Talk:Catholic Church and abortion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Canon law line

Canon law is clear that acts which harm souls are discounted from the passage of Canon Law being cited. They thus do not apply to abortion and shouldn't be cited. To quote the exact phrase being cited falsely:"4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;" (emphasis mine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping edit-warring and coming to the talk page instead. Would you find it appropriate if the last clause were added to the quote as represented in the article? Do you have any citation of discussion of the applicability of this to abortion? Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It is original research for anyone to be interpreting the 1983 CIC, a WP:PRIMARY source, without recourse to a commentary or legal interpretation by canonists. Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the people who added this part of Canon law to the article to attempt to say that abortion is covered within it and isn't disqualified by the second clause of the line being quoted "unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;. The Catechism is clear that induced abortion is an intrinsically evil act. It refers to it as " a grave offense" that causes "irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society:"" Edit5001 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The burden of proof WP:BURDEN is indeed on a person adding material, but nobody here is able to prove such things by mere citation of Canon Law (or Catechism) alone. Commentaries, canonist interpretations, secondary sources, please. Elizium23 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

In the "Sanctions" and "Forgiveness of women who abort" sections, canon law itself is all that's cited by in the article to make the claims that "canon law indicates that automatic excommunication does not apply to women who abort because of grave fear or due to grave inconvenience". This claim also totally ignores the qualifier of the line it's quoting; "'unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls"". Any lines in this article that are quoting canon law to say "fear or grave inconvenience" allow abortion under canon law should be removed. Edit5001 (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, I don't agree that there's a burden of proof to show that it isn't disqualified by that second clause. If it's an excommunicable offense, it's clear that the Church considers it intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls, and yet they have that clause in there anyway. The reader can decide whether or not that applies to abortion. Do you have any source for your claim that this exception can never apply to latae setentiae for abortion? That somebody made to "procure a completed abortion" at gunpoint would still be excommunicated? That doesn't seem right to me. All of that is to say: I agree with Elizium23.

Perhaps we would all be satisfied with my original suggestion? Adding that clause to the exception?

Fun fact: this exception isn't covered in Latae Setentiae. Perhaps you might address that, Edit5001? Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that plenty of secondary sources are available.

1. https://www.franciscanmedia.org/ask-a-franciscan-excommunicated-for-abortion/
2. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/03/08/abortion-and-excommunication-a-response-to-dr-peters/
3. https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/cardinal-dolan-gets-canon-law-wrong-on-abortion
4. https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/11/automatic-penalties-confuse-every-topic-they-touch/

There is prima facie evidence that this is not settled law and there is plenty of room for interpretation on a spectrum of views. Elizium23 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Edit5001: forgive me, could you please name the Canon # of which you speak? Is it Canon 1324? Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If Canon law is unclear either way it should not be stated in this article that it's "indicated by canon law" that women receiving abortions avoid the excommunication (grave fear is an extremely vague and broad term by the way, certainly not limited to the example you use of being forced to do something at gunpoint). I would be satisfied with including the "unless intrinsically evil" clause in the first part of the article that mentions it, but the line that states "Canon law indicates that automatic excommunication does not apply to women who abort because of grave fear or due to grave inconvenience" should be totally removed. Edit5001 (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Triacylglyceride: the mitigation is covered briefly under Excommunication (Catholic Church)#Criticism of excommunication and I think that's adequate; it doesn't need to be under the lesser topics. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Yes, Canon 1323 is what I'm referring to as it's also what's being quoted in the page (with the clause "unless intrinsically evil or harmful to souls" part of it left out). Edit5001 (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Aha, 1324. Yes, I am reading that one too. Where do you find your text, online or in a printed book? Can you furnish a link to the online text? Elizium23 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been using the sources from the article, namely http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM. Actually it's 1323, not 24, my mistake. Edit5001 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so are you sure you were not looking at 1323? They are closely allied and similar, but 1323 covers those who are "not subject" to the penalty and 1324 covers those whose penalties are to be reduced. The clause you are referring to is negated in 1324. I can understand your confusion, and this is why we need to avoid reasoning for ourselves and rely on the secondary expert sources. Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Canon 1323 states "The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:", and it then states in line 4; "4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;"

What this article currently says is just the first half of this line, leaving out the second bolded part, and acting as if (based on no other sources) abortion isn't covered by the clause speaking of harm to souls. See my point? Edit5001 (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

That's because the article is referring to can. 1324 §3, where not bound by a latae sententiae penalty is found, not found in can. 1323. In can. 1324 §1 5° the "unless" is converted to "if" which negates the clause and makes the whole thing moot. There are at least a dozen escape clauses here. Elizium23 (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

1324 relates to tempering a penalty, not invalidating it completely. The current phrasing "automatic excommunication does not apply to women who abort because of grave fear or due to grave inconvenience" is still false and should be removed or drastically changed. Edit5001 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

For the third time, we need reliable secondary sources and not your (or my) personal opinions. Elizium23 (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Catholic World Report article sez:

“ Peters has not hidden his vehement opposition to latae sententiae penalties such as we find in Canon 1398, or his desire that they be removed from the Code. We should pay close attention to Peters’ view of the exemptions listed in Canons 1323 and 1324. Due to exemptions found in 1324, a woman “coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or who acted out of necessity or to avoid grave inconvenience [even if] the delict is intrinsically evil” is not subject to the latae sententiae penalty. Peters believes that the exemptions have universal application, and he states in his CWR article: “I hold that no woman, irrespective of the sinfulness of her action, is automatically excommunicated for abortion.” ”

Elizium23 (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Answers sez:

“ No one is automatically excommunicated for any offense if, without any fault of his own, he was unaware that he was violating a law (CIC 1323:2) or that a penalty was attached to the law (CIC 1324:1:9). The same applies if one was a minor, had the imperfect use of reason, was forced through grave or relatively grave fear, was forced through serious inconvenience, or in certain other circumstances (CIC 1324). ”

Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a single theology teacher and a writer at Catholic Answer's opinions are a source worthy of basing the entire controversial sentence in dispute on. Edit5001 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, this is the point where you furnish sources to the contrary. Sources or it didn't happen. reliable, secondary sources. I have provided two Canon Lawyers' interpretations. You are welcome to do the same. Elizium23 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Most Catholic sources on abortion universally condemn it as a moral evil. Meanwhile I don't find many discussing this particular line of canon law. Thus, we should at least change the wording to reflect the wording "coerced by grave fear" that's stated in canon law.

