Talk:Abortion debate/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Protest in Łódź, 25th October 2020 - 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Fetus/baby

@Endymiona19: It seems that the clinical terms are more acceptable by consensus. Although anti-abortion people prefer "unborn baby" or child, Wikipedia does not. Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Now on the other hand, there is no call for the "scare quotes" around "person" and "personhood" so I propose that the quotes be removed where they are found in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Transhumanism

"Transhumanism" has been cited as a "slippery slope" but no indication how it relates to abortion. The abstract of the cited paper does not mention abortion. Please provide a quote and modify the prose to describe how "transhumanism" fits with the article topic. Elizium23 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Pro-life position description

Since we are describing the pro-life position, we need to explain that pro-life is anti-euthanasia and pro-right to life for all, the elderly, disabled, the innocent. This can be a short digression because the focus of the article is abortion, but it cannot be ignored here. And I agree that the wording I proposed was cumbersome, because I tried to shoe-horn it into the existing framework. I'll work on writing something and sources for it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. People who hold the "pro-life" abortion position don't all agree on those other things. Even in the consistent life ethic crowd, which is more what you're referring to, people disagree about particulars. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

And historically, pro-life people have been pretty keen on going to war. Not as simple as you might like it to be. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you would rather describe "anti-abortion" positions than the pro-life movements that are in question. Elizium23 (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: But "pro-life" is not a term for those other things. Pro-life is a term about abortion, adopted in the aftermath of the US Roe v Wade decision for anti-abortion movements. Binksternet is right that not all anti-abortion movements agree on the things you listed, nor do all of them even have the same basis for their anti-abortion stance.

Also, your edit here renders the article senseless. That sentence, and the ones that follow it, were specifically referring to the term pro-life, and describes anti-abortion as the non-loaded term. --Equivamp - talk 13:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

#Pro-life is anti-euthanasia

1. Pro-life is anti-euthanasia
2. Pro-life is anti-euthanasia
3. Pro-life is anti-euthanasia
4. Pro-life is anti-euthanasia
5. Pro-life is anti-euthanasia Elizium23 (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

not all anti-abortion movements agree on the things you listed I would challenge you to furnish reliable sources that show a PRO-LIFE (not anti-abortion, DON'T MOVE THE GOALPOSTS!!!) that show a PRO-LIFE organization that specifically preaches in favor of euthanasia, against the right to life of the disabled, or against the right to life of the innocent. Elizium23 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You have listed a bunch of primary sources from organizations, but the world includes a lot more people than organizations. People have many different opinions. Wikipedia is built mainly on WP:SECONDARY sources. Anti-abortion individuals take different stances about death in general. Lots of discussion in the media connect "pro-life" people to advocacy of the death penalty, for instance.[1] Some 70% of Americans are in favor of allowing a doctor to "end the patient's life by some painless means".[2] That 70% figure must include some pro-lifers, or it could not possibly reach that number (the same source says 48% of American adults are "pro-life".) Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I included scholarly papers. And you all seem to be arguing "there is a spectrum, so let's not say anything about it at all." That's lazy, and that's a cop-out, and it's possible to document the prevailing viewpoints through RS. Elizium23 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That 70% figure must include some pro-lifers WP:OR. Fake news, dude, you can do better. Elizium23 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The math is unavoidable: if 48% of Americans say they are "pro-life", and 70% say they agree with a doctor painlessly allowing euthanasia, then obviously there must be at least 18% overlap between the views.

To me, it appears the resistance you are getting to your proposal is because you couched it in absolute terms: "pro-life is anti-euthanasia". Nobody wants to make absolute statements in a situation with lots of variation. Of course it would be possible to put some information in the article about the connections between the anti-abortion stance and the anti-euthanasia stance, but it should be done neutrally, reporting on all the variations. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is returning to the fact that "pro-life" is a marketing name used for the movement BY some people in the movement. It's NOT an accurate description of all the people who are part of that movement. Like many marketing terms, it's sloppy and inaccurate. We should simply avoid it as much as possible in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 above. Other than saying that "many in the movement call/label themselves pro-life" is all we need to deal with it. In my opinion, Elizium23's push to describe it more veers into WP:COATRACK.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The value of life

