Talk:Abortion debate

Another Argument Against: Sexual Equality/Privacy

Abortion gives women the ability to avoid a pregnancy in a way that men are not. While a woman could, in countries where it legal, get an abortion for any reason, a man cannot choose and may be subject to paying child support or other responsibilities, even if inability to support the children is the reason he wants an abortion. Still allowing abortions for rape and to prevent harm to the mother, any conception would be the result of a choice on both parties; an action that was conducted in private with no arbitrary interference from the government. In many places, a person is free to have consensual sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, and however they want. This act was covered by a person’s right to their body and privacy, but it’s consequences, which are known to most, are not necessarily so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.215.168 (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article, not the subject. If you're actually suggesting we put something like that in the article, I point out that men don't get pregnant, so talking of a man avoiding pregnancy is nonsense. You would also need a reliable source for any suggested content. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

First, men avoiding pregnancy is not nonsense, men can get women pregnant and have the ability to make this less likely so they can avoid it. Additionally, men can be affected by pregnancy (financially, socially, emotionally) so they can avoid it because they can avoid the effects. You misunderstood how the word avoid was used. Abortion grants women an ability to decide that men don't have; motherhood becomes an entirely willing choice, but fatherhood does not. I wasn't sure where to talk about the content as opposed to the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.215.168 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua is right. This is not the place to debate to topic. You may, if you wish, make specific recommendations to improve the article, so long as you have appropriate sources. But your opinions on abortion, for men or women or trees, have no place here. HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a debate article, so bringing up opinions in this debate is a suggestion for the article. I understand that this is a controversial topic and that this page must get some bad moments, but I presented a coherent opinion that it turns it people do have.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html http://voices.yahoo.com/the-right-choose-fathers-abortions-478274.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.215.168 (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting when it comes to insulting me or my suggestions that the answer is swift, however when I come back with sources it is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.50.211 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr anonymous IP, please sign your post with four tildes and indent it with colons. As for the argument against abortion, you don't need to preach here. If there is a source espousing this view, put it in the article and cite the source. Connor Behan (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Source does not state that men can walk away from children

I have deleted a sentence that seems to be unsupported by the source nearest it that claims that men can walk away from children they father. Considering legal institutions enforcing child support this seems odd. Please provide the quotation that supports this statement or please leave it out of this article.Yhwhsks (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

the political debate usually surrounds a right to privacy, and when or how a government may regulate abortion

This needs a citation of some sort, or it will be removed. The political and ethical debates both include issues of privacy AND issues of personhood. In fact, personhood isn't even in the political section at all. Rip-Saw (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional Arguments section(s) needed

I would like to work with others who are willing - to construct and add a section for the Constitutional Arguments for and against abortion for this page. I understand that Wiki is a global reference and that the addition would have to be titled accordingly. (example; "The U.S. Constitutional Arguments for and against abortion") I am willing (and able) to write a secular Constitutional Argument against abortion - with references to "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" - myself.

Would anyone else be interested in adding a (secular) Constitutional Argument in support of abortion rights? Or, would it be okay if I present both sides? I believe that I am able to present the Constitutional arguments of both sides of the debate fairly, myself. Your thoughts are welcome. L.L. Brown (aka Chuz Life) 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuz Life (talk • contribs)

Does anybody object or want to work with me on this? L.L. Brown (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked for sources which discuss this aspect and I found nothing good. What were you thinking of using as a source? Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding. I'm hoping to present the Constitutional arguments myself. Not by citing myself of course, but I can present the Constitutional arguments without doing that. I have presented the arguments before - here -. And it wouldn't take much to reformat the same for this article. L.L. Brown (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I would not go into near that level of detail for an article here. Just the basic outline of how the Constitutional are currently framed and presented along with references and links to the related text. L.L. Brown (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a completely unreliable source per Wikipedia's standards. You simply cannot shoot from the hip and write what you want to write. This article is about previously published debate from WP:Reliable sources, not a forum for debate. You would be violating the iron-clad policy of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can't find one, but why do you think a source is necessary to write a paragraph to lay out the basic constitutional arguments for and against abortion? The pro-lifers feel that abortion violates the equal protections clause of the 4th and 14th Amendments (those can be cited) because they (abortions) deny the personhood of children in the womb along with the equal protections of their rights. The following paragraph would likely explain why abortion proponents believe the Constitution supports keeping abortion legal and the author of that would cite and find references to support that view. Please remember, the purpose of this article is not to engage in the arguments - but to present (as accurately as possible) what the arguments are. L.L. Brown (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's now clear to me that you are looking for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one which defines personhood as beginning at conception and thus forbids abortion in the USA. The article about that effort (various efforts, actually) is Human Life Amendment. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, that is not my goal at all. I don't even believe a Constitutional Amendment is necessary for the Supreme Court to revisit Roe or to overturn their previous rulings. I am only interested in presenting the Secular / Constitutional arguments in an appropriate section of this article and I have asked for interested parties to work with me on that addition. Are you interested in working with me on it? L.L. Brown (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean present arguments as if we were arguing the notional Supreme Court case to overturn Roe? No, Wikipedia is not a moot court. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep that purely American detail out of this global article please. There's already far too much emphasis on debate in that one country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Please. This is a genuine effort to present the secular and Constitutional arguments FOR and AGAINST abortion to the readers. Is there really no more room in the article for that addition? Is there only room for the moral and philosophical aspects - already included? L.L. Brown (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a good think. This is a global article. 95% of people don't live in the USA. Do you really think they care about constitutional arguments in a country other than their own? Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

