Talk:Religion and abortion/Archive 2

Hinduism and Sikhism Sections

The Hinduism and Sikhism sections have been appalingly edited, using, in the case of Hinduism, out-of-context references to abortion, and making no mention of the views of contemporary Hindus. Hinduism is a dynamic and changing religion, and the views of contemporary Hindus are of significant concern, as there is no set guidance for morality within the religion itself.

Also, the section about Sikhism was lifted VERBATIM from http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/sikhethics/abortion.shtml

The section indicated that abortion is prohibited according to Page 74 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, as that page discusses the beginning of life as being at conception. However, Page 74 makes absolutely no mention of it (http://www.sikhs.org/english/eg6.htm#p74).

Penciledition 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious groups supporting abortion rights

I have replaced the text deleted by RookZero and added citations as s/he suggested. Unfortunately I cannot figure out how to make the citations show up in the reference/notes section. Any help will be appreciated. TIA.

I reverted last edit by RookZero -- (a) The religious organizations here clearly do not support abortion per se -- they support abortion rights. Also, the text the availability of modern, medically supervised abortion has been agreed to in previous discussion on this page.

If its cited, then I won't delete the list. THe wording "legal abortion," that is, support for abortion to be legal, shows their position without violating NPOV (RookZERO 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Disputable tag on Judaism section

The first statement says "Jewish tradition holds life (including the life of a fetus) as sacred, and does not permit abortion on demand". Yes it holds life as sacred but the status of the fetus as life is an incredibly gray area in Judaism, with many contradictory laws. Ohalot 7:6, which is cited later in the section says that the fetus can be torn limb from limb from the mother and I read elsewhere that the fetus has the same status as any other appendage of the woman. We know from the Torah in Parashat Mishpatim that an unintentional killing of the fetus is, at most, a monetary issue (as opposed to unintentionally killing the mother which can result in capital punishment), but the tradition takes various positions on the status of elective abortions and I would like to see citations backing up a statement like Judaism "does not permit abortion on demand". --Valley2city^₪‽ 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to revise my revisions! HG | Talk 04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish text and tradition have consistently said that until the baby has come out of the womb, the mother can, and should, have an abortion if there life is in danger.

religioustolerance.org

Some sourced content was removed because of religioustolerance.org is not considered a reliable source. I'm familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, but that guideline was never supported by consensus. If there is a specific reason why this information is wrong, or that it should be removed, I'd like to hear that, but removing content based solely on its source seems too simplistic.-Andrew c 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the proposal was rejected. I stand corrected then. The content should be restored. Darkfrog24 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've modified it to reflect the source.-Andrew c 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ReligiousTolerance.org is operated by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, who state that their goal is to research and write neutral, informative articles on a variety of topics, rather like Wikipedia. I don't necessarily see an issue with citing them, so long as they have done their homework, and cited reputable sources. -Severa (!!!) 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

While there may be some significant concerns regarding the lead, I believe the most recent changes are, not to be blunt, but simply poorly written. It should generally be avoided to refer to the article itself such as "this article" (the changes introduce this twice). The use of "It is worth noting, however" is simply unnecessary and does nothing except make the lead more verbose. Does anyone want to copy edit the recent changes? or maybe revert back to the old version until we can get a better written new version?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have gone ahead and modified it, hopefully addressing these issues. LotR 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried re-writing the lead again. Here are some problems with the prior version:

"Many religions have adopted specific stances" -- "adopted" implies some sort of active decision; some religious traditions don't quite work that way. In addition, not all religious views of abortion are "specific."

"regarding the morality of abortion" -- not all religious views of abortion purport to be about the "morality" of abortion; in some religious traditions, the permissibility of abortion is more a matter of religious law than religious "morality."

"Religious perspectives on this subject span a rather large spectrum." -- a spectrum can broad or wide, but not "large."P.D. 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "espouse specific stances." Of course, we'd also have to account for the non-specific stances. Darkfrog24 05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the latest version is acceptable. LotR 20:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of religions

Hi. I can see that the religions are ordered alphabetically. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Still, it might be better to use an analytical sequence. For instance, we could have a section on Abrahamic religions and another on Dharmic faiths. Plus, this might highlight where we need more balance and coverage. In addition, within Abrahamic religions, there would be a benefit in coordinating the writing of the sections, because some of the texts (eg Exodus) and concepts/reasoning overlap. What do folks think?

Incidentally, I've added the the Judaism section. Let me know when the time might be right to spin-off Judaism and abortion, which I'd like to do eventually. Thanks! HG | Talk 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, HG, for giving this article some much-needed attention! I think that you've done a very good job expanding the section on Judaism.

I generally order items in an article either alphabetically or chronologically. I do see a logical basis for dividing material in this article along the Abrahamic/Dharmic line. I can see this structure posing an issue, however, if a section on a religion with a different origin altogether were added. I suppose any religion which fits in neither the Abrahamic nor Dharmic category would most likely fall into the Taoic or Pagan/Neopagan categories. This is essentially the framework in place at Religion and homosexuality.

Regarding the creation of religion-specific sub-articles, if the deletion of the article Abortion and Evangelical Christians has set any precedent, I think it's that denomination-specific sub-articles might be a step too far in that direction. I do think that creating a series of spin-off articles for each religious movement would help to refine the focus of this article, though, as detailed coverage of topics only relevant to a particular faith could be migrated (the practice of mizuko kuyo and the Vatican's position on pro-choice politicians are two examples which come to my mind). I think the "Religion and homosexuality" article series could again serve as our guide.

