![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Twice, I've added a link to a page that gives a number of scriptures pertinent to abortion. Both times, Squeekbox has deleted them for no good reason.
They clearly belong on this page. I submit this to an admin and suggest they warn Squeebox for his unwarranted edits.
jcsm.org/biblelessons/abortioniswrong.htm Bible On Abortion
This is not an issue for admins, who don't have special privileges in deciding what is and what is not POV. I don't believe the Bible talks about abortion, but if it does I still do not believe this is appropriate in an article on abortion, which is not a religious issue, --SqueakBox 22:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
The article is about abortion, not about your opinions on the subject. stop POVing, --SqueakBox 22:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
We now have the same link twice and big hurt engaging in personal attacks. Please withdraw your vandalism claims NOW, --SqueakBox 22:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I support Rje in this, --SqueakBox 22:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Big hurt (talk · contribs) has 5 times reverted his spam about what he alleges the Bible says on abortion. please can the spam be removed and he be given a block, as this is the 2nd time he has done this, --SqueakBox 15:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Spam removed; Big Hurt given a short block. hopefully this will see the ned of the situation. As the Bible has nothing to say on Abortion this link should, I feel, be kept out of the article, --SqueakBox 16:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Major Rewrite Needed. Missing is a discussion of the father's rights in abortion. For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, why is this a unilateral decision. What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights?
Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, which is this a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years. If they decided to have unprotected sex, why would one party have 100% of the rights? Rex Judicata 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
See Morality and legality of abortion, --SqueakBox 13:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
With the exception of the 'medical' discussions, this article is almost hopelessly NPOV.
First off i'm not sure the reference is related to the site, and in fact it has already been added and deleted before (see above discussion)...it seems something that generally should be on the American site. Canada was chosen before i turned up on the Wiki, i would assume as an example, as having no laws because there is no law whatsoever concerning abortion. However if you looked further down the page (or it may have moved to the US page) you will find that there is no Doctor currently in Quebec that will do a third term abortion unless the women is about to die or there are genetic abnormalities---and the concern from what i can tell is not being sued...it ethical. Quebec is currently sending the few patients that need third term abortions to the US...which strongly suggests the service isn't available elsewhere in Canada (Quebec tends to be a very liberal province on "values" issues).
Discussion anyone? Otherwise i think moving the comment to the US page might make better sense. Although i'm not totally up to date on the Planned Parenthood case, at least until then under the Roe. v. Wade decision the government DID get a say to a certain extent in second trimester abortions (in a limited way) and a less limited (but not perhaps total) say in the 3rd trimester.
Also the US federal ammendment on "partial birth abortions" (i hate the term personally) has to my knowledge only been overturned in 3 states...so it would then actually be active in the other remaining states from what i understand although there is now good precendent if there are further lawsuits.
So unless there is some discussion i'm going to take the new addition out in a day or two--Marcie 02:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I noticed the following vandalism was just reverted: "In days of yore, unwed mothers were often hit, hard, in the stomach with a shovel, or kicked down a flight of stairs in an effort to abort the unwanted child." But it did get me thinking that there is not an "Abortion history" article focusing on the practices/myths of abortion prior to legalization. This should cover how/who/where these abortions occurred but also provide a more complete telling of the complications as a result. - RoyBoy [∞] 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
When we talk about abortions prior to legalization, we have to consider the whole world and all of recorded history. That said, I was just thinking about the history of abortion myself, and how best to make note of it on Wikipedia. Would it warrant a whole article or just a section on the main abortion page? I know the ancient Greeks mentioned it on occassion, and there is a little talk about points of view before its legality in the U.S.A. in the article. It's an interesting topic. I will take your lead on this... - Chadofborg
MamaGeek made an edit labelled "Postabortion physical issues - remove quote from biased source, added statistical information". I'll explain why I have reverted it.