Pope John Paul II reiterated here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20090711_aborto-procurato_en.html that "inconvenience, selfish reasons" and even fear "that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place" can "never justify an abortion". That should be made clear in this article. Edit5001 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine, so make it clear. What I don't get is that we're talking about canonical penalties. I seem to recall that you said the Church "does not permit" abortions under the above circumstances, and implied that the article said the Church does permit them somehow. That is not what this article or Canon Law is saying. When Canon Law says latae sententiae does not apply, that means there's nothing automaticlaly being incurred by the very act itself. That doesn't mean that a penalty may not be imposed, by a trial, such as ferendae sententiae. And the crime of abortion against Canon Law is a distinct thing from the grave matter of abortion in Christian moral theology. John Paul is correct, but he's the one who codified the 1983 CIC with all the loopholes! So what does that say? Personally, I'd say it means JP2 is a merciful guy, and the Church in her mercy grants many concessions to those who would otherwise be excommunicated. Here we see that latae sententiae is actually difficult to achieve, and it's more or less reserved for brazen, malice aforethought, eyes-wide-open cases. But it's a canonical penalty, it's only one tool in the box, there are others, and so I don't see why you are bristling at the article saying that a latae sententiae may not apply in some or many cases. Elizium23 (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Edit5001 (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Just jumping in here to say that I think both Elizium and Edit5001 have a point - it's necessary to cite quality secondary sources (among which I would not count Catholic Answers), and if we are relying heavily on primary sources in other sections, that's evidence that we need to improve other sections. Moreover, if there is meaningful debate, we should represent the debate. If there is not significant debate, we should represent the mainstream position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am curious about your rationale for excluding Catholic Answers, which employs top apologists and canonists, has a sterling reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking, has been repeatedly approved by their ordinary (as opposed to the National un-Catholic Reporter), and enjoys a leading spot in most radio and podcast rosters with their daily live show and other features. Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Countries to list; how to list views

I disagree with the adding Poland and Malta to the list without discussion. Though I have no objection to being bold, I think that it was clear it merited discussion given the current contention over edits here.

More broadly, though, what countries should be listed? How should polls be presented? Abortion polling is notoriously tricky. Do we present how many people feel abortion is immoral? Want it to be illegal? At what gestational ages?

US, UK, Australia, and Italy is an odd set of countries to include. "Some large English-speaking countries and the country that contains the Vatican" seems to be the rational, if any. I don't blame Edit5001 for wanting some heavily Catholic countries included, but I also don't want a kind of scattershot approach. Why not include, say, the Philippines? Or Brazil? Should the section just keep growing?

I'd suggest we start by discussing the goals of the section and figure out what should be conveyed. There is some logic behind "Catholics in secular western countries" and "Catholics in heavily Catholic countries," but I'd like that to be discussed. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

At the moment we have a balance of three multi-religious countries (US, UK, Australia) and three overwhelmingly Catholic countries (Italy, Poland, Malta). I think that balance is good and have no further intention to add to those sections.

As for how the polls are presented, I think it's best to include general information about what Catholics in each country think of abortion (morality and/or legality, depending on the poll). It shouldn't just be about "Are they in lockstep with the Church?", but should give the general time periods they think abortion is or isn't acceptable. Edit5001 (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Abortion polling is very difficult to do, and very dependent on how the question is phrased. If you ask somebody, "do you think abortion should be legal at 16 weeks?" you'll get one answer. Ask them a question about a specific scenario at that gestational age, and you get a different answer. I also don't see the benefit on presenting opinions of Catholic laity* in these countries on gestational age limits without comparing it to the opinions of the non-Catholic public.

*While we're at it, why is this section called "Catholic laity?" this is just opinion of Catholics. There's no indication that clergy were excluded from these polls. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have an issue with the entire way the "Attitudes" section is written, not just the parts on Poland and Malta. This section was created long before I started editing the article. I personally don't see why it'd be necessary in this article to compare the attitudes of Catholics to the attitudes of the general population of non-Catholic countries (especially since a lot of the polls used here don't cover that). If you think there's a way you can improve this section, go ahead and edit them instead of just undoing additions I make.

I'm fine with changing "Attitudes of Catholic laity" to just "Attitudes of Catholic public", though Catholic clergy is such a small percentage of the overall Catholic population it hardly moves the bar. Edit5001 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I and others have objections to the edits that you made, but it's somebody else's turn to revert them now.

