Talk:Abortion

Archives

Archive 1 (July 3, 2004 to July 6, 2005) Archive 2 (July 7, 2005 to December 20, 2005) Archive 3 (5 January, 2006 to February 4, 2007)

Split out case law?

Given the length of this article, I'd like to split out a separate article featuring only quotes from abortion case law (e.g. Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, etc.). I think this is a logical and neutral way to carve a piece out of this article, as there are numerous case law quotes on all sides of the issue. Does anyone oppose this idea? BD2412 T 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very logical and neutral way to proceed. Please only move quotations from judges' opinions and leave the quotations from witnesses who testified where they are now. Good idea! —This unsigned comment is by 139.139.51.70 (talk • contribs) .

It is done. BD2412 T 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing this removes quotes from some of the most influential (arguably) sources from the main page! Not a good idea. 87.160.109.28

Judging by your recent reversion, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikiquote. The purpose of Wikiquote is not to influence people one way or the other about any issue. The purpose of Wikiquote is to create an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations. However, this does not require that all quotes relating to a given subject must appear on the same page, even where the size of that page will make it arduous for visitors with slow connections. To this end, I have split out the 1500-1900 quotes, and will look for additional neutral means to divide this entry into components of reasonable size. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas - noting the highly influential nature (or notability) of some ot the removed quotes is NOT a comment on the purpose of wikiquote. Why did you conclude otherwise? Anyway, the whole point is that there is not goign to be a good way to categorize these quotes that is without legitimate criticism or even controversy. Alpahbetically by source is the best way to proceed if the page is too big. That way the categories selected themselves won't become the issue. Cheers! 139.139.51.70

Another (neutral) split proposal

Splitting out case law quotes was a good step, I think, but the article is still enormous. How about splitting by date - since there are a number of 'ancient' quotes I would like to start by making a separate entry for all quotes prior to, perhaps 1500. Any thoughts on this? BD2412 T 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that's very logical, if it's not done soon, I'll try and find time to do it myself.

NerdExtrodinare 10:33, 15 may 2007

I just want to be sure anyone else who wants to weigh in has an opportunity first - give it a few more days. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've named the split out Abortion (pre-Reformation), as that seems less arbitrary than just "pre-1500". I would not object to a different date. Perhaps we should also split out entries from 1500-1900? BD2412 T 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing this removes quotes of some of the most influential (arguably) sources from the main page! It also serves to lessen the prominence of the ancient quotations from eminent ancient figures/sources that continue to lend support to those who oppose abortion on both secular and religious grounds. Seems to be an end-run way to claim "neutrality" with the obvious effect of removing such things as the ageless and highly influential and still-relevant Hippocratic oath (which outright forbids abortion) - not a good idea. Doing this also relegates to a status of "old out-dated religious zealot quotes" (which is precisely how many people will read the category "pre-Reformation") the amazingly strong and explicit condemnation of abortion contained in the ancient Christian Didache as well as the highly secular and even more ancient Hippocratic Oath. 87.160.109.28

We have to split the page up in some way, or it becomes simply unweildy - the suggested 32kb limit exists for a reason. If there is a modern formulation of the Hippocratic Oath that addresses abortion, then that should be included as a modern quote and attributed to whomever came up with that formulation (the original formulation being in Ancient Greek). That the character of ancient quotes tends to lean one way or another is irrelevent to the fact that a strict division by an arbitrary date is about as neutral as can be had. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that when I finish with this division project, there will be no "main page"; there will be a directory page linking to a collection of sub-pages, each of a reasonable size. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas - noting the highly influential nature (or notability) of some ot the removed quotes is NOT a comment on the purpose of wikiquote. Why did you conclude otherwise? Anyway, the whole point is that there is not goign to be a good way to categorize these quotes that is without legitimate criticism or even controversy. Alpahbetically by source is the best way to proceed if the page is too big. That way the categories selected themselves won't become the issue. You would probable achieve consensus easily with this sort of change. 139.139.51.70

Alphabetically by source: a wholly neutral split protocol

The main page could have an intro like this:

Abortion quotes are listed alphabetically by source.

