Talk:History of abortion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Formatting guideline

I propose that entries made in this article follow the timeline style:

  • 40 BC - Aristole says this and that about abortion.

But I'm certainly open to suggestions... and more sections using paragraphs. If the date is uncertain ranges and/or c. (circa) can be used.

  • c. 500 - This is incisive and important for you to know.

Actually I guess a decision needs to be made whether this will be a history or a timeline article; or even if there is a difference between the two :-)... since the History of Bratislava is in timeline form.

- RoyBoy [∞] 06:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abortion Law

The Abortion law article has a history section that could be included here. Figuring out a timeline formation thereof might be tricky though.

Good call, me do some. - RoyBoy [∞] 22:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ancient History

Sorry -- the ancient history section I did wasn't following the timeline style.... I can try to fix it, but the only problem is that there aren't specific dates for most of that ancient stuff. -- Robotkultur

I think it's fine. The whole thing, in my opinion, doesn't have to be in timeline style. Having the ancient section filled out is good timeline or not.  :) --Chadofborg 19:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I concur. I was spinning my wheels trying to find dates. If we do come across dates in books by philosophers, anthropologist, historians etc. they can be timelined below the paragraph as supplements. Well done. - RoyBoy [∞] 16:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Innocent III

Can someone give a source for the passage on Innocent III?

This article has virtually no information on the History of Abortion

This article is almost exclusively concerned with the legal history of abortion, rather than the history of abortion itself. For example, when did the various modern techniques of abortion develop (EVA, intact D & X, etc.). How did people perform abortions throughout history? The article should mention Soranus, the 2nd century Greek physician. It should also mention that practitioners of herbal abortion were often accused of witchcraft in the middle ages. Everything else should be moved to a new article, History of abortion law or put in a subsection. Kaldari 23:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, instead of waiting around for someone to fix things, I went ahead and moved the existing article to History of abortion law and created a new article for History of abortion. This way both topics can be presented adequately. Kaldari 23:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Clinton 'executive order' and ru-486

I have removed a recent edit and placed it here on the talk page:

Bill Clinton signed an executive order mandating the legalization, promotion, and domestic manufacture of RU 486

First of all, here is the text of the memorandum. This page is about abortion law, and the timeline lists notable milestones on this topic. I am not sure if this memorandum is actually an 'executive order', but despite that, this document cannot be seen as 'law' (and doesn't the legislature, not executive branch, make laws anyway?). Next, it isn't a notable milestone either. Before removing the edit, I worked on rewording it. Here is what I had:

In a memorandum to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, President Bill Clinton, reponding to a FDA import alert (#66-47) on RU-486, "directed [the secretary to] promptly assess initiatives [to]promote the testing, licensing, and manufacturing ... of RU-486", after a proprosed reassessment of the drug by the FDA.[1]

But after going through all that, I realized that this wasn't really notable. I think we'd need to include the 1989 ban on RU-486 and the 1993 rejection of the ban and the 1996 FDA preliminary approval and the 1998-99 congressional actions against the drug and the 2000 final approval. Then why not include the 1991 UK approval, and 1992 Swedish approval? My point is that this information isn't notable enough for this article (but I think I've been inspired to expand the mifepristone article).--Andrew c 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminists, abortion law, and ButNowYouKnow.com

I have removed the following text:

In the largely protestant U.S., through the efforts primarily of American feminists [2] like Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, and Emma Goldman, and physicians in the American Medical Association, and legislators, most abortions in the U.S. were outlawed through state (not Federal) laws.

First of all, abortion was made illegal in most states by 1870. The last two feminists weren't even born by then (and Emma Goldman, who BTW has an abortion clinic named after her, went on to promote the decriminalization of abortion in Russia). As for the first two, there is nothing on their pages about their efforts to illegalize abortion. You are going to need more verifiable research (see comments on Talk:Abortion in regards to your webpage source) if you are going to propose changing "physicians in the American Medical Association and legislators" to "feminists" in regards to who was driving anti-abortion law.--Andrew c 01:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

History of abortion

Moving it to Abortion law seems counter productive. The fact recent abortion history was fought out in the courts is granted, but about half the article deals with historical religious/cultural milestones. Moving it all into another article seemed unnecessary. Merging the two would be, I think, the best option. We could delineate two articles, but that seems unnessessary, a lot of work and creates two thinner and more importantly fragmented articles, and History of "abortion law" is too specific. Merging the two creates a larger more comprehensive article, n'est pas? - RoyBoy 800 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked the editor who split the History of abortion page into History of abortion law to join us here. I think there is a pretty big history section already under Abortion law. Maybe this page could be merged, with some info going back to History of abortion (such as the Jane collective bit)? Or maybe we need to just have a timeline on its own page and work to expand it? Just some thoughts--Andrew c 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The history of abortion and the history of abortion law are two separate but related topics. This article is 99% about abortion law. (Prior to modern times, religious mores = law). I would not be completely opposed to merging the two articles, although personally I think there are two different audiences: People interested in abortion as a medical procedure (doctors, medical historians, etc.) and people interested in the controversy surrounding abortion (everyone else). If we were to merge the two articles together right now, I think the information about the development of abortion as a medical procedure would still be lost in all the legal and religious stuff. The reason I moved this article in the first place is that I was interested in finding out information about the development of modern abortion procedures (D&C, MVA, etc.). I read through this whole article and was amazed that there wasn't any substantial content about abortion itself, only information about abortion as a moral and religious controversy. It would be like the article on Marijuana only talking about drug laws and never mentioning that it's a plant. Apparently moving the article worked, as there is now a nicely developing article on the history of abortion itself. I would like to see that article develop a little more before we seriously consider remerging. I would also like to see this article changed from a timeline list to an actual encyclopedia article. As it stands now this article is somewhat tedious and not very readable. If we do eventually merge, we should make sure that the information about abortion as a legal and moral controversy does not overwhelm the information about abortion itself, as the history of abortion as a medical procedure is an interesting topic in its own right. I think a good example to go on is History of intersex surgery. The article is primarily about the procedure itself and how it has developed over the years, but it also includes a section on controversies surrounding the procedure. If we have a merged article on the history of abortion it should be the same way IMO, although obviously with abortion there is going to be a bit more overlap. Kaldari 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of that; History of abortion law could be put in a subsection with its structure essentially intact. But as you said the History of abortion is developing; it would be prudent to let things be for a while and see how much it grows. - RoyBoy 800 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, back from a vacation. Essentially, I have three ideas for logical breaks in the coverage of abortion history. They are medical, legal, and moral, and would be presented as follows:

1. History of abortion: Covering the history of induced abortion, that is, explanations — including unsuccessful folk remedies like "jumping up and down" — of how it was performed in ancient times, the development of specific procedures and technology, references to abortion procedures in classical literature, etc., etc. This section should also deal with historical access to abortion procedures, and, thus, information on Victorian abortifacient advertisements and the Jane Collective would go here.

2. History of abortion law: Covering the history of abortion legislation. Should clerical opinion be held as equivalent to laws enacted by governments — or should such be covered in the section I am about to propose?

3. Historical perspectives of abortion: Covering the history of the abortion debate. The information on the opinions of some early suffragists would be moved here from History of abortion, where it could be expanded, to included actual quotations from Susan B. Anthony, etc.

Is this proposal logical and feasible? If so, should it be broken into three seperate articles, or rather merged into one collective one, History of abortion, with three major sub-sections? -Kyd 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an excellent proposal; I would prefer sub-sections in one article. It would really be the last major step to creating a robust, detailed and broad article of abortion history. Me feeling excited. :"D RoyBoy 800 17:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Glad to know. I suppose we should begin working on merging History of Abortion Law into History of Abortion. -Kyd 05:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Future aims and leads?

I made quite a number of additions to this article. Most of these involve references to abortion in classical Greek and Roman writings. I'm leaning toward maintaining a historical exploration of abortion procedures, not the laws, or debate, thereof. Dicussion of the history of abortion law has been herded off to History of abortion law. I'm considering creating a seperate article, Historical perspectives of abortion, to cover the history of the debate.

Some other leads to investigate:

-Kyd 15:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

More potential sources:

-Kyd 09:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Victorian era paragraph is confusing

The first sentence mentions advertisements for abortion "services", but the second sentence is talking about abortifacient medicines. Were the advertisements refered to in the first sentence actually for services? Kaldari 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The source listed for the first sentence, Histories of Abortion, says, "For example, there was a good deal of advertising for abortion services and for medicines and devices to do the job [abortion]." I've clarified the sentence. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. I appreciate all your help on this article. -Kyd 07:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for all the research you've done to make this a decent article! Kaldari 08:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. There's still a lot left to get done though. There's a "Moral: Historical perspectives of abortion" section which needs to be written and many sources to be reviewed in the thread above. -Kyd 08:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm wary of starting a "moral history" section. It seems like such a can of worms (and a huge can at that), but perhaps if it can be limited to well referenced sources, it won't be completely overwhelming. Personally, I'm only interested in the medical history, though. Kaldari 09:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well, "Moral history" is just shorthand for "Historical perspectives of abortion." It'd be a place for discussion of historical opinions which are an akward fit under Legal or Medical (such as the discussion of early suffragists, etc.). Certainly, I can see it being a Pandora's box - my experience at Abortion has proven to me that the littlest thing can inspire controversy. Personally, I, too, am most interested in the medical history of abortion, but I'm striving to be complete. -Kyd 09:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Choice ...

It says chinese women have to choose an abortion. Do they have a choice to, or do they not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintermann (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 May 2006

The term "one-child policy" is a bit misleading. It is my understanding that women in China are allowed one child, who may receive services (education, medical, etc.) from the government. While they are not forbidden from having more children, these subsequent children will NOT get government support. However, there are reports, from rural parts of China, of local officials sidestepping Chinese laws and forcing women into abortions that they do not want. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/asia/01lawyer.html?ex=1173330000&en=6c0369d874fa8c44&ei=5070

Here's wikipedia's own article on the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy Darkfrog24 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas and Augustine

Aquinas and Augustine had slightly varying views on abortion and both fell short on prohibiting it. They're actual viewpoints are quite technical concerning what today would be considered the point of viability and life saving exceptions which are not included in the views of the Catholic Church as it is implied in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.4.116.34 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 July 2006.

Hippocrates

It is extremely implausible, that Hippocrat, condemning abortion himself, would engage in abortions on living unborn. The article implied he used instruments to abort living unborn, however the context of other sources makes clear, that he only used such instruments in cases of already dead fetuses/babies.Smith2006 14:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

True. I checked the source referred to in this article, and it doesn't state Hippocrates would have used the instruments in order to perform abortions - it only says Hippocrates described such instruments in his writings, and that "Hippocrates himself describes how he brought about an abortion in one of his patients". This is apparently a reference to the case in which he instructed a prostitute how to induce a miscarriage (i.e. spontaneous abortion), which is already mentioned in the section. If no one has an objection to it, I'll therefore remove the clause: "which he used to perform an abortion upon one of his patients".Mkaksone 05:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

On the Hippocrates Oath page they do not forcefully make the case that he even wrote the Oath and leave open the possiablity that his students may have written it. Considering his knowledge of medicine he may have know how these execercises might have caused a miscarriage but could it be said for certain he gave that advice for the purposes of a self-abortion? From everything I know about him and the oath it seems a strech. Are there any others ancient sources to back this statement or are they only from modern books on the subject?--Redibaby 04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

missing aspect of abortion law

I hate to make a suggestion without being able to offer anything specific, but at the moment my books are in one country and I am in another. Just wanted to say that I think this page is extremely well done and I am glad you made the decision to keep all the information together in one article.

