214.13.4.151 (talk) |
214.13.4.151 (talk) |
||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
:::Since no solutions have been offered by str1977, and str1977 also declined a separate paragraph, there is another possiblity to secure an accurate representation of the facts. A separate paragraph could be written on the heretical sociological phenomenons like Feminsts for life. There is also a group called Catholics for a free choice. Both could be dealt with under the heading of "Organizations with an atypical stance on the issue".--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 09:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC) |
:::Since no solutions have been offered by str1977, and str1977 also declined a separate paragraph, there is another possiblity to secure an accurate representation of the facts. A separate paragraph could be written on the heretical sociological phenomenons like Feminsts for life. There is also a group called Catholics for a free choice. Both could be dealt with under the heading of "Organizations with an atypical stance on the issue".--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 09:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
Mainstream: feminist ideology is not proven to be or generally accepted as mainstream - use of that word in this context is misleading and POV, and the word "most" is a neutral and accurate way to describe the current state of affairs. |
|||
Constitutional: feminist theory is focused on a woman's right to self detemination, the word constitutional is extra and applies only to States that have a constitution, so the word is actually limitation on the general feminist theory that that movement applies universally to all women, regardless of the existence or contents of any constitution |
|||
== just a thought == |
== just a thought == |
||
Line 210: | Line 214: | ||
Webster's Medical dictionary is more technically accurate: |
Webster's Medical dictionary is more technically accurate: |
||
1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the '''death''' of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a '''human''' fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation |
1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the '''death''' of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a '''human''' fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation: b : induced expulsion of a '''human''' fetus |
Revision as of 10:40, 14 May 2005
Start of discussion: Talk:Abortion (Archive 1) Talk:Abortion (Archive 2) Talk:Abortion (Archive 3) Talk:Abortion (Archive 4) Talk:Abortion (Archive 5)
allegedly pov changes
- addition of morning-after-pill - this is not an abortion method and therefore does not belong into the article on abortion
- changed 'campaigning in anti-abortion cycles' to 'campaigning'. - This omission makes the statement inaccurate. The reader would want to know which campaigns are meant.
- deletion of the indisputable fact that civil rights are limited. - maybe you live in Canada, but for most people in most western countries abortion laws do limit their civil rights. See several articles on Abortion law.
- deletion of two links to sites on abortion from the article on abortion, justfacts.com and [http:\\www.thedoctorslounge.net doctorslounge] - there should be links on abortion in an article on abortion, and the political (Pro-choice + pro-life) links are quite useless to the majority of readers anyway. So we can not do without the neutral ones.--Fenice 05:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear Fenice,
- The morning-after pill is often portrayed as a method of abortion, whether correctly or incorrectly, so there is a reason for including a link to it on this page. I took care to formulate it so that the line does distinguish between RU, an undisputed abortifacient, and the MAP, where there is controversy. The question can and is dealt with over there at the MAP page. Why remove the link?
'PS. Someone else is changing my wording too. Isn't that evidence that mine is a tangible compromise?
- This line is constantly being added and removed. So let's leave it in for now.--Fenice 15:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- How does "the abortion debate focuses on the right of the prospective mother" (as opposed to the father, dealt with in the paragraph) differ from "the abortion debate is cast in terms that limit rights over the abortion decision to the prospective mother"? - This paragraph is about the rights of the father (paternal) not about any limitation of supposed rights.
- Actually now that I think about it both versions imply that the mother has a right to decide over abortion, which is not true in most western industrialized countries. Since the entire section is really about paternal rights, why don't we leave this sentence out alltogether.--Fenice 15:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about the links: The "Just Fact" really appears to be neutral, except for the opening paragraph. The "abortion pill" link is also neutral in itself (the problems were with other articles on the page I read and confused with this one), though it really reads like a comercial. Question is however, whether this does not really belong on the RU page rather than here.
Regards, Str1977 12:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've gone through the links and tidied them (alphabetically), haven't deleted or added any though. After looking at the two sites that keep getting bounced back and forth, I would say the mifestrone/'abortion pill' one is basically NPOV, but the Just Facts one perhaps is not so much. Proto 08:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- and obviously the npov problem includes all the other changes of the IP after I put up the NPOV-template, most of these changes were discussed before, so I just don't see the need to repeat all this - but I will on request however.
