For or against abortion Edit

Isn't the usual terminology Pro-Life (against legalised abortion) and Pro-Choice (for legalised abortion)?-- 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is usual only in one country ... Mauvaisours 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The terms Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are politicized terms, designed to remove the stigma of the action from the political stance, as well as demonize the opponents as Anti-Life or Anti-Choice. In the case of an abortion, many choices are made leading up to the termination of the fetus and those in the Pro-Life camp support the right to make those choices, such as choosing to have or not have unprotected sex, just not the choice of the abortion itself. And one would also argue that the Pro-Choice crowd is against murder, but does not see the termination of an unborn fetus as murder. Abortion of a fetus is the action that is either supported or not, so the terms should reflect that and not the political leanings of the camps. Midian 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fetus vs. Foetus Edit

Since we are going to be using this word quite often, just wondering if we should set some standard spelling or if this would be unnessecary. --User left comment unsigned

If we try to standardise then either the Brits or the Yanks will end up aggrieved --Dunstan 11:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so should we just use whatever is customary?--Bob 11:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not just use the accurate spelling from whence the confusion arises, fœtus? Since we have to standardize on one, which will inevitably piss off 50% of the users, why not standardize on the right one? That won't stoip irritation, but it will at least have the virtue of being correct. 02:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The most obvious problem with that is the increased difficulty of typing it... that and the potential for text encoding inconsistencies when people do manage to generate the character in their browser but don't understand html entities. --whosawhatsis? 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia, the custom is that whoever starts off an article sets the precendent. If an article concerning foetuses is started by an American, I'm happy to use fetus. McLurker 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Civil Rights Section? Edit

I don't believe it is the right of anybody to take a life without due justice (the living will is a legal and justifiable document). This is not, nor should it ever have been a Civil Rights debate, but one of liberty and the protection of such liberty to life.

Why can't this issue be about a woman's civil right to make the best decision in her mind on behalf of her child and her body? Make the pro-life arguments in the article all you want, but please don't use your opinions on this issue to re-label the article or re-catagorize it to meet your personal agenda. Grandeandy 23:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
In other words, because you are pro choice, you will indulge pro lifers permission to make arguments in the article, as long as it does not detract from the fundamental pro choice framework you have in mind? That is an absurd position. To characterize abortion as a women's rights issue is explicitly the position of the pro choice lobby, and is utterly at odds with the pro life position (who would point out that it is hard to characterize abortion as a women's rights issue when statistically half of abortion's victims are also female). Now, you can disagree with that premise,but surely the article's structure and categorization should be content-neutral? In short: make the pro choice arguments in the article all you want, but please don't use your opinions on this issue to label the article or catagorize it to meet your personal agenda. 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"To characterize abortion as a women's rights issue is explicitly the position of the pro choice lobby, and is utterly at odds with the pro life position (who would point out that it is hard to characterize abortion as a women's rights issue when statistically half of abortion's victims are also female)." If anything, that makes it more of a women's rights issue. Not only is it an issue of the rights of potential mothers, but it's also an issue of the rights of the "victim" fetus. In my mind, the issue is very simple: A woman has the right to decide whether she wants to have a child, but does not have the right to act on that decision in a way that violates the rights of another. The only question is what rights an embryo/fetus has at what stage of development. I don't believe that a zygote, as an organism that has no semblance of self-awareness and is far simpler than a fly that you would swat without a second thought, has the same rights as a human child, but I am unsure of at what point in between an embryo/fetus should be considered to have a right to life that would override the mother's right to choose whether or not to have a baby. --whosawhatsis? 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I never made the argument that it was about a woman's civil rights. I simply asked the question why it could not be about it as oppose to liberty of life, leaving it wide open. That is my point. Let us leave this open to discussion from both sides of the table, but let's not focus on the article name or category as a way to further one's views. The focus should be on the arguments and reasons from both sides. Grandeandy 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that the article name and categorization should not be used to further either side's views - that's my point. The article's structure and categorization should be content-neutral, but if the article is categorized as "women's rights", that is necessarily picking a side, no less certainly than if one called the article "reproductive rights." Those might be valid points to be made inthe article, but they should be made in the article, rather than using the article to frame the issues in a way favorable to one or the other side. 04:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The best decision in her mind and on behalf of her child should be that of saving a life and protecting the liberties of that life. Her body will be protected from harm and qualified doctors will protect her liberty to life. It is not of personal agenda but one of factual agenda. Liberty of life does not fall under Civil Rights. Every person has the right to life, only they can take their own right to life away by breaking the rule of law, not man. The fetus like many people in this world are protected by the rule of law because they can neither voice, stand, or even explain their endowed rights as humans.