I do think, however, there is an aspect to early 19th century through early 20th century abortion law that is left out. I believe that the predominant focus of the laws created during this time were aimed at the "quacks" who wound up poisoning and injuring women - in other words, the crime was the poisoning of the woman, not the destruction of the fetus. The focus on the fetus began to take shape, if I remember correctly, along with the idealized notions of the family and children as innocents in need of protection that marked the Victorian age.

This is an important point, I think, because it sheds light on the reason why early to late 20th century laws never (?) penalize the woman but focus instead on the provider. Initially, in general, it was the woman who was seen as the victim, and the crime was the injury to her person. I think it also lends background to the reason many abortionists, such as the ones you cite, operated for long periods of time relatively out in the open. Generally, they would get busted when a woman died (a crime that was easier for the courts to get a grip on).

I am really sorry to not be able to offer anything specific at the moment, but I'm hoping this will ring a bell with someone. Meanwhile, I'll try to get back to you with real detail.

Keep up the good work.

here I go again

I suggest there be mentions and links at the appropriate points of Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes- there are wikipedia articles on both women.

St. Augustine

In the "Legal: History of Abortion Law" section it states that St. Augustine calls abortion murder. I never read anything that said St. Augustine calls abortion murder and am wondering where it is sourced from. Jcd1121 04:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)John D

Early Modern Feminists

(Reformation to Industrial Age, Last Point)

I think that it is a mistake to refer to Susan B. et al's views as pro-life. This is actually a common error in internalist historiographies. People assume that Plato and midieval scholars and modern ones all meant the same thing when they talked about, say, "the soul," and so they drew more parallels than were actually there. The same has been true of ideas like mercantilism and communism.

I'm not contesting that Susan B. and even Margaret S. never condemned abortion, but they weren't part of the pro-life movement as we understand it today and I think that using that particular term might confuse readers into thinking that they were.

I suggest the alternate phrasing, "some notable first-wave feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Wollstonecraft, espoused anti-abortion views," or " some notable first-wave feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Wollstonecraft, espoused views rejecting abortion."

12.144.50.221 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Time periods

The sectioning system under "History of abortion law" is based upon List of time periods (as well as other articles, such as Renaissance, Middle Ages, and Early Modern period). -Severa (!!!) 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The sectioning system in this article, under "History of abortion law," does not conform to the list of time periods. The list of time periods does not mention a "post-industrial" period, whereas the present article does mention such a period. The "post-industrial" period did not begin until during or after WWII, according to the vast majority of historians and sociologists: "Western sociologists usually maintain that the basis of the post-industrial society began to be formed in the late 1950s and that the process has been gaining ground ever since." (see Inozemtsev V.L. The Inevitability of a Post-Industrial World: Concerning the Polarity of Today's World Order, Global FOCUS, Vol. 13, No. 2. P. 60-79).
Thus, the present article is flatly incorrect to say that the year 1920 falls within the “post-industrial” period. I will again edit the article to correct this error, in order to conform the article to List of time periods.Ferrylodge 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that Sevara would now like to change the time frames to the following:
Middle Ages (476 AD to 16 century)
Early Modern (17th century to 19th century)
Modern (1920s to present)
However, this is not consistent with the list of time periods, which says:
Middle Ages – 5th to 15th
Early Modern – 14th to 18th
Modern, 18th to 20th
Ferrylodge 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The time frames were chosen loosely to conform with the years of bulleted items on the list. There's a lot of gaps (nothing from 400s to 1100s, or from the 1600s), and, the titling is adapted to fit around those gaps, so it doesn't line up perfectly to List of time periods, which is why I said it was "based upon" the List, not "an exact replica" of it. I've switched to centuries which should bypass any concerns which there might be regarding more ambiguous era names. -Severa (!!!) 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Severa, I'm glad that you have finally rejoined the discussion. I generally have no problem with your proposal to switch to centuries. However, I do have a problem with your crude threat in the edit summary regarding "3RR". Your bullying is not going to intimidate me from using common sense and neutral information at Wikipedia. I regret that you persist in this attitude.Ferrylodge 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Ferrylodge, edit summaries like "bullying"[3] - especially when applied to editors such as Severa - are unacceptable per NPA, AGF, and CIVIL. I strongly recommend you modify your approach. You do not WP:OWN this article, any more than anyone else. Reminding people of 3RR is considered a helpful thing, not a rude thing, unlike your post and summary. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was previously accused of bullying here, and no one leapt to my defense. I have not myself accused anyone else at Wikipedia of bullying until now. If the 3RR warning had the slightest merit, then I would not have made that allegation. Cannot baseless warnings amount to bullying? I think so.
I have never suggested that I "own" this article. Nor do I consider it "helpful" for you to remind me of that obvious fact.Ferrylodge 19:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read the linked page, and moderate your approach. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Which edit that I made at this article gives you the impression that I think I "own" this article?Ferrylodge 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, it isn't helpful to accuse a highly respected editor of bullying and threatening, or to imply, as you did, that you have a monopoly on common sense and neutrality. [4] I'm sure the 3RR warning was well intended. It would be better to focus on content from now on, and not other editors. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, List of time periods is neither policy nor a guideline, and in fact looks poorly written. There's no requirement at all for editors to follow it, and it would make a lot of sense not to follow it. It's pointless using the words "Renaissance" or "Enlightenment" in headers rather than dates, because readers may not know what the former refer to. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I just realized List of time periods isn't even in project space. It's just an article. Feel free to ignore it completely. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your cheery comment, SlimVirgin. However, in the comment of mine to which you refer, I said: “I generally have no problem with your proposal.” Those are obviously not the words of someone who believes s/he has a monopoly on common sense or neutrality.
You say that you’re sure that the following comment was well-intended: “Don't revert again or it'll be 3RR.” I respectfully disagree. What might have been well-intended would have been an acknowledgment of the mistake that caused me to revert (once) in that instance.
As mentioned, I generally have no problem with how the date structure of this article is now set up. It was not I who first mentioned and requested adherence to the list of time periods, here at this discussion page.
It would indeed be better to focus from now on on content, and not other editors, and therefore I will do so, unless in response to further comments on that subject.Ferrylodge 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good, thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Prehistory to 5th Century