- and in particular the newly added problem of the removal of the neutral religious-tolerance-link by the anon IP.--Fenice 09:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't know whether you're referring to me (I'm the 132...) or the other IP. I did encounter log-in difficulties lately, I will try to fix them. IMHO the Just Facts page is exactly that, apart from the opening paragraph. So the site owner's have their POV and this paragraph shows it, but further down all seems to be neutral. The other link, I repeat, I basically a commercial for that "medication" The religious tolerance link I never disputed. Str1977 11:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
+++No no no Str1977, you are not the IP I mean, it's 214.13.4.151. This person has been making pro-life-changes in several articles for days - and has never responded on any talk pages. This IP has also moved or deleted the religious-tolerance link.--Fenice 11:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous user: the religious-tolerance link offers conclusory opinions (POV) about the interpretation of Christian scriptures - and concludes that most abortions would not be prohibited or sinful according to its interpretation of Christian scripture. Biblical interpretation is inherently POV.
'Living' fetus
Str1977 - Using the word 'living' to describe a fetus (in the first sentence) is POV. Just as using the phrase 'non-living fetus' would also be POV. So just leave it as 'fetus'. Proto 11:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous user: actually, a dead fetus is never aborted, though many fetuses do die in the womb, the procedure to remove them from the uterus is not an abortion - thus, medically speaking, only a live fetus or embryo can be aborted.
While it is true that "Dilation/Extraction" is the term for extracting a "dead" fetus, the term "living" comes from the non-NPOV stance that fetuses are alive. The term "living" does not add anything but POV in this context. Liam Bryan 01:29, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Anon: Tumors, like fetuses, are alive/living/growing. Doctors perform medical procedures to kill/destroy and then remove them. NPOV.
- By that argument, a surgeon who removes a tumor is a murderer. That's just silly. Tumors aren't alive, the person is alive. Similarly, a lot of people believe that a fetus is not alive. That's a point of view, and so leaving the word 'living' out removes any POV ambiguities. It doesn't lean either way. Proto 09:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hold on - Killing a living thing (bacteria, geranium, tumor or ant - and some would say fetus) is not murder. But it is killing, nevertheless. Kelling does not equal murder. An abortion requires the deliberate killing of the fetus, in fact, it is considered malpractice to not kill the fetus prior to removing it from the woman's body. And it is not considered an abortion for a doctor to remove a dead fetus from a woman's body. This is factual, if unpleasant, information. NPOV
- Not arguing with you there. But the labelling of an embryo / fetus as living is inherently POV, surely? Also please sign your comments with four tildes. (Like this: ~~~~) Proto 09:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no deliberately induced abortion (the subject of this entry) unless there is a deliberate killing of the fetus. A woman can have a dead or living fetus in her body. Only living fetuses need to be aborted.
- I agree with proto and there is also another factor: at the time the doctor terminates the pregnancy there is no way of knowing if the embryo isn't already dead and a miscarriage would have followed at some point. Abortions are usually carried out early in the pregnancy when the risk of the embryo dying off is still high.--Fenice 09:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- That isn't the point here, the point is that labelling a fetus as living is inherently POV and so use of the term should be avoided. Please stop changing it. Proto 10:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Feminism section
Dear IP, The section "feminism" should actually include information on feminism. Pro-Life-info goes under the heading of "pro-life". If you wish, you can insert the pro-life-info I just removed in the pro-life section. For a detailed description of the meaning of the term Feminism click here--Fenice 08:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
It is POV to deny pro-life women the ability to label themselves as feminists. The star of the most popular sit-com in the nation is a vocal member of Feminists fo Life.
- you've got it!!!!! label is the right term--Fenice 09:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no authority that can claim to define who holds feminist views. In light of this, and the fact the Feminists for Life is absolutely fighting to improve the condition of women, it is inherently POV to allow only certain groups to be described by that term.
