of WEiGHT can also be addressed at that time. Blocking all mention of this based on WEIGHT claims is simply not in compliance with NPOV. If MastCell or others want to provide "better" sources, they are free to do so, but until they do the sources provide already are clearly adequate enough to justify inclusion of the material.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Another pertinent quote from WP policy: Achieving neutrality: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." In other words, any NPOV problems with the proposed new section should be addressed by rewriting it per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are "not aware of any policy, or means of determining 'best sources'", then I would recommend you begin by looking at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. Briefly, the key criterion is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You are misunderstanding WP:BIASED. If a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but also has an evident bias, then WP:BIASED applies. But WP:BIASED is not a shortcut that lets you make an end run around our sourcing standards simply because a source is overtly partisan. As has been pointed out above, sources may be both unreliable and biased, and these sources should not be used. Most of this should be intuitive, assuming one's goal is to build a serious, respectable reference work, but it is also spelled out in policy. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your basis for deciding that the sources cited do not engage in fact checking? In my view, when a publication employs trained journalists and editors it is reasonable to assume that they are operating a professional level. There are a number of media watchdog groups. Do you have reports from them that these sources lack fact checking? Or do you think the New York Times failed to do proper fact checking on cite 21, regarding the killing of the Michigan man? At the very least, you should show how the facts reported in these sources have been contradicted by a "more reliable" source. Otherwise, you are simply using the assertion of bias POV as the basis for assuming no fact checking. –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You're misstating our sourcing criteria. The question is not whether an organization employs people it describes as "fact-checkers" or "trained journalists". The question is whether an organization has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Many of the cited sources do not. MastCell ^Talk 10:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You're evading my question. Where do you go to document and determine if "an organization has a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.'" Is that how did you determine which of the cited sources do not? It sounds to me like you are simply declaring that if you have not heard of the publication...or even if you have, if you have not heard others praise it for "fact checking and accuracy"...your personal judgement on that point is sufficient reason to blank everything published by that news source, even if it is has a large professional staff, and even if there is no evidence of false statements of fact. Doesn't sound very objective to me.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think one of the problems here may be that much of the pro-choice violence has been more recent phenomenon (possibly because Roe v Wade was never really threatened before, but that's conjecture) and academic literature lags behind. The federal government (particularly federal law enforcement), as well as many news sources and some NGOs have moved away from discussing "Anti-Abortion Violence" and now discuss "Abortion-Related Violence". Perhaps as a compromise we could follow their lead and put all of the relevant information into one section? Juno (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think your explanation makes sense. Roe v. Wade has been threatened pretty much since the day it was enacted. It was widely expected that it would be overturned in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, when 8/9ths of the Court consisted of Republican appointees. The "threat" to Roe peaked at that point, not anytime recently. I also haven't seen the shift in terminology from "anti-abortion violence" to "abortion-related violence" that you describe, so perhaps it would help to cite some specific sources. MastCell ^Talk 10:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per UNDUE and WEIGHT issues. Rwenonah (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are serious * WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV problems here.Lozen8 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone above stated it is only local news. However, even recently there have been discussion in Daily Signal[8] and Daily Caller[9] in addition to local news sources.[10] One could debate this all day, but it boils down to the fact it is happening. One cannot pick either or without violating WP:NPOV; violence is violence no matter how big or small. The article as written is saying "there's only anti-abortion violence" and if that's not strong enough we wrote an ENTIRE article for Anti-abortion violence, excluding all mention of the other side.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

- Freemindfreeworld (talk)

note on related discussions

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#.22Reputation_for_Fact_Checking.22, opened by GodBlessYou2. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-abortion violence. StAnselm (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New subtopics