I agree that "the article name and categorization should not be used to further either side's views". I'm glad that the this article was removed from the category of "civil rights", but "women's rights" isn't neutral either. The left believes that this is a women's rights issue but the religious right does not. They would argue that murdering your unborn child is not a "women's rights" issue. The category is still biased and should be removed. Lou franklin 12:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The current categorization is accurate but incomplete. Abortion is an issue of women's rights AND "infants' rights" or some such, and another category should be added to to reflect the other side of the issue. The debate on abortion is centered around finding a balance between the two, and I firmly believe that there should be a second category to reflect the other side of the issue.
I'm trying to think of an appropriate name for such a category... something along the lines of "Life and death rights" that would be another subcategory of civil rights and would include abortion as well as capital punishment, right to die, and possibly even others like crime and gun laws. Can anyone think of an appropriate name? --whosawhatsis? 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The name you are looking for is "infanticide", but you are not listening to what others members of the community are saying. Somebody commented just above that "categorization should be content-neutral" and "please don't use your opinions on this issue to re-label the article or re-catagorize it to meet your personal agenda." Somebody else commented "I agree, that the article name and categorization should not be used to further either side's views". You have heard me make the same point and you have heard others say things like "I don't think the categories should cause these conflicts" [1]
Nothing good can come from using deceptive categories. There are ample opportunities to express opinions in the article. One appropriate category is far better than two dishonest ones. Lou franklin 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know that the term "infanticide" applied to euthanasia and execution.
Again, they're not dishonest, they reflect different viewpoints. I respect the fact that you're Conservative, but stop being so damn conservative. --whosawhatsis? 02:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You are not listening. People are trying to tell you that allowing categories that "reflect different viewpoints" is a bad idea.
Should we allow the article about France to be added to a new topic called "Countries with overpriced food"? What if somebody adds "France" to a new category called "Hostess Twinkees". <other examples removed>
If we allow every nutjob to use categories to "reflect his viewpoint", then on what basis would you prevent that? What is wrong with setting some reasonable limits like the category has to make sense or the category must be widely-accepted as appropriate? Lou franklin 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with it is that it allows people like you to cry foul any time a category doesn't fit your own agenda. --whosawhatsis? 03:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. The whole point of allowing only categories that are widely-accepted is that it prevents people from promoting their own agenda. Lou franklin 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Suppressing an accurate categorization does just as much to promote one agenda as allowing an inaccurate one does to promote another. Maybe more. You just don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between something that is accurate and something that you agree with. --whosawhatsis? 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lou franklin placed this page in Category:Zimbabwe at 2006-09-07 03:35:52 UTC

Exactly. That's less damaging and easier to revert than removing an accurate category. Plus, you don't have to be watching the history to notice the vandalism and correct it. --whosawhatsis? 03:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
On what basis did you remove that category? They have abortion in Zimbabwe therefore Zimbabwe is an accurate category. I am reflecting my viewpoint. You just don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between something that is accurate and something that you agree with.
Viva Zimbabwe! Lou franklin 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lou, you're pushing us down a slippery slope, and deliberately insulting a soverign allied nation with your references to France above. I won't pass judgment on you for that, but I would ask you to delete those specific comments based on the principle of civility and international relations. Because you made them, you are the one who needs to delete them.