The basic hierarchy proposed below would be Religion family -> Religion -> School or denomination. The inclusion of religions not currently covered by this article in the section tree is not intended to suggest that it would be necessary for us to fill in all of these gaps. It's just intended to show what the general layout of sections would be. -Severa (!!!) 03:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section tree

• Abrahamic religions
  • Bahá'í
  • Christianity
    • Denomination 1
    • Denomination 2
    • Et al.
  • Islam
  • Judaism
    • Denomination 1
    • Denomination 2
    • Et al.
• Dharmic religions
  • Buddhism
    • School 1
    • School 2
    • Et al.
  • Hinduism
  • Sikhism
• Neopagan religions
  • Ásatrú
  • Wicca
• Taoic religions
  • Confucianism
  • Shinto
  • Taoism

Hi, Severa. Thanks for your kind comments. Smart suggestion to look at the Religion and homosexuality model. They do have the Abrahamics in the conventional chronological order, not sure about Dharmics (with Jainism after Sikhs). I'm surprised that Catholicism doesn't have its own main article, but maybe that's reflects the randomness of editors and their interests. Certainly, if some folks come along to help out, the Jewish view is complex and diverse enough that it would benefit from a separate piece. Hmmm, if I want collaborators, it might be best to spin-off the piece soon -- or at least tag this as a WP:Judaism project. Will you implement your outline above? You might as well be bold WP:BRD. Adieu, HG | Talk 04:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered that there is a host of denomination-specific articles for Christianity in the "Religion and homosexuality" series. I get the impression that the LGBT Studies project is much more organized than WikiProject Abortion (we've really only got two or three active members at the moment). I'd certainly like to implement the above outline, as well as the proposal for a spin-off series, but, frankly, I don't think I have the ambition to take it on single-handedly. I'd prefer to call in a few experts in each subject to lend a hand in putting everything together. I suppose if I wanted to get the ball rolling I could ask around at each of the religion-specific WikiProjects, or perhaps even at the LGBT Studies project, as the people who assembled a series of articles on how one heavily-debated topic is approached by various religions are likely to have information relevant to religious views of another heavily-debated topic. I think, in any case, we should probably start by expanding/spinning off the sections we already have (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, & Sikhism). -Severa (!!!) 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and links

I came to check the neutrality. I removed a number of links under "Religious Organizations that oppose abortion". None of them were religius orgs. I question the inclusions of the geocities "Pagans For Life" page. What do others think? Also, the intro cites an ABC poll stating "50%" of those who oppose abortion. The source says "52%" approve and 43% think it should be illegal. I'm going to change the stats to reflect the source and continue through the article. Phyesalis (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Entire "Christianity" section is unsourced

The several paragraphs directly under "Christianity" are unsourced. I'm going to try to source some of it, but the parts I can't, I move we quickly delete them.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe we could fact tag them for a few days, see if others can find sources. Otherwise, I'm OK with it. If there are any disagreements, the material can be sourced and reintroduced. Phyesalis (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Judaism section revisions

Hi. User:IronAngelAlice had concerns with some of the Judaism section. Here's a diff showing our differences. Here's some of my thinking on this.

• (a) Subheading refers to the Bible not the Jewish "Tradition" because this subunit deals more narrowly w/the Biblical verses and "tradition" would also cover the later subunits on rabbinic literature.
• (b) This text had been deleted as weasel wording: "there is no unambiguous position on abortion. On the one hand, the Bible is understood to exalt the preservation of human life as a paramount value. Homicide is denounced and forbidden, except in cases of rescue and self-defense (see rodef). On the other hand, the Biblical texts say little about the status or treatment of the embryo or fetus. " The notion of ambiguity in the Biblical text is quite common in Judaism; more importantly, this view is not mine but rather from the major (Jewish) scholars on the subject, eg Feldman. These scholars note the tensions between forbidding killing and the valorizing life, while not necessarily focusing on or including the fetus. The specific propositions here are also supported by (Jewish) scholarly analysis of the Bible, including the relevance of self-defense (which plays a major role in rabbinic interpretations, as noted in subsequent sections of the article).
• (c) Another disputed text here is this: Do we say "Talmudic texts say little about the status..." or 'Biblical text...." Two reasons to say Biblical. First, as noted above, this is a subunit about the Bible. Second, it is only the Bible that says little, the Talmud actually says much more.

Thanks. I look forward to feedback. HG | Talk 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks H.G.:

• • (a) Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be the "Torah and Talmud." What are your thoughts?
  • (b) The section you site above was not entirely deleted because of "weasel wording," though some sections seem to be editorializing, lack of sources and lack of a global view.
  • (c) The "Torah" in most contexts is the entire "Jewish Bible" (http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Oral_Torah)

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, glad to see your response. I hadn't seen it (while the database was down just now). (a) I already reverted on adding Talmud; as explained in my edit summary, the Talmud (contra Bible) does say alot about fetus etc. (b) well, the sources are there but they aren't cited because I didn't expect much of a challenge on this, it's pretty well accepted. Not sure what you mean by lack of a global view. Explain pls? (c) Sure, we can use Torah, though I think it would be less familiar to most readers of this article. Thanks very much for doing this via conversation. Pls come back at me with more concerns, etc., as you have them. thanks. HG | Talk 23:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to just throw out the wiki phrases "editorializing, lack of sources and lack of a global view". Here are links with regards to those issues: Original Research/Editorializing, WP:Evidence/Sources, Global View--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm somewhat familiar with these matters. I've responded above on sources and editorializing. In what particular way does the text reflect systematic bias? (In Judaism articles, there's sometimes a tendency to ignore the varieties of Judaism, but here we have not only the major modern movements but also Philo/Hellenistic.) Thanks. HG | Talk 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Order

The organization of religions seems odd with Christianity 2nd (kind of POV-y). I propose that we order them chronologically - Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc. Phyesalis (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was bold,a nd went ahead and did it - any issues? Phyesalis (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The previous order wasn't POV. It was alphabetical. I have a slight preference for the old order, but this matter doesn't seem that important to me, so unless there aren't any other objections, and your desire to re-arrange is that strong, I don't mind the change. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's far better to keep alphabetical. Otherwise, we'll waste time with origins/timing disputes, esp if we pick up more religions. My 2 cents. HG | Talk 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Both chronological and alphabetical are equally defensible and expandable, though chrono makes more sense (to me) in that it follows logically - seems weird to talk about Christianity before Judaism (you're right it's not POV - just seems arbitrary in the face of a chrono development). This way you can follow the development of ideological positions, each section becomes an intro to the next, giving a nice historical perspective. I also think the chrono is more self-evident. I don't think there's very much dispute as to what order the religions developed, particular dates, maybe, but that's not an issue here. I have a strong preference for this but I don't want to make an issue out of it. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that alphabetical is better. Chronological order creates problems - there are disputes about the ages of both the Hindu and Judaic religions. It's clear under each denomination that it is laid out in historical order. It's not confusing to have the denominations in alpha order.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to assert exactly how old they are, there's like 4,000 years between Vedic Civilization and the covenant of Abraham. I don't think there's too much confusion as to which one came first. :) How is the chronological order made clear under each section if the sections are in alpha order? Also, please note that if there was consensus, Andrew c said he didn't mind, HG opposed and I supported - that seems to indicate the consensus was for moving to chrono, which I did and they accepted it. Would you mind discussing your points for alpha order? -Phyesalis (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

State the foundational principles, not the political polls.