I think that the polls you pick are suspicious. 95% of Malta is opposed to "unrestricted abortion at any stage of pregnancy?" Wow. Shocker. In an article on Buddhist views on non-violence, it's not interesting to discuss Buddhist's views on nuclear war; it's interesting to discuss Buddhists' views on self-defense. 65% of Poles view abortion as immoral and unacceptable? Yet 78% think it should be legal in cases of rape or incest. That's a lot more interesting in an article on Catholics and abortion. You've included only the polls that show the most anti-abortion-rights views among the responders. That's part of why I've been reverting your edits and seeking consensus here on the talk page, but you keep on undoing the reversions. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The poll on Malta is the most recent and comprehensive of this kind available, which is why it was chosen. Again, there's little reason when describing the Catholic public's opinions on abortion to only mention whether they're in lockstep with official doctrine or not. It's better to just give an overall view of their stances on abortion. "Catholicism and abortion" redirects to this page, so this isn't purely a page about Church teaching and abortion, but also about Catholics themselves and abortion. Edit5001 (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Edit5001: I agree with Triacylglyceride that there has to be consensus before including new polls selectively, especially because of the wide variability of polls and the dangers of POV-skewing in the selection. Also, please note that all pages related to abortion, broadly construed (see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Abortion) are protected by WP:1RR, which is designed to prevent edit-warring on highly controversial pages. I note that you reverted 3 times in 24 hours. NightHeron (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The justification is that it evens out the "Attitudes" section with 3 mixed-religion countries and 3 Catholic countries. The polls included in the two I added are the most recent polls available for those countries. If anyone wants to tinker with the entire "Attitudes" section to make it more detailed on the countries in it, they're welcome to do so. Edit5001 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The section doesn't need to be "even" in terms of the views or demographics of the countries represented; it needs to properly reflect the sources. Contra Triacylglyceride, I don't think it's per-se invalid to include polls that find high levels of opposition to abortion and reproductive rights, but it is important to avoid editorializing - do "only" 25% of Catholics support abortion rights? Do "as many as" 25% of Catholics disagree with the church's position in this regard? How is it that the sources frame it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, Roscelese, I don't think that it's wrong to include polls that show high levels of opposition to abortion rights, or abortion morality. Kinda-conversely, I also don't think that a poll saying "do you think somebody should be able to get an abortion at any time in pregnancy, for any reason?" coming back at 95% does shows that the population has a high level of opposition to abortion rights. I think that it's a kind of polling question designed to magnify a population's opposition to abortion rights, just as a poll question of "do you think that nobody should ever be allowed to have an abortion at any time, for any reason, even if they'll die otherwise" magnifies a population's opposition to restrictions on legal abortion. (For most normal ranges of support and opposition.) Thank you, Night Heron, for pointing out Edit5001's frequent pushing-through of edits that are under discussion. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Then edit the section to add more details that you think are fitting, don't just delete all the information I've spent several hours researching. We've been discussing this for two weeks and not ONCE have you offered me a single compromise or agreement we could make. I've repeatedly told you what I'd view a compromise would be and you haven't even responded to it, let alone offered a concensus. Edit5001 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that the sections should look more like Italy's section, which reflects the harsh reality that polling on abortion is challenging and phrase-dependent.

Genuine question: what was the compromise that you were offering that you think I haven't responded to? Consensuses are reached, not offered. We've been discussing this for days, not weeks. Genuinely confused by your claims on this. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I find it strange you didn't take issue with the United Kingdom and Australia sections, which both just contain single statistics and don't give really any other details at all of what Catholics in those countries believe outside of those single statistics. Those two sections could definitely use some beefing up. In regards to Malta, I think the wording's good because the two statistics included give the public's general stances on abortion in both the early stages of pregnancy (12 weeks) and late stages (unlimited). As for Poland, the sentence is the opening of the section in the "Abortion in Poland" Public Opinion page. If you want to bring more facts from that page over to here that's fine with me.

The proposed compromise I was speaking of is the sentence offered in what you replied to in the above section, regarding the phrasing of Catholic public opinion in the opener. You have been opposing my edit on that since December 6th, so we're entering the second week now. In the many times I've reached consensus in the past, it involved me and the other user taking eachother's concerns into account and shooting ideas for a fitting sentence back and forth until we agree on a final version. You should do that with me above. I will also point out that I am one of three editors who expressed desire to see the sentence currently in the article modified in a similar way. Edit5001 (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Other issues of improvement

1) The entire line "Many, and in some Western countries most, Catholics disagree with the official position of the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion and its legality; with views ranging from allowing exceptions in a generally pro-life position to acceptance of complete legality and morality of abortion." would be better worded as something along the lines of "Surveys and polls have found that Catholic laity are divided in their attitudes toward abortion across the world, particularly in Western countries." In fact this kind of rewording applies to the whole "Attitudes of Catholic Laity" section.

2) There's issue with the sentence "Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but it is argued that some Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones." The word they is being stated too generally. It'd be better reworded to make it clear that this was some, not all.

3) Part of Pope John Paul II's quote toward the bottom of this link should be included somewhere in the page as he reaffirmed the Church's stance on abortion, including a few important points. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20090711_aborto-procurato_en.html Edit5001 (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

1) Did the survey-takers specifically only survey Catholic laity? I see no reason to believe that clergy were excluded from the survey. Also did the polls find that they were divided in their attitudes? I think the current phrasing is better than your proposed phrasing.

2) I think "they" clearly applies to the "Catholic authors" from the previous sentence. However, I'm open to this being an undefined antecedent. We could replace "they" with "these authors."

3) Do you think it's inadequately clear in the article that the Catholic Church's stance on abortion is... "no"? Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Triacylglyceride: John M. Riddle is a proponent of a fringe view on medieval herbal contraceptatives and abortifacients. Please see the previous WP:FTN discussion: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 63#Herbal birth control in history. His claims about Hildegard of Bingen in particular are based on an egregious mistranslation of a cherry-picked passage[1]. Cheers, gnu57 00:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

1) The surveys sourced are all of Catholics and Catholic voters and show that they hold, as was written, mixed feelings towards abortion. It isn't a clear cut case either way in most cases (supporting allowing it or supporting banning it), with this also varying from location to location, so it is thus better worded as what I wrote. The current wording in the article is not acceptable.

2) Okay.

3) I think John Paul II's quote is extremely relevant to several issues regarding abortion.

As for the word "coerced", it's directly from the very sentence being quoted in the source. Edit5001 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Issue 1

I think Edit5001 is on to something as regards this passage. It is, as it stands, rather a misrepresentation of the survey findings in the multiple reliable sources (although 100% of those sources have a demonstrable WP:BIAS for abortion, making their very interpretation suspect)

• "Most, in some Western countries" - as far as I can tell, this is based on the Independent's claim that "7 out of 10" Catholics support legalized abortion. That's one survey, and one country, not some. I would say this falls under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV unless there are multiple other corroborating sources that can be marshaled for this particular fact.
• "Catholics are divided" is a good description, because the majority of support is quite slim as reflected by some of those surveys.
• Individual news blurbs are not appropriate for survey and study results. Let us please examine the sources, perhaps find better ones and balance them, and then do some proper analysis. Elizium23 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel that "Catholics are divided" contains a lot of odd implications and is too weak a statement. Isn't the point here to point out that there is a lot of space between the Church and its members? Do you really think that the sources are all biased? Pew Research Center? Quinnipiac? Gallup? This sentence in the intro is there to summarize "Attitudes of Catholic Laity," which is pretty unambiguous.

