Talk:Abortion debate

Anti-abortion movement does not emphasize the right of the child to be born, as the introductory paragraph states

The right to life refers to the right to not to be killed, not to be born.

In addition, the doctrine of double effect is sometimes invoked when debating the extreme cases where carrying the pregnancy to term would put the mother's life in jeopardy. The act of doing harm (killing the fetus because inducing labor otherwise is not an option) conflicts with the act of doing good (saving the mother's life). Childbirth seems to be amoral in this debate.

Some additional things:

1) I have tried editing the introduction to include violence from both sides, but the edit was rejected for comparing the "small" instances of pro-choice violence to pro-life violence was not neutral. There are plenty of cases where pro-choice advocates/groups have resorted to violence, threats, and property crimes. For example, the website prochoiceviolence.com has plenty of those instances recorded. If anybody wants to help me create a Wikipedia page to outline pro-choice violence, please contact me.

2) A peer reviewed study in Chile has concluded that criminalizing abortion does not lead to an increase in maternal mortality. Thus, I believe it should be included under the "Effects of legalization/illegalization" section to show a contrast with the WHO study.

Here's the study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036613

3) Also, I believe the following line, and in particularly the reference to "the patriarch":

"In ancient times, abortion, along with infanticide, had been considered a matter of family planning, gender selection, population control, and the property rights of the patriarch."

should be either removed or edited to a neutral, non-feminist perspective.

If you would like to be considered seriously, please do not cite ridiculous sources like prochoiceviolence.com and Koch's bogus paper (PloS ONE does not meet our WP:MEDRS standards for a number of reasons, including lack of adequate peer review.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Potential life" argument against abortion?

Right now the Wiki article cites http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5187 to support the claim that pro-life people make a "potential life" argument. The cited website actually says the opposite of what the Wiki article says, saying that the term "potential life" is used by pro-choicers as a "rhetorical trick" to "dehumanize the unborn". The author is clearly a pro-life person who sees "potential life" as a pro-choice argument.

Also, when I do a quick web search for the terms "potential life" and abortion, I get a quotes from Pres Obama and from a pro-choice group saying that a fetus is "only a potential life" and that abortions are permissible. I also get a Muslim Philosophy website which seems to say that the abortion debate is between people who say a fetus is a person and people who say a fetus is a potential person.

I've never read or heard a pro-life person argue against abortion on the grounds that it ends a "potential life", only that it ends a life. I have seen news articles, though, that claim that pro-lifers make this argument. Could someone please either find a good source for this section of the article, or remove the section? (I would, but I'm not a savvy Wikipedian yet.) --192.12.13.5 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

4.1 Question of Personhood

'Establishing the point in time when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a "person" is open to debate since the definition of personhood is not universally agreed upon.'

There may be debate on the subject in different parts of the world, but the definition of the legal term 'person' in the U.S. is quite clear. Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed., the most credible legal dictionary in the U.S., defines person as 'A human being.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophage (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopaedia. We don't let US definitions be the rule for the other 95% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly more to the point, that's not what the sentence means and Biophage has not made anything any more "clear". The sentence is about whether a ZEF is a person under definitions of personhood that include, eg., genetic individuality, status as a separate being, intelligence, whatever. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Black's did not become one of the foremost legal references in the English speaking world by giving such meaningless (i.e., useless to a lawyer or judge) definitions for a word as important as "person". Black's, like any good dictionary, usually provides quotes for reference and/or context. Here's the one for Person... 

So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition.

—John Salmond, Jurisprudence 318 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947) in Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2011) 

Of course this does help explain why unborn entities have never, and will never, be granted legal personhood (also noting that the word "personhood" is a political fabrication that has no legal definition). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:06, 28 January 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)