Essentially MamaGeek replaced this:
with this:
I'm prepared to be convinced on this edit, but it seemed a bit much to say that a "biased source" was being removed when two were being removed and one of those was The Lancet. I don't think a mere list of studies saying X out of Y concluded this or that is much. You need some kind of evaluation system; some studies are better than others. The statement that most of the studies were conducted by "abortion supporters" seems unnecessary and, frankly, sounds a little difficult to verify. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
After some consideration I do think its appropriate to completely remove the theory not proved meme; because the article has been renamed to hypothesis that should make it clear it has yet to be scientifically verified. And if we are to keep the Lancet mention, then I'd replaced Planned Parenthood with something more general and less confrontational than MamaGeek's edit; but still indicating the majority of studies indicating a link. I think that would finally be a way to statisfy me on the intro; since I've been unsure of it ever since it was edited. It would go something like this...
I also skipped the disambig page for the Lancet... should "the" be capitalized in this context? What does everyone think on the wording? - RoyBoy [∞] 05:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MamaGeek here: The Lancet's "meta-analysis" is hopelessly flawed. The analysis was conducted by UNFPA-funded scientists, and anyone doing a little research can see that the UNFPA is a big abortion backer. Furthermore, 15 published peer-reviewed studies were rejected from the analysis outright for unscientific reasons (i.e., they couldn't locate original authors of some studies). All of those studies concluded an average of 80% elevated risk of post-abortion cancer. In addition, these scientists included 28 new studies which were never published or peer-reviewed, which of course supported the no-link position.
I will not add my own text, but I will most certainly remove the PP and Lancet citations.
MamaGeek Joy The UNFPA is the United Nations Population Fund. While they deny promoting abortion, evidence suggests otherwise. Here is an article from the BBC Beral et al, the authors of the Lancet study, were recipients of UNFPA funding.
I bolded the sentence in the article that i did (which pointed out that the women who had the most problems were those who already gone through trauma) because i thought it was an important point and it wasn't brought clearly to attention. To be honest i missed it the first few reads...and i read carefully. If it being bolded is objected to can we agree on some way of making it a bit easier to see among the quotes? If you go back i was concerned earlier...its in the rewording area although that was a while ago and i was still worried with it when i came across it later...it seems though that the sentence i wrote about dentists was pulled out (i don't think it was originally but who knows)...looking at it now i figure there isn't a problem in that area--Marcie 08:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's a sentence in the intro:
I'm not sure what's meant by "and so are will be released anyway," and I didn't want to change it for fear of changing the intended meaning. Any thoughts? TIMBO (T A L K) 01:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The first sentence which describes abortion as "termination of pregnancy" does not say what abortion is. To put it another way, if there were an article called "car accident" and the first sentence said that a car accident is a "termination of a journey" I am quite certain that we would revise that sentence to make it more accurate and relevant to the true core subject of the article. - JW
Can I ask why no reference is made to a fetus in the introduction paragraph to this article? While we need to stay within our NPOV policy, this seems excessive. Even Encarta refer to it within their introduction:-
Abortion, termination of a pregnancy before birth, resulting in the death of the fetus.
Why do we refuse use this term or zygote until right near the end of the second paragraph? David Pendray dpen2000 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Dunno who wrote the above)
I agree. The embryo, zygote and fetus are all living and are all killed by abortion. This isn't the issue in the pro- anti- abortion debate since most of us agree that in some circumstances killing is justified. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mmm... I think I'll do some research(of the history of this page and the archive of these talk pages) as this is one page that one is not supposed to jump into and change. If this sentence hasn't been the focus of debate before, I'll see what could be done to change it. This is just me personally though. If anyone wants to jump in themselves... David Pendray 82.42.81.187 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This first paragraph has been through a great deal of change. The current version has held now for a couple of months, however. If you are planning to get involved in editing this page, it would be nice if you registered as a member and got yourself a login-name, so that people can keep track of the players. --BM 21:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh sorry that last comment with an ip address and my name should have been with my username - David Pendray dpen2000 22:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The decision to include or not include a reference to the fetus is not something which can be completely objective. By the time you set the terms of the language, you've already biased the article. Right now, by not mentioning the unborn child in the introduction, this whole article takes on a pro-abortion stance. But by mentioning the unborn child, and especially by using the word "kill" to describe what the mother does to her child, then that makes the article have a pro-life stance. - JW
Pregnant means a foetus is involved by definition. Self evident statements should always be avoided as we are a concise encyclopedia. FThose who don't know that pregnancy involves a foetus can find out by following the pregnancy link, --SqueakBox 18:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Why not bring your sentence here first and we can discuss it? --SqueakBox 19:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Second paragraph: "and so are will be released anyway". Don't really want to hack someone else's writing so I'll just mention it here.