This is not a forum. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. I have added here a philosophical conception, which in my opinion is the clear moral conception. The text is formulated by Jewish jurists in Israel, in a discussion on the subject of abortion. And it is quoted in this entry in the Hebrew version. I copied it from there, translated it into English, and something here fought me with a variety of claims. Initially claimed to be an original study. And later argued that a source should be added. And after that he claimed "... Looks like you are referring to" the Hebrew version of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is not about abortion. " So it's not. I refer to the philosophical conception of Jewish jurists in Israel. The jurists insisted that this was a philosophical view. Because this is how they see the moral sin of abortion. In their moral conception of the world. Whereas he fought me and unjustly deleted the edit. And other positions prohibiting abortion. Which appear here roughly. They do not touch on the essence of the problem. While the opinion of the Jewish jurists in Israel, knew how to weave and define well the moral sin. I will therefore put the wording here, for them to see, and for those who can help add it, and translate it properly. Here is the wording: The value of life Some oppose abortion because they see life as a sacred value in itself. According to them, all human skills are in fact a derivative of self-consciousness, while what exists in a fetus is the same central characteristic from which its skills come - consciousness. The characteristic of external communication, is essentially only an external characteristic, which expresses the consciousness which is actually the essence of life, this consciousness in their opinion is the human life force and is a sacred thing in its own right and not just because of its skills or contribution to society. And it is sanctified even when it is a burden. The human consciousness, according to them, is fundamentally different from the consciousness of animals not only in terms of its developed skills, but in its very essence. Her skills that she will acquire later are just an expression of that. In addition to this the existence of consciousness does not necessarily depend on consciousness towards the outer space which is only a certain expression and realization of its existence, and consciousness sometimes exists in the body even in the absence of consciousness towards the surroundings, so it is immoral to perform an abortion. According to this, taking life is a moral sin in itself, which is not derived from the very skills and rights that human beings have acquired, but from the very fact that they are living beings, and therefore the main consideration is whether the same consciousness actually exists in the fetal body. They even oppose the approach that a person's right to live depends to some extent on his contribution or being a burden on his environment, and he has no basic right to life just by virtue of being a human being. In their view, the only considerations that should guide whether to perform an abortion are: Examining the time from which the consciousness of life is in the fetus. Cases where the fetus poses a danger to its mother's life. Proponents of this approach insist that their view is as philosophical as they see reality and is not committed to religious views. According to them, their views are coordinated with some religions, but are not influenced by them, and this view has a philosophical value in itself. --195.60.234.101 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC) It doesn't help your case that you went over to the Feminism Project talk page and preached to them saying they are going against nature and that eventually they will fail. The basic problem here is that you are not here to help Wikipedia in its mission; rather, you are here to push your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Terminology sections

I propose merging section Abortion-rights movements#Terminology into section Abortion debate#Terminology, because the latter seems more complete. fgnievinski (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, looks good to me. The paragraph about the "fetus' rights" is unreferenced, though. And it would be good if we could transclude it, to be used in further articles, rather than copying text around. Elizium23 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose as terminology sections are relevant on both pages, and WP:SUMMARY format seems appropriate here. Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sdonatien.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

North Carolina Health News

For the benefit of 0f Avatar317 and other interested parties, I fail to see why North Caolina Health News [[3]] would not be a reliable source for health news. Even if it were not, The Atlantic would certainly be. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Except you didn't provide a link to the Atlantic. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. With about 30 seconds of work you could have done that and checked out North Carolina Health News as well. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DIscussion of Morgentaler decision in Canada

Hi, I think that the discussion of the Morgentaler decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is not accurate, because it gives an over-broad, inaccurate, description of the decision.

• First and most important, there is no majority judgment. The Court split 5-2 to allow the appeal and hold that the provisions were unconstitutional, but there was no majority on reasons. The majority judges split 2-2-1 on the reason for striking down the abortion provision. It is therefore not appropriate to attribute reasons to the "the Court" - which in Canada, means a unanimous court.
• Second, neither of the two quotations in the passage are accurate. The reference to ' the state has an interest in protecting the fetus "at some point" ' is only found in the judgment of Wilson J., and she is summarising the decision in Roe v Wade, not adopting that as a principle in Canadian law (see p. 169 of the Morgentaler decision). Nor does the phrase "the right to security of the person of a pregnant woman was infringed more than was required to achieve the objective of protecting the fetus, and the means were not reasonable." occur anywhere in the decision. It may be somebody's summary of the decision, but it is not backed up by a reference, leading to the conclusion that it is a statement by the Court, which is misleading.
• Third, the Court did not "remove abortion from the Criminal Code". Only Parliament can amend the Code. The Court found that the provision was unconstitutional and therefore inoperative.

I would suggest re-wording the passage as follows:

With R v. Morgentaler, a 5–2 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code were unconsitutional. The majority of the Court held that the abortion provisions infringed the rights of pregnant women, contary to the security of the person clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and could not be justified.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Reconsidering fetal pain

I suggest the article should include some of the following studies in the discussion on whether fetal pain is possible before the third trimester of pregnancy or not:

- Derbyshire, Stuart WG; Bockmann, John C. (2020-01-01). "Reconsidering fetal pain". Journal of Medical Ethics. 46 (1): 3–6. doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105701. ISSN 0306-6800. PMID 31937669.
- Pierucci, Robin (2020-08). «Fetal Pain: The Science Behind Why It Is the Medical Standard of Care». The Linacre Quarterly. 87 (3): 311-316. ISSN 0024-3639. PMC 7350116. PMID 32699441. doi:10.1177/0024363920924877. 
- Bellieni, Carlo V. (2021-05). «Analgesia for fetal pain during prenatal surgery: 10 years of progress». Pediatric Research 89 (7): 1612-1618. ISSN 1530-0447. doi:10.1038/s41390-020-01170-2.

I will wait for any response.--Potatín5 (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The articles are fascinating, but I am not sure if they meet WP:MEDRS. (This is outside my area of expertise). If they don't, we can't include them. I will note that one of the sources is already in Prenatal perception. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)