This isn't saying that "most" Catholics support legal, free abortion on demand and without apology. It's saying that most Catholics disagree with the Church's stance (abortion is never acceptable). All of the examples in the "Attitudes of Catholic Laity" involve a majority, in most cases a large majority, disagreeing with the Church's stance. Catholics may be divided on how much they disagree with the Church's stance, but clear majorities hold stances that are more pro-choice than the Church's stance, even if only by a matter of degrees. Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that "the point" is to "point out the space between the Church and its members". This article shouldn't be trying to push a narrative about that, which at the moment in my view it does. This article doesn't even specify the level of supposedly "more pro-choice" the average laity is; the majority don't, for example, support abortion being generally legal. They may be more willing to have exceptions for rape and incest, but again this isn't even what the article says. The article goes as far as saying "many, and in some cases most, support.... completely legality" when that is not a justifiable claim based on the sources. The current wording is simply not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if Pew, Quinnipac, or Gallup are entirely biased, though there are lots of ways to fashion partisan and skewed surveys through the mere wording of questions. But I am especially thinking of The Independent which is not the survey itself, but seems to be found as an excuse to say "most, in some Western countries..." when they would gleefully report any modicum of dissent against the Popish tyrants across the sea since Henry VIII didn't get his way. I think overall that the choices of sources in this article and other contentious ones tends to skew them pro-abortion. I'm not the type of guy to work in sources and add content, or I'd be adding more reliable sources that might balance things out. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The current wording is definitely better. "Divided" doesn't really articulate what is, per the sources, meaningful about this statistic, which is the divergence from the RCC's view of many members of the church. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The "divergence" is overstated in this article, poorly worded, AND pushes a narrative. As it currently is, these sentences in the article are not acceptable. I'm listening for feedback on proposals to modify it to something more fitting. Edit5001 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

If anything, I think the divergence is understated. We could change it to "large majorities of Catholics in every survey hold positions less extreme than the Church's stance on abortion" and it would still be accurate. Triacylglyceride (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"extreme position" is clearly a POV, and doesn't mean much. Amqui (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, not only is "extreme position" an accurate description, but I think it's one the official Church would agree with, that is, that their position on abortion is at the extreme end of the pro vs anti abortion rights spectrum. NightHeron (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

One definition I found of "extreme" is "excessive, or far beyond the norm". I doubt that the Catholic Church agrees that its teaching is "far beyond the norm". I suspect it considers its own teaching "to be the norm". Amqui (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Amqui: I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the Catholic theologians and high-ranking clergy. I'm sure they're quite knowledgeable about what the norm is with respect to views on abortion --- even among the Catholic laity in many countries. They know that their position is well outside the norm, but they believe that they have the moral high road. Since they claim that they are defending the sanctity of life, they're not bothered by taking an extreme position on the issue. NightHeron (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

While some Catholics disagree, many also agree. This is why the phrase "Catholics are divided" is fitting. There is no need to add POV adjectives to describe the Church's position. To add adjectives like that would only further push the narrative that I'm already dissatisfied with this article doing in these sentences. My proposal is the only proposal so far that doesn't push a narrative while also presenting all the facts. Edit5001 (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Look at what you're writing: "some" (80%) disagree and "many" (20%) agree? When a clear majority disagree, in multiple surveys in multiple countries? That's not a realistic portrayal of it. If 85% of Americans preferred baseball to football, "America is divided on their choice of national pastime" would not be a neutral way to describe it. That would actually represent great unity. In the 1936 United States presidential election, FDR won by a landslide with 60% vs 35%. So when only 16% to 22% of American Catholics agree with the Church's position on abortion, then it makes me think maybe we should use stronger language in this article, like, "by a landslide, American Catholics disagree with the Church stance on abortion." Unless you think the 1936 US presidential election would be accurately described as "divided," or an election in which "many" people voted for Alf Landon and "some" people voted for FDR. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a single solitary source being cited in these sentences uses the word "disagree" once. There's no indication from the sources that these Catholics actively disagree with the Church (what if they're simply ignorant of the Church's stance, and would change their thoughts if they were better informed?).

What could be said, and what I'd accept as a compromise, is "Catholics are divided on the issue, with a majority holding abortion views moderately more permissive than those of the Church". And the article shouldn't be worded as if Catholics are some abortion-friendly demographic, roughly 50% say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases and only 16% say it should be legal in all cases as per https://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/30/obama-catholics-and-the-notre-dame-commencement/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that none of the sources say "disagree." Conveniently, that's not what the article says. It says "A majority of U.S. Catholics hold views that differ from the official Church doctrine on abortion, though they also hold more pro-life stances than the general public." That line seems just fine to me, especially in the context of a paragraph that goes into more detail.

I think the article makes clear many times that Catholics are less "abortion-friendly" than other demographics -- at least, for other people's abortions, since the proportion of people getting abortions who identify as Catholic in the US is the same as the proportion of people who identify as Catholic in the US. So I'll say "pro-abortion-rights" instead of "abortion-friendly."

I find it really weird that you want to replace "According to a 2009 survey by Pew Research Center, 47% of American Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in "all or most cases", while 42% of American Catholics believe that abortion should be illegal in "all or most cases"." with "roughly 50% say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases and only 16% say it should be legal in all cases." I find the first instance (the one in the article) to be much more accurate and more neutral, while your version of it unduly magnifies anti-abortion-rights views among American Catholics, while minimizing pro-abortion-rights views among American Catholics.