• A-F
• G-M
• N-R
• S-Z

• I suppose that would work just as well - the article would have to be split in five, though to make the pages wieldy. Maybe into six, to account for inevitable future growth. As it is my impression (and you can check this for your own consideration) that the quotes from case law are fairly evenly split, I propose that this separation continue to be maintained as a separate article. Quotes from legal opinions are of something of a different character than advocacy quotes; they are efforts to explain what the law means rather than suggesting what it ought to be, in my estimation. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think case law should be distinguished from advocacy quotes. Many people believe that abortion case law includes decisions that said what the law ought to be instead of explaining what the existing law means.Ferrylodge 05:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

This page is full of many quotes which seem very obscure, not notable, and repetitive. I am going through this page and cleaning out quotes that are not notable and repetitive. There's stuff from obscure newsletters and random 20 year old local newspaper articles that doesn't seem relevant. Snow Leoppard 03:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote you removed in the "B" section might arguably be one off-topic as it deals with direct-action tactics rather than abortion — but the removals from the "A" section seem entirely a matter of particular opinions and viewpoints being reomoved. I personally am "pro-choice" in these matters, and MOST of my frustrations with people editing this page have been with the abundance of anti-abortion quotes added, but I have strong opposition to opposition viewpoints merely being censored or removed, no matter how unpleasant they might be. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not "repetitive" to have multiple distinct quotes from the same source. BD2412 T 04:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The focus of the person/people who put together these quotes seems to have been quantity over quality. Many of the quotes are from obscure or not notable sources. Susan B Anthony is notable. "Anonymous abortion doctor" quoted in a random local newspaper article from 1992 is not. Plus the same articles and books are being quoted multiple times. There's three anonymous quotes being drawn from the same article in one instance. This page would benefit from more variety in terms of the sources of quotes, or at least less repetition.

I found this page as one of the top hits for "abortion quotes" on Google and thought it was a classic example of quantity over quality. I thought I would clean it up. But if it's preferred as is, I guess I can't change that. Snow Leoppard 04:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This page was probably the single most contentious page on the site for many years. Things finally quieted down as what seemed be generally acceptable balances were reached and some of the more contentious organizational measures attempted were eliminated in favor of a simple alphabetical format. I do not actually want things to flare up again, and could agree that one of the removals you made was probably appropriate, and let that one stand, but the others seem primarily motivated by a will to "cleanse" the article of significant anti-abortion testimony. I certainly do NOT agree with the stances of many of those quoted nor of the people who added these quotes — but neither do I find censoring of them appropriate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could see some type of ulterior motive in my clean up effort when I didn't even get to the letter C. There were a lot of anonymous quotes alphabetically listed in the A section that were repetitive or not notable, so, yeah, I may have trimmed more there than I would have in later sections. Also I took out one law because it referred to the right to life, but not specifically abortion.

If what it took to reach a "truce" with this page was to allow the addition of lots of repetitive and not notable quotes, that was too high a price to pay. The main concern should be quality, I think. Right now I'm seeing lots of quantity but not much quality in the selection of quotes here. Snow Leoppard 05:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It was was long the practice to permit people to add material without too much of the formalized, habitual and often quite conceited criticism which I believe has become far too abundant and restrictive of actual participation in adding material here. I do not believe that there was ever any formal "truce" between any contending parties, on many major issues, nor do I expect that such are likely to be arrived at, but there were measures taken which minimized many conflicts. Everyone has their own assessment of "quality" which is one reason I have done little to add to the abundance of opinions of how one might formally "define" it — I much prefer to try to exhibit what I can of it in making my own selections and additions without to much regard to formalities, and prefer not to be as critical or exclusionary as some are inclined to be of what others add; even if I find little merit in some of it, and much which is distasteful, I do not normally object to many quotes that are sufficiently sourced, so long as they are plainly of some significance or pertinence to the pages they are posted to. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