From the "mission" page of Feminists For Life: "If you believe in the strength of women and the potenetial of every life, if you refuse to choose between women and children, if you believe no woman should be forced to choose between pursuing her education and career plans and sacrificing her child, if you reject violence and exploitation, join us in challenging the staus quo, becuase women deserve better choices." It continues: "FFL recognizes that abortion is a relfection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women. We are dedicated to systematically elminating the root causes that drive women to abortion"
Sounds like advocacy for better conditions for all women - sounds like classic feminism - in the style of Susan B. Anthony.
- Do you know when Susan B. Anthony died?? _ in 1906.
- Karl Marx died in 1883, but like Susan B. Anthony his ideas are still relevant to a movement he helped establish.
- Violence and even some forms of exploitation are criminal offences in most western countries. Most people in our society say that they reject violence and exploitation. This is not a feminist characteristic. Feminists typically deal with such things as giving women the same job oportunities as men and an equal share in wealth. If you read further you will find out that what they mean by root causes are the treatment of pregnant women in our society. Even I was disappointed that they hardly go any further - supporting women who already have children is underrepresented on this site - even though the problems of women with children add to what they call root problem in a much more drastic way.--Fenice 16:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- But violence in the womb against the fetal child - that too is violence. Abortion is always violent in that it always kills a unique human being - and often it is overtly and undeniably violent because the method of abortion is simply painful to both the mom and baby. Some feminissts reject such violence as any sort of solution or form of eqaulity.
- It is not about relevance but about time and misrepresentation of facts. If I had to write this article on Marxian economics I would put Marx in the 'early Marxians' section and Sweezy into the section 'Marxian economic today'. --Fenice 17:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Since you have looked at their site, I am sure you have seen that the feminists for life see themselves as in the tradition of the early feminists, so I think this discussion comes to same result as before, that they should be added as the last sentence in early feminism. Also from a stylistic point of view this is a professional way to tie the two paragraphs together.--Fenice 06:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
But still FFL are a group around today, so they are also part of "Feminsm today". This separation into two sections is problematic anyway. Str1977 08:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
?
Does anyone know how to fix these red question marks? Str1977 15:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any red question marks anywhere - I hope you didn't catch a virus.--Fenice 16:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Where do you see them? In this text?--Fenice 16:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
In this text and in other texts as well, so it's probably a fault with me and my PC. I will do virus-scan and get back if it persists. Thanks Str1977 16:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The red question marks are still present. I give an example paragraph to show you where.
First copied directly from the talk page (not the source page):
"In the first fifteen weeks, suction-aspiration? or vacuum abortion are the most common methods, replacing the more risky dilation and curettage (D & C). Manual vacuum aspiration? or MVA abortion consists of removing the embryo by suction using a manual syringe, while Electric vacuum aspiration? or EVA abortion uses suction produced by an electric pump to remove the embryo. From the fifteenth week up until around the eighteenth week a surgical dilation and evacuation? (D & E) is used. D & E consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction."
and copied from source text to source text:
"In the first fifteen weeks, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion are the most common methods, replacing the more risky dilation and curettage (D & C). Manual vacuum aspiration or MVA abortion consists of removing the embryo by suction using a manual syringe, while Electric vacuum aspiration or EVA abortion uses suction produced by an electric pump to remove the embryo. From the fifteenth week up until around the eighteenth week a surgical dilation and evacuation (D & E) is used. D & E consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction."
If anyone can help or explain, please comment. Am I really the only one seeing them? Str1977 22:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Feminism today
Dear IP -
please do not add nonsensical remarks like this ***other things that feminists support are not relevant in this line - already covered above. because they can even be considered vandalism, but are at least obviously disruptive.