I'd like to add that if I don't continue to engage with you in this discussion, it doesn't mean I acquiesce to your proposal. You have not reached consensus on it, and multiple people have voiced disagreement. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It did say "disagree" in the first paragraph (that's now been changed). In regards to the sentence on Pew, you seem to misunderstand me, I don't want to replace the percentages of Catholic Americans listed in the article. I brought up the percentages to justify the proposal I've made to the sentence in the first paragraph regarding overall Catholic views on abortion. It'd be better for it to be, ""Catholics are divided on the issue, with a majority holding abortion views moderately more permissive than those of the Church". Edit5001 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Edit5001: you've added text that refers specifically to the US when not all sources are about the US even in the lede, to say nothing of the body. We note the opinions of Catholics in the US, UK, Australia, and Italy. I thought we had France too but I don't see it, so here is a source on that. This source references Catholics in 12 countries. Your edit is not an improvement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a few other Catholic countries that should be considered in this article. Poland is a country that's 90% Catholic and a recent poll found that "65% viewed abortion as immoral and unacceptable and only 27% viewed it as acceptable". https://cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2014/K_015_14.PDF This sources is also cited in the "Abortion in Poland" Wikipedia article. Malta's another Catholic country where surveys found a supermajority is against abortion in almost all circumstances. https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/data_and_surveys/84223/maltatoday_survey_abortion_remains_a_nogo_area_for_maltese#.XfGlOehKhhE Edit5001 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Your statistics, if accurate, are very interesting. Even in Poland, a country you're using to illustrate agreement of Catholic laity with current official Catholic doctrine on abortion (prohibition of abortion under all circumstances), 27% viewed it [abortion] as acceptable. That's a huge number of Catholics whose views on abortion are diametrically opposed to those of the Church heirarchy. NightHeron (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I'm not attempting to necessarily illustrate Catholic laity agreement with official Church doctrine. Rather I'm justifying the proposal for the sentence I'd like to see put in the article; Catholics are divided on the issue, with a majority in several Western countries holding abortion views moderately more permissive than those of the Church. If you're okay with this sentence, please let me know. Edit5001 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to add on here that, per the Wikipedia article on Abortion in Poland, 78% believe it should be legal in cases of rape and incest. So there's a majority there that disagree with the Church stance on abortion. Out of curiosity, can you name any Western country where Catholics aren't united in thinking the Church's stance is too extreme? Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Triacylglyceride: They don't actively "disagree" with it. They hold views, as I'm proposing to write into the page, moderately more permissive (in some extremely rare cases) than the Church's official doctrine. The majority of Poles share abortion opinions with the Church in the vast majority of abortion cases. Not sharing the same view on two specific, extremely rare circumstances does not warrant saying "Poles disagree with the Church" outright. It's also worth pointing out that most of these polls are just asking people's opinions on legality, not about what people's moral opinions are. Edit5001 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Your use of the word disagree is peculiar, to say the least. I'm sure the Vatican would not say that people who find abortion acceptable or believe it should be legal under certain circumstances do not disagree with the Church position. NightHeron (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I reiterate that not a single source being cited in this article uses the word "disagree" once. Edit5001 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding WP:EDITORIALIZING. Inserting the word only before "27%" (if the word isn't in the source) is an interpretation by the editor, that is, it is editorializing. However, if a source says that a certain high percent of Catholic laity accept abortion under various circumstances, and the official Church stance is that abortion is never permitted, then the word "disagree" factually and incontrovertibly describes the situation (whether or not that particular word is used in the source), and it is not editorializing. NightHeron (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know where someone else stands on an issue, and knowing what that person thinks would make them think differently about it, do they "disagree" with them? I say no. They "hold different views", which would be the superior wording here. If the questions in the sources had asked; "The Church's stance on abortion is X; what is yours?" or "Do you agree or disagree with the Church's abortion stance?" then I'd agree the word disagree would be justified. But that wasn't how the questions were asked (leaving several open possibilities of interpretation) so there are better options for wording. Edit5001 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the explanation for the large proportion of Catholic laity that accepts abortion under various circumstances is that they are simply unaware that their Church has condemned all abortion? Are you suggesting that the Church has been timid about informing parishioners about its stand on abortion? That Catholics who accept abortion would change their minds if they only knew that the Vatican does not accept abortion? I'd love to know of sources that say any of these things. NightHeron (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a source that found a lack of knowledge on Church teaching among many Catholics: https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2019/07/only-half-of-us-catholics-get-church-teaching-on-communion-study-finds/ About half of Catholics surveyed were unaware of the Church teaching on transubstantiation, and about 30% were unaware of the teaching on purgatory. This source goes into detail about a few other issues some were unaware of such as the Church teaching about "salvation through faith alone". https://www.pewforum.org/2019/07/23/what-americans-know-about-religion/ These things all suggest that many Catholics hold views different than those of the Church, but not because they "disagree" with the Church. They just haven't learned or heard about the teachings on some issues. Edit5001 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't know what the Church's views are on transubstantiation; in fact, I'm not sure I know what that word means. But that's not what I asked you. I asked you for sources that say that much of the Catholic laity is unaware of the official Catholic position on abortion. NightHeron (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn’t just transubstantiation, it was a variety of issues. A large number of Catholics being ignorant of several important Church positions is evidence that there may be a sizable amount who are also ignorant of its abortion position. I can speak from experience; I’m Catholic and I didn’t know their stance on abortion until I was an adult. Edit5001 (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Issue 2

I believe that this issue has been resolved, as it was a FRINGE view. Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's as fringe as you're saying - Riddle seems to be a well-regarded historian whose broader conclusions, not evidence, are challenged. The issue, in my view, seems more to be that this is a tenuous source for the views of the Church at the time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Riddle is plainly mistaken in his reading of Hildegard of Bingen: Monica Green notes[2] that he is prone to mistranslations, and particularly criticises his treatment of this passage. A better translation is here. His version is ungrammatical; he seems to be overlooking the "si" in "si pregnans mulier eam comederet, aut moreretur aut infantem cum periculo corporis sui abortiret" and treating the subjunctives "moreretur" and "abortiret" as somehow indicating purpose. Cheers, gnu57 00:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Riddle misread what Hildegard of Bingen wrote about hazelwort, which is toxic and not normally used as an emmenagogue or abortifacient. But he correctly read what she wrote about tansy, which has been used as an emmenagogue and abortifacient in many time periods and parts of the world. As Roscelese says, he's a major scholar whose two books on the subject were published by Harvard University Press.NightHeron (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Issue 3

I have no arguments with quoting JP2, but perhaps we could delve into his reasoning and theology about it, because he developed a deep Theology of the Body and pretty much popularized the term Culture of Life, so it is only right he should have a definitive word for our generation. Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

In regards to issue 1, agreed. Really think those few particular sentences would be better reworded to reflect the divided/mixed opinions of Catholics, especially considering the sources aren't really being attributed from properly.