Well, if the focus of this article is not necessarily the intellectual debate over the morality and legality of abortion (as it seems to me that it was before the "Anti-abortion violence" section was added) but rather any "ongoing controversy" related to abortion and covered by reliable sources, then it seems to me that we should add some subtopics. The "pro-abortion/choice violence" subtopic that some want to add seems pretty thin, but there should be all sorts of material on "late-term abortion" in general and "partial birth abortion" in particular. Also, allegations of "pro-choice" bias in the mainstream media have been plentiful and have been carried by a number mainstream organs over the years. KatieHepPal (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to add something about late-term abortion, although it seems like a very US-centric rather than global concern. As for pro-choice bias, I guess it would depend on the sources. I'm not really interested in dumping a bunch of op-eds and partisan polemics into the article, since that's both a Pandora's box and a recipe for a crap article, but if there are good independent, reliable sources then of course some coverage would be reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Overview section - discussion

Can we please have a discussion about the last paragraph of the Overview section and the claim that children are not "full persons by law?" First of all, the hyperlink for that claim is now broken and was not a particularly strong reference to begin with. Neither side is arguing that children in any stage of fetal development should have the right to vote or to enter into contracts. Within the context of the abortion debate, "full personhood" is not what is being argued for or against. The paragraph itself concludes that "for the past two centuries, they (children)have been treated as persons for the limited purposes of Offence against the person law." This latter portion/ statement completely counters the relevance of the earlier claim that "children are not full persons." Please allow for the "children are not full persons" portion / comment to be removed. L.L. Brown 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100129003803/http://www.patheos.com:80/Resources/Additional-Resources/Topic-Page-Abortion.html to http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Topic-Page-Abortion.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A Philosophical View

I think that there needs to be a section that involves a philosophical view on the topic abortion.

First of all, we need to know what exactly is abortion. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by surgical or medical needs. Most people debate whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong. However, that involves creating a moral statement on the issue. A moral statement is affirming that a person's motive or character is good or bad. According to Lewis Vaughn, a utilitarian may judge abortion differently from a Kantian theorist. An act utilitarian believes happiness over unhappiness A Kantian Theorist supports Kant's Theory which focuses on universality, impartiality, and the respect for persons. This is known as the Categorical Imperative, which focuses on people's wants and needs. Would it be okay if everyone could get abortions? That is what someone who believed in Kant's Theory would ask. An act utilitarian could have two possible looks on the issue of abortion. One reaction could be that abortion is okay because it would lead to an overall happiness for the mother. However, on the other hand, they could be against abortion due to the physical and social pain that it would bring to the mother which means they would suffer from unhappiness. A Kantian Theorist looks at abortion completely different. They do not look at the happiness of the mother, they focus more on the child and whether or not they are a person with rights. Kant's Theory suggests that a fetus is a human with rights, therefore making abortion wrong. However, this theory also supports self defense, so if the mother's life is in danger than it is okay.

References

I think it is a different look to see old moral theories instead of looking at current laws, feel free to comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercer.phi205 (talk • contribs) May 12, 2014

===========================================

Your statement of Kantian Ethics is incomplete. A better way to frame this argument is that Kantian Ethics supports both sides of the debate. I apologize for no references as I'm not a research specialist, but the addition should include something like the following:

The categorical imperative argument indicates that no baby should ever be aborted since that baby is a human with the right to control their own body and life. It is wrong to abort a baby, even if it is nothing more than a one-second-old fertilized egg. Full stop.

Similarly, every woman (pregnant or not) has the right to control their own life and body, and the categorical imperative insists that no woman may be forced to perform any act she doesn't wish or be prevented from performing any act she does wish on her own body. This would include abortion as well as things like self-mutilation or even suicide. It's her body to control, and therefore her right to do so. Full stop.

In summary, abortion is wrong as is telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Therefore this argument cannot be solved with reference to the categorical imperative. Each side must recognise the validity of the other side's argument. It's not a matter of one side being "right" and the other being "evil" because both are evil. Both are absolute truths.

The only way out of this philosophical debate is to argue the relative level of the two evils. Is abortion worse than the loss of control over one's body, or is the loss of control over one's body worse than abortion?

