Talk:Abortion: Difference between revisions

Discussion Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

Request for Abortion Products

Well, I've asked before (and put it on the to-do list), but it has since been removed, and I don't see it in the article, so I'll ask again:
Information on abortion by-products, research
For example, cells taken from the placenta are used in research. Other things are also of use, stem-cells, etc.
~ender 2006-01-31 20:51:PM MST

"Definitions"

I noticed someone keeps trying to add "botched abortion" and "failed abortion" into the list of definitions. I have been unable to verify that these are in fact "medical" terms, and instead seem to be neologisms created by whomever to help push their point of view. http://www.medterms.com only lists the following for "abortion" medical terms: artificial abortion, habitual abortion, induced abortion, multiple abortion, recurrent abortion, spontaneous abortion, and therapeutic abortion. Of those, artificial, induced and therapeutic all have the same meaning. Habitual and recurrend both mean 3 or more miscarriages; multiple means 2 or more miscarriages. Spontaneous is the same as a miscarriage. Peyna 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Double Standard or Fake "Rule" (No shock sites or photos)

Kyd, these following topics all have disturbing, shocking images of graphic violence within the wikipedia articles:

• My Lai massacre
• Nguyen Ngoc Loan
• Lynching
• Rwandan Genocide
• Torture
• Holocaust

So why is there the constant mantra here on the abortion article that no such images can even be linked to the abortion article? Why are some shocking photos of human death considered acceptable, but photos of fetal demise are absolutely censored out by you? Why the double standard? 84.146.245.55

This is not a double standard. Images must be weighed according to the value they add to the article. Shock images are available for all types of surgery, but they are generally of no value to the completeness of the article. A massacre generally only has rather graphic images, and those images can add to the article. Your comparison is inept. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And after edit conflict I note you added a genocide and a torture to your list. Your POV is showing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The images on those pages are not all that disturbing or shocking and are appropriate to describe the incident. They also can be very important to understanding the topic. However, I question how much value "shock" photos would give to this article to help the reader understand what an abortion is? Peyna 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Implied by your answer:

• 1. There is no such actual rule.
• 2. Whereas it is helpful to understand murderous atrocities via shocking photos (cut the crap on whether photos of a lynched black man is shocking), it is in no way helpful to understand abortion by seeing medical diagrams of how the procedure is performed, or photos of the procedure or the fetal tissue after abortion.
• How open-minded. 84.146.245.55

I didn't put words in your mouth, don't put them in mine. Secondly, I limited my comment to "shock" photos, which I would define as those which include copious amounts of blood, severed limbs, etc. An image of a hanging is not the same as an image of a decapitation, for example. Peyna 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see your somewhat open on the issue. Even breast implant surgery has diagrams of the surgery within the main wikipedia article. Why is it harmful to add similar diagrams to this page? 84.146.245.55

An ultrasound of an abortion is a fuzzy black and white blob. It is in no way bloody or gross. It shows what happens - what abortion is. Why is that considered improper to link to that material? 84.146.245.55

I will be adding the link to "Silent Scream" (very tasteful clinical video that describes fetal sonograms and shows a sonogram during an abortion with POV commentary). There is no rational basis to keep the link off this page, especiallt when it is virtually the only way a person can ever witness this extremely common surgery without having an abortion (and even then, most abortion doctors won't allow the mother to witness the sonogram of the fetus at any time). 84.146.245.55

It's really simple: The implied purpose for shock videos is to add POV spin.

The analogies offered weren't at all analagous. Aside from the current American White House, you're not going to find a lot of people favoring torture, so there's not much controversy. On the other hand, there are large numbers of people on both sides of the abortion issue, so it's quite controversial.

Since most people see most surgery as disturbing, disgusting and generally shocking, showing such things here is not any sort of neutral act. Therefore, I fully support the continued removal of shock images, videos, and so on, including links.

If you disagree, make an argument that addresses my points. Alienus 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a general ground rule formed by consensus; it is not the random dictat of a single user. Please note that pro-choice sites are beholden to the exact same rule, so it is not an issue of one-sided censorship, although I will admit that it is harder to find pro-choice sites which contain material which would exempt them from inclusion. Women on Waves, for instance, features a picture of the naked corpse of a victim of a botched illegal abortion.

The issue with torture and genocide articles is one of control. We don't edit those articles, so, we leave it to those who do to help determine the sort of content which is suitable to them. I know that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. However, I wonder if a case could be made for individual discrimination based upon "good taste." There has been a long-standing debate on the feces article as to whether the article should feature an image of a human turd.

Abortion pictures and shock links, however, wouldn't lend themselves to the educational and encyclopaedic value of the article in the same manner that other objected images might. You can try to claim that abortion pictures are being delivered in a neutral, illustrative context, but it's hard to defend them as being anything other than argumentative. We're trying to write an informative article, here, not a pamphlet arguing for or against abortion.