Maybe the sentence means you have some kind of trouble understanding the content of this section? Let me explain: It is of the absolute essence to mention that most women don't particularly enjoy their rights being infringed on in any way, as it happens by abortion laws. If you eliminate this statement it would be as if I tried to delete from the pro-life-section that pro-lifers think that the fetus is a living human being. It is also false to claim that all feminists want a right to abortion - some are content with abortion laws.--Fenice 10:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, I am just wondering, since you have only been here for a couple of days - has anyone ever told you that our complaints about your constant reversals are not just a hint at your lack of courtesy. At some point someone less patient than me can let you be blocked from editing for that.--Fenice 10:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear Fenice, I don't think it's appropriate to divide the Feminism article into Historic Feminism and Feminism Today, and if it were, Feminists For Life belong into the second section, since they are a thing of the present, not of the past. Unfortunately, you seem to be pushing your POV that FFL are not "real" feminists and want to relegate into some "Historic Feminism" museum section. You say: "Feminists today oppose limitations of women's rights" - Yes, that's right. I guess that's the (or at least some) definition of feminism, but I think that includes FFL. The difference is over what women's rights are and what they encompass and what they don't. Str1977 15:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Concerning the omission of limitation of rights: No there is _absolutely_no_ difference about what women's rights are, not even the extremist extremist within the pro-life-group would claim that. I think an outsider view like that that does not respect the constitutions of just about any western nations in this world just doesn't need to be considered here. And then I'd like to see a source for that.
- Concerning Feminists for life: Look at the website of this formation and try to find the slightest bit of evidence that they could actually be fighting for the equlity of women. You will see that they aren't even trying to pretend. You will find a single link called 'Womens equality in the work place' - it leads to nowhere except to a registration form, that is there is no text on this issue on that site. The rest of what they in some places on their site call a fight for womens rights is that they say they help pregnant women (Don't we all?). This is by no means feminism. You will also find in some of their press statements that they believe pro-life and feminism were essentially the same thing, two sides of the same coin. The only thing that ties them to feminism is that they claim they are in the tradition of early feminists (which they are by no means, I think). Even the person who originally placed this advertisement in the text admitted that its just a label.--Fenice 15:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The definition of Feminism is not limited to your POV. FFL is for the empowerment of women by ensuring they are not pressured to treat their fetal child as if it were disposable (as countless thousands of women on campus are pressured each year) or pressured into killing their unborn child in order to get an education and develop a career. Your POV cannot accept that this is one brand of feminism.
- Concerning your reproach that I am pushing my POV: The insertion of this club Feminists for life is advertisment, promotion. It's a minor organization that does not represent the majority view of the pro-life-movement. Within the scope of this text, it should be left out. Actually, the entire discussion on the debate about abortion doesn't belong here. There should only be a short paragraph on the debate in this article because there's a separate article on the debate. Still I did not kick it out and even placed it in the early feminist section after discussion, as a compromise. To claim that I am pushing my POV is not even sad, it's almost funny.--Fenice 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Where does anyone except you accuse FFL of just using a label? Certainly not up in the section 3. It's not up to you to decide who's a proper feminist and who's not, even if their website is not good. There definitely is disagreement about what rights a woman can legitimately claim and what rights she can't. The POV was just an observation, not (yet) and accusation. Str1977 15:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Where does anyone except you accuse FFL of just using a label?
You will find this in the section above this one on this very page, the section is called "Feminism section".--Fenice 16:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Allright, Fenice, let's read a bit:
- Anon said: "It is POV to deny pro-life women the ability to label themselves as feminists." Is it that you are talking about? Probably yes, since you answer: "label is the right term" Well, Anon didn't say that FFL just use feminism as a label, but that they call themselves FFL, that that's the name they use. Anon does not comment on the validity of that name. Only you did.
- I have seen this passage before and this is why I wrote: "Certainly not up in the section 3."
- Str1977 16:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- yes, i see and i didn't realize what you meant by section three. Still, I didn't call it a label, the anon IP did.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC) And I repeated it. --Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)This part of the discussion is idle, I will continue my argumentation on the pro-choice-feminism above in section 3.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)And of course I don't deny anyone the right to label themselves as anything they like. But if I label myself the queen of the world this will not be encyclopedic unless I really am the queen of the world according to the widely accepted description of 'Queen of the world'.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Also, the feminsts for life label themselves as in the tradition of the early feminists on their website. So there is just no argument for your change.--Fenice 06:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- yes, i see and i didn't realize what you meant by section three. Still, I didn't call it a label, the anon IP did.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC) And I repeated it. --Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)This part of the discussion is idle, I will continue my argumentation on the pro-choice-feminism above in section 3.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)And of course I don't deny anyone the right to label themselves as anything they like. But if I label myself the queen of the world this will not be encyclopedic unless I really am the queen of the world according to the widely accepted description of 'Queen of the world'.--Fenice 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
There definitely is disagreement about what rights a woman can legitimately claim and what rights she can't.