There needs to be some kind of review of the quotes on this page. Some of them don't seem notable enough to be included, some of them are kind of random or taken out of context, and some of them seem cherry picked. There's a lot of quotes here, but how many of them add value to this page? I see a lot of quotes that don't serve much purpose, which the page wouldn't be worse for lack of. But if other people see differently, I guess I can't change that. Snow Leoppard 07:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see an answer in removing quotes that are verifiable and that meet our quotability guidelines. If there are quotes that are off topic, they should be moved to a better topic. If the page is too long because it covers too much ground, we can split out subtopics like Partial-birth abortion. BD2412 T 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of quotes that have me asking, "Why is this here?" Just because it's verified doesn't make it notable or quote worthy. If you're looking for quotability, many of these quotes aren't quotable. Someone liked them enough to add them, but is that a good enough reason for them to be on here? It seems there needs to be strongercriteria for what gets added here. Snow Leoppard 19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comments provide an example of one reason I have seldom engaged in discussions of having a "standard" of "quotability" to promote or insist upon — people always have and always will find DIFFERENT things worthy of quotation. I am QUITE confident you genuinely would seldom, if ever, find the quotes you wished removed "quoteworthy" — and I am also quite confident that those with different agenda than yourself would never find many of those you would retain quoteworthy — most people are quite inclined to quote things which accord with such aims as they wish to promote, and quite prone to despise and reject any quotations that do not serve such purposes; and the most arrogant and zealous of people often wish to erase, eradicate and even punish and forbid any expression or indications which might provide significant expression of views or impressions different from their own or strongly opposed to their own. If there are any apparent imbalances on the page that is because some people on one side of the issue were more diligent than people on the other side in adding significant statements. That things have largely settled down I take as a sign that there are enough expressions on either side to satisfy most people who are inclined to examine the page. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your ad hominems are completely uncalled for. I have valid concerns about the problems this page has, and that doesn't justify ad hominems. Snow Leoppard 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OMFG. What a crap argument. You were CLEARLY removing remarks that were clearly ONLY anti-abortion in nature. I restored them, DESPITE being pro-choice myself. I get irritated when such FAIRNESS in allowing different views to be presented is ATTACKED by such shallow vapid excuses of bigotry. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I had just been working on the Dick Cavett page when I read the above nonsensical ad hominem attack upon my arguments by attacks upon me — and my response was immediately and sincerely brusque, because my statements were plainly NOT attacks upon a person, but simple assertions that people have different reasons for quoting different things, and the push to multiply defined "standards" is usually a subtle or obvious push for defined exclusions that are usually tailored to some particular people's tastes and affinities. Such is hardly a unique observation, or a personal attack. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC) + tweak

You're being very uncivil. There's no reason to resort to ad hominems or to assume bad faith like you are. I already said I removed quotes that seemed not notable, repetitive, or off topic. My criteria were that someone like Susan B Anthony is notable and "anonymous abortion doctor" quoted in a random 20 year old local newspaper article is not. If you have a reason why you think these quotes from what I see as very marginal sources are significant and should be here, then go ahead and explain. But ad hominems are not a valid argument, and hostility isn't going to solve anything. Snow Leoppard 01:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am being what many shallow people might consider being "uncivil" by making "rudely" passionate and sincere remarks in response to what I perceive to be rude behavior and crap arguments: Please recognize that the assertion that "There's no reason to resort to ad hominems or to assume bad faith like you are" is something I perceive applies to your arguments rather than mine. I called your arguments crap. I pointed out a few reasons WHY I believe them to be that — and you go about assuming that myself and other people are stupid enough to accept them being characterized as unacceptable "ad hominem" attacks if you simply CALL them that. I assert you might be a generally respectable person as MOST people are — but your activities thus far appear rather biased, as your agenda by all appearances is to remove quotes that are not beneficial to your own opinions. I repeat it once more: I am NOT attacking YOU, I am making observations and responding to your arguments. I certainly did NOT seek to post such quotes — someone else did, and I have been arguing for the right of people on the OTHER side of the issue than you or I seem to be to present such quotes as they believe interesting and pertinent. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