There will likely never be a single solution and this debate will likely go on forever, so in the end, it is pragmatism that must be the dominant ethical consideration. Each geography, culture, race, religion, nation, and century will have to struggle anew with the dilemma of the choice for choice or the choice for life.

Preceding inserted 04:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC) by 2601:141:300:915E:A130:A4CA:BA2E:5253 (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The McDonagh quotation

Recently an editor removed a quotation in the "Privacy" section of the article [11]. Another editor quickly restored it [12]. I see a couple of problems with the presentation of this quotation from political science professor Eileen L. McDonagh. First, it does not really "explain privacy in US law." Rather, it proposes a philosophical basis for such law. The quote comes from an article in which McDonagh advocates for "securing the constitutional right to abortion funding" and this supposed explanation of US privacy law is, instead, part of a complaint that this privacy law, and the moral premises behind it, are not strong enough.

Of course, we could change the the introduction of the quotation by saying something like: Eileen L. McDonagh has this view of the right of privacy but this brings me to the other problem with the quote. Why include it then? If this isn't really a scholarly explanation of the law concerning privacy as it exists in the US but rather someone's view of what she would like it to be, why include it at all? Especially since we are not quoting any other scholar with a quite different view. Motsebboh (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amwa-doc.org/index.cfm?objectId=0A5BF4D4-D567-0B25-58C7E8584C98D43B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714173515/http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com74.asp to http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com74.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816072853/http://homepage.mac.com:80/francis.beckwith/Thomson.pdf to http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Thomson.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_breast_cancer.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014111725/http://www.rcog.org.uk:80/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice to http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Islam and abortion

The articles spreads misinformation in this section with a claim that Qur'an 17:32 forbids killing of fetuses due to fear of poverty. First of all, the passage is misattributed, relevant ayah is 31st not 32nd, and secondly, the arabic text speaks of killing "alwaadukum" or "your children", "awlaad" is a plural of "walad", i.e. a child in the common sense of the word and the ayah is addressing the practice of killing born children, particularly female, as stated here: "these verses in fact were revealed to forbid the pre-Islamic Arab practice of killing or burying alive a newborn child (particularly a girl) on account of the parents' poverty or to refrain from having a female child" (http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_101_150/abortion.htm) . There is no reason to broaden the meaning to include fetuses or embryos, as majority of the islamic scholars doesn't; in fact, contrary to information in the article "Ensoulment" under the heading considering islamic viewpoint (which states only one opinion from one scholar), the majority of islamic scholars consider the pre-forty weeks (some schools consider 40 days to be the limit, and others 120) gestation pregnancy abortion as not un-lawful - on contrary the four legal schools deem it legally permissible, because only after that time the soul is traditionally thought to be implemented - as the article on abortion under the islamic section clearly states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.150.21 (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120710101105/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Thomson.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524022054/http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2011/documents/ArgentinaSurveyEnglish3.pdf to http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2011/documents/ArgentinaSurveyEnglish3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014111725/http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice to http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Laws - US, Canada, worldwide

I don't think this article is the place for a lengthy discussion of what legislation or caselaw exists. Information about legislation or caselaw should be included insofar as it supports claims about arguments in the abortion debate (eg. right to privacy), the subject of this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625170521/http://www.timothypcarney.com/wages-wolf.htm to http://www.timothypcarney.com/wages-wolf.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070619211339/http://www.thebrusselsconnection.be/tbc/upload/attachments/European%20Values%20Overall%20EN.pdf to http://www.thebrusselsconnection.be/tbc/upload/attachments/European%20Values%20Overall%20EN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Abortion safety as a reason in favor

One pptential reason to legalize abortions is the safety claim: legalizing abortions reduces the number of unsafe abortions. This topic is covered by the main Abortion article, but it should also be covered here. 89.138.147.167 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Got the time? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

New Sub-Section Request: "Respect for human life"

Hi, I added this sub-section to the page a while back, which was undone by another user who asked me to post it to the talk page first. So I would like to do that now and suggest this sub-section to be added to the section titled "Arguments against the right to abortion":