In Archive 12, in a thread entitled "External Links," Tznkai suggested that all the POV links in the "External links" section be done away with entirely due to its rampant bloatation and abuse. It was I who defended the value of such links, albeit if the list was trimmed down, regulated, and reorganized. See also: "External Links overhaul" (Archive 12), "Picture survey" (Archive 13), "Too Many Links!" (Archive 14), and "Link to 'Aborted Children'" (Archive 14) for futher precedent. I instituted the warning in the hope that it would motivate people to refrain from bloating the section with non-essential, non-informative sites. The interests in winnowing out such links were twofold: to keep the text length at at reasonable size, and, also, to avoid turning this from an encyclopedia article into a soapbox. If such links must be included, then move them to an appropriate sub-article, where the purpose they serve would be much more of a constructive one. I had hoped that the honour system would work and that people would be able to govern the urge to shoehorn in POV links.

Perhaps Tznkai was right after all. -Kyd 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Killerchahua, it seems that every diagram or photo of an abortion or how it is performed would offend you. As you say with torture, with abortion the only images that could ever exist would offend you. SO your standard seems to be "I don't like such images, and despite the fact any image of abortion would be offensive, I stand by my view that no one should see abortion images of any type because no one can learn anything from them." That is quite an odd view since every since people generally consider it good to be informed about surgery - but with abortion your view is that more information is bad. 84.146.246.151

What nonsense! KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you even bother reading a comment before you fire off a response? -Kyd 14:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems the only reason that images or ultra sounds are blocked from the abortion page is because some people have person issues with seeing them (which these issues should be dealt with by seeking professional help or not going to links in which upsetting images may be present.) Yes some things are shocking, the truth can be disturbing, in such cases as lynching or the holocaust. I see no reason why an ultra sound of an abortion or medically documented images of abortion cannot be a link on the page. A warning above the link that notified the viewer that images may be disturbing would be a truthful solution.

Since the abortion page is not about botched abortions, but abortion in itself, I see no reason why the fetus cannot be shown after the abortion or during a surgical abortion, as seen by an ultra sound. There are not even any links available.

-lizxox 13:23, 7 February, 2006 (UTC)

Comment and suggestion

Well, the straw poll has conclusively proved two things to me: m:Polls are evil is re-confirmed, and the anons editing this page have no idea how to edit a wiki page. There are currently 2 support sections, 2 oppose sections, 1 empty comments section, and several links to shock images for no purpose that I can see. Suggest terminating this noble experiment in AGF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: Re-adding the trolling and shock image links previously posted under the guise of participating in a poll will be reverted as vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll cop to posting two of those links, basically, in an effort give people the option to see exactly what a "no" vote would be allowing into the article. Sorry. -Kyd 14:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to try to clarify, but in this case it ended up being a case of Don't feed the trolls. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll initiated by Kyd

In response to comments posted on this page noting that there really is no rule banning so-called "shock links" (and that there is no definition for what would be banned), Kyd started a vote (poll) asking if we should censor links to images of abortion procedures or results, and he invited commentary. After several hours, the vote was 3 to 1 against such a ban. Apparently frustrated with the results, he wiped out the entire vote/poll/commentary section (within less than half a day). I am adding it back, since such an action is clear vandalism. Some people like to hide discussion, and even like to hide what happens during an abortion. How sad that some people think that most people can't handle objective information. 84.146.206.84 (edits made during editing conflict appear here - Diff posted here to avoid any possible confusion: [1])

See notice above. If you had left comments in comments section, kept to format Kyd wrote, it would still be there. You vandalized the poll, format, layout, added hostile commentary which was completely off=topic, and now you are whining because the mess you made has been archived. Get over it. You did this to yourself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Kyd had a link to a sample site, and I linked to the same site as part of a response to discussion he initiated. Your slip is showing. You have no intent follow rules and apply them evenhandedly. None at all. You also tried to manipulate the comments rather than let them appear within the voting, as is the wikipdia NORM! 84.146.206.84

You are the one not following the rules - Kyd was trying to establish a consensus, showing an instance of biased information from both sides of the debate. You posted inappropriate material and once posting your view in the poll continued to voice your opinion rather than let others add to it. |--Spaully 14:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

THere was no inappropriate material posted. As I said, I linked to the SAME images as Kyd did, simply to respond to his incorrect use of the word "alleged". If you had any sense of fairness at all you would at least concede that point. Even Kyd concedes that he was the first to post any such links in this discussion. 84.146.206.84

Spaully, there is no rule that limits dicussion. Stop pretending that there is. You folks are rabidly censoring. The way you try to cut off any discussion is fascinating. Its not as if I am simply screaming "abortion is murder" over and over. I am actually positing arguments and then backing them up with information in support. I am amazed at how much this bothers some of you. 84.146.206.84 (changed to describe what happened, not the people who did it - no intent to attack personally)

rabid censors. is a personal attack. Please cease. Cross-posting to talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a prick is also a personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good advice.84.146.206.84

I had no idea at the time that I started the poll that polls themselves were violation of m:Polls are evil. My bad. Sorry. But any comments regarding the poll's so-called validity are rendered moot by this guideline. I'm writing it off as a failed experiment and a lesson in what not to do on Wikipedia. -Kyd 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you recall, I tried to point this out to you in the beginning, but folks kept censoring my comments.84.146.206.84

(Follow up: And I also let that issue go despite that fact that several of you tried to hide the reality that you actually initiated what you called a "formal vote").84.146.206.84