I believe that if possible the foundations of these religions should be stated, rather than the present popular/political opinion. This can be done by researching the core values or holy books pertaining to these religions. Although you cannot find any direct results of searching through the bible, the Qur'an, or Talmud for the word abortion, each has much to say about life, innocence and purpose. In the section regarding Sikhism, this has been done by stating a underlying principle found in the Gurū Granth Sāhib. Buddhism has it’s foundations and those foundations have opinions in regard to life and the purpose of life. Hinduism sounds like it would be difficult to find their scriptural opinion, due to the fact that there are so many. It is insulting to these religions to do polls from people who claim to be from them and not the foundations of the religions themselves regarding life, innocence and purpose or in other words the matter of abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotvision (talk • contribs) 10:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Didache

The Didache contains a specific reference to abortion. I think it should be added somewhere in the Christian section. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nuns and abortions

This is somewhat controversial, but the article should maybe mention those rare cases of nuns supporting abortion or actually having an abortion, for instance in places like Bosnia, Southern Africa or in advocacy groups in industrialized countries [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ADM (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life Muslims

I found some information here at the Society for the Protection for Unborn Children about some Muslims who are pro-life. There is a notable anti-abortion minority within Islam, it is maybe not very large, but it is fairly significant anyways. [6] ADM (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Satanism and abortion

It would be interesting if we could write about the relationship between Satanism and abortion. I would suppose that many Satanists are pro-choice, since they might view abortion as a ritual offering to the devil. ADM (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that sure sounds like a recipe for violating neutrality, as it's based on a Christian boogeyman view of Satanism that's out of touch with reality and would serve largely to reinforce groundless biases. So feel free to try, but don't be shocked when your changes get rejected. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an interview with Peter Gilmore on wikinews, but you may be disappointed when you read it (and read about the difference between Satanists and devil worshipers).-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Go find some neutral and reliable sources. You may also want to read the Satanism article, which has a number of interesting things to say on the subject of Satanists.--Tznkai (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Witchcraft and abortion

Another interesting issue is the historical link that is sometimes made between witchcraft and abortion, the notion that medieval witches were among the early promoters of birth control practices such as contraception and abortion. There is an interesting article here written by canonist Pete Vere that presents information on this topic and argues in favour of such a link. [7] ADM (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mother

Ok, Shrandit, this is your big chance to make your case for calling a woman a mother just because she's pregnant. If you don't make a strong case and gain a consensus, I will report you for edit-warring and POV-pushing. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then...the phrase "life of the mother" is an accepted term in use. A quick google search found this legal research publication by the well respected centrist Pew Research Center, in the text of this bill put forth in South Dakota and a pro-abortion group quotes the term in Irish law here. The word "mother" and the term "life of the mother" is widely used when debateing the morality of abortion across the spectrum of standpoint, a few bring mentions are here and here. The term was also used by Standford University, the BBC and by encyclopedia.com. The term is even being used by our President. If you believe it to be necessary I can take the time to find more and even better examples.

I think the term "pro-choice" is a text book example of issue framing. Organizations like planned parenthood have spent millions of dollars to brand that word as something I firmly believe it is not. But much as I lament that, they have accomplished their goal. I think the term "pro-choice" is ultimately disingenuous and deceptive but I cannot honestly deny its usage and if a politician describes them self as "pro-choice" that is how they are described on this encyclopedia. - Schrandit (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that with this edit, it was actually TruthIIPower who made the change from "mother," which had been in the article for a considerable period of time, to "woman." That seems to me to be a POV edit, considering the term's accepted usage. 98.243.129.140 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is obligated to be neutral, whereas the rest of the world is not. A woman who is pregnant is simply a woman who is pregnant. If she had given birth in the past then she is coincidentally a mother. Otherwise, she is not. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Question- What do you call the person who impregnated the woman? The only term I've heard is father. By analogy, the woman is the mother. Secondly, what makes you say mother is not a neutral term? As Shrandit mentioned above, the pro-choice Barack Obama uses the term mother. Different sources will use different terms, but that does not make one term preferred over the other. The term mother establishes a relationship between the woman and the fetus. This makes the term mother more descriptive. Words should be used to describe something as accurately as possible.98.243.129.140 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Word. "Life of the mother" is a neutral phrase in use by folks as liberal as President Obama. - Schrandit (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I agree with Schrandit. The phrase "life of the mother" is a well-known colloquialism that remains accepted terminology, even among pro choice advocates. The Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion uses the word "mother" 43 times with reference to a pregnant woman, and that's just in the majority opinion.

Additionally, dictionaries and other reference books often use the word "mother" prenatally, e.g.:
MedicineNet.com (defining placenta as a "temporary organ joining the mother and fetus");
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (placenta permits "metabolic interchage between fetus and mother", and also defining quickening as "signs of fetal life felt by the mother");
Encyclopedia Britannica Concise ("nutrients and oxygen in the mother's blood pass across the placenta to the fetus");
On-Line Medical Dictionary, Department of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne ("movement of foetus in the womb perceived by the mother");
Medilexicon (defining quickening as "signs of life felt by the mother as a result of fetal movements");
Wordnet, Princeton University ("mother first feels the movements of the fetus");
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary ("motion of a fetus in the uterus felt by the mother").

The idea that perfectly normal English words should be banned from this article because they've somehow become contaminated by being used on one side or the other of a political controversy seems misguided to me.

Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) said: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." Note that the very pro-choice Faludi uses the term "mother", whereas removing it from this article would give the deliberate impression that motherhood does not begin until birth or later.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The pregnant woman is allowed to round up because it is her choice that will make it become true. In fact, motherhood does not begin at fertilization, else we'd consider many, many more women to be mothers, particularly since the majority of fertilizations do not produce babies. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Cites?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For which? TruthIIPower (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For what you said at 20:54.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was common knowledge. [8] [9] TruthIIPower (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The first of those two links does not mention the word "mother" or any variant of it. The second merely says that miscarriage does not end the chance of motherhood in the future. Neither seems to support the argument you were making at 20:54.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I linked these to support the biological fact that most fertilizations do not lead to live births. Please stick to the topic. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And, incidently, that quote does support my logic. If miscarriage does not end the chance of motherhood in the future, it means that merely having a fertilized egg which self-aborted (or failed to implant in the first place) does not suffice for motherhood. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I read it wrong but site number 1 said that 50-60% of first pregnancies end in miscarriage and site number 2 said 1 in 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage. - Schrandit (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should do a more careful reading of these two articles, then read some more until you understand the issue. For example, http://miscarriage.about.com/od/onetimemiscarriages/p/chemicalpreg.htm cites a 70% figure, but most just say "more than half". TruthIIPower (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

TruthIIPower, I'm aware that most fertilizations do not lead to live births. You said much more than that at 20:54. You said that a "pregnant woman is allowed to round up" and "motherhood does not begin at fertilization". Do you have cites for those assertions, per WP:RS? Also, losing a baby due to Infant Death Syndrome or a variety of other causes does not necessarily end the chance of motherhood in the future; that fact does not imply that motherhood did not occur in the past.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Ferrylodge, please read what I wrote. Even the quote YOU CHOSE supports my contention. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote I chose at 21:22 was quoting you. You are not a WP:RS. I'm simply asking if you can cite a WP:RS to back up your statements that I quoted: "pregnant woman is allowed to round up....motherhood does not begin at fertilization". I've not only been reading what you write, but also following the links that you provide.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The second cite I gave said "A miscarriage is a natural occurrence in most cases and is in no way a end sentence for the chances of motherhood." and this is what you paraphrased. I explained how this tacitly recognizes that motherhood requires more than pregnancy. What part of this remains unclear to you? TruthIIPower (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources often discuss women who have had children wanting another chance at motherhood."But as we talked more, he could see how much I yearned for another chance at motherhood. I know he has made a massive compromise for me — but then he knew how much having another child meant to me." Just because a woman has had a child in the past does not mean she cannot have a chance of motherhood in the future. Anyway, I would hesitate to consider your source reliable, especially given that it incorrectly says "a end" instead of "an end".Ferrylodge (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try this again. Consider that pro-choice advocates have been known to use the term "anti-choice" to refer to pro-lifers. While a strong argument can be made in favor of this usage and it is quite common, it is not sufficiently neutral for our needs. TruthIIPower (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Self-identification: "When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use." That applies to self-identification, not to everything else under discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, political terms like "assault weapons" are acceptable when in common usage. Our "Pro-choice" President uses the term "mother". What higher form of cultural acceptance is there? - Schrandit (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less, because what we're talking about here is neutrality, not cultural acceptance. TruthIIPower (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Says you. No one else thinks so. We can not be tied down by a burden of proof like as ridiculous as that. - Schrandit (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Says Wikipedia rules. Sorry. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Says your interpretation of Wikipedia rules. Everyone else on this project seems to have a different view of them. - Schrandit (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not everyone else, not even when you add your one co-partisan, who is supporting you in an edit war to violate npov on this article. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Every editor who has entered into this dispute has sided against you. Isn't it time to give up the charade? - Schrandit (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a highly uncivil statement. If I were a child, I'd report you for it immediately. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

break

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere hence the new section.

The important fact here is that the pregnant women being discussed may or may not be going on to become mothers by the very nature of the article. If they were all planning to keep the pregnancies calling them mothers would be fair, but those that are going to abort would not refer to themselves as mothers. Any definition of mother you care to look at necessitates a born child. The sources that refer to pregnant women as mothers are of two types: those that colloquially use the term as a lay person might as they are planning to keep the baby; and those that use the term in a sort of Mendelian sense - referring to the genetic or biological consequences of the woman on the fetus. Neither of these are reasons to use mother in this article. |→ Spaully^₪† 21:25, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

I support what you say here and have little to add. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Spaully, you have not cited any sources, or mentioned any of the sources previously cited above. Are these only personal opinions of yours?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a fine effort at burden shifting, but how does it address their argument? And if it doesn't, then why should we care? TruthIIPower (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited above contradict the argument, as explained above.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[10][11][12][13][14] + my OED and medical dictionary. The only one that supports a fetus being enough is this [15]. Note that this includes all of the sources you posted above except Britannica as I can't see the article. |→ Spaully^₪† 21:50, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

I included quotes from all the sources I listed. Are you saying that I misquoted? And what about Faludi? I don't want to gather more sources, but I will if necessary. What's wrong with the quotes I provided?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Spaully, I made a point earlier that sometimes we "round up" in the direction of intent. So, for example, if a woman is pregnant and has decided to carry the pregnancy to term, we might call her a mother, even though it's premature to do so. Likewise, we might call the fetus a baby in such circumstances, as we anticipate that it will be born. This is fine in casual conversation and I've done it myself.

However, telling a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy that she is already a mother is, well, wrong. It's wrong factually and it's wrong morally, and it's just too biased to be allowed on Wikipedia. So even if Ferrylodge can dig up some sources where there's been a rounding up, I dismiss them in advance on the basis of the argument I have just restated here. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you TruthIIPower, there are contexts in which using the word mother is appropriate, but not here.

Ferrylodge- I don't see the problem. You can see the definitions of 'mother' in the sources I provided. I also used the sources you provided to see how they define 'mother'. The quotes you provided are at odds with their own definitions of the word. The Faudi quote is somewhat isolated, I would be interested to see if she addresses the use of the world elsewhere - though it seems the book is not completely online. I am also not aware of her importance in the matter.