I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say: "Morning after" or "emergency" contraceptive drugs that are taken within 72 hours of sex interfere with the release of eggs from the ovary or with fertilization, and so are will be released anyway;[...] --Sdfisher 17:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the POV statemnent about the permissiveness of UK abortion laws, and added a little something about the terrorist murders committed by anti-abortionists, though a lot more info could ber given on this subject. --SqueakBox 18:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) I have also removed 2 anti-abortion statements from the opening because they were not relevant there. Put them in the debate on abortion section if you like but don't insert them unnaturally in the opening. have changed the title of abortion and feminism to The debate on abortion, as the section contains both sides of the argument, thus more NPOV. Finally it is completely wrong to have 15 pro-choice links and no pro-life links. This is blatantly POV. Women have a right to a free life! has, of course, been removed as blatantly POV. Even though I happen to agree with the sentiments a POV article will not help the pro-choice cause, or the famed neutrality of Wikipedia.--SqueakBox 15:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC) Actually the links section had been vandalised by 137.132.3.11, and his/her efforrts have been reverted.--SqueakBox 15:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
It's redundant. "... usage, refers to the voluntary or induced termination of pregnancy, generally ..." and then it goes to say that "... As a result, birth does not take place. ..." Isn't it obvious that a birth won't take place if there's a termination of the pregnancy? I don't want to edit it myself, as im sure this is a "heated" topic, but i think someone who frequents this topic should take a look at it.
Paulr 17:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you are right and have removed, "As a result, birth does not take place."
I'm putting in a link to planned parenthood's abortion info. Although planned parenthood as an organization has pro-choice arms, this link is to decidedly complete and factual information. I think it's a shame to taint it by painting it as part of an agenda, so I'm putting it in the neutral links. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have to say that I disagree that that infformation is neutral.
I'm about to add notes on the effectiveness of Prohibition on reducing admissions to hospitals for liver disease as a counter-argument/rebuttal, since I added information about legislative effectiveness arguments. Please help, folks from both sides of the fence. Sandbody 23:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Summary: 204.60.237.72 changed the following text:
to
Sandbody's changed it back, with the edit summary "rv Some pro-lifers -do- believe that a zygote is a human being (article must be representing all POV)"
However, this statement when juxtaposed against the medical opinion only represents the beliefs of one faction in a moral debate--it's extremely POV. The morality of abortion is covered in depth in another article Morality and legality of abortion, where all significant moral views of abortion should be represented. A one-sided representation of human beliefs with respect to abortion (whether related to pre-implantation contraception or not) should not be presented here. Therefore I have reverted, with the edit summary "Revert. Juxtaposing the medical definition against the beliefs of *one* faction is POV. Leave the beliefs for the appropriate articles and cover *all* significant ones." The medical definition of pregnancy is given solely to explain why abortion is distinguished from contraception as a matter of medical classification. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree fully with Tony Sidaway, --SqueakBox 15:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I concur. - RoyBoy 800 00:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see that planned parenthood has been added to the politically neutral section again. I followed the link, and found statements like these: "Public opinion polls show that a strong majority of Americans favor preserving safe, legal abortions, but there is still a vocal minority that does not. They want to make abortion a crime, robbing women of the right to decide for themselves when or whether to have children." How anyone can think that is neutral with respect to the pro-life/choice debate is beyond me. This is vandalism, pure and simple. Vintermann 10:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Major Rewrite Needed. Missing is a discussion of the father's rights in abortion. For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, why is this a unilateral decision. What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights?
Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, which is this a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years. If they decided to have unprotected sex, why would one party have 100% of the rights? Rex Judicata 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
The entire non-medical discussion of abortion is hopeless NPOV as it is from a 100% female perspective. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree. Explain yourself. Why do we need to be reminded about (3RR). The only person on course to break it is yourself, --SqueakBox 13:50, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Well, --SqueakBox since you broke the three reversion rule, it seems that reminding you did not work. Agwiii 20:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Help us understand Which part of "entire non-medical discussion of abortion" is it you don't understand. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article need attention to eliminate the overt gender bias. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No it doesn't, there is no gender bias until you put it in. You are the only person on course to break the 3RR rule. When you fully explain your reasoning for this being a gender biased POV article we can have a discussion on it, and maybe eventually put something neutral in the article. but discussion first please, as reverting is not a right in order to put one's POV across, --SqueakBox 13:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Of course you can't see it because you suffer from the gender bias. Pregnancy is a necessary condition for abortion. Pregnancy in humans requires egg (from the female) and sperm (from the male). Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How can you fail to see there is a paternal rights issue, as well as maternal. Read the Oklahoma Law Review article and you will understand. Agwiii 16:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If an entirely neutral point of view sentence or two is inserted into the article regarding paternal rights, I think SqueakBox and others would be fine with its inclusion. For instance, using wording like "Some have argued that there are significant paternal rights at stake in the abortion debate . . ." would remove the bias inherent in statements like "They fail to see the father's rights in abortion" and rhetorical questions that are laced with animosity. Ad hominem attacks on other users aren't necessary, especially when this section could be reworded and be a valuable addition to this article. - Jersyko 00:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Jersyko - good suggestions. There was no ad hominem attack. I believe the new wording will be acceptable. However, what is NOT ACCEPTABLE is the fact that --SqueakBox violated the 3 REVERSION RULE. Agwiii 20:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How dare you falsely accuse me of violating the 3RR rule. Prove your allegations or withdraw them. This is not the place for personal attacks, --SqueakBox 20:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
However, natural pregnancies involve the participation of a man and a woman. removed as self evident and therefore unnecessary. Both parties in the pregnancy have rights with respect to a potential abortion. removed as POV.
For example, if the mother, whether married or not, decides to have an abortion, should this be a unilateral decision? What if the father wants the child? Where are the father's rights? Who is the champion for the rights of the father? removed as we must not ask questions, --SqueakBox 20:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Conversely, if the mother, whether married or not, decides not to have an abortion, should this be a unilateral decision that could lead to the creation of a financial obligation child support for the father for the next 18 - 21 years? If both parties decided to have sex, which always has the potential for pregnancy, is there a moral or legal reason for the rights to be anything other than equal? are more questions and should not be here. It is unwiki to ask questions like this, --SqueakBox 20:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Political sabotage repaired. Agwiii 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good! I like Jersyko's edit, --SqueakBox 23:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Political sabotage repaired. Agwiii 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Agwiii 00:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To SqueakBox: I have one word for you. STOP! Agwiii 01:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The current version of the article includes a neutral section on paternal rights. I fail to see how neutrality = political sabotage. - Jersyko 01:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
That is because I corrected the political sabotage to the article by SqueakBox -- Agwiii 01:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Jersyko, but you did not ask a question, you made a statement. Neutrality is not political sabotage. Many of your edits have been neutral, while those of SqueakBox have not. Deleting factual information is not neutral. Violating the 3RR is not neutral. ==> Agwiii 01:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did not revert your neutral edits. This article has so much dog posting by squeakbox that your neutral edits must have been caught in the middle. Please restore them - your sentence in the first paragraph about the Father's rights in Abortion was appropriate. ==> Agwiii 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry SqueakBox, but you are mistaken. Stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia. I have no agenda, unlike you. Again I repeat STOP CYBER STALKING ME! ==> Agwiii 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not cyber stalking you. Just because I legitimately looked at your contributions and Vfd on Ron Branson does not give you the right to accuse me of cyber stalking. If you have any real allegations you must prove them or wikipedia will take no notice of your allegations, --SqueakBox 01:50, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry SqueakBox, but you continue to be mistaken. Stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia. Again I repeat STOP CYBER STALKING ME! ==> Agwiii 02:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Explain what you mean by cyberstalking, with evidence, because watching others contributions is allowed here, --SqueakBox 02:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
To SqueakBox, Stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia.