Nevertheless, you asked for input and then erased it when you did not like the input. Such straw polls are not at all forbiden. Becuase they may not be fruitful or beneficial does not mean they are forbidden - and there is no RULE against them. But to elininate a poll simply becuase you realize your position is not very good on the questioned posed - well, that is not good wikipedia behavior and can be seen as evidence of the weakness of your view. 84.146.206.84

Not to worry, Kyd, that isn't a policy - just a general rule of thumb. I"ve seen straw polls be helpful, on occasion. Those instances were a good faith effort on the part of all concerned to get a feel for whether there was general consensus, and ppl simply signed the correct section, kept their comments to the comments section, and so on. But usually they don't work out well, as we have seen here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, killarchihuhua, votes followed immediately by commentary (often lengthy and including back and forth debate), is standard procedure at wikipedia when voting (here is an example:[2]). The vehemence exhibited here to keep fair comments explaining a vote (or clarifying the question) off of the DISCUSSION page is VERY telling. Most people realisze that people afraid of ideas are people who don't believe or don't understand their own ideas emough to discuss and defend them - and who are not confident their own ideas will hold up when juxtaposed to other ideas.84.146.206.84

From Wikipedia:Straw polls: "If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a "polls are evil and stupid" option and your poll not being regarded as binding." And that's without somone editing it to place the comments in the voting section, and have duplicate voting sections. Poll was removed because it was vandalized beyond use by unknowledgable editors, discussion still continues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

YOu keep ignoring that the stadnard acceptable practice is to vote and post comments explaining the vote immediately within the vote. If you keep ignoring it, it proves my point. That is NOT disruptive or somehow incorrect. Rather it is how people do it. Remvoing polls that you do't like IS disruptive and incorrect.84.146.210.228.

Please follow the link provided to Wikipedia:Straw polls before holding forth about standard practice. Also, please use Show preview and Edit summaries, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Killerchihuhua, explain your charge of vandalism regarding the straw poll

You have made the claim (yes, I looked up your contributions [3]), now back it up. What actually was the vandalism?

• Edits to the DISCUSSION page that you don't like, yes. But vandalism? What was vandalism?
• Making the honest "mistake" of violating a rule (that all can agree does not exist) by linking to Kyd's already linked (by Kyd) pro-life shock site as part of a legitimate discussion? (no)
• Posting anonymously? (no, that is allowed)
• Posting comments clarifying a poll question in the appropriate place so that people answering the question would know what the issue is before voting? (no)
• Including comments explaining a vote as part of the vote (as is done in many places where votes are conducted on wikipedia)? (no) (proof:[4])
• What exactly is it? My persistance? IS that vandalism? Is the fact that I have exposed a chink in the "no shock sites" "policy" as applied on this page? Yes, that is it. Thats all it is - or perhaps you can clarify? It seems that your charge of vandalism is being made personally against me to mask a desire to not be bothered with following the rules at wikipedia (such as not pretending rules exist in an effort to censor out things you don't like. And to falsely smear me at the same time). 84.146.206.84

Repeatedly ignoring consensus is vandalism. Maybe you should try being a little less persistent and let everyone here have a voice. Chill out, stop drowning out everyone else in the conversation. Throwing around rule-violations is usually a Wikipedian's last attempt at restoring order, so if you find you're the target of such accusations often, maybe you should reexamine your editing approach. And btw, keep some perspective. Even if this article was 100% pro-life or pro-choice, how much of a difference in society would it have anyway? Not much. If you want to use Wikipedia for advocacy, you're wasting your time; go write your congressperson instead. --Quasipalm 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Quasi, since you fail to answer the specific questions, I guess you see that it was not vandalism as defined by wikipedia.84.146.237.55

Editing in accord with the rules while others change the rules to suit their current attempts to squelch a discussion ON THE DisCUSSION PAGE is NOT vandalism. Making lengthy contributions to the DISCUSSION page is NOT vandalism even if no one else is contributing to the discussion.84.146.237.55

Repeatedly ignoring the consensus of two people that this page should have special rules only when abortion opponents are discussing their ideas is good pratice. It is NOT vandalism. The minority should always ignore attmpts by others to bully them into silence. A vote was called for and in progress and when the discussion very obviously was going to result in the admission of such links (based on the weakness of any argument for censoring them), at that point the whole section was deleted. How convenient. This would be funny if it were not such a serious attempt to squelch discussion of pertinent matters related to the article. 84.146.237.55

84, please chill out. I'm off now, and I'm not concerned enough with this debate to give it anymore thought. But I think it'd be great if you would rethink your Wikipedia strategy. Your near-manic editing style, constant demands, and your inability to end a debate until you win may not be against any rules, but nor will it win you any friends. --Quasipalm 17:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

At least you seem to acknowledge that the arbitrary end of a discussion on the DISCUSSION page reeks of feces. 84.146.237.55

I acknowledged no such thing -- at some point the discussion has to end. Please read my posts before responding. I really have to leave before I start breaking WP:NPA. --Quasipalm 18:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I always read before postig - though the same can't be said for most of you. Many just whip out the Double Standards Handbook and start typing. 84.146.210.228