Not in western countries. The situation you are describing is usually criminal in Europe and the US. In these countries there are laws that grant womwn the same rights as men. I am not saying we have to ignore the unfortunate dispute you describe, but tell us what country that is and we will put something like "In western industrialized countries womens rights are not limited, but in .....(whichever one you are going to tell us) the situation is different."--Fenice 16:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Let me explain: "Pro-choice" feminists consider it a woman's right to abort their child. Pro-life feminists don't consider this a right a woman can claim - that's the difference, regardless of country or hemisphere. Laws don't mean anything in that debate. I don't think an Irish "Pro-choice" feminist will waive her claim to this supposed right, neither does an American Pro-life feminist will agree this to be a right. Either will disagree with the currently existing laws and argue their point. Either will say, they oppose limitations on women's rights. Str1977 17:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that, and then: this is the feminism section we discuss, not pro-life and pro-choice.
First: Pro-choice and pro-life are american terms. no such groups exist in central Europe, not at that scale anyway. Pro-life is much more identified with a church stance. And I am pretty sure pro-life does want laws to prohibit abortion in the US. Feminists (including of course the historic feminists) are the group who changed the situtation in such a way that I can say today: laws grant us equal rights. This is the reason why I think it fits in this section. Then again: an even better place to have the sentence "Abortion laws limit womens right to self-determination" is the introduction to the debate-paragraph. Because that is the core issue of the pro-life and pro-choice debate. Both will agree that women have the right to self-determination. But Pro-lifers argue that the embryo is a person and therefore has the same constitutional rights as everybody else, in this case, the right to life. Pro-lifers then claim that the right to life weighs more than the right to self-determination. Because everybody agrees that women have a right to self-determination, this means that abortion laws limit that right.
Not all feminists argue for a right to abortion. Most believe that the realistic possibility to have a legal abortion within the first three months is sufficient whether they have a right to it or not. And others believe that the Canadian situation is ideal: no laws on abortion at all. --Fenice 17:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC) By 'legal' abortion I mean that it is not punished by law.--Fenice 17:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Fenice, "Not all feminists argue for a right to abortion." That's the point of groups like FFL, if you think them credible or not. Still there are difference of what women's rights are comprised of. Those pro-choice include abortion, those pro-life don't. If there is any other group I didn't think of, they have their view too. If some one wants to have a "realistic possibility to have a legal abortion" that IMO means they think that is covered by their rights. (By right I didn't mean that you can sue someone for it, but that you are free to do it.) Or they just don't think about rights at all. And the Canadian situation, as you describe it, is the same. No law means it is legal, doesn't it. Anyway, there is difference of opinion among feminists, as you yourself state, but IMO no difference about that women's rights should be upheld. Str1977 22:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Basically the misunderstanding is the following: you are trying to tell me that peoples opinion about what rights are is quite incoherent. Thats fine, but just isn't the issue here. (So I won't comment on that for now, also it belongs into the article right). This here is about civil, constitutional rights of course, I thought that goes without saying. I will add civil to the phrase then.
- And of course if you want to add something about your more eclectic concept of the term right to the text, to this text, abortion I mean, we can go on disscussing it.--Fenice 06:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
It certainly isn't my ecclectic concept. Just what I observe. My concept is really more "one package". But the real problem with your edit is this: "Feminists today oppose limitations of women's civil right of self determination ..." So Feminists yesterday didn't oppose limitations of women's civil rights, did they? Is that what you're saying? I think that's unjust to the Early feminists. "Support for women's rights" is not something that changed recently - it's rather the fundament of feminism. I have no objection with including some sentence about women's rights (never mind the civil), but it should include either stage of feminism. And again your banishing FFL out of the present - contrary to reality. Str1977 07:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- As I said, I do not mind your concept. It's not unrealistic. It's just not what this is about. (If you have a problem in that direction, make a sentence and post it here, we will probably be able to include other concepts of right in the text.) By the way, if you are opposed to one word in a text (today) I do suggest it would be a lot easier to simply cancel it. Your constant reverting is just not good style.