I am directing you to immediatly stop harassing, dog-posting and cyberstalking me.
Florida Statutes 784.048(1)(d) defined the crime of "Cyberstalking".
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.--
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(N.B. 775.082 (4) A person who has been convicted of a designated misdemeanor may be sentenced as follows: (a) For a misdemeanor of the first degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year;
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
If you have any questions about your crime of cyberstalking, SqueakBox, let me know, but you are now directed to stop Cyber-Stalking me on Wikipedia.
==> Agwiii 13:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I have never in any way threatened Agwiii with death or bodily injury or with threats of any sort none of this has the slightest relevance to me, --SqueakBox 01:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No legal threats. Stop trying to intimidate me into not editing the articles that interest uyou. The PTB will not ban me as I have done nothing wrong. your threats are like water off a duck's back, and I am not American, anyway. I have committed no crimes, and advise you to stop hassling me by making up legal threats, --SqueakBox 15:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
TO: SqueakBox. Directing you to stop breaking the law is not a threat. If you continue your course of illegal action, I will see the law is enforced. BTW, cyberstalking, SPAMMING, online harassment are crimes covered by our treaties of extradition. STOP BREAKING THE LAW! STOP HARASSING! Agwiii 15:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The evidence speaks louder than a thousand words about who is harrassing who. IO am building my case against you for possible use in arbcom. I will not tolerate your behaviour towards me in this way. Calm down, and retract your ridiculous allegarttions about cyberstalking. In both law and wikipedia it is not people's assertions but evidence that dictates what happens. youn cannot ban me from here or get the police to act merely because you shout very loudly. Please stop, wikipedia is a collaborative project. I really dislike those Users who believe they can hijack wikipedia for their own beliefs. This is a powerfiul place, but it is an encyclopedia, --SqueakBox 16:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Actions speak lounder than words and the proof is here. I am building my case against you for action in arbcom. I will not tolerate your behaviour towards me in this way. Stop your cyberstalking. Stop your dog posting. Please stop! I dislike users who try to play the victim when they are the perpetrator. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and actions like yours, particularly changing my words on a Talk page, are simply inappropriate. I hope you can calm yourself, see the error of your ways, and apologize. Agwiii 18:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
You are the one who needs to apologise to me. I have done absolutely nothing to apologise about. Rather than building your arbcom case you should substantiate your allegations at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You have made legal threats and compared me to the Khmer rouge and a murderous stalker, and attacked me at every opportunity. I am not amused. Who do you think you are to make such false allegations, --SqueakBox 19:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
As I wrote elsewhere, I am terminating this discussion with you, Squeakbox. Any subsequent messages from you, directed to me, at me, or about me will be considered improper, intentional, wilful cyberstalking and harassment in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Agwiii 19:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
I reiterate the above statement. Agwiii 21:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
When dealing with hostile witnesses, we find that if you give a witness enough rope, they will hang themselves. Squeak wrote the key words to those that are "holier than thou," when he wrote "I am not amused. Who do you think you are ... " Nothing more needs to be said about his attitude. Signed, Agwiii 21:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Agwiii (talk · contribs) is almost certainly the sockpuppet of RexJudicata (talk · contribs), and thus was the one who had no legitimate purpose in cyberstalking me, merely a childish desire to get his own way, and not be caught cheating by using his Wikipedia:Sockpuppet to get his own way. if either return to Wikipedia I will pursue an arbcom case against them, --SqueakBox 23:11, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
I would by fine with Monado's edits if they were neutral, and I'd fix them myself, but it is next to impossible with the extremely large number of edits he/she has made. I would suggest rewording them to remove the POV. - JennaMarie83
On reading this section it's clear that it doesn't belong under "abortion" because when it is used no implantation can have occurred. Perhaps it should be given an article of its own or described in a suitable article on pharmaceutical contraceptives. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it NPOV to say that the use of the term 'Partial-Birth Abortion' is controversial? To me, the term itself 'partial birth abortion' is a weighted one, so is it fair to say that the term is controversial? Going back through various versions, people seem to keep removing and adding it ... that in itself would suggest the term is controversial. And it's not like the phrase 'partial birth abortion' has been expunged, it's still there, just with an addendum that its use can be controversial. Proto | 11:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous user: the media and most of the American populace uses the term PBA when discussing this method of abortion - the man on the street rarely uses techincal medical terminology. The method of killing the fetus is cearly controversial - but the term PBA is well-established as the term of choice for the foolish masses, like me.