Huh? --Quasipalm 20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us have given up with this guy at this point. I'm pretty much on the verge of taking this to RfC because he seems intent on disrupting discussion on this and other articles as much as possible until he has his own way. He's broken WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR and WP:VAND in the space of a month and yet has managed to escape with one 48 hour block - it really does defy belief. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Images is Allowed

Without some explanation that withstands scrutiny as anything more than an attempt to protect readers from exposure to what happens during an abortion procedure (and to sanitize the article from anything that sheds negative light, however objective, on abortion), it is hereby acknowledged that linking to abortion-related medical diagrams and ultrasound images is allowed within the main article, despite the fact that some people prefer not to view them. There is no rule nor is there any basis for banning such links. Such a ban goes against wikipedia policies. Links to other types of images may also be appropriate to provide more information about various topics within the article, and it is always wrong for any editor to claim that there is a policy banning such links or images (when there is in fact no such policy). If the article discusses coathanger abortions, then a link to images related to such abortions is appropriate for readers to click on if they so desire. Etc. 84.146.253.203

There is a basis for banning such links: consensus among the editors. Consensus is the trump card here on Wikipedia, so until you have more support, your link will not be part of the article. --Quasipalm 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

BUt there is no ban and can't be. Each link gets discussed on the merits and there has to be discussion about why it shoudl or should not be present. That is where you have it all wrong.84.146.237.55

No, we don't need to re-discuss each link individually. We have reached consensus about shock images, and the verdict is a clear no. --Quasipalm 17:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding coathangers - that is a ridiculous idea, why don't we just start a "How to do backyard abortions" article?

As for ultrasound and medical images, I suggest you ask for a consensus in the talk page before linknig to them in the article. -|-Spaully 17:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The "ultrasound image" being discussed is the Silent Scream. Someone added a link to this two days ago on the Abortion page [5]; this is what precipitated the whole mess. -Kyd 17:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the silent scream, I would definitely consider this innapropriate in this article. | Spaully 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You both have it backwards. The original problem is that the across the board banning of illustrative links was done WITHOUT consensus or discussion. It was just announced. That is the problem. Thats not how it works. I am sur eyou all realize that. I have never even attempted to link to any images. Its about the principal that such links are automatically banned and deleted without any discussion on the merits. 84.146.237.55

You have no more authority to declare abitrary rules than I do. There remains a precedent, in practice, of zero tolerance for shock links and images (even if you've sabotaged the effort to create a hard consensus with disruptive behavior). Three instances of the enforcement of the informal rule against shock links from three seperate users:

• Abortion: Archive 14: See thread titled "Link to 'Aborted Children.'" User Cyde.
• Abortion diff: User Tznkai reverting the in-article addition of a shock picture.
• Fetal pain diff: User KillerChihuahua. I was the one who intitally reverted this. KC must have had the article on her WatchList and entered the fray of her own volition.

-Kyd 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no "no shock links rule". And there is no definition of "shock links". Right now your definition is "links I don't like". That will not do. Again, each link gets evaluated - truly evaluated. And after discussion of why it should or should not be present the consensus will be known. 84.146.237.55

Here's your definition of "shock links." Shock links are links the vast majority of editors view to be shock links. Can we move on now? --Quasipalm 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Which requires a discussion of the link before simply banning it. You can't speak for what most editors would think. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A DISCUSSION PAGE - TO FIGURE THAT OUT! Yet the very attempt to discuss this was BANNED! Amazing. I am sure you are not prouid of that fact. You cannot be. Its shameful. It makes it look like there is something to hide. You may want to encourage another approach. "No discussion on the discussion page" is a shitty policy. Currently, as of the last tally, the links should be allowed (the vote was 3 to 1 in favor of such links before the losers pulled the discussion). Since the side that was losing banned discussion of the topic, they have to live with the consequences of censoring without consensus. Last known consensus is to allow links. 84.146.237.55