I will assert that I can fully sympathize with your desire to remove some of these, because they are unpleasant observations — but because they were made by people you might wish to presume are "unnotable" they have been quoted by people who are notable in publications which are — whether or not they might be aligned with such positions as you or I might support or oppose. They had been accepted here in most cases for years, and I am not inclined to presume them unworthy of attention merely because they are emotionally strong assertions against such positions as I myself personally have. I am perhaps more irritated than normal because my defense of quotes in support of positions I actually oppose ae being considered inappropriate by someone I honestly perceived to have a definite agenda because of the character of the quotes being removed. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

When someone says, "I don't think these quotes are notable enough to be here," and you accuse them of something completely contrary, that's assuming bad faith. I've questioned people's arguments for wanting to keep quotes I see as not notable, but I haven't assumed they're motivated by some hidden agenda. When you call someone "arrogant," "zealous", "shallow," "vapid," "bigotted," that's ad hominem. It's not addressing the substance of the concerns, it's just making ad hominems against the one raising them. It's impossible to have a reasonable dialogue about the problems with this page in such an atmosphere of hostility. Goodbye. Snow Leoppard 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I recognized that some of my rhetoric was harsh and somewhat excessive, but the problems on this page are such as I have been irritated with for years, and I believe the current situation is about as good a compromise as can be managed because of the strong passions and beliefs of people on opposing sides of the social and political debates regarding the subject, and I do not generally welcome removal of long-standing material, even if it is such as I personally would never have sought to add. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Another modest split proposal

Since this has grown to be one of our larger pages, I propose that we break out any identifiable distinct subsets of quotes addressing specific kinds of abortions, apart from generic comments relating to all abortions irrespective of kind. BD2412 T 16:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I really think that would make things even less manageable, and create more pages for zealots on either side of the issue to dispute over. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think breaking them out by type of procedure would be a mostly arbitrary fragmentation of the issue. Like Kalki, I think the forks would only cause problems with the article to proliferate. I can envision such sub-topics being even worse from an NPOV perspective.

However, there may be other ways to break up this overly large page. E.g., quotes that are from or specifically about jurisprudence in Roe v. Wade and other court cases might be moved to the Abortion case law article, or quotes that predate the modern era might be moved to Abortion (pre-Reformation) and Abortion (1500-1900). However, neither of these examples would have a huge impact on article length. ~ Ningauble 19:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have followed this page for years. It contains interesting quotes from people of various viewpoints. My students find that the most interesting and noteworthy quotes are the candid and unexpected comments from people who support abortion. My students have never complained that the page is too long. 74.5.191.140 22:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote about Operation Rescue

I have just removed a quote which you [74.5.191.140] had restored to the page after I had declined to do so in restoring much more extensive removals —  I can actually see that this quote was NOT about abortion in any way: but merely about the dubious tactics of a few people involved in the direct action of civil protests:

We do not call police ourselves during a hit. Our best work is done before police arrive, or when there are not enough police there to prevent us from doing what we have to do. Get in place before cops can mess with it; establish balance of power early, do key acts requiring physical contact with OR [Operation Rescue] as much as possible before cops have enough people to intervene. Even if the sidewalk is 'public,' we've had success at putting enough of us out, early enough, to basically bully the ORs into staying across the street...Chivalry is not dead with these [Operation Rescue] people (just convoluted), and that means they have an inordinate sense of modesty and 'honor' about being accused of touching women. There are innumerable instances of clinic defenders neutralizing male ORs by shouting 'get your hands off me, don't you dare touch me' all the while they are tugging or pushing OR out of the line.