In regards to JP2, I'm listening if you have anything in mind. Edit5001 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

With regards to coercion, Edit5001, could you explain to me the difference between grave fear and coerced grave fear? Because the original quote says "coerced by grave fear." I know what grave fear is. What is coerced fear? Triacylglyceride (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The source says "coerced by grave fear". That's thus what this article should say. We're also still waiting for you to reach consensus with us on the "Attitudes of Catholic laity" sentences. Edit5001 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so did you omit a word by accident in your edit, when you wrote "coerced grave fear"? Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence wouldn't have made sense grammatically if "coerced by grave fear" was written in it. The sentence has to be rewritten. Edit5001 (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it is not helpful to quote verbatim from a law book. Political articles do not quote from the US Federal Penal Code or anything. Since it is too easy (as we've demonstrated) to misinterpret law without a law degree, I move that we simplify, distill and summarize the legalese into something like "there are numerous exceptions to the case where an excommunication would be incurred." Elizium23 (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

How about, to be exact, ""there are numerous exceptions to the case where an automatic excommunication would be incurred." Agree with you that this would be better than the current sentences. Edit5001 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I find that to be somewhat vague and unsatisfying. I'm also not sure they're really that numerous. Has any Catholic scholar ever discussed the circumstances for exceptions to automatic excommunication for abortion? Triacylglyceride (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Opening section and avoiding US centrism.

I think that the line in the opening:

Many, and in some Western countries most, Catholics disagree with the official position of the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion and its legality; with views ranging from allowing exceptions in a generally pro-life position to acceptance of complete legality[6][7][8][9][10] and morality[11] of abortion.

Is excellent in context. I don't think it should be replaced with a line focusing on the US only.

My question, though, is why not just say "Most Catholics" instead of "Many, and in some Western countries most,"? Are there any countries where a majority of Catholics agree that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and risk to the life of the pregnant person? Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That way of wording it frames the issue in an anti-Church slant right out of the gate. It also doesn't really reflect the sources - just because a majority holds moderately more permissive stances on abortion does not mean they actively "disagree" with the Church (there's a reason the sources don't use this word). Many of the respondents may very well not even be aware of the Church's position, and would modify their views if they did know. Just stating that "most disagree" also treats the tens of millions of Catholics who do agree with the Church's position as mere afterthoughts. This is why the sentence - "Catholics are divided on the issue, with a majority in several countries holding views on abortion moderately more permissive than the Church." is superior. It considers those who agree, while also noting that the majority in several countries are more permissive (at least in terms of legality). And it's worth noting here that even most of the Catholics more permissive than the Church on this issue are still far closer to the Church's stance than, say, the average pro-choice person's stance.Edit5001 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that saying "Catholics are divided on the issue, with a majority in several countries holding views on abortion moderately more permissive than the Church." massively underemphasizes examples like Australia, where the citation in the article claims that 72% feel that the issue should be left to "women and their doctors." It's unclear to me what "moderately more permissive" means, but it definitely isn't that. Your rewrite also erases the existence of very pro-choice Catholics.

It's conjecture on your part that the respondents don't know the Church's position, and would change their views if they did -- it's also unclear to me that it matters if they would.

I think that the following sentence in the opening, that frequent mass-goers are more likely to be "pro-life," is more than adequate to paint the broad picture that observant Catholics are more likely to be opposed to abortion rights. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Then we can remove the word "moderately" from the sentence. The phrase - "Catholics are divided on the issue" gives representation to all sides, very pro-life Catholics, very pro-choice Catholics, and Catholics without strong feelings either way. Since Catholics in different countries have very different views (when comparing your example of Australia to say Malta, we see a huge difference), this more encompassing phrasing is good.

I'm not stating that they all don't know the Church's position - I'm saying that because this is a very real possibility for many (see: About half of Catholics surveyed in other polls were unaware of the Church teaching on transubstantiation, and about 30% were unaware of the teaching on purgatory, etc https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2019/07/only-half-of-us-catholics-get-church-teaching-on-communion-study-finds/.), it makes the phrasing "hold different views" superior to the word "disagree". To "disagree" with someone implies you've heard what they've had to say and think they're wrong. To "hold different views" accounts for those who haven't heard but would change their views if they did hear and those who actively disagree alike.

The facts about mass going Catholics being more pro-life (most likely because they've been in position to hear more official Church doctrines) only strengthens my point that the wording of the article should be as such that takes the aforementioned possibilities of "disagreeing" vs "holding different views" into account. Edit5001 (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You did not respond to my request for a reliable source that supports your opinion that there are a statistically significant number of Catholics who are unaware of their Church's opposition to abortion. Sources that say that many Catholics do not know the Church's position on transubstantiation are irrelevant. Abortion is a major issue in countries with large Catholic populations, and is bitterly contested. Comparing that to transubstantiation makes no sense. I'd ask you what the word transubstantiation means, except that I don't really care and it's irrelevant to this discussion. NightHeron (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn’t just transubstantiation, if you looked at the source you'd see it was a variety of issues. A large number of Catholics being ignorant of several important Church positions is evidence that there may be a sizable amount who are also ignorant of its abortion position. Edit5001 (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

POV Problems

If possible, it would be good to resolve some POV problems with this article here on the talk page.

First, the terms pro-choice and pro-life are repeatedly used in wikivoice, rather than the accurate and neutral terms "abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion". Earlier consensus (for example, in the change to the present title of United States abortion-rights movement and United States anti-abortion movement) has been that pro-choice and pro-life are political spin terms and should not be used in wikivoice. Note that the article Abortion does not use those terms in wikivoice.