As for suggesting motherhood starts at birth- that is exactly what the majority of definitions support so it is only correct that the article gives that impression. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:23, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

Spaully, you seem to be making a rather farfetched argument: that a whole bunch of reputable sources that I have quoted were using the word "mother" in a way inconsistent with their own definitions. You seem to be relying on the equally untenable assumption that a "female parent" cannot refer to a pregnant woman. Anyway, have you looked at the Roe v. Wade decision, which uses the word "mother" 43 times with reference to a pregnant woman?

Please don't get me wrong. I have no objection to the use of the term "pregnant woman" here in this article. What I do object to is over-using that term, to the complete exclusion of other commonly-understood words that some editors may not feel are sufficiently politically correct. It strikes me as kind of Orwellian.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Word. A mix of terms (what we have now) is acceptable. The term "mother" is in use in medicine, law, morality and even by our own "pro-choice" president. To exclude it would be dishonest and unjust. - Schrandit (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me as neutral. A woman who is pregant is a potential parent, not an actual one, hence only a potential mother. She is no more a mother than you are an undeceased corpse. Any abuse of the English language intended to push a point of view is an obvious target for removal. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Any abuse of the English language intended to push a point of view is an obvious target for removal" That is a very interesting position for a person pushing for the removal of an accepted term. - Schrandit (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the borderline personal attack. I will understand it as an admission that you have no actual argument. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can choose to understand it any way you want. - Schrandit (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for choice, remember? That's one of the things that distinguishes my view from yours. However, I have no choice here because you offer me nothing that looks like an argument. All I see is some sort of baiting, and I'm not a fish. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Myself, and Ferrylodge have offered plenty of reasonable arguments explaining the current wording of the article. You have chosen to attempt to move the converstaion away from those arguments and have failed to build a consensus toward implementing your proposed changes. No baiting at all, just frustration. - Schrandit (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Remind me: what arguments survived inspection? TruthIIPower (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, you can review above if you desire. My primary pillar of support has been built upon the fact that "life of the mother" is a phrase in common use by doctors, philosophers and lawmakers. It has been encoded in law. It has even been used on record by our President. You will come back and say "too bad, I don't think its neutral". We will then point out that other similar phrases of questionable neutrality in common use are used in this encyclopedia. You will not acknowledge this point and continue on this discussion ad nauseum. - Schrandit (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To remind you, I asked for arguments that survived inspection, not arguments that were refuted. The idea that we have to use phrases that are biased if they're common doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For example, "anti-choice" is quite common, and quite accurate, yet it would violate neutrality to refer to those who call themselves pro-life as that in an article, except perhaps under very narrow circumstances in which it is attributed and relevant. We have a higher burden than even the President: neutrality. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again madam, phrases like "assault weapon" and "death tax" which are not, in the strictest sense, accurate or neutral have a place in this encyclopedia. - Schrandit (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you've watched so many episodes of "Scrubs" that you think it's funny to refer to men as women. While there is no insult in being a woman, there is apparent insult in your habit of repeatedly calling me one when you already know I happen to be a man. And that doesn't even cover the "spot" thing, which I can only guess is intended to suggest that I'm a dog. Perhaps I'm expected to add "dog" + "female" together to find the word you intend. Regardless of your intentions, I'm past the point of caring. You have no argument, just insults, and if I hear even one more of the latter out of you, I will take the utterly pointless step of reporting you. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can draw whatever inferences you chose to. - Schrandit (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)Please, would both of you take this to your respective talk pages? This is not the place. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was told to draw whatever inference I choose to. However, I don't feel that I have much choice in the matter. As all I've gotten is gross incivility, repetition of refuted arguments, and general evasion, I can only draw the inference that there is no basis for keeping the biased version that the two of you have been edit-warring to install. TruthIIPower (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article has recently been a target of biased changes by Catholic/anti-choice partisans. Remember, Wikipedia is obligated to be neutral, so these changes will be removed. TruthIIPower (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversial edits made by people who are not even attempting to gain consensus are more likely to be immediately reverted. TruthIIPower (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks Easy with that, ma'am. - Schrandit (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a dude, dude, and there's no personal attack in explaining that we don't like bias around here. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusing respected users of being "Catholic/anti-choice" partisans is most definitely crossing the line. - Schrandit (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about people like you, not respected non-partisans. Thank you for edit-warring, by the way. It'll make things easier for the admins. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. - Schrandit (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, you say so. It's all over your user page. You make no bones about being a pro-Catholic, anti-choice partisan. This is not something I had to guess at from your edits or words I put into your mouth, it's something you say in as many words all on your own. You can't declare partisanship and then expect people to treat you as if you were a neutral editor. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)TIIP, please comment on content, not on the contributor. We should keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors. All editors have biases, and all editors have a point of view, but what really matters is how we combine POVs to create a neutral article. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed, but personal bias does not necessarily lead to editorial bias. In other words, personal bias is not always a conflict of interest. Any editor may add material or remove material from the article within the terms of Wikipedia's content policies.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Now you can explain why we should allow the two of you to insert biases into this article. I'll be sure to wait patiently for your justification. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you accept that people can honestly disagree with you about content, and yet still edit in an unbiassed way?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you have an explanation or are you going to keep making this personal? I have no interest in the latter. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the one that made it personal, love. - Schrandit (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make it impersonal by offering some justification. And please don't be uncivil by calling me "love". TruthIIPower (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What does that even mean, spot? - Schrandit (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have an argument, that's ok. Just say so. I'm man enough to accept your concession without rubbing it in. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I think the Catholic Church opposes abortion in all circumstances, even to save the life of the mother, presumably on the grounds that whatever happens is "God's will". Is that a fair statement? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one exception that I know of, which is when the abortion is a necessary consequence rather than the primary intent. It's a tangled bit of logic, but it's ok to abort a fetus so that, for example, we can treat the pregnant woman with chemotherapy for cancer. The logic, perhaps, is that the fetus will die in either circumstance, so this action at least offers a chance to save the woman's life.