Respect for human life

One argument against the right to abortion appeals to the (secular) value of a human life. The thought is that all forms of human life, including the fetus, are inherently valuable because they are connected to our thoughts on family and parenthood, among other natural aspects of humanity. Thus, abortion can express the wrong attitudes towards humanity in a way that manifest vicious character. This view is represented by some forms of Humanism and by moral philosopher Rosalind Hursthouse in her widely anthologized article "Virtue Theory and Abortion".[109] Thinking about abortion in this way, according to Hursthouse, shows the unimportance of rights because one can act viciously in exercising a moral right. (For example, she says, "Love and friendship do not survive their parties' constantly insisting on their rights, nor do people live well when they think that getting what they have a right to is of preeminent importance; they harm others, and they harm themselves."[109]) Hursthouse argues that the ending of a human life is always a serious matter and that abortion, when it is wrong, is wrong because it violates a respect for human life.

109. Hursthouse, Rosalind (1991). "Virtue Theory and Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs. 20 (3): 223–246. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.64.160 (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Intorduction wording

SOme of the wording in the introductiuon comes off as nbiased. "Both terms are considered loaded in mainstream media, where terms such as “abortion rights” or “anti-abortion” are generally preferred." According to whom? Pro-life and pro-choice are the preferred terms of each side to remain neutral. "with small numbers of anti-abortion advocates using violence, such as murder and arson." This statement is biased as it does not acknowledge the violence from the other side. Don't pretend that the violence is one sided.PGHOPPER (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the paragraph about the phrase "unborn baby" because, as explained at Talk:United_States_abortion-rights_movement#Terminology, it is original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I didn't remove that source; it's still there. Are you seriously arguing that "Search results for 'unborn child'" is an appropriate, non-OR citation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I don't fully understand what the OR is about, but I can't see any reason not to explain it frankly. In most cases abortion is abortion of the entire life of a not yet born human being. Especially after the first heartbeat. There's no gentile way around it as I see it. I don't condemn though. Boeing720 (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There were some examples from reliable sources (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica), which clearly showed that these terms (occasionally) occur in the scientific literature, you just ignored that. Ok, I won't argue anymore (although don't agree with you that it is OR), but I think it's appropriate to add this sentence (which obviously isn't OR): "However, the descriptive use of the term "unborn child" is consistent with the long and established historical scope of reference of ‘child’. It is consistent with historical usage to use ‘unborn child’ now in the same descriptive way that ‘with child’ was used in the past." source--Lancet.lancet (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Pro-Life campaigners" to "anti-abortion campaigners"

I restored "anti-abortion campaigners" as it is more neutral, encyclopedic and consistent with Wikipedia consensus, compared to "Pro-Life campaigners". The article itself explains why we use this language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It's also the more global term, avoiding the name of an American religious/political pressure group. This IS a global article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Organization of the article

This edit, which renamed the "Arguments against the right to abortion" section to "Arguments against abortion", caught my eye. In a quick look at the article, my eye went to the TOC entry for the section headed "Arguments for abortion rights which do not depend on fetal non-personhood". Looking more widely, I see that the article has a major section headed "Personhood" which contains minor sections about arguments for and against abortion rights and/or abortion itself. I think that this organizational arrangement could be improved. It seems to me that the article content about fetal personhood could/should be subsumed into separate sections describing positions for and against abortion and abortion rights. It seems to me that abortion and abortion rights ought to be treated separately in presenting arguments for and against. I've often heard politicians make statements to the effect that they are personally against abortion but are also in favor of the right of a woman to make an abortion decision for herself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit help

Hi,

In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.

Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)

Thanks in advance. Warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Statistic

I've located the statistic that was reverted ([13]) but I don't feel that this article is an appropriate place to just add a random statistic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That info is already in: Abortion statistics in the United States ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted back to neutral language; save POV language for quotations, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)