Second, User:Edit5001 has persisted in adding disputed text without consensus, repeatedly reverting even after I informed them that this article is covered by WP:1RR, as are all articles related to abortion. The most recent restoration of text was the 5th revert by that user in a 55-hour period. The added text includes cherry-picked and low-quality sources. For example, the source for the section on Malta is a survey in which all the questions took the form "Do you agree with abortion if...", which is a political-spin wording designed to elicit negative responses. The context for the article is made clear in a highlighted statement by the author of the source: These figures suggest Prime Minister Joseph Muscat was not off mark when in his curt reply to the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner last month he said that public opinion was against abortion. Obviously the relevant question was whether or not abortion should be prohibited in all cases, not whether or not the respondent personally agrees that there should be an abortion in such cases. Even with the skewed wording, roughly half of those surveyed did agree with abortion to save the life of the pregnant person. This conflicts with the official Catholic position that abortion should be prohibited under all circumstances.

We could escalate the issue through dispute resolution or WP:NPOV/N (which has a backlog) or WP:AN/I (which can be a very unpleasant place), but I think it would be better to resolve the issue collegially on this talk page. Another possibility would be to put a notification on the Abortion talk page, which is watchlisted by more editors (more than 16 times as many), in which we invite those editors to look at the POV issue on this page. I don't think that doing that would be improper (a violation of WP:CANVAS), but I'm not sure. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

To the first point - the phrases "pro-life and pro-choice" are so commonly and near universally used in discourse on this subject that I don't take any issue with an article using them. I don't think the average person reads them and thinks that a pro-choice person is necessarily "anti-life" or that a pro-life person is necessarily "anti-choice".

In response to your second point - The Malta abortion poll is quite literally their most recent (2018) and comprehensive (had the most questions) poll on abortion. The method of questioning is very similar to several of the polls already in the article - for example, the Italian poll uses an extremely similar line of questioning ("Are you in favor of abortion if..."). Several of the United States polls simply ask "Do you think abortion is morally wrong?" Also, some of the Malta poll questions do also specify "Do you agree with unrestricted abortion in X", so those were clearly asking about legality/regulation, not simply whether a person agrees there should be an abortion in those cases. Finally, in regards to the Poland poll, it's taken straight from the Wikipedia article Abortion in Poland. Edit5001 (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

And one thing I forgot to mention is that since Catholicism and abortion redirects here, as well as this page being the only real result for "Catholics and abortion", the public opinion section should give general information about how Catholic people view abortion, as opposed to focusing on whether they fully agree or don't agree with the Church's exact position. Edit5001 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I replaced the political-spin terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" by neutral, accurate terms, in accordance with the consensus reached at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:United_States_anti-abortion_movement/Archive_7#Requested_move_19_May_2018 NightHeron (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Either the Polish poll was a very low-quality opinion survey, or else it's being misrepresented in the article. What does the statement about 65% of Poles viewed abortion as immoral and unacceptable and only 27% viewed it as acceptable mean? Does it mean that 65% view abortion as immoral and unacceptable under all circumstances and 27% view it as acceptable under all circumstances? That's highly unlikely, since that would mean that at most 8% (assuming that there are no "don't know" or "undecided" answers) who think that it depends on the circumstances.

All of the Malta survey questions given in the source are worded in biased ways so as to elicit negative answers, and the author of the article is clearly trying to justify the response of his prime minister in rejecting the appeals of the European Commission on Human Rights. From the wording of the questions (and the large proportion of the population that agrees with abortion to safe the life of the pregnant person), it's clear that only a strongly anti-abortion POV could interpret the survey as showing overwhelming agreement either with draconian anti-abortion laws or with the Catholic Church position. NightHeron (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We could add this sentence from the 'Abortion in Poland' page to the Polish section to give it more context: "In a Pew Research poll from 2017, 8% of Polish respondents believed abortion should be legal in all cases and 33% that it should be legal in most cases. On the other hand, 38% believed that it should be illegal in most cases and 13% that it should be illegal in all cases."

I disagree that these questions are asked in way to illicit negative answers. Even if you think they're biased, they're no more biased than the survey used in Australia's section; "Should abortion be left between a woman and her doctor?" People will obviously be more reluctant to express their anti-abortion sentiment when pitted against a "doctor's" judgement. If the Malta section should be removed, so should the Australia section.

Further, I state for the third time, that the purpose of the "Public Opinion" section in this article is to describe the views of Catholic people on abortion (as Catholicism and Abortion/Catholics and abortion both lead here), not simply talk about whether Catholics completely agree with the Catholic Church's stance or not. Edit5001 (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001: First, you're edit-warring again. Instead of first coming to this page to discuss the matter, you immediately revert all of my edits. For more information, please read WP:BRD, which says: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. This applies with special force to pages that are subject to Discretionary Sanctions.

On the one hand, you want the article to emphasize Catholics' viewpoints. But on the other hand you fault the Australian poll for asking if the respondent believes that the question of abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. That wording does not create an obstacle for those who agree with the official Catholic position or even with a much more moderate position that advocates illegality under many circumstances. With the wording of the Australian poll, presumably anyone who has a generally anti-abortion viewpoint would have no difficulty in answering "no".

