Jump to content

Talk:Ethical aspects of abortion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overhaul explanation

[edit]

I have edited this article as requested by Andrew C in the Talk:Abortion thread "Article in need of help." I have left the content of the article largely unaltered and have focused instead on readability and amending clear NPOV issues. However, the current version does not sit too well with me, and I hope that other users will be encouraged to seek sources where I have noted the need and also help to reduce the "essay-ness" of the current format. -Severa (!!!) 11:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fertilization vs. implantation

[edit]

The "when does pregnancy begin" / "is it ethical to kill unimplanted embryos" debate keeps coming up on the emergency contraception, oral contraceptive, and abortifacient articles, but been reverted in all three as off-topic. Would this article be a good 'home' for information on that debate? Lyrl 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't feel that this is the right place. I think we just need to create Beginning of pregnancy controversy, and devoting no more than just a few sentences on the topic in these other articles. How does that sound?--Andrew c 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



A few issues

[edit]

The section on Peter Singer's views is a bit too oversimplified, and too loosely paraphrased.


More importantly, all of the 'debate' covered in this article presumes that the pro-life movement's main argument about the worth of human embryos is that they are the same as adults, along with the argument for personhood. While this argument is good, especially when relating inherent dignity to personhood, it is representative of only one part of the pro-life argument. More broadly, the pro-life argument is that by virtue of their biological existence, genetics, and functionality, human embryos are members of the human community and are therefore deserving of treatment as such. The personhood argument is great, but it's important to acknowledge the context in which it is based.

Pianoman123 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is not supported by the reference given: "In 1988, the Anglican Archbishop of York, John Habgood, argued that personhood begins with . [9]" He might hold this view but it does not appear to be referenced correctly. Hardyplants (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the PDF. All of it. Then make that claim with a straight face. Thank you. Spotfixer (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might have missed it, I did a search using both "cellular differentiation" and "personhood" but it did not show any text that conformed to the above statement. Please provide a quote, I will take another look too. Thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you have to actually read it. Keyword searches are only of limited use. Given that it's a short article, you must either WP:AGF by accepting my claim at face value or, if you truly doubt me, crack open the pages and see for yourself. Spotfixer (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did ready it and that piece talks about personhood and how changes in life like sickness and age need to be taken into consideration in our concept and understanding of pesonhood, but now were did I see that he said when personhood begins. He might hold that view but you can't derive it from the reference you supplied. Hardyplants (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read it or just skim a bit?
In particular, did you actually read: "Because personhood is so closely connected with our physiological being, it develops gradually as does our mental abilities which are based upon the physical brain. The gradual emergence of personhood has, according to Habgood, implications regarding how we understand and treat individuals whose identity or personhood might be gradually diminishing."
This is direct support. His view isn't even that unusual, at least not among other process theologians. Spotfixer (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"individuals whose identity or personhood might be gradually diminishing." Yes- he is talking about the other end of the life spectrum but does not talk about the beginning in this piece, lets not spend time on this and instead find another source that more closely lines up with the text we have in the article. I did not remove the ref or put a tag on it because I have faith that - that is close to what he believes, its just not fair to those reading the article and who want to see why we justify the inclusion of that text. Hardyplants (talk)
There are plenty of sources, but most of them aren't available on Google. The man's page lists many of his publications. Spotfixer (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok we agree to just leave it for now...tomorrow I will see if I can locate one, since he seems to be prolific writer. Hardyplants (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

I've just explained why I'm not willing to ignore this source; because others are not as easily available. Having said this, I would point out that the current source is more than sufficient. It says quite clearly that personhood develops gradually, which is precisely the point here. Spotfixer (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you would make the argument that he is saying that older people are lesser persons than others in the same way an unborn child is? I think your reading to much into or misreading his us of personhood; it can't be fully connected to when a person begins from that source. We need a specific statement for a specific claim. Hardyplants (talk)
Habgood is the one suggesting that, just as personhood increases between, say, fertilization and college graduation, it may diminish due to such things as dementia. As it happens, it is only the first part that we reference in this article.
I did just now poke at the notion of treating a potential thing as if it were already actual. A not-quite-dead corpse is not a corpse at all, just as a pre-born baby is not a baby. It would be just as mistaken to treat an embryo as a baby it would be to treat an old man as a corpse. In fact, it's worse because an old man is guaranteed to eventually become a corpse, but an embryo is not at all guaranteed to become a baby. As it turns out, most naturally do not. Spotfixer (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

morally indefensible.