I've been thinking about it for a few months, and I think the Exodus quote is out of context. The placement of the quote and especially the reference to Augustine's interpretation of it in the opening paragraph, seems to imply that Exodus forbids abortion and/or equates it with murder. What this quote actually forbids, however, is assault, specifically an assault against a pregnant woman that results in miscarriage. Even states with ultra-liberal abortion policies consider involuntary abortion to be a crime. Furthermore, the passage establishes that the punishment for this assault is to be a fine, far short of the punishment for murder.

This quote has certainly been important in the history of abortion rhetoric, but it doesn't actually ban voluntary abortion. I think we need to either provide a more detailed discussion of its context and the way it has been interpreted through the ages (which ought to include, of course, Augustine's interpretation) or just leave it out.

In slightly related news, the fact that we are including only antiabortion quotes in this passage might mislead readers into thinking that the entire period was antiabortion. The opening paragraph acknowledges that "Some previous civilizations are thought to have tolerated even late-term abortions," but the quote section doesn't read like "opposing voices." I think this would be less misleading if we called it something else, but the best thing to do would be to dig up some comparable evidence of acceptance or neutrality. I'll see if I can find some, but I'd like it if other people looked too.

Darkfrog24 12:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found some good ones on religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm).
Augustine seems to have espoused Aristotle's idea of "delayed ensoulment." He seems to have believed that abortion before ensoulment was not murder but that abortion after ensoulment was. The fact that we only quote him referring to abortion as murder could be taken as misleading. I'll see if I can fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC).


Clarified Augustine and found a verbatim translation of Enchiridion! In chapters eighty-five and eighty-six, Augustine was actually answering a question about whether 1. unformed and 2. formed fetuses would be resurrected with other people at the end of the world. The answers were 1. I don't know and 2. yes. He does refer to them in adjacent chapters, but it really looks to me like they're two different ideas, so I split them up into two pieces and added an explanation in the intro paragraph.
I removed the sentences "Now, from the time that a man begins to live ... denied an interest in the resurrection of the dead" because, taken out of their original context as they are, sound to me like he's focusing on fetal life, but in the original it becomes clear that he's talking about the resurrection of the body at the time of the second coming, anyone's life.Darkfrog24 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deaths by Pennyroyal

More recently, two women in the United States have died as a result of abortions attempted by pennyroyal, one in 1978 through the consumption of its essential oil and another in 1994 through a tea containing its extract.

This line seems to have no place in the article, given that the previous sentence talks about the plant being mixed with brewers yeast vs. the essential oil or the extract as used in this sentence. --Nachtrabe 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gonzales v. Carhart

This is my first Wikipedia editing task. I am certain that it is obvious. I read the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzlez v. Carnardt today. I did not take notes. When I came upon the reference to the case, I thought it better to make a rough stab now and come back tomorrow with citations and some refinement in language. The actual basis for Gonzalez is clear. I am dissatisfied with the language and would like to add a more precise citation for Gonzalez.75Janice 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But let me take a crack at it. I think I can smooth out the POV a bit. Darkfrog24 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
All right. The NPOV is gone. While were on G v. C, do we have room to mention Kennedy's comment about the state having an interest in the life of the fetus or his statement that women need to be protected from making decisions that they might regret?Darkfrog24 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: Legal

In an act of good faith and friendly editing, I have not tagged this NPOV. The article has some significant issues:

  • The most significant issue is the conflation of religious writings with the history of abortion law. There is so much repetitve material between "References in Classical Literature" and "Legal" it makes for a bloated article with poor readability. The section on Legal has tons of religious info before it ever gets to actual legal history. Discussion of sin should not be in a section on the legal history of abortion. My suggestion for this is to either consolidate the religious info into the classical refs, or just make a section on Christianity and contextualize it as such, since Christianity is the first and primary source of anti-abortion positions in clasical institutions.
  • I've removed the assertion that "due to Christian influence, the West hs generally frowned upon abortion." Untrue and unref'd.

While not expressly POV, other issues remain:

  • The article lacks any significant content on feminism. This is a serious weakness. I'd like to start working on a section - any suggestions on where to include it?
  • The "Legal" section spends too much time focusing on religious info and devolves into a timeline of info that has already been summarized. The article contains no info on broader international contexts in the modern era.

Any thoughts? Phyesalis 08:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the problems with this article are left over from it's original state, which was just a timeline of religious quotes and laws. I moved the original article to "History of abortion law" and started a new "History of abortion" article from scratch. The two articles were later merged together and the new content became the "Medical: Practice & methods of abortion" section and the old content became the "Legal: History of abortion law" section. This may explain why the organization of the article is so disjointed. Feel free to be bold! Kaldari 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Now it all makes sense. Phyesalis 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In use