In any case, this is perhaps not the biggest point of disagreement. Rather, the rounding-up of a pregnant woman into a mother is somethig that has been stamped out on Abortion but is showing up here in the boonies. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this counts as a reliable source, but it's the first thing I found: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=281993 TruthIIPower (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a blog, so it probably doesn't count. But what I'm seeing is the application of what might be called the "greater sin" axiom. That is, if you do the fallopian surgery, the fetus will die but the mother might live. If you do nothing, both will die for sure. Doing nothing would therefore be the "greater sin". If you can find an authoritative source to back that up, then you can modify the "no abortions whatsoever" statement in this article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's called the principle of double effect. In order to avoid even the appearance of an edit war, I'd prefer that you make this change. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not changing anything unless you can find me a specific citation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The very first link in that article is to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/, which mentions the example of pregnancy. It's in there. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So why can't you post it? If it's valid, it should stick. And just so there's no misunderstanding about anything, my personal view in general is toward the anti-abortion side. That fact has nothing to do with editing articles, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I can post it, but I refuse to present even the appearance of an edit war, so I'd rather someone else do the editing. If you agree that this is factual, I can't imagine why you would hesitate to fix the error in the article. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR rule aside (it wouldn't apply here) I'm not sure the citation would support the proposed text. - Schrandit (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to question the philosophical underpinning of TIIP's logic. If the death of a child occurs as the double effect of another procedure I don't believe that constitutes an acceptance of abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you're having such trouble understanding a simple concept. Assuming good faith, I will simply reiterate that if the Catholic church is ok with abortion in even one case, such as saving the woman's life, then it does not oppose abortion in all cases. One exception is enough. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As was noted above, I'm not sure the policies of the Church constitute acceptance of an instance of abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)"Rather, the rounding-up of a pregnant woman into a mother is somethig that has been stamped out on Abortion but is showing up here in the boonies." - Proof? - Schrandit (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Go prove your own negative; it's not my burden. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

? You just claimed that the issue had been resolved on the talk page for the article abortion. It is not unreasonable to ask you to show us that. - Schrandit (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I call your bluff. Go into Abortion and start changing "woman" to "mother". Let's see what happens. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how consensus works? - Schrandit (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you? If you're going to claim that there's no consensus to use the word "woman" instead of "mother", feel free to be bold and test consensus. Otherwise, I can only interpret this as a concession. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the Catholic Church stands against abortion and other forms of the taking of human life, but it concedes that there are circumstances where it's justifiable. Is that a true statement? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my take on it. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what Schrandit has to say about the wording I'm using above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the Church is still opposed to abortion, even in that circumstance. I think a great analogy can be found in military terms on the Principle of double effect. It would be fair to say that our military opposes the killing of children in all circumstance yet in many of our air raids against urban targets in previous wars many children did unfortunately die as a double effect. The same logic that allows us to say our military opposes the killing of children in all circumstances also allows the Church to say it opposes abortion in all circumstances. This is how the Church describes itself, it is not a logical fallacy, lets leave it in. - Schrandit (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church opposes war also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, most wars. Exception is made in the event of a Just war. When I said "our military" I meant the American military. My apologies if we are not all countrymen as I assumed that we were. - Schrandit (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a slippery slope, although I suppose the classic "just war" would be WWII. I recall William F. Buckley, a Catholic, saying, "There's no such thing as a 'moral' war, but there is such a thing as a 'defensible' war." That sounds pretty good in theory, except he was saying it about Vietnam. If I were to write it, I would say that the Church opposes abortion, while conceding that it's justifiable under some narrow circumstances. Saying it's justifiable is not the same thing as approving of it, I wouldn't think. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to write out a short bit on Aquinian logic and how it pertains to the life of the mother dilemma I wouldn't have a problem with that. However, anything shy of that I worry would simplify the position of the Church beyond what it actually is. Perhaps leave the intro as it is and go into detail in the Christianity section? - Schrandit (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why the intro needs to say "the Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion under all circumstances", when it would be more accurate to say "the Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion under nearly all circumstances". Or another way around it would be "the Roman Catholic Church officially opposes abortion under all circumstances." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Or "virtually all". On the other hand, why single out the Catholic Church in the intro? I doubt they are the only church opposing abortion. "Some churches... under virtually all circumstances" would cover it, with the details to be contained in the article, i.e. where the "greater/lesser sin" philosophy could be discussed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the first point, the Roman Catholic Church does oppose abortion under all circumstances and I don't see anything to be gained by prefacing it with officially. Per the seccond point, I don't see any real reason to mention the Church specifically in the intro, it might make sense to move that information down to the Christianity section where it can be explained in greater detail. - Schrandit (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So "officially" would be redundant, then. And maybe instead of "some churches", it would be better to say "some" or even "many", "religions" or "religious organizations". Singling out the Catholics might have been done simply because they are among the most prominent in the news. But given that half the world's Christians are Catholics, maybe that stands to reason. The viewpoint of the Little Chapel Guernsey, for example, probably wouldn't garner as many headlines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a little off the track, but I'm reminded of the fool's-choice question that asks, If you had a chance to kill Hitler in 1938, would you? And some say the answer is No, because murder is wrong. The "greater sin" rule, though, says, Yes, because if you know ahead of time, the horrible slaughter he's going to be responsible for, then you take one life to save millions, and take your chances with God. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that, among reasonable people, even big, important rules ("Thou shalt not kill") have equally important exceptions, then you'll get no argument from me. However, the moment you go from blanket opposition and start making exceptions, even really sensible ones, it becomes inaccurate to say you oppose all instances of a thing.

Right now, the article makes such a blanket claim regarding the RCC and abortion, but we know this to be false. For some reason -- I'll leave the speculation to you -- this fact is being suppressed. TruthIIPower (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church would say that if you are sure that killing the man would be the only way to avert that disaster then you would be obligated to take his life. We then get into fun questions like "If you robbed him of his ability to speak would he have been able to stir up such emotion?".