On this issue? Absolutely. I discuss and debate this issue with people all over the world almost every day. 90% or more is based on Roe v Wade (American ruling) and related laws and courts decisions which are related to it. Also, there is plenty of room for constitutional debates from other countries each in their own sub section. Isn't there? I for one would like to see a similar effort from Canada, Mexico, the U.K. - etc. Please tell me what the harm would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuz Life (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

90% or more is based on Roe v Wade? LOL. That's ridiculous. It's precisely the kind of nonsensical, arrogant claim that gives all the good American editors a bad image. Grow up. We are not all slaves to your country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks now and you are not addressing the constructive points that I am making for a productive change to the article. "Is there or is there not room for Constitutional arguments to be presented from a U.S. and other nations perspectives?" Either there is or there is not. What would be the downside to having that information included into the article? L.L. Brown (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No personal attack there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 - Agree to disagree. Now, please answer my question about the article.L.L. Brown (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, it really is difficult not to have concerns about another editor's competence when they ask questions like that. If you don't know my answer yet, there is no point in me discussing it any further with you. You are simply not getting it. Goodnight HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Again with the ad hominem personal attacks when all I am trying to do is improve on the article. The existing article already makes references to the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment, etc. as it addresses the issue of privacy and that's okay with you (presumably because of your support for abortion) but the thought of someone like myself making a U.S. Constitutional argument against abortion is just too much for you personally to consider? That's fine. maybe I can get someone else to work on it with me.L.L. Brown (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Obviously at this point you do not have consensus to add it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New Start. At the end of the day, abortion and personhood are legal and Constitutional decisions. Are there any editors who would like to work with me to add a secular / Constitutional Arguments section to the page?L.L. Brown (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No. That might belong in the U.S. Focused subpages, but not here. In any case, please review wp:Battleground. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doing any of the things mentioned there, LeadSongDog. Furthermore this section would not be limited to the United States Constitutional Arguments. I thought this encyclopedia entry was interesting about the Canadian Constitution. It says;

"The Charter's Section 7 guarantee of personal liberty led the Supreme Court to strike down the Criminal Code provision against abortion in 1988, transforming women's reproductive rights."

That comments was immediately followed by

"The Charter's Section 15 anti-discrimination clause led to a series of rulings that changed the legal landscape for gays and lesbians..."

I found it interesting because our own article here says that Pro Lifers view abortions AS an act of discrimination against the child aborted. I'll tell you what. I'm going to write the addition and share it here for everyone to consider. I think that once you see it, you may reconsider your opposition to having a section like this. L.L. Brown (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

4.2.2 Fetal Personhood debate edit request

Upon having my (what I thought were productive and contributive) edits to this section removed and the original content restored, (revert) - I am hoping to re-present the changes here in the hopes of improving this Wikipedia article. Please review and comment on my edit. I am anxious to find out what the reluctance to let it stand as submitted was.

"Although the two main sides of the abortion debate tend to agree that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are biologically and genetically human (that is, of the human species), they often differ in their view on whether or not a human organism in those stages of life, is in any way, a person. Pro-life supporters argue that voluntary abortion is morally and Constitutionally wrong and that abortion should be illegal because a prenatal child is an innocent human person entitled to equal protections by law; Or because a prenatal child is at the very least a potential life that will, in most cases, develop into a fully functional human being. In support of this position, abortion opponents may point to the text of the United States; Unborn Victims of Violence Act and to the 38 States laws which make it a crime of murder to illegally kill a "child in the womb" at "any time during the child's development." To date, Constitutional challenges to U.S. Fetal Homicide Laws have been unsuccessful."