I've tagged this article because I'm going to restructure it in a more cohesive, less repetitive way, that will more easily allow expansion of social contexts (see discussion below). Please be patient. This page will be under construction for a few days. I will be using the in-use tag when I am actively editing, and the underconstruction tag when I am not. I estimate that the preliminary restructuring will be finished by 11/16/07. Thanks. Phyesalis 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I look forward to seeing your new organization. It can't be worse that what we have now :) Kaldari 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks kind of spotty at the moment, but I think it's a good beginning:
  • I have divided out the religious and legal contexts, creating a social context section for the religious info, moved the abortion ads and Mme Restell to social (they're social issues of access and reliabilty of abortion methods, not part of the medical development of abortion).
  • In good faith, I have kept almost all the original content (mostly just c&p'd to different areas), and noted those contributions I've made to help structure the missing aspects and provide rudimentary intros to sections with fact tags. I did not transfer several uncited quotes from religious figures as the section is already too list-y.
  • Over the next few days, I will attempt to summarize more of the material and add more content for the spotty transitions. Phyesalis 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem logical to place information on the practice of abortion in the 19th century under "Social: History of the abortion debate." This material is more suited to "Medical: Practice & methods of abortion," as that is the section which handles the actual practice of abortion, not laws or opinions thereof. I have partially restored the previous structure as such. -Severa (!!!) 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with the creation of a "Social: History of the abortion debate" section. I think this would be a good place to integrate content on feminist perspectives. Perhaps the title of the section should be changed from "Social" to "Philosophical," though, to better reflect the section's scope. -Severa (!!!) 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring article

I've been reading the debate about timelines in the legal section. I like Severa's idea, but because I think the whole article could be restructured, I've started the discussion down here. I think the article should be restructured to reflect the significant epochs in abortion history namely when abortion was a non-issue (pre-antiquity), the beginnings of the issue (antiquity - an appropriate place for the Xian info, clear it out from the legal), then we can jump to when it began to be a legally contested issue (which could be broken down into two periods, 13th-17th: the beginning of abortions laws, mid-wives v. doctors, etc., and then onto 18th-20th starting with English and American laws and ending with Roe v. Wade)and modern issues (partial birth, pro-life, global human rights perspectives, etc.). The way the article is structured doesn't allow for easy expansion. This would also eliminate the seemingly repetitive nature of the legal and medical sections. Thoughts? Phyesalis 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The main issue with this article, I think, is that it is trying to wear too many hats at once, and as a result it lacks a cohesive structure. I think this article has reached a sufficient length that it would be beneficial to spin it out into three sub-articles: History of the practice of abortion (the "medical history"), History of abortion law (the "legal history"), and Historical perspectives of abortion (the history of the abortion debate). This article could then act as a central location from which to provide a broad overview of all the articles in the "History of abortion" series per Wikipedia:Summary style. By creating daughter articles, we could concentrate on developing coverage of each aspect of the history of abortion individually, and I think this would help us to refine the focus of this article overall. I don't think the issues with this article's current structure can be addressed from solely within this article itself. The problem isn't that we have one poorly-structured article — it's that we have what should actually be two or three separate articles trying to make do as one. That's why I think that starting by restructing this article would be to put the cart before the horse: I think we need to lay a more foundation first, and then build from the ground up.
I agree that the perspectives of early Christian theologians are probably a tight fit under the "Legal history" section (on the other hand, though, there are instances in which the law of a religion is essentially synonymous with the law of a state — for example, Sharia). I definitely think this is a dotted line along which we can cut and our focus should be on identifying other content which can be reorganized into more appropriate locations.
I disagree with the proposal to base the chronological sectioning around "significant epochs in abortion history," as what constitutes a "significant epoch" is open to intepretation, and, as such, this suggestion would not be much of an improvement over the current system, which has been divided up somewhat arbitrarily to create sub-sections of approximately equal length. I do think that splitting this article into three sub-articles and then summarizing those sub-articles here will help to resolve most concerns over this article's structure. It would largely eliminate the need to rely upon chronological sectioning.
I would ask that other editors please await the input and approval of other editors before undergoing any major changes. There is no need to rush things and articles are always more robust when multiple editors have participated in the process of building them. -Severa (!!!) 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about the total restructure. After working on the article some (the social context section helps a lot), I see the value of the current delineation.
I fully support Severa's idea to use this as the parent and sub-divide into three daughters. I'd be happy to help in any capacity. I think this would solve a lot of issues as well as find more suitable homes for some the info compiled here.
  • I have moved the ad info back to social for several reasons. 1st, the section as written has far more to do with the social context in which women and practioners interacted, along with saftey and regulation issues, than it does with the development of methodology. The Horace Greely info is a social denunication of abortion, Blackwell is about the social conflation of abortionist with "female physician". There is little scientific information in it and tons of social context. The same with Mmme Restell (although I have left that up in medical for the time being) - the amount of money she spent, her arrest, social philosophy, and criticism, not a lick of scientific info nor sign of medical advance. I recommend that it be moved to the d/social page (yet to be created). Also, removing the ad and Restell info creates a comprehensive summary with good flow. It would the first whole section in decent shape.
  • Along those lines, I suggest we move "Natural abortifiacients" to d/medical, and the list of legal dates to a timeline page. I have created a timeline for the legal info at Timeline of reproductive rights legislation. After I created it, I realized that some editors might have issues with the title. I just thought that the expanded focus would have more value for WP. I have created this page for the secular legislation of abortion/contraception. As noted, if the title or inclusion of contraception is an issue, I'd be happy to find a solution.
  • Severa brings up a valid point about the interrelation of religious law and secular law. However, if this is to be the parent article, I feel the religious info should be clearly segregated from secular law info. I would have no problem with another daughter dedicated to the triangle of abortion, religious and secular law, in which one could expand without constantly fending off POV issues in either religious or secular law pages (with a correlative summary in the parent-but maybe that could wait until the new page is "finished").
  • As for feminism and social v. philosophical contexts, (re: in use), I think that the philosophical aspects come under social contexts. Besides, much of 2nd wave fem. interaction with abortion is via social activism, grass-roots organizing, coalition building, lobbying, etc. "Social contexts" or "social whatever-we-agree-on..." provides a good umbrella for Christian and feminist perspectives. Together, they balance each other out nicely.
I hope I have sailed safely between being bold and being considerate. I hope everyone finds the changes to be productive. Thoughts? Phyesalis 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ad/Restell info compromise?