- Also, might I just add that it is really quite absurd (misleading?)to say in talk that you are not opposed to sentence and to delete it at the same time.
- And: no, I do not oppose the adding of "early feminists oppose limitations of civil rights" to the section on early feminsm. (??Are you serious??) Go ahead.
- For now, let us just put Feminists for life in their own section. So for the record, the earlier solution the IP and I worked out, is now obsolete and pro-choice-feminism will get its own section.--Fenice 07:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)edited--Fenice 07:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Npov-tag still needs to stay because the consensus sentence in the first line has been changed again.--Fenice 07:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to a sentence saying that feminists oppose limiting women's rights (OLWR) they might differ about the content but that's not the point) - IMO that's what feminism - or rather political feminism - is all about. I'm opposed to a sentence saying that today feminists oppose ...
- It's not about civil right but women's rights we're talking about.
- Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a possible wording to include this where you'd have put it. A possibility would be to either include a reference to OLWR or to include one for feminism in general, though that's really stating the obvious, but if you want to, so be it.
- Or maybe, sth along the line of: Today feminists, in line with the traditional feminist OLWR, typically claim a right to abortion.
- Please consider.
- Str1977 08:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Str1977 - we still don't communicate right. If I tell you, I am talking about civil rights it's quite absurd to tell me: "No you're not". As I said above, I am talking about civil, constitutional rights here. They are of the absolute essence. If you wantto include anything further that is your idea, not mine.
- Google came up with about 1500 hits for this term OLWR - the first one was this: 'Office of Land and Water Resources', which accounts for the first 30 or so results and it is also a German title 'Oberlandwirtschaftsrat' (a farming expert) - there are hundreds. The search OLWR and feminism turned out a single result on the google test. So I am opposed to including that.
- I think you are actually trying to claim that feminists don't support equal civil rights for women. But that there is only some weasel discussion going on about what women's rights could be perceived as by different groups. I do not deny that there a weasel discussions and eclectic views on this subject. But the core issue no one (except for you, so thas actually no one but one) would deny is that rights means at least the constitutional rights. As I said before, I do not think it is necessary to include the eclectic part of the discussion. Only the basics absolutely need to be there, which are the civil rights.--Fenice 08:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- I am also quite amazed at your - well ...modesty... to decline a separate headline for the movement you think is so important. You can still have it if you change your mind. ;-) I did not add this headline grudgingly, but with honest conviction.--Fenice 08:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC) And it was supposed to be Pro-life-feminism of course, in cas you were wondering.--Fenice 09:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Since no solutions have been offered by str1977, and str1977 also declined a separate paragraph, there is another possiblity to secure an accurate representation of the facts. A separate paragraph could be written on the heretical sociological phenomenons like Feminsts for life. There is also a group called Catholics for a free choice. Both could be dealt with under the heading of "Organizations with an atypical stance on the issue".--Fenice 09:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Mainstream: feminist ideology is not proven to be or generally accepted as mainstream - use of that word in this context is misleading and POV, and the word "most" is a neutral and accurate way to describe the current state of affairs.
Constitutional: feminist theory is focused on a woman's right to self detemination, the word constitutional is extra and applies only to States that have a constitution, so the word is actually limitation on the general feminist theory that that movement applies universally to all women, regardless of the existence or contents of any constitution
just a thought
the american heritage dictionary defines abortion as
1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. 2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion. 3. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage. 4. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation. 5. An aborted organism. 6. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.
===and a reflection on your thought: sadly, the descriptors "incapable of survival" (in definitions # 1 & 2 above) and "nonviable" (in def # 3, above ) do not accurately describe thousands of legal abortions that occur in the USA, China, and elswhere (a large majority of children born at a gestational age of 24 to 34 weeks survives - yet thousands of fetuses are killed at this stage each year through legal abortion in the USA alone). And none of these describe what is medically required for an induced abortion to occur - the doctor must first kill, not just cease the growth of, the fetus. I have a friend whose endocrine system is flawed and therefore his body ceased normal growth prior to reaching full development, but he is not dead.
Webster's Medical dictionary is more technically accurate:
1. the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation: b : induced expulsion of a human fetus