The reason it is pushing an agenda is because it doesn’t add new information to the article. Yes, the abortion isn’t going to go well for the fetus. That is by definition and doesn’t need to be spelled out. That fragment was added purely to push the “killing babies” viewpoint.
My point there was that I agree with what you just said, but it is also the case of the sentence before that addition. That sentence does not contain information that is not formulated elsewhere in the article. It is not required to understand anything that comes inbetween. The only reason this information is repeated, and that it is placed so early in the paper, is to push a pro-choice agenda. The goal is that the pregnant woman who reads that thinking about abortion integrates as soon as possible the idea that it is a safe thing.
One may wonder whether an encyclopaedia article should be more neutral about. And my original question was whether it is actually possible to phrase that in a neutral way (this last comment now refers more to the content of the parallel comment rather than the layout of the article).
Sorry I am aware there is some repetition between those two comments, I felt like it was important to come back on this complementary aspect
I agree the emphasis given there on the baby is ridiculous, especially given that the modification included a wide repetition of this parenthesis later on.
But you seem to imply that this is an unjutified politization of a otherwise neutral article. My point is that this is actually an overcompensation for an article that was originally (and is as of now) charged in the opposite direction.
The very fact that it is obvious to us that safety of the abortion refers to the one of the mother shows that we consider the abortion as a chirurgical operation on a single person, the mother. People who consider the foetus as a valuable human being rather consider it as an operation on two people, that results in killing one of them. So for them abortion makes at least 50% of casualities, which they do not consider as qualifying as “one of the safest procedures”.
Although I agree with the view that abortion is on operation on the mother, I recognize that this hypothesis is charged by the idea the foetus’s life does not matter as much as the mother’s (especially at the stages where abortion is allowed in the west), and I understand that some people don’t share that view.
The reason it is pushing an agenda is because it doesn’t add new information to the article. Yes, the abortion isn’t going to go well for the fetus. That is by definition and doesn’t need to be spelled out. That fragment was added purely to push the “killing babies” viewpoint.
Aside from my previous reply about why I don’t agree that this is a neutral statement, this was not even what I had in mind in the comment your were replying to.
My point there was that I agree with what you just said, but it is also the case of the sentence before that addition. That sentence does not contain information that is not formulated elsewhere in the article. It is not required to understand anything that comes inbetween. The only reason this information is repeated, and that it is placed so early in the paper, is to push a pro-choice agenda. The goal is that the pregnant woman who reads that thinking about abortion integrates as soon as possible the idea that it is a safe thing.
One may wonder whether an encyclopaedia article should be more neutral about. And my original question was whether it is actually possible to phrase that in a neutral way (this last comment now refers more to the content of the parallel comment rather than the layout of the article).
Sorry I am aware there is some repetition between those two comments, I felt like it was important to come back on this complementary aspect
I agree the emphasis given there on the baby is ridiculous, especially given that the modification included a wide repetition of this parenthesis later on.
But you seem to imply that this is an unjutified politization of a otherwise neutral article. My point is that this is actually an overcompensation for an article that was originally (and is as of now) charged in the opposite direction.
The very fact that it is obvious to us that safety of the abortion refers to the one of the mother shows that we consider the abortion as a chirurgical operation on a single person, the mother. People who consider the foetus as a valuable human being rather consider it as an operation on two people, that results in killing one of them. So for them abortion makes at least 50% of casualities, which they do not consider as qualifying as “one of the safest procedures”.
Although I agree with the view that abortion is on operation on the mother, I recognize that this hypothesis is charged by the idea the foetus’s life does not matter as much as the mother’s (especially at the stages where abortion is allowed in the west), and I understand that some people don’t share that view.