Severa and I are discussing the appropriate location for the ads/Restell info. Her point that it relates to abortion practice is totally valid. But I counter that the material in the ad section, while documenting practices of the era, has much more to do with the social contexts of criminalization and lack of regulation than it does with linear developments in abortion tech/practices. It does not refer to the chemicals used in the abortifacients, it doesn't elaborate on any procedural developments, and is only significant within the larger social contexts. Normally, I could go either way, but my secondary argument is that the first section is on it's way to being a nice summary for a forthcoming daughter page. These two sections break up the flow and cohesion of the section. So, per discussion of parent and daughter articles, I find that both sub-sections would be more appropriate on either (or both) a social or medical daughter page.

I'd like to offer a compromise: I'd be fine with keeping the material where it is for now, given an understanding that both sub-sections will be moved to a daughter page, to be referred to in summary on the parent page. They're good sections, but are too detailed for the broader scope of the page. By moving them to a daughter page, we save the work that has gone into the sections and maintain a good flow through the parent article. Thoughts? Phyesalis 07:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If we move the material currently in the "Medical" and "Social" sections to the new articles "History of the practice of abortion" and "Historical perspectives of abortion", respectively, then the problem would essentially have solved itself — although it's still up in the air as to which of the two articles the material related to Victorian ads should go. I do think it might be helpful for us to define the exact scope of the "Social" section. I had originally planned for the "Historical perspectives" article and its sub-section here at History of abortion to cover only attitudes which people and groups have historically held regarding abortion. However, there are a lot of in-between topics, which do not relate directly to historical perceptions of abortion, but are still a part of the same cultural picture. If we took a broad approach to the section, including sociocultural aspects in addition to the historical perspectives, then the information on Victorian ads could definitely fit there. Should we have a broad "Social" section or a more narrowly-defined "Philosophy" section? Perhaps Kaldari would be willing to weigh in to help break the tie. :) -Severa (!!!) 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, for the record, I'm fine with the ads/Restell info in "Methods and Practices" as long as it is well contextualized against a backdrop of criminalization and lack of regulation. Are you suggesting that we have the parent page "History of Abortion", a "History of Abortion Methods and Practices" daughter, a "History of abortion law" d, a "Historical perspectives of Abortion" which will include only attitudes, and then another daughter page "Sociocultural history of abortion" to cover social contexts like Christianity and feminism/activism? (I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth or being willfully obtuse, I'm proceeding slowly in recognition of the fact that I've arrived "mid-drive".)
"Historical perspectives" is somewhat ambiguous as both the medical, legal and Sociocultural daughter pages will be specific historical perspectives as part of the pre-existing HoA page. If we're talking about two separate pages, I would say have a "Philosophy" section on "HoA" and a "Social contexts" subsection. If we're talking about doing one page for both, I would have to argue for a broader context to include the full scope of the daughter page. My problem with a narrowly defined "Philosophy" section is that neither Christianity nor feminism is adequately represented by the limitations of philosophy. While both contain their own particular philosophies, theology and feminist philosophy, they are more than just a school of thought. Both institutions have significant social aspects containing but not limited to activism, community service, lobbying, and social outreach, all of which relate to the various attitudes and social developments in abortion's history, as well as having a vested interest in the well-being of society. Thoughts? Phyesalis 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we've been waiting for some outside input, and we haven't gotten any yet. Severa, I just went to your user page, but found instructions not to post as it was an archival page, so I'm just posting this here. I'm going to go ahead and start including info under a "social" heading. I think it might be useful to see what kind of info we get collectively and then we can figure out how to categorize/organize the section. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of reproductive rights legislation

This needs to be merged where appropriate and then the sub-article should be deleted. I like the idea of a "reproductive rights" timeline, but I not like redundant Abortion information. Especially when it links to this article. - RoyBoy 800 19:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


First Wave Feminists and Abortion

I suggest the following be cut or revised under the 17th and 18th century section of the historical timeline:

"1850–1920 - During the fight for women's suffrage in the U.S., some notable first-wave feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Wollstonecraft, opposed abortion,[58] often seeing themselves as protecting women against dangerous procedures and medicines sold by quacks."


There's several things wrong with this:

1. The footnoted link is dead. It's true that early feminists did opposse abortion in various degrees, but I think if we want to include this we will need to find a better source.

2. Mary Wollestonecraft was Brittish and died in 1797. Thus she was not active during the years from 1850-1920. Her writings did influence early feminists, but she had no direct involvement in the US women's suffrage movement (as the entry seems to imply). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.228.40.137 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Class

This article now says: "These laws had a minimal effect on middle and upper class women who may have faced slight obstacles in obtaining access to abortion, while poor and young women had access only to the most dangerous and illegal methods."

The cited source says: "the abortion laws may have had very limited impact. They may have had to shop around for a physician who would perform an abortion, and there may have been fewer physicians available...." (emphasis added)[5]

Since the cited source is merely speculating, should we really be so definitive?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Source says "may" we say "may". What's your objection? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The pertinent part of this Wikipedia article has been modified many times since I made that comment, so it's out of date now.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Early feminists and fetal rights