The debate on abortion section spends a lot of time on pro-life feminists. As it stands, I think that this tilts the section away from NPOV. Basically, the article historicizes the pro-choice position in a damaging way -- one of the basic claims of pro-choice advocates is that pro-choice is a pro-woman position. This article as it is seems to linger on the fact that that has not always historically been the case.
I can see a couple of ways to clean this up. The easiest is to cut the pro-life feminist discussion drastically -- cutting it to a sentence, probably (which is I think a fair assessment of its importance in the current debate.) This is probably what I would do, personally, for reasons of time and expertise.
The other way would be to historicize the pro-life position as well, particularly discussing the link between advocates of pro-life positions and advocates of traditional family structures. This would raise questions about pro-life motivations (i.e., it's all about children's rights) similar to those raised about the pro-choice movement's motiviations (i.e., it's all about women's rights.)
It seems best to be clear about my own POV -- I'm pro-choice, though with qualms. NoahB 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion a link to a page that contains nothing but a schedule of Biblical quotes constitutes evangelism, which is a form of POV pushing and inappropriate for this article. I have therefore removed the link in question. Kelly Martin 02:28, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Copied from big hurt's talk page, --SqueakBox 02:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't believce the Bible has anything to say about abortion, and if it does that info is not appropriate in the article on abortion, --SqueakBox 21:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, your beliefs on this issue have been noted. Nonetheless, the Bible does speak on abortion and the link should be added to the site to show what the Bible says on abortion.
The abortion entry is the perfect place to see what the Bible says on abortion.
The following link has a number of scriptures that obviously speak to abortion. If you read the page, you will see.
Link: jcsm.org/biblelessons/abortioniswrong.htm
I think your extreme POV has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article on abortion and you are using the article as a platform for your beliefs, --SqueakBox 22:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I totaslly disagree. by your argument we should put god's alleged views into all articles. This is not Christianpedia, and I am not trying to push my views into this article, --SqueakBox 22:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Withdraw your false allegations of vandalism, --SqueakBox 22:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I want you to withdraw them on the basis that they are not true. I can live with the current version, but I will not tolerate false claims of vandalism. Typing God with a small g was a typo. See User:SqueakBox for an idea of my religious beliefs (yes I believe in God) --SqueakBox 22:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I put your "Bible Lessons" link in the article, in the Pro-life links section. Since it is a pro-life link, that's the right place for it. So there's no need for any more edit wars. P Ingerson 22:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am in agreement with this. please can you withdraw your vandalism allegations. Are you happy with P Ingerson's compromise. If so, say so and maybe we can get the article unprotected, --SqueakBox 22:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I have unprotected Abortion, unfortunatly the links you have added to this page, and others, are considered to be spam. If you feel I have acted unfairly you may take this dispute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Rje 22:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Big Hurt, --SqueakBox 02:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)