A large number of countries allow abortions to take place within the law. Should all of them get the category, or should this page be linked from every national category that allows it? That's a rediculous proposition, and would create complete havok if it were followed with all the other issues that we are following and debating. So I'm going to recommend that we not associate issues with countries, and ask you to remove the Zimbabwe category from this page. Again, you made the addition, and I'd like you to remove it.

If you choose not to, or if this back and forth with no resolution continues, I'm going to call for help. Wikia is a private company, and staff has full power to do whatever is necessary to secure their site. I'll let them make the call. Chadlupkes 05:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I picked the article about France as an example randomly. I have no particular hostility toward France and have removed my comments above.
The point is that we are setting policy here. You shouldn't have to "call for help to secure the site". You should just set reasonable policies. I don't understand why there is so much resistance to that.
If our policy is going to be that every editor can add any article to any category on a whim, then we will end up with "France" under "Hostess Twinkess" and "abortion" under "Zimbabwe". If we don't want that, then we need to set a fair categorization policy. Allowing every editor to "reflect his viewpoint" by adding more and more inappropriate categories doesn't make this a better site.
Of course "it's a ridiculous proposition and would create complete havok". But if we had a policy that said that categories must be widely-accepted, an admin could quickly remove "abortion" from the category of "Zimbabwe" and remove homosexual "marriage" from the category of "civil rights" without spending weeks on end debating it.
And we don't need a 12 week community-wide vote about it. For crying out loud, if a category is unfit or objectionable to a large number of people just remove it! Lou franklin 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Lou.
"Reasonable" is based on POV. "Fair" is based on POV. But you're completely correct that adding more and more categories could cause things to go crazy. And at first on the SSM article, when someone added Civil rights because that was their POV, you removed it because that was your POV. It went back and forth until I decided to call for a vote. The vote made the choice, but you objected because you lost. Lou, I can't speak for everyone who believes things similar to what I do on here, and you can't speak for everyone who believes things similar to you. We both know what to do about that. How much promotion are you doing to get more people, maybe even the authors of the articles and blog posts that you provided, involved in the development of this site? I'm pushing it everywhere I go. That's how we win elections, both in the real world and here. And that's how we're going to develop a site that is as meaningful as both of us hope that it will become. This is a political site. The first rule in politics is to show up. If that doesn't happen, nothing else matters. Chadlupkes 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't object because I lost. I objected because you disregarded the viewpoint of millions of conservatives and moderates because you happen to be a liberal.
To say that this site's mission is to "bring together people from diverse political perspectives" and then to suppress every political perspective except your own is the height of hypocrisy.
There is no way in hell that I would recommend this site to my conservative friends. I can't even get a fair shake here, why would I invite other conservatives to come here and get trampled too?
Give me a site that deals with opposing viewpoints fairly and I'll get you plenty of conservates. But it's becoming very clear that it's never gonna happen here. Lou franklin 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
We didn't suppress a viewpoint by adding a category, you tried to suppress one by removing it. You were encouraged every step of the way to add your own viewpoint, but you insisted on removing the opposing viewpoint instead. Wikis don't work when people do that. --whosawhatsis? 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikis don't work when people add crap for categories and then try to fix it by adding more crap. Lou franklin 03:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The whole idea of a wiki is that anyone can come along and add stuff on a whim. If that information is crazy or incorrect, it will be fixed by the next person to come along. If people couldn't do so, all of the articles would be empty. It's an inherently liberal (lower-case L) system, just like democracy. I'm glad that Conservatism (capital C) is not entirely unrepresented here, but the type of conservatism (lower-case C) you're proposing has no place here. --whosawhatsis? 19:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There was information that was crazy and incorrect, and it was fixed by the next person to come along - me. But my corrections were unfairly reverted (capital R).
If a large number of people feel that a category is inappropriate, it should be removed. What possible objection could you have to that? Lou franklin 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

descriptions Edit

I won't object, loudly, about having the descriptions on the page. I would ask that we use the page to link to any public votes around the world that have to do with the subject. That is what Campaigns.Wikia is all about. Specific knowledge we should leave to Wikipedia, or an abortion wiki if one is created. Chadlupkes 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.