Constructive comments welcome. L.L. Brown (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, you would need to provide reliable sources which indicate that anti-abortion advocates cite fetal homicide laws, the UDHR, etc. as "evidence" that a fetus is a person. Your personal say-so is out of the question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The last link in my edit is to the National Right to Life source which sites the numbers and details of Prenatal Homicide laws which have been challenged on the basis that they violated the Courts position with Roe. And, those challenges (as I cited) have so far failed. So, how is the National Right to Life and the State's governments not writing these laws to go after Roe? I thought the evidence was sufficient to show that they are. L.L. Brown (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the diff of your changes and additions. Here are the problems I recognized in the various changes:

• Fetus versus Zygote/Embryo/Fetus. This is unneeded complication. Nobody is arguing that there is a difference relative to the abortion debate, so it is not part of the topic. Everybody knows that an elective abortion is typically a fetus that is, on the average, around 9–12 weeks old.
• You wrote "Pro-life supporters argue that voluntary abortion is morally and Constitutionally wrong and that abortion should be illegal because a prenatal child is an innocent human person entitled to equal protections by law" (my emphasis). However, you cited the United Nations which did not comment on the constitutionality of U.S. law, and would not have been an expert source on that subject regardless. Furthermore, the sentence was worded in a way that made the conclusion too settled, a violation of WP:NPOV.
• By far the most egregious violation was found in the following sentence that you added: "In support of this position, abortion opponents may point to the text of the United States; Unborn Victims of Violence Act and to the 38 States laws which make it a crime of murder to illegally kill a "child in the womb" at "any time during the child's development." (Your emphasis.) This misuse of the sources cannot stand. The law expressly allows abortion!

Restoring this gross misrepresentation to the article should be a blockable offense. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

1. The reason the distinction (zygote/ embryo/ fetus) is necessary is because in reality, the debate is quite the opposite of what you claim. Proponents on BOTH sides argue the differences relative to the abortion debate, every day. Some believe life begins at conception, some say not until it can feel pain, etc. The use of the word "fetus" alone - misses those important distinctions.

2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was only cited to support the fact that "equal rights" and "equal protections" are more than just a U.S. concept. If there s a better way of supporting that point, I would like to see how you can word it.

3. It's not a misuse of sources just because you think it is so. There is no question that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - for now - makes exceptions to keep abortion legal. Nothinfg I posted or linked to pretends that it doesn't. However, the parts of the UVVA that relate to the "personhood" of an unborn child and to the fact that a person can be charged with murder for illegally killing a child in the womb... comes directly from the text of the law itself.

YES, the UVVA makes an exception to allow for abortions to continue. IT also defines children in the womb as "human beings in ANY stage of their development" and it also makes it a crime of murder (U.S. Code 1111) to illegally kill one. L.L. Brown (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:NPOV to misrepresent a source as you did with the UVVA law. The tone of your addition tells the reader that killing a child in the womb at any stage of development is murder, which makes them think the law defines abortion as murder. Your wording did not emphasize that abortions are specifically allowed under the law. You wrote that "illegal killing" (your term) is what is defined as murder. The law does not use the strange formulation of "illegal killing"—this is your own fabrication and obfuscation. You are twisting the source to push a point of view. Again, this is a violation of WP:NPOV, and such text is not acceptable. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

1. I cited the actual text of the law. (the UVVA) and by doing so, I did not misrepresent it in any way. In addition, I shared this link [1] which records the unsuccessful challenges to the UVVA. Those were MURDER convictions. They were trying to get them overturned because they THOUGHT that the UVVA goes against Roe v Wade and they lost. 2. How much trouble would be - to just remind myself that the UVVA makes an exception for abortions and to then add that language yourself or ask for me to do it? 3. The actual text of the law says: "(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 (murder), 1112(manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted murder/ manslaughter) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

The UVVA does not allow for punishments for abortions but it does allow for the charge of murder as I quoted - in cases where a crime was actually committed. So, how was my use of the words illegal killing even a stretch? It isn't. L.L. Brown (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care to debate you further. You have not formed a consensus for inclusion of your preferred text, so until that happens please don't touch the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see this as a debate, Binksternet. It has not been a debate on my end. We have only been discussing my edit and the supportive facts about the references. As we are clearly at an impasse and it appears that you and others have not tried to be constructive in your criticisms, I intend to appeal this to a higher authority. I read in one of the help articles that I am required to let you know that.L.L. Brown (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Activism by Chuz Life