The text in question is "These early feminists also asserted the rights of the child in the womb". Maybe I'm missing something, but (ignoring the POV phrasing for the time being), how do either of these sources support the claim? Neither one mentions an early feminist outside of Anthony, and neither one mentions anything that would sound like fetal rights. -Andrew c [talk] 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing wasn't mine. Can you give me a few more minutes to put in some more sources? Thnx.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, there are three refs now, and the text is rephrased. See what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've merged it in with the existing sentence so that it flows better. I also removed the citation from the Deseret News since that newspaper is owned by the Mormon church which isn't NPOV regarding abortion. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'm a little bit confused by this edit. Are we not considering a source reliable if the author happens to be Catholic or Mormon?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's reliable, but there are plenty of more NPOV sources we could be pulling from for that. Feel free to add it back if you disagree. Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I will add it back. The reference is as follows: Akers, Paul. “Feminists’ Views on Abortion Have Evolved Through the Years,” Scripps Howard News Service via Deseret News (1996-06-22).
The author doesn't even work for the Deseret News. He works for Scripps Howard.
And the piece was also published in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What we really need is one good source, not half a dozen so-so to inferior sources. More is not always better. I have also moved the prose out of the abortion law time line (as law is not mentioned in the point) and moved it up to the 18th-20th century section that isn't dealing with the law timeline. I have also made the text more concise, removed the unsourced part about quacks, and focused on what the sources were getting at (abortion is murder). I was striving to be concise and efficient as things seemed to be getting bloated and a bit out of hand. -Andrew c [talk] 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your removal of the link to the cited reference Lives of the Law. If we have a link to full text, why not provide it? Also, I don't see anything inferior about this reference, which seems necessary to support the statement about Susan B. Anthony: Federer, William. American Minute, page 81 (Amerisearch 2003). Anthony wrote: "No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"
Is it a problem to quote Susan B. Anthony on the issue of abortion? I think it ought to be in the main text, but certainly at least in a footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thx. Incidentally, your new source (Schiff) wrote about Anthony: "she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement." I'll tweak accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I've added the google search result per your request. Wanting to have a quote from Anthony or Stanton seems reasonable, but we really can do better than the American Minute book. I've found a New York Times column by a Pulitzer Prizing winning journalist.-Andrew c [talk] 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The Anthony quote should preferably be a full quote that captures what Anthony was saying. Just including the part where Anthony blasts women is misleading. She blasted men three times as much. We need the full Anthony quote, I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I prefer prose to quotes in most cases. I'd be better to just summarize this in our own words, IMO. -Andrew c [talk] 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't load up an article like this with too many quotes, and it seems like we're far from that point right now. As far as I can tell, the only quote in the article right now from a woman is from Madame Restell (a.k.a. "The Female Abortionist"). I don't think it's asking a whole lot to have one pro-life quote in the article from a woman, namely one of the greatest women who ever lived. The Anthony quote we have right now is misleading, because it cuts out the part where she cast the most blame. It's commonly quoted in full (see Federer, William. American Minute, page 81 (Amerisearch 2003)). It seems from Federer that this may be the most notable thing that Susan B. Anthony said in her entire life. I'm not suggesting that we remove the eighty (80) words that we currently quote from Madame Restell, but simply that we include the rest of the sixty (60) words of Susan B. Anthony, who by any reasonable measure was a much more notable person.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As best I can tell, no one favors having the partial Anthony quote instead of the full Anthony quote, so I'll insert the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected the leadin; the quote was from Anthony's paper not from Anthony. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "almost all of the first-wave feminists...opposed abortion, often equating it with murder". "First-wave feminists" and "suffrigists" were two distinct but overlapping groups. You cannot conflate the two as the same thing. Many First-wave feminists, especially the more radical ones, had no interest in suffrage whatsoever (Emma Goldman for example), nor did they necessarily equate abortion with murder (Margaret Sanger pre-1930 for example). Kaldari (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
IMO we should add the opposing view as well: Emma Goldman famously fought for reproductive rights; perhaps a corresponding comment about her and/or quote would be appropriate? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps not; her focus was more on contraceptives wasn't it? Dang it, now I'm going to have to go do research (unless someone else has the knowledge details I lack?) KillerChihuahua?!? 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm all for balancing views, but I think we've already got them. For instance, this article has a whole entire section on this Madame Restelle person, who seems to have supported abortion rights. Plus, immediately after we mention Anthony, we describe that the "second wave" supported abortion rights. So, it seems to me like there is already plenty of balancing material, and it's important that we don't go overboard trying to "balance out" Susan B. Anthony. After all, per the New York Times, "she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement"[6] (emphasis added).Ferrylodge (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
And I second Kaldari who notes quite correctly the strong difference between feminists and suffragettes. Emphasizing what we already know about suffragists doesn't mean a thing regarding feminists. My interest was in the specific time period, not before or after. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you can find a source that says a bunch of Anthony's contemporaries supported abortion rights while opposing women's suffrage, I'd be glad to hear about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural abortifacients

There are 2 recent examples of death from pennyroyal. Is this appropriate to the nature of the article. Is anything gained by having these 2 examples? Should we be drawn into how effective and/or how dangerous the use of these herbs and drugs may be?Nitpyck (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal: History of abortion law

1920s to 1960s

1966– Mississippi reformed its abortion law and became the first U.S. state to allow abortion in cases of rape.[citation needed]

Is there any evidence or record of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesyouneedjesus (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new page

I have found myself repeatedly adding the same material to several different pages in the abortion project, usually under the history subsections of these pages. At the suggestion of RexxS, I have decided to start a new wikipage, History of Abortion Law (tentative title). This would allow a reduction of the currently unwieldy size of some of the already existing pages, as we can then reduce the history subsections to a smaller summarization, with a link to the new page. The rough draft is residing here: User:Ermadog/Abortion history .

As this is only a rough draft, I do not want any direct editing of this page at this time. Instead, please add contributions to the discussion page. Please look over the following material. most of which will be incorporated into the new page, before suggesting additional material:

Any discussion of the direction of this project should be made on my talk page, under the category "Your addition to Abortion"

Anyone finding better quality references or citations is welcome to post them to the discussion page. I'll find a way to incorporate them, even if I have to relegate them to a Notes section. In particular, I am looking for material on abortion law and relevant philosophy from the ancient East, as well as from the Persian Vedas. Corrections to my brief discussion of Hinduism and Buddhism are welcome. Particularly, where exactly in the Vedas can the doctrine of reincarnation be found? I have heard it is of fairly late vintage.

Anyone finding history subsections in any other abortion page not listed here, please post links to my discussion page. Ermadog (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect to have a good first draft available in a few days. Until then, I keep a current copy of the current page on my hard drive. Any editing at all at this stage will be treated as vandalism. I will delete the whole page and replace it with my copy. Once I publish it to Wikipedia, of course, the standard rules of editing apply.