All of Wikipedia is a shared space -- your sense of entitlement is misplaced. You can't demand that your link be discussed when consensus is that it has long been settled. Your goal here should be to win some friends among the established editors, instead of annoying everyone so much that they write you off as a shrill advocate for a specific POV. -Quasipalm 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The only users to vote for allowing shock links are Ronabop and you. The third was an anon IP, who I'm liable to believe was you, Goodandevil, as you have a history of anon IP sockpuppetry. Quasipalm, KillerChihuahua, and I have clearly stated shock links are a no-no. This moves the tally to 3/3 (if you AGF on the second anon IP vote). Other users, including Cyde and Tznkai, have followed "no shock links" in practice, although I'm to going to assume if or how they'd vote. The winds are clearly not in your favour. So, why push against them? -Kyd 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Point of order: I wasn't voting in favor of including "shock links" on WP, I was voting against a blanket policy of fixed authoritarian rules being applied to this article, which could lead to new editors confused about how consensus is reached on WP. Links and sites which are soapboxes are obviously a problem, but I wasn't happy with the particular solution being proposed. Ronabop 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you just violated WP:CIVIL twice in one post. Not a great move if you're trying to get people to become sympathetic to your view. -Kyd 18:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Shock links violate NPOV, they are inherently POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Says you, capriciously.84.146.210.228 An ultrasound is not a shocklink - yet the "no shock links" dogma was used as reason for banning it out of hand. It happens to be the the only website that actually shows people what happens during an abortion (very clinically and with ultrasound). How sad (and very very very telling) that abortion supporters don't have any site that does the same. They don't want anyone to know. And neither does wikipedia, apparently. 84.146.210.228 18:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The silent scream is, to say the least, not an objective depiction of abortion. It is making a case against abortion, using emotive (and incorrect in many instances) language. Coupled to that it is outdated, made in 1984, and our understanding of the foetus during development during the last 20 years has progressed markedly. If you want a consensus on this particular link, I assure you this consensus will be against it - it IS a shock link. | Spaully 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I crawled over their (Silent Scream) content.... I had no idea that 'organized crime' was behind Ob/Gyn medical facilities. (er, yup, that's actually in one of their movies, no joke). :-) The Silent Scream movie procedure is a suction aspiration procedure (only one type of abortion), and the language used is fairly over-the-top. It doesn't meet my standards for "shocking", but it's clearly an advocacy piece, and intentionally misleading (and inaccurate) at times. It probably doesn't belong in this article page, just because it's not about abortion as a whole (it's only about one procedure, and clearly advocacy), but it may be suitable for one of the deeper pages. Ronabop 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this as well, and agree with your conclusion. It's pure POV, and not even the sane, measured sort. Alienus 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronabop. I personally wasn't "shocked" when I checked it out, but I did find it to be complete and utter POV garbage. However, it was inteded to shock, and there has been a consensus in the past about not including purposefully advocacy-driven shocking links.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

External links are for garnering more information on a specific topic. The links you post are not informational - they are to pictures that are displayed to deliberately push a point of view across, and it is for this reason that they are not allowed. I would even say that the link at Silent Scream is inappropriate, and would it be at pro-life. Silent Scream isn't intended to give information, it is intended to shock. Sites such as the NRLC and Prolife UK provide useful info on the views of pro-life individuals and are thus just about OK, but in their nature they belong only under pro-life for people looking for more info on those views, and not in an article like this one because they are inherently biased and not useful. I'm sure you'll get it one of these days, 84. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting

Might it be worth semi-protecting this page permanently? It seems to me that 99% of constructive edits come from people who have been Wikipedians for a while, and it seems to be a major vandalism target. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The level of vandalism is not high enough to consider protection. We usually don't semi-protect this article because the issues are usually borderline - extreme POV pushing is a content dispute, not vandalism. Futher, there is no "permanently semi-protect" at this time. George W. Bush is the closest thing we have, and it is vandalized on the order of once a minute when un semi'd. In other words, no. Does not even meet the level of vandalism required to semi, let alone consider keeping it semi-protected. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the issues with 84 are more content dispute than anything, I usually see vandalism regularly cropping up on here, and it seems we spend so much time dealing with extreme POV issues and vandalism that little is managed these days. Still, given the circumstances that semi-protection should be used in according to the Wikipedia guidelines, I see your point. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 11:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

I have reported User:Informativemiss for violation of WP:3RR here. Please make any additions you feel necessary. Natgoo 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know if you noticed that the edits changed. Maybe you forgot to look? (I didn't put revert the last time.) I don't know why you're so upset, but I made sure that the photographs on the last were authentic. Informativemiss 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I assumed incorrectly, but the anon's reverts were in exactly the same style as yours, and contained the same material. There is no consensus to alter the community's decision to not include links to shock sites. Please stop insisting. Natgoo 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Epoch Times as source

The Epoch Times is a Chinese paper, often termed tabloid, whose main agenda is apparently bad-mouthing China. Now, that may be a purpose which you can appreciate, and it may stem from good intentions, but the bottom line is that the paper is biased. I strongly protest using this site as a source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about this too -- Epoch Times has some good information. (I mean the article on wikipedia, not necessarily the paper.) --Quasipalm 03:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Given their agenda, I don't trust anything they say about abortion. The Chinese govt. is still forcefully aborting women, and it fits the Epoch Times to spin-control and present only biased information which places abortion in as negative and harmful a light as possible. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the paper mentions a study by University of Oslo -- if someone wants to find the study itself, that'd be fine. But other main source of the article is something called The Christchurch Health and Development Study, which sounds a little, um, biased. -Quasipalm 03:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I will stick to linking to medical journals in the future. The Christchurch Health study looked like it could be biased, but I would have to look more into the study. I wouldn't want to be judgmental of the study at the same time though. -Liz xox 04:23, February 11, 2006 (UTC).

I agree, looks like a biased source. Take a look at this - is this the same Christchurch? KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the Christchurch Health study and it seems to be more of a collaboration of different studies from New Zealand that they combined the information from. Although I am not sure, I wouldn't link to them though, because of the chance of bias, just direct studies from valid medical journals. -Liz xox 04:23, February 11, 2006 (UTC).