[edit]

Ok, go ahead and justify the inclusion of the POV term "morally indefensible" when it means nothing more than "immoral". Spotfixer (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats easy, thats what the source says. "However, the directly intended death of an unborn child by means of procured abortion remains morally indefensible" Hardyplants (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not appear to address the issue. I'm asking you what additional meaning "morally indefensible" has above that of "immoral". Spotfixer (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What issue is that? we report what sources say, not what we want them to say. Any way using immoral is a way to talk about a person in regards to a specific action against some already existing law, while the argument made in the sources seems to be that there is no moral justification for allowing the action any way with out making a reference that law. Hardyplants (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if they mean the same thing to you- them why the big issue? Lets be faithful scholars and handle the sources and references with do diligence to represent their views correctly. Hardyplants (talk)
Because there is often more than one way to say the same thing, with equivalent meanings but with radically different levels of neutrality. Consider that some of my earliest edits since I got an account were to change "mother" to "pregnant woman". I've likewise changed "unborn baby" and "innocent pre-born" to "fetus". See the difference? Spotfixer (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well what I see is that your trying to paint their terminology (immoral) in the harshest light this is POV violation against the source. "Mother to be" seems to be the most neutral term, I am not going to touch the fetus-baby issue. Hardyplants (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

Actually, "mother to be" makes the unsafe implication that the woman is going to carry that pregnancy to term. Sure, if she does, then she becomes a mother (unless she coincidentally was one already). Otherwise, the term is highly inappropriate and biased. Likewise, "fetus" (and, earlier, "embryo") are both technically accurate and free of blatant emotionalism, whereas "pre-born baby" is very much parallel to counting unhatched chickens, rounding up in an unsafe way. It's as bad as rounding "old man" to "not-quite-dead corpse".

That's the sort of thinking you need to understand.

The term "immoral" comes up all the time in ethics, where it's used as a technical term. In contrast, "morally indefensible" is not technical, and it's quite judgmental. It is this connotation that makes it inappropriate here. Spotfixer (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make the source say what you want it to say, but have to report what it already says. Hardyplants (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that we make the source say anything other than it says. However, there are both POV and NPOV ways of paraphrasing a source, and we are obligated to choose the latter. Spotfixer (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"morally indefensible" is about the argument or rational for something, while "immoral" is a judgment of an action. Hardyplants (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Spotfixer (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted an edit that I hope will be seen as acceptable to both sides. It uses the wording of the source, but attributes them to the source in order to maintain NPOV. -Neitherday (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics and abortion referral

[edit]

There isn't much content about the role of doctors in abortion. This article in AJOG looks at the issue of doctors not wishing to perform abortions or directly refer, and suggests that they have an ethical obligation to "indirectly refer": "Physicians morally opposed to abortion have an ethical obligation to make an indirect referral (providing information about health care organizations competent to counsel about and perform the procedure) for patients who are considering termination of pregnancy. [1]. Fences and windows (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Proposals to alter wording

[edit]

"Ethical aspects of abortion" can easily be misread to imply ethical as opposed to unethical aspects (we don't mean this, do we? As of course, 'ethical' is a highly contentious matter of opinion). I think that something like "Ethics-related arguments regarding abortion" would be more neutral and clear.

Also I think we should either change:

"Should the potential to be a person give embryos, zygotes and fetuses a right to life?" to "Should the potential to be a person give embryos, zygotes and fetuses a right to life at any cost, especially one which overrides the health, well-being and/or rights of women?"

or else add after that point: "And if so, should that right overrides womens' rights to health, well-being, autonomy and/or choice?"

--Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


That's ludicrous because it assume that an embryo is a potential person not an actual person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.116.218 (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

[edit]

If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethical_aspects_of_abortion&oldid=1195165745"