• Bay Area Committee Against Operation Rescue (later renamed Bay Area Coalition on Reproductive Rights), "Clinic Defense: A Model" (1990). The probable author of this manual at BACAOR was Alison Gude.[1]

Though I restored others of dubious noteworthiness to others, I believe this should remain removed, for though the quote might be relevant to some discussions about the conflicts between anti-choice/pro-choice and anti-abortion/pro-abortion factions, it actually is a quote about strategies of conflict, and various legal or social ruses by people of shallow perception on either side of the issue, and not a quote directly on the article's actual topic of Abortion. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

I see what you mean, but I think there is more for you to consider. The BACAOR people and the OR people were activists concerning one thing: abortion. Thus a quote from either group would be pertinent to the general topic "abortion" (barring some other rule here of which I am not aware). What is that rule? This particular manual language is very notable in that it was quoted on the floor of Congress during debate about the FACE act, and act designed to protect access to abortion. I don't the rationale you offered for excluding it withstands this additional information. My students found this particular quote to be compelling enough to actually research the FACE Act debate in more detail and discuss the impact of the act itself on abortion as a phenomenon in the USA. 74.5.191.140 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you restored the quote and I am again removing it, because I believe the objections to it's pertinence still remain valid. You state in your edit summary "restored quotation that pertains to abortion activism" but actually the quote itself realy doesn't pertain well even to "abortion activism" — it pertains to the attitudes of one particular activist about strategies of promoting particular views by means with dubious ethical integrity. You obviously seem to think this is a significant means to generalize such behavior to all who are on that side of the issue, but I do not accept such argument as actually valid, thus I maintain objections to the inclusion of it here. I am sure you can direct your students to this page if you wish to emphasize how deceitful and manipulative people on one side of an issue can be in promoting their views and ignoring or villifying the actions and motivations of others, duping them with appeals to their sense of chivalry and with shallow or even spurious arguments. Of course such behavior is far more common among many people than many often wish to acknowledge. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

What I think is the quote is interesting to my students as they study the FACE Act. Other than that, your guessing of what I think is not beneficial to the content of this page. Quotations are, by definition, snippets from one person (or source) extracted from the context in which they were delivered or appear. I don't think we can argue that wikiquote should not contain quotations that might be open to incorrect interpretations or misleading conclusions. If that were the case, there could be no wikiquote. What am I missing? Why not go to the BACOAR website (or other pro-choice advocacy groups) and find quotations that you think will assist people to understand the situation properly if you think the quote might lead someone to misunderstand things? That way the readers can make up their own mind about these quotations and those who uttered them. What would your objection be to that? As it stands, a quotation cannot be excluded because of its content. In this case, the quotation regards abortion-related activism outside of abortion clinics. There is no separate category in wikiquote for such quotations, and none seems necessary or helpful since there has only ever been one quotation added to wikiquote that touches on the topic. Until such time as there are enough on the main abortion page to justify creating a new page, there is no wikipedia rule that justifies your exclusion of the quotation that you removed. At least that seems to be the situation objectively speaking. Do you understand how I reached that conclusion? I have added a quote from BACOR's about page and have also restored the quote because there is no basis to remove it under wikiquote standards. 74.5.191.140 22:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kalki. Quotes must relate quite directly to the subject of the article, or else they are out of place. The proposition that "a quotation cannot be excluded because of its content" is absurd. If that were the case, the entire Shakespeare lexicon could be added to this page with no basis for removing it. Techniques that a protester might use in protesting an issue are tertiary to the issue being protested. However, it is quite right to suggest that this quote may merit inclusion in an appropriate Wikiquote page. Such a page remains to be created, but the barrier to achieving that is very low. BD2412 T 00:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I had begun a somewhat harsher response, but am too busy with too many things to wish to get too involved with this issue and a few others at the present time. I will simply once again assert that the quote doesn't belong on this paricular page, and the additional quote through the mentioning a specific group is a rather strained attempt to shoehorn the other quote into this page, and for the most part seems a rather pointless statement on its own, and similarly related more to the success status of a specific group than the issue of abortion. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the quote does not belong on this page but may be appropriate for another page. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)