Intent to remove

Many of the statements on this page regarding abortion views of the early Church are completely inaccurate. The Church, from the beginning has always been against abortion. There certainly have been prominent theologians who were not so apposed to it (as there are today) but the fact remains the since its inception, the Catholic Church, on the basis of Natural Law, has always been positively opposed to any from of abortion.

That all being said, this page is very misleading. There are many instances on this page where it is either implied, or directly stated, that the Church for centuries had a degree of ambiguity when it came to abortion. This is simply false. Stating that some prominent theologians of past centuries regarded it as acceptable, is certainly interesting to note, but we must keep in mind that their options are only theirs, and not that of the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about abortion, I'm sure many of you are familiar with his works. He postulated that ensoulment happened forty days after conception (in the case of a boy). However, he went on to clarify that abortion, in virtually every form was absolutely in violation of Natural Law. Aquinas is by no means the first to have pointed this out. There are writings showing that abortion has always been against Church teaching on the basis of Natural Law; much of this position having been inherited from Judaism.

What is my point? My point is not to take a side in the debate, or to say that the Church is right or wrong, et cetera. My point is rather that it is completely inaccurate to portray the Church's position on abortion as anything other as steadfastly against it for two thousand years. This views is, of course, hardly unique to the Catholic Church, mainstream Protestantism has always been against it was well as Judaism.

While there have always been, and always will be theologians that question and challenge this doctrine, it is wrong to portray them, or their positions, as those of the Church. Just because it seems as if a third century theologian or bishop wasn’t opposed to abortion doesn’t mean anything in the sense of Church Doctrine. Theologians and bishops can dissent from Church teachings, it happened in the past and happens today; but this has no affect on doctrine.

Clearly, we need to overhaul parts of this page.

I will remove part of the introductory paragraph "In the 18th–19th centuries various doctors, clerics, and social reformers successfully pushed for an all-out ban on abortion." This is false as I spoke about above, not to mention the source that is cited giving absolutely no support to the above claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.70 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting just isn't the case. I'm not an expert on Catholic history, but I'm a good Catholic and I have done my research on this. It turns out that there really has been some range of views regarding abortion. I'm going to have to restore the section you cut. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dylan, I don't mean to pick an argument, but I must insist on my statements. I'd advise you to read Gratian's Decretum, and Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles, as well as any of his many other works. Both of these works have the an imprimatur. You are right, there have been a range of options on abortion from Catholic theologians, but the the doctrine remains unchanged for two thousand years. Just because a theologian wrote in the seventh century that he thought abortion was acceptable, or he was open to debate on the topic doesn't mean anything. That was the option of that particular person, not the Church. The only way that the Church speaks officially is via ex cathedra statements and ecumenical councils. Needless to say, there are no official statements condoning abortion.

The Church has a highly complex legal system. As Gratian writes about, citing St. Seville, Natural Law is the supreme law, and all ecclesiastical may not be in conflict of it. The earliest writes (St. Seville among them) most definitely viewed abortion to be in violation of Natural Law. So has there been a 'range of views regarding abortion'? Yes, just as their are today. But has their always been one official view of the magisterium? Yes, and that is that abortion is absolutely against Natural Law.

Do you still disagree?

Like I said, you need to do your research. Elsewhere in the same article, it identifies Pope Innocent III as making a distinction based on quickening. Moreover, Christianity turns out not to be limited to the Roman Catholic Church. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, have you read anything I take the time to write you? If you did, you would find that I have done extensive research into early Church History. I cited three different sources. I recommend that you read them. English translations are available if you don't read Latin. Reading primary sources is really how history is studded at an academic level. Citing the media (Frontline) is not a credible source in the academic world. Not to mention the article on Frontline that you cited does not mention any of the claims that you made. The point about Innocent III is invalid for two reasons. One, it is not cited (I will be removing it) and two, it doesn't matter if the pope endorsed and paid for abortions, that doesn't make abortion 'approved'. Popes have had bastard children, that doesn't make having bastard children ok. The only way the pope speaks for the Church is when he makes an ex cathedra statement, or through and ecumenical council. Papal encyclicals and bulls, while certainly important, in way are the voice of the Church. As to your incorrect statement about doctrine: doctrine is a technical term in canon law, it is distinct from discipline, from dogma, etc. You have used them interchangeably. You could read the Codex Iuris Canonici to learn more about these important distinctions.

I have now cited many, many sources for you. All of them should be available in English (I'm guessing you don't read Latin). You won't find them online, you'll have to go to a library and check them out and study them, as I have. Reading articles in the media is good for common knowledge, but again, at the level at which wikipeida ought to be at, the media is completely unacceptable as a source. Even if you disagree with on that point, your source doesn't mention any of the claims you make. Just because you cite something that has something to do with abortion doesn't mean that it supports your claims.

Do you still have any concerns? Do you have any sources other than frontline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.70 (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the term "prospective mother". We can all agree that the woman is a human being. Therefore, humanizing her should not be a problem. "Prospective" can mean "likely to happen" or simply "looking to the future, concerned with the future, etc." The latter meaning is most definitely apt, and a case could be made for the first meaning. The fact that a woman may be having an abortion now does not mean she may not want a child in the future. Also, the fact that she may be considering her options , does not mean she will necessarily choose abortion. So, in most cases it is likely that the woman will, at some point, become a mother. Ermadog (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


"Humanizing" the woman isn't the issue- coloring the wording with emotional language is- the compliment of referring to a fetus as an "unborn child" by the anti-abortion movement. The question seems a silly one: why should a woman, simply because she is pregnant, be referred to in terms of her POTENTIAL future parental status, as opposed to simply "a pregnant woman"?--74.142.203.6 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_abortion/Archive_1&oldid=1034151264"