Christchurch is a city in New Zealand. The name of the city is religiously-inspired, I would imagine, but I don't know if the study was sponsored or conducted by religious groups. Generally, I tend to avoid secondary sources, whether reputable or not. I look for the original sources and then judge their individual merit from there. -Kyd 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Liz xox's Epoch Times link

From the article:

Forty-eight percent of the women who had miscarriages suffered distress at the ten-day period versus 30 percent of those who aborted.

However, the ones who had miscarriages dropped to 23 percent after six months and to 2.6 percent after five years. Of the women who had abortions 26 percent were still suffering grief, guilt, depression, shame and denial at six months. After five years 20 percent were still distressed.

This is mixed news, but what Liz xox added was quite one sided:

Although some studies comparing depression in post-abortive women and woman who miscarried| found a higher rate of long-term depression in woman who underwent an abortion.

This strikes me as cherry picking... what do others think? -Quasipalm 03:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

See above, I think the paper is not a good source. Give me PubMed any day of the week. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The [Epoch Times ] link is an article that is about "Long-Term Effects" of abortion. [[6]]I see no reason why this is biases information. It has information from different studies and presents the information to the reader. They can decide if the agree with the different studies, but facts and statistics found in studies cannot be argued as biased. If this source is "biased" then why are the following links allowed:

• Rogers, Lois. (2005, November 27 "Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion." The Sunday Times. Retrieved January 11, 2006.
• Histories of Abortion. (n.d.) Retrieved January 11, 2006.
• Roy Morgan International. (1998, March 3). Almost Two-Thirds Of Australians Approve Of Abortion. Retrieved January 11, 2006.
• YouGov. (2005, July 30). YouGov/Daily Telegraph Survey Results. Retrieved January 11, 2006.
• Reaney, Patricia. (2006, January 9). "Selective abortion blamed for India's missing girls." Reuters AlertNet. Retrieved January 9, 2006.

They are all similar websites, in that they are not medical journals or government websites.

As an afterthought, just so no one deletes anything again, I will go and find the specific information (from every study discussed in the article) in a medical journal and link to the medical journal. That shouldn't be an issue with anyone I would hope. So I'll just do that soon, if no one has an objection to me linking information that is from a valid medical journal. -Liz xox 04:19, February 11, 2006 (UTC).

Valid medical journals are indeed better sources than the Epoch Times. Try to find recent studies with a decent size group - small groups give misleading results. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will make sure to check for that; thank you for the suggestions. -Liz xox 04:30, February 11, 2006 (UTC).

Np, and good luck. You'll find we are a reasonable group, and very careful about sources. Check the archives here also - there may be sources listed that no one ever followed up on. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Abortion-crime rate drop correlation

Recent analysis by noted economist Steven D. Levitt draws a link between the approval of legalized abortion in the United States and a significant drop in the U.S. crime rate 18 years later. The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime (2001) claims an effective 50% drop in crime as a direct result of the procedure availability. Such research has been criticized for sugesting that the solution to crime is to eugenically reduce the population in poor and minority neighborhoods. [7][8]

This was shoehorned in under "Heath effects: suggested effects." Does it belong there? Perhaps it would be better located under "Social issues," as it would be considered a social effect, not a health one. -Kyd 12:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Much more appropriate under Social issues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Added a revised section. Tweaking it as I go along. Do we really need sources on the opposition to these claims as being eugenic or is that the sort of thing that follows unsaid? Because I fear we're getting dangerously close to finding a source for everything. [9] -Kyd 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

People generally only insist on having 5 or 6 linked sources for any factual information that reveals the bloodiness, ugliness, harmfulness or cruelty of abortion. I can't imagine why that double standard would be changed now - though it would be nice and fair, and it would end the inherrent POV in the present "consensus". 84.146.241.62

As that section already has 4 sources and starts out by stating it is controversial, it is clear that we're not presenting it as unchallanged and it is fully sourced. IMHO 4 refs is enough for one claim. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the whole issue is pretty well discussed at Legalized abortion and crime effect... We don't need to rehash the whole issue here. --Quasipalm 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV sentence about data that "supports" any claim. There is no cause and effect correlation proven and as such any discussion of that data will have to take that into account (which the version deleted did not do). 84.146.216.195