And now to TIIP's statement - You believe the statement to be false, the statement mirrors the Church's self-description and I, if no one else, believe it to be accurate. - Schrandit (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying something is "justified" under some circumstances does not necessarily contradict a principle of being opposed to it. The missing piece in the fallopian tube argument is that they would oppose the abortion but would also oppose allowing the woman to die. You can't have it both ways, so the doctor makes a decision, presumably upon consultation with the family. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, you do know that there are people who would oppose abortion even for ectopic pregnancy and uterine cancer. These people are, for better or worse, opposed to abortion in all circumstances. If the RCC took this view, then this aspect of the article would be accurate. However, we all know this is not the case, so why are we quibbling? I can understand Shrandit's opposition, but not yours. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What's needed is for someone to find a source for the official Catholic view directly, not what some other author thinks their official view is. Meanwhile, what do you think about taking the specific reference to Catholic out of the intro? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Catechism: Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. I'm cool with moving the Catholic section into the larger Christianity section. Maybe leave a sentence like "Christians generally frown upon abortion" or "most religions dislike abortion", something more inclusive like that.

Hell, lets just put that quote in to explain the Catholic position, I think it does it pretty succinctly. - Schrandit (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does - and it demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not unequivocally oppose abortion. They talk about a "procured" abortion: "Abortion on demand". The fallopian tube situation, I suspect, would not qualify. I think "most religions generally oppose abortion under most circumstances" would be a sufficiently blanket statement to cover the exceptions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Like they said "abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law". I'm cool with that blanket statement going in the intro, if there are no objections I'll move that in and move the Catholicism bit down into the Christianity body. - Schrandit (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote says "direct abortion", and then goes on to define it, insisting that it's always wrong. It therefore follows that indirect abortion is a different matter, and that it's not always wrong. This is precisely what it means to say that the RCC opposes abortion is most cases; it opposes the direct abortions, not all abortions. Thank you so much for providing the reliable source to support my edit. TruthIIPower (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New layout/language

Thoughts? I concede the term "unborn child" probably isn't the best but I couldn't think of a better one that would describe both a fetus and an embryo. - Schrandit (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There might be some other term, if that one is seen as anti-abortion code-wording. Of course, you could always say, "the developing embryo/fetus". That sounds awkward, but it's probably less politically charged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather hold out for something that flows better but if folks feel otherwise I'm cool with that too. - Schrandit (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll see if anyone besides the three of us are actively watching this page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology can be tricky. The term "abortion" used to have a broader meaning, and has come to mean specifically "abortion on demand". The term "miscarriage" is now used as a softer-sounding euphemism for what used to be called a "spontaneous abortion", i.e. an "act of God". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think this whole article needs to be rewritten from the ground up.--Tznkai (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Provided it was done slowly, that wouldn't be the worst idea. - Schrandit (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to being "aborted". Isn't this kind of a content fork anyway? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's been around for more than 6 years, so that's kind of a long fork. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(<---)

Come on, be serious. We all know the article can't say "unborn baby" and that the mother stuff is on the way out. There is no consensus for their inclusion and there cannot be one, because it would directly violate neutrality. The only question here is how long you can get away with edit-warring to keep this article biased. For now, nobody but you two anti-choicers seem to care, so the article is owned by you. Do you really think that'll last? I'm going to give you a chance to take the moral high road: I've restored a neutral version of the article. Just leave it and walk away. TruthIIPower (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Unborn child" is completely wrong for this article, or pretty much any article on WP unless used in quotes. It is inaccurate and irrevocably associated with the pro-life group. I agree with Tznkai, though have little time to devote to such an endeavour. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:12, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

Right, that's the long-term consensus, but this article is out in the boonies so it's being allowed to fester. TruthIIPower (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to jump in to add to the consensus - "unborn child" is not neutral (or accurate) and should be changed to embryo or fetus as applicable. Also agree that the article could use a major rewrite. Can I help? I basically write reports on Canadian health policy for a living, so I'm used to writing concisely and in a detached, neutral fashion. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

By all means, be bold. TruthIIPower (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, the problem is that we're looking for a word that would cover bot a fetus and an embryo. I threw the term "offspring" up there but something about that doesn't sit right either. - Schrandit (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you're ignoring the consensus against the abuse of "unborn" and "mother", instead edit-warring. But, hey, keep it up while I laugh my butt off. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing fact tags is inappropriate. Any uncited fact can be challenged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I would generally agree with that except for two things:

1) The change I reverted did not limit itself to the tags, but instead contained some gross violations of neutrality.

2) The user has a track record of drive-by tagging and other tag abuses.

TruthIIPower (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a highly indecent accuisation. - Schrandit (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

These are simply facts. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are allegations made by you and you alone. - Schrandit (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you to produce proof of any consensus for your proposed changes. You have responded with nothing but sarcasm and 4th grade wit. - Schrandit (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to prove there is a consensus that can override WP:NPOV. Best of luck. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Which topic do you want to talk about? You keep changing mid-discussion whenever you lose the upper hand. Pick one and I'll be more than happy to review it with you. - Schrandit (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going to need to justify each and every one of your suggested changes for them to have any chance of remaining, so it doesn't matter where you start. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where would you like me to start? - Schrandit (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, so you don't have anything at all, do you? I've called your bluff. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Here's my third party opinion. Okay, folks, leave the fact tags in where there are no references. That part was easy.

TruthIIPower, you have to ease up on the use of 'woman' instead of 'mother'. Let it be. 'Mother' is a fine term to use for a woman who has conceived, and is employed by neutral parties as well as by partisans from either side of the debate.

Using this URL, http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=351 by The Pew Forum, to say that "The variety in opinion on the issue is reflected with most religions generally opposing abortion under most circumstances" is a violation of WP:SYNTH. That webpage has a paragraph or so specific to each religion. There's no summary made; no 'most religions generally'. However, that source does not say "the Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion under most circumstances", it says "opposes abortion in all circumstances".

No need to use the legalese Latin term per se. Stay with common English for wider comprehension.

I see no need to recite the Catholic catechism. Let's state the Catholic case in one paragraph, as there is a main article about the subject.

I hope that settles some of your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish you had taken a moment to review some of the recent conversation, since some of these issues were resolved.

