Talk:Abortion debate

Double-Standard Between Genders

"Some argue that women's freedoms are limited until they can have the right to abortion on demand and to walk away from parenthood like men can."

I'm not sure this is correct. While it is true that a man has the natural ability to walk away from pregnancy, men actually are bound by law in many countries to provide for the child financially. Unwanted or not, he presumably also tacitly accepts that a pregnancy may result due to sex, and so accepts the responsibility to provide for the child financially. This seems to act as a sort of precedent that a parent has a responsibility to provide for a child, wanted or not. Could not an argument then be made that it is, in fact, a double-standard that a mother able to have an abortion is not forced to accept responsibility for an unwanted child if she so chooses, while a man is (or at least is subject to the mother's decision)? It seems two mutually exclusive positions: Either both a man and woman have the ability to opt out of their respective responsibilities (her via abortion, and the man via choosing not to support the child), or they both must fulfill their responsibilities towards the child (the woman, via her body, the man, financially). I'm not sure if this is really addressed and if there is some way to work this angle into the article. Thoughts? JPetersen (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to "Either both a man and woman have the ability to opt out of their respective responsibilities (her via abortion, and the man via choosing not to support the child)": Yes, but the woman would be considered a "murderer", whereas the father would be considered at worst a deadbeat dad. There's a big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.25.195 (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What about a mans right to be pregnant? Is that a double standard? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, we're ready for a mature discussion (I hope)

I think that the level of interest in the discussion above is good. It is also true that, until this point, the discussion has been framented (to say the least) and that discussing these issues on multiple talk pages cannot hope to be a path to consensus. I believe that we now have at least discovered the venue for discussing the proposal to merge Abortion rights movement and Pro-life movement, and that is here.

But this discussion must stay organized, insofar as that is possible. I am going to create some sections in an attempt to keep the discussion focused and on task.

I cannot read this.

I have tried hard - hard - to read this article. Someone sum it up for me. This article is a mess. --Hinata talk 15:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if an admin kept an eye on this user, who calls editors liars and seems to specialize in stirring up trouble, ordering people around and quitting wikipedia. --W☯W ^t/c 17:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs section

I changed "Roman Catholics believe" to "The Roman Catholic Church believes". It is entirely unscholarly to attempt to report the beleifs of "Roman Catholics" as a group of people as this cannot be measured in any meaningful way. Instead, the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church should be reported, especially since the reference for that line is the cathecism. If the reference linked to a poll showing that 100% of people who affilliate as Roman Catholic follow the belief outlined by the church, then and only then could it be accurately stated what Roman Catholics believe. Ahp378 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The new phrasing is better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's still wrong to assert what anyone's beliefs are, as the assertion cannot be objectively verified. Far better to assert that "The Roman Catholic Church teaches..." or "Roman Catholic doctrine holds that..." which are fully verifiable. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is an assertation of their beliefs. Is that not correct? I think your rewordings are acceptable but not substantially improved, there is no way to be correct about it without explicitly saying "The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states that..." I was just attempting to make the sentence a little less terrible, I don't actually expect people to use this article as a source for Catholic doctrine or teachings. Ahp378 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Violence

We should add a Non Biased section called "Violence associated with abortion" to this article. There we can add both Pro-abortion and Pro-life violence and get rid of the article Anti-abortion violence. Anyone agree? Greenble (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Why Not? Greenble (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Because WP:NPOV doesn't entail giving equal weight to every view, but rather giving weight to views as they are reflected in reliable sources. "Pro-abortion violence exists" is a fringe view, while the existence of anti-abortion violence is extremely well documented in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

right to body

Is it also legal for a conjoined twin to cut off their sibling? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)