Excuse me, but what do you, 84, know that one of the world's leading economists does not? Before you go off and start deleting things and saying that the data doesn't support Levit's results, try bringing some clear proof to the table. Oh, and here's an idea, try reading the book or the paper you are trying to discredit, because at this point it's painfully clear to me that you haven't. -Quasipalm 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cause and effect: most people, with minimal knowledge of sociological studies understnad that cause and effect is nearly impossible to prove. Correlations do not imply cause and effect - as countless others have pointed out when editing this very article! Apparently this is news to you. Read the study. It will assist you in understanding the pertiennt point I made. While you were complaining, someone else has edited the clearly offending sentence appropriately. 84.146.216.195 23:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Correlations can and often do imply cause and effect, even if you can not be 100% sure. In this case, the only known shared variable for the states that showed an early crime drop is the change in abortion law, and it should also be noted that states that changed their laws earlier saw a corresponding earlier drop in crime rate. Implying causation from the correlation in this case makes perfect sense and I'd like to hear your alternate explaination if you disagree. (If the correlation was not caused by the abortion change, you would find a third, here unknown variable that effected both trends to show correlation without causation.) In poly-sci, the best thing you can have is a control group, which is exactly what we had with states that allowed abortion and had a crime rate drop, and those that didn't and had a later crime rate drop. Are the results 100% conclusive? No, nothing is in these kinds of studies, but it's about as close as we can get using "what ifs." And yes, I've read this paper and Levit's book, and I'm still very convinced that you haven't. -Quasipalm 23:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph was phrased so that any level of conclusion was presented in terms of the study's conclusion. The data are there but it is left to the reader to determine whether or not the Donohue and Levitt's findings are valid. I have, however, rewritten the sentence in the hope of avoiding future confusion. The solution to a unclearly-worded presentation of valid information is to amend the error — not delete it entirely, like you did. -Kyd 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Since my edits are never acceptable, no matter how mundane and correct they may be, I deleted the sentence for one of you to fix (see my note inviting such a correction above!!!). Clearly the sentence contained incorrect and/or misleading information and did not belong in the article. THank you for fixing it. 84.146.216.195 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The solution would've been to fix the sentence yourself or point out the problem on the Talk page -- and, no, I wouldn't count deleting it as "POV" and "untrue" as an explicit invitation to do so. We're not mind-readers (well, I'm not, at least) so we can't simply intuit that you want something fixed from a wholesale deletion. Things go a lot more smoothly when you work with rather than against. -Kyd 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• This sentence: "There is no cause and effect correlation proven and as such any discussion of that data will have to take that into account (which the version deleted did not do)" certainly implies very clearly that the information was untrue as presented and could come into the article if presented truthfully. You could have figured that out with half your brain tied behind your back. 84.146.216.195

To what are you refering? Also, don't mix metaphors, especially if you're trying to insult someone's intelligence. -Kyd 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are too smart too feign a lack of common sense. We all know you can read. 84.146.216.195 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

After Roe v Wade

While we're interested in adding social statistics to the abortion article, perhaps we should also note that after 1973, violent crime offenses, sexually transmitted diseases, child abuse, and illegal drug usage increased exponentially. This is according to the Dept. of Commerce, CDC, US Department of Health and Human Services, and National Institute on Drug Abuse, respectively.

Wow...I haven't even read the article yet and I'm already sensing its bias(es). That's really sad. Salva 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it. Any information that shines any truthful negative light on abortion is automatically suspect by the "consensus". God could write it in the sky and the NYT could report it as a fact, yet the "consensus" here would somehow keep the info out of the article. But I wish you luck. 84.146.216.195

Oh really? Violent crime rates declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2004. And Salva31, I encourage you to read the article, it's pretty damn good. And I have to say, even though biases flair on the talk page, the article is one of the least-biased articles you'll find on the internet, if not the best. --Quasipalm 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? The little black kids who were aborted in 1973, who you think would have been hoodlums, would have started their crime spree by 1990 (not 1994). You have glossed over the other statistics mentioned: sexually transmitted diseases, child abuse, and illegal drug usage. That you think this article is not biased is telling. 84.146.216.195 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're amazingly offensive. But, anyway, here's a CDC document showing Syphilis and Gonorrhea at historic lows. [10] Here's a white house chart showing drug use has fallen since the early 70's. [11]. -Quasipalm 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You, too, are amazingly offensive. Not so fast. You are forgetting about lots of other STDs. And under the authors' thesis, the comparison for drugs would not be comparing the 1970s to the 1990s. It would compare 1972+18 to 1973+18 (you are smart, you get the idea). Funny - if you look at the data you trumpeted, once the true effect of Roe (under the authors' thesis) took effect in large numbers (in other words, once abortion in high number became common place enough to impact the population 18 years later), the drug rate began a dramatic climb! 84.146.216.195 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC

I've provided hard data -- meanwhile you provide offensive comments, unsubstantiated claims, and a lot of hot air. So, no, I'm done talking to you. (p.s. the drug rate hit a bottom in '93, 20 years after Roe. I think it's common knowledge that most people try drugs when they are teenages.) -Quasipalm 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This user has a history of similar behavior on this article. Just so that you know. -Kyd 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for giving me some more sources, quasi. Those will be very useful for reinforcing my original claim here or elsewhere. Salva 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Too funny. Talk about ignorant -- did you even click on the links I've provided? I'm still waiting for your sources, by the way. For people that claim there is no connection between falling crime rates and legal abortion, you sure are quick to throw out claims that abortion increases child abuse, drug use, and stds. What's next? Global warming, music piracy and terrorism? --Quasipalm 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And then, as the effects of abortion became widespread/commonplace (1977+18), the drug rate spiked. Thesis I do not support claims that abortion solved a crime wave. I have not made any claims about the myriad negative effects of abortion. I am simply refuting your fallacious claims. And since you brought up blame for bad things, I would suspect that I could blame this weekend's blizzard and all other bad news on President Bush on this page and garner lots of support from the "consensus". 84.146.216.195 00:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My goodness... I don't know whether to laugh or to beat my head against something-- or both! You're a live wire 84. I gotta say, while I think you're off your rocker, I can't say you're not passionate. I would love to have a pint with you if you're ever in NYC. You kinda remind me of Marguerite Perrin... who would also be an amazing drinking buddy. -Quasipalm 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning: no personal attacks - that is twice now.84.146.216.195 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any part of my post you think is a personal attack -- I didn't mean it as such, and I'm serious in liking your persistance in a strange sort of way. --Quasipalm 00:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The unintended charm wears off when you've been dealing with this "persistance" in the form of daily edit wars since early December. -Kyd 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny how th wars that you cause are balmed upon me. As I have stated, I cannot even add a comma without a spiteful reversion almost instantly appearing. At times people here cannot even post comments on the talk page without whole sections of the talk page being deleted for fear that the page's double standard is being exposed. At some point you will have to stop dismissing the legitimate points I always raise. You may not like my style, but I always find chinks in the so-called neutrality of this article. If you all would only stop and think for two seconds you could realize that "hey, all of us pretty much support abortion rights - maybe we do bring that bias to the article - it is odd that we don't really have many editors here who don't support abortion rights even though polls show that almost half the population is pro-life - gee, I wonder if that is becuase we chase them all away". But you choose to protect your article so no one could possibly be offended by its contents. Which is a pathetic standard. 84.146.216.195