With this edit, User:Chuz Life has opted to put forward activist viewpoints, using an unreliable source: www.endroe.org which is run by the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. I am at wits' end dealing with this material, having violated the 1RR abortion-topic limit. Our new friend does not appear to be here to build the encyclopedia, but to advance a political position. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't think that you understand the context of the link/ cite. The abortion article that we are working on and talking about is titled: Fetal Personhood DEBATE. www.endroe.org was cited (per YOUR request) as a "Pro-Life" organization that challenges the CONSTITUTIONALITY of abortion as indicated in the article. They are not being cited as an actual authority on ANYTHING. Again, the cite is only to show (per your own revert request) - that Pro-Life groups challenge the Constitutionality of abortion. L.L. Brown (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Arguments "For" and "Against" sections

Users and Admins, may we please have a conversation about these two sections? I have some concerns that I would like to discuss and I will lest them here for your consideration and comments.

• Why are there opposing comments in these sections? The "Arguments for the right to abortion" should not have to contain any counter arguments to itself and likewise for the "Arguments against" It is very confusing to see arguments from both sides in both sections.
• The titles are a bit misleading. I'm sure that there are many "Pro-Choicers" who do not think abortions should be permitted very late in pregnancy, just as there are many "pro-lifers" who would not deny a woman the right to an abortion to save her life. These titles frame the debates too narrowly by failing to recognize the middle ground on the issue.
• (Background; I used to be "Pro-Choice" on abortion before I later became opposed to it. I do not consider myself to be "Pro-Life" but that is a discussion for a later time) My point is that even I (an opponent of abortion) could form a better argument for BOTH sides of the debate for this article. I know better than to do so and undo someone else's work here. I seriously do not mean to be disrespectful for the work that has gone into the article so far. I digress. Can we please have a discussion on the arguments from both sides?
• It seems both sections would benefit by having at least the first three or four 'sub-sections' in common. For example, both sections could have as their first four subsections 'Bodily rights', 'Moral and or Religious', Constitutional, etc. It looks like this was actually attempted and I'm not trying to say what the subsections should be. I'm only asking that we discuss it.
• General housekeeping. It is near impossible to discern where the "Arguments Against" section ends and the following "other factors" section begins. It appears that the 'Other factors' section is just another sub-section to the above. Comments? L.L. Brown (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it's good to see discussion that doesn't come from an absolutist position. And you're right, the anti- and pro- arguments do not need their own opposing arguments. It does create a mess. And that's what we seem to have. I'd suggest doing a bit of editing, one small area at a time, over several days, to clean this up. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, HiLo48 - I'm glad we agree on the need for a clean up. I don't have any specifics yet. It's almost one of those 'where do we even begin?' kind of things. That's why I've tried to focus on identifying the areas in need - instead of just making edits.L.L. Brown (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the first edit I would like to suggest - would be to rename the two titles to something more general in meaning. My suggestions would be something along the lines of;

• Arguments for the legality of abortion
• Arguments against the legality of abortion
• Abortion Arguments: Pro
• Abortion Arguments: Con
• Arguments in favor of legalized abortion
• Arguments opposed to legalized abortion
• Arguments: Pro
• Arguments: Con
• Arguments in support of keeping abortion legal
• Arguments opposed to keeping abortion legal

These are only a few suggestionsL.L. Brown (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, actually. We should present all aspects of a position together; in some cases moving the "rebuttal" elsewhere is merely inconvenient or weird (like, Boonin's remarks aren't in support of abortion as such so they don't belong in arguments for abortion rights - they specifically respond to an anti-abortion argument), but imagine if we were to present the claim that abortion shouldn't happen because a fetus feels pain without any of the scientific evidence showing it does not! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, major subjects like fetal pain already have a page (article) of their own. I don't think anyone would object to a link to that page for more information. Or, if the point that needs to be made is strong enough, you could add a sub section to counter the point - rather than having what we have now - a tit for tat tug of war that makes everything look like a bunch of bickering. Example.

• 1. The "Opponents of Legalized Abortion Arguments" section in addition to any number of other arguments contains a claim (as you suggest) that abortion is wrong after a fetus can feel pain. A claim that you feel is countered by a reliable source.
• 2. Rather than having a tit for tat in that immediate section itself, why can't we create a sub section to the existing "Opponents of Legalized Abortions" section and title it "Counter Arguments" and you could add the counter arguments there. Then as needed, do the same for the "Proponents of Legalized Abortion Arguments" section.L.L. Brown (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)