1) Any genuine fact tags should remain. It's not clear if the ones here are genuine, though.

2) I'm sorry, but "mother" is neither neutral nor accurate, which is why there has been a long-standing consensus in abortion-related articles to speak instead of pregnant women, which both accurate and neutral. The same applies to other round-ups, such as referring to an embryo or fetus as an "unborn baby" or "unborn child".

3) The source is largely correct, but we've established that it's slightly mistaken, in that there are indeed circumstances under which the RCC does not oppose abortion. In fact, that catechism admits as much.

4) That aside, I agree that the catechism does not belong in its full form.

5) I have no strong opinion about "per se", per se, but it is real English now, despite its Latin origins.

That said, thank you for chiming in. Every bit of attention helps. TruthIIPower (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and instead of the catechism, we could use a reliable source such as http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1999/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_30091999_gynecology-congress_en.html TruthIIPower (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I studied the most recent diff that I came across, a major one, and responded to it, which is why I don't apologize for not following the bouncing ball of this fast-changing talk page.

1) Are you going to put fact tags on fact tags you have doubts about? The three fact tags I see are on paragraphs wholly unsupported by references. Supply references before removing these tags. Simple as that.

2) I supplied my third party opinion about the term 'mother'. You might need a fourth.

3) The Pew Forum source still can be used to support things that it actually says, even if you choose not to use it about the Catholic position, where it draws a black and white picture. Other sources that draw a more finely nuanced picture of their position should be used where appropriate.

4) I think the catechism paragraph should disappear from this article, not shrink.

5) I felt that the specific use of per se in the sentence was trite. I felt it weakened the statement about "the life of the pregnant woman". Naturally, the term is a useful one where such use is indicated.

Sincerely, Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1) My concern is with drive-by tagging and other abuses. I fully support adding citations where needed.

2) That may be.

3) Agreed.

4) Removal is certainly one way to reduce its size.

5) Again, no strong opinion here. I'm fine with that. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I took another look at those fact tags. I don't object to adding citations here, but I believe all three claims are correct. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your belief is not sufficient to merit inclusion. - Schrandit (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mother redux

In the latest diff that I've been looking at, the words mother and woman have been bounced around so much that the most appropriate use of each has been ignored. Each case, each sentence, needs to be considered on its own merits. Here are some sentences where I think the reading flow benefits with one specific choice:

• However, some of these denominations make exceptions in their doctrine for abortion performed to save the life of the mother...
• The Roman Catholic Church does not make an exception for the life of the pregnant woman...
• Hinduism is therefore generally opposed to abortion except where it is necessary to save the mother's life...
• In the case where the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy...
• ..."the greater evil [the woman's death] should be warded off by the lesser evil [abortion]."
• On the issue of the life of the woman, Muslims universally agree that her life takes precedence over the life of the fetus. This is because the mother is considered the "original source of life," while the fetus is only "potential" life.
• ...should be permissible only in instances in which a mother's life is in danger...

A few examples to chew on. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you my thinking on this, based on how things are done in abortion...

If we are quoting or closely paraphrasing a religious and/or conservative source that abuses the term "mother", then we should use the original word choice. However, we should favor neutral wording when possible and avoid quotes that exist solely to bring in non-neutral wording.

Everywhere else, the editorial voice must remain neutral, so we can't round pregnant women up to mother or fetuses up to babies.

I welcome you to share your view. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the text on that page does not translate to a consensus on the wording of the text on this page. Things are complex. You have pressed your case for changes to the text of this page and it has been poorly received. There is a time to let things go. - Schrandit (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that pro-Catholic partisans sometimes get the mistaken impression that they own the articles on topics that they consider important to them, but I assure you that they are mistaken. You've been dancing and jumping, but I've heard nothing from you that might be mistaken for a jusification, so I will revert your version anytime I feel like it. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You gave your understanding of how consensus worked. I pointed out that it was wrong. No dancing or jumping. I did notice you how you failed to address what I brought up though. - Schrandit (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the collaborative editing process. Your input has been duly recognized and will be given all the weight that it deserves. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility. Give it a read. - Schrandit (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that I value your advice precisely as much as I ought to. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

This apparent impasse probably belongs more at dispute resolution than at ANI, but I've posted some concerns about TruthIIPower's behavior there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely: you admit this is a mutual dispute, so you've launched a witch hunt to eliminate me. Well played. Too bad this isn't a game. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, generally speaking, witch hunts are terrific when there is a witch out there doing witch-like things.  :-) Unless it's a good witch like Elizabeth Montgomery.

Seriously TIIP, can't we have a lede which summarizes the rest of the article, instead of contradicts it? The body of the article says, "orthodox Jews oppose abortion." Yet you keep reinserting into the lead that "traditional Jewish teachings sanction abortion" for a woman's well-being.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I knew I could count on you to pile on. I'll be glad to discuss this discrepency after the witch hunt is resolved and we tackle the more serious issue of gratuitous claims of motherhood. The article should definitely make up its mind regarding Judaism. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(<--)

Ok, I noticed the citation tag you added and I'll try to remember to merge it in when I do my daily reversion to the neutral edition of this article. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine that you have a strong opinion about the word "mother" and the term "pregnant woman". But do you really think there's a consensus here at this talk page to increase usage of the latter in this article? Seems to me that you're in the minority. I don't like being in the minority any more than you do, but ya gotta live with it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

When only you, Schrandit and Bugs are around, you have a momentary and local majority, but never a consensus. You cannot have a consensus because this word usage is in gross violation of neutrality, and no amount of voting or !voting can change that. When others come along, such as Dawn Bard, this false consensus crumbles. In the end, it's not about head count, it's about honesty and neutrality. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this but I really don't think you know the mechanics of the consensus policy and I plead with you to read it through a couple times. - Schrandit (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for a reality check, I believe you guys have never yet reached consensus, as defined at WP:CONSENSUS. Too bad my third opinion seems not to have had an effect here. Good luck with your ANI. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Update on ANI: TP indef-blocked as sock of Spotfixer, who himself is now blocked for a month. Does that help? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)