Perhaps it is because you have accepted whatever has been shoveled at you by your professors or your news sources (as we all generally do) regarding abortion, and that I actually have - by my persistance despite the constant "fuck off" that I find here - presented you with plausible information that does certainly shed negative light on abortion. IOW, I persistantly challenge your paradigm about abortion - and you have realized that your paradigm has some weaknesses in it. 84.146.216.195

I quess you don't understand that abortion did not become rampant until the late 1970s - which 18 years later resulted in a drug spike. You can laugh and bang away, but facts are facts. You won't get a pass on your fallacious posts.84.146.216.195 00:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind I wasn't saying that drug use rates have fallen because of abortion, I was simply pointing out that Salva31's post was clearly incorrect. I do stand by the violent crime rate drops of the early 90s, and I do think Levit is correct in linking a portion of that drop to a decrease in unwanted babies. Feel free to provide data that show that crime rates have increased since the early 90s, I think you'll find that you'll be looking indefinitely. --Quasipalm 00:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is the cumulative work of many people of many different ideological persuasions. We try to be comprehensive, fair, and accurate, and consider contributions from all sides (see "fetal pain" — this wouldn't be here if it weren't for a pro-life user). After reading this article, if you still feel that there's a bias present, feel free to offer ideas you think would help to round it out (just be ready to bring along some sources). -Kyd 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article is the work of editors who by and large support legal abortion. I do not support legal abortion - but then again I cannot even add a comma without spiteful reversions being made by Kyd, Qausi and Killerchihua. I would be shocked to find proof (or an admission) that any other editors who make substantial contributions to this page are anything but pro-choice. Sadly, many pro-life editors have tried, but they are all quickly chased away by the "consensus". Str77 is the only one I know who sticks around, but her viewpoint is kissed off and and any substantive edits of hers are always undone. And clearly, the goalposts are always moving when any inclusion of any material that in any way paints abortion as the least bit disquieting is attempted. Its why wikipedia is the least trusted name in town.84.146.216.195

84.146.216.195, buddy, I hereby challenge you to find a less-biased article on abortion on the web. Oh, and I'm not so sure you can presume to know what our views on abortion are -- most here are decidely centrist and not 100% pro choice or pro life (or at least that is my perception). --Quasipalm 01:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A centrist view on abortion means support for legal abortion in some fashion. I think most would agree that a "centrist" view would be that abortion should largely be available but perhaps not past the first trimester (perhaps 80% or more of today's abortions should be legal). (Whereas the current US law allows abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason - absolute abortion on demand, an extreme view. With aboslute ban on all abortion as the other extreme.) That means that even your centrist editors are actually very much supportive of legal abortion in most circumstances. I don't think one could plausibly disagree with that assessment of who edits this page.84.146.216.195

So, your view is that having centrists editing the article is bad... which leaves extremists. I'd hate what your wikipedia would look like. --Quasipalm 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your less-biased article, btw. I'd like to see what a non-biased take on abortion is, in your view, so we can work to make this article better. If you can't provide a less-biased article, I'll have to assume that you find this article to be the least overview of abortion on the web. -Quasipalm 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I did put "Centrist" is in quotes for a reason, by the way. My view is that no single view point should be over-represented in the editiing. Since consistent polling results indicate that over 60% of Americans would like 95% of abortions to be made illegal, the "centrist" view is actually at odds with the actual US consensus. And since most editors seem to be Americans, it should trouble us all that those editors over-represent that "centrist" (but arguably minority) position. Certainly that analysis is palusible and supportable by data.84.146.216.195

Oh, and for the record, I'm not aware of a single edit of yours that I reverted -- can you point out what you were refering to? -Quasipalm 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - you are correct. Your viewpoints are so similar to the many other pro-choice editors that its easy to place you all in once cateogry. 84.146.216.195

In other words, I've never reverted your edits, you misspoke. Thanks for clarifying. --Quasipalm 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)