In contrast, the Malta poll is worded in a way to put many who favor abortion rights in a difficult position, because many abortion-rights advocates do not "agree" with abortion except as a last resort, or perhaps do not personally agree with having an abortion at all but don't believe that it's the role of government to intervene between a woman and her doctor, or do not believe that religious zealots should impose their views on the rest of society. Those abortion-rights advocates couldn't in good conscience say they "agree with abortion". So the survey is skewed in favor of an anti-abortion outcome -- which, of course, is what the prime minister of Malta and his supporters wanted. NightHeron (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron The Malta poll specifically asks in two separate questions (the exact two cases included in this Wikipedia page), "Do you agree with unrestricted abortion in X time period". This does not put people who support the legality of abortion in a difficult position at all - the majority of abortion rights advocates do not want a single solitary restriction on abortion through the first trimester of pregnancy, and sometimes this applies all the way through to viability. Isn't a major tagline of abortion advocacy something like "Abortion on demand without apology"? These two questions in the Malta poll thus decidedly do not put anyone in a difficult position or lead to skewed results, which is why they're the two that are included. Edit5001 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001: The "agree with abortion" formulation skews the responses. A neutral way to have worded the question would have been something like "Do you agree or disagree that abortion should be unrestricted in the first 3 months". The issue is similar to the neutral naming issue. As I mentioned before, there's a consensus that the neutral names are "anti-abortion movement" and "abortion-rights movement". Some people with an anti-abortion POV refer to the latter as "pro-abortion". However, in general advocates of abortion rights also strongly support sex education and contraception, in part because they reduce the need for abortion, and they also believe that a high abortion rate in a country is bad. In addition, support for abortion rights without any restrictions usually applies only to the first trimester.

The source for the Malta section is biased. The purpose of that article, as the highlighted excerpt makes clear, is to support the claim by the prime minister that public opinion strongly supports the Maltese law on abortion. However, data in the article show that that's false. 45.7% agree with abortion to save the life of the pregnant person, while only 27.0% do not (the rest "don't know"). The Maltese law is the only one in Europe that does not make an exception to save the life of the pregnant person (see abortion in Malta). In practice, doctors often invoke a doctrine that says that an abortion is not really an abortion if it occurs as a secondary result of a life-saving treatment to the pregnant woman. For example, apparently doctors are willing to perform an abortion to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. Of course, in an ectopic pregnancy the treatment directly includes abortion, and since Casti connubii in 1930 the Church does not allow abortion in such cases. So if one purpose of this article is to describe the extent to which Catholic lay opinion differs from official Church doctrine, the way the Malta poll is presented is a complete misrepresentation of the true situation and the actual poll results.

Once again, I ask you not to keep putting contested text back in this article (or other abortion-related articles) without first reaching a consensus on the talk page. Several editors have been asking you to adhere to Wikipedia policy (WP:EW) in this regard. NightHeron (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I once again reiterate that "Do you agree with unrestricted abortion in X time period" does not skew responses. It's asking a direct "Yes/No" policy question. There are many surveys across a variety of issues that word their questions like this (even some within this very Wikipedia page outside of the Malta section). You can think the writer of the article is biased but that ultimately doesn't affect the outcome of the poll - for one thing, he may simply be reporting on the results of the poll and not have been involved in conducting it at all.

I don't know where you're getting this idea that the main purpose of this article is to point out whether Catholics exactly agree with the Church on every single solitary abortion case or not, but it isn't. To dwell on that issue is framing the article in an obvious anti-Church slant. The main purpose should be and is to give general available information about how Catholics view abortion. Edit5001 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me or other editors of being anti-Catholic; nothing could be farther from the truth. Just as it is not anti-Jewish to point out the large number of Jews who disagree with Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians, and it is not anti-Muslim to point out the large number of Muslims who disagree with extremist views of certain Muslim clerics, it is similarly not anti-Catholic to point out the large number of Catholics who disagree with the Vatican's extreme stance on abortion. It's actually a positive statement about those religions that the believers include moderates as well as zealots. It's not disrespectful at all. NightHeron (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I said to frame an article in that way would be Anti-Church, also wasn't making personal accusations but rather observing that type of emphasis. Edit5001 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The context here is very clear and should not need to be a subject of debate. The Catholic Church devotes huge resources to the anti-abortion cause, in some cases being the primary political force behind anti-abortion legislation, especially in Latin America. In addition, since 1930 it has had an official stance that abortion at any point after conception is murder, and that abortion is forbidden even if continuation of the pregnancy will probably result in the death of both fetus and woman. Meanwhile, grassroots opinion on abortion among Catholic laity virtually everywhere in the world is remarkably diverse, and polls in most countries indicate that only a small minority of lay Catholics hold the same position as that of the Vatican. This is clearly an important circumstance that deserves emphasis in the present article. The dramatic divergence between the official Church position and that of so many rank-and-file Catholics is likely to be surprising and interesting to many readers. There is nothing anti-Church about making this one of the central themes of the article. As I said, it is a positive fact about the Catholic Church that believers show independence of thought, have diverse views, and do not slavishly follow authority. NightHeron (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't warrant giving the issue highlighted attention. Do you go to the Democrat Party's page and push for giving special emphasis to surveys that show the majority of their voters support abortion restrictions tighter than what the Democrat Party platform advocates and what Democrat politicians legislate? (And yes, a majority of their voters support tighter restrictions than just the third trimester: See https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx). The main reason to draw specific attention to that statistic, here or there, would be to discredit the organization's stance. Also disagree with the idea that holding a different stance than the Church's position reflects positively on those Catholics, on the contrary, it makes them look like they don't take their religion or Church teaching seriously. Importantly, it detracts from simply giving the overview of their general views which is the better way to go about this. Edit5001 (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If there were a page titled "Democratic Party and abortion", then yes, those polls would definitely be relevant. Of course, it's a matter of personal opinion what one thinks of Catholics who think for themselves, do not accept Church dogma on every issue, and are more moderate than the Vatican on abortion. You've made your opinion of them clear. Similarly, in the other examples I used, there are Jewish people who despise Jews who criticize Israel, calling them "self-hating Jews" and (yes!) anti-semites. There are Muslims who attack moderate Muslims who reject extremism. But my point is that the intent of giving ample coverage to moderate and liberal views of Catholic laity on abortion is not to denigrate or be disrespectful toward Catholicism.

In 2009 in Brazil a medical team performed a difficult (legal) abortion on a 9-year-old girl who had been raped by her stepfather and was carrying twin fetuses. The surgical team was promptly excommunicated by Archbishop Sobrinho. A national medical conference on women's health was presided over by the minister of health, who complimented the team's work. One of the doctors on the team made an impassioned statement that his religious belief was as strong as ever, and he would not let excommunication prevent him from his prayers and attendance at Mass. The doctors got a standing ovation. This example shows that even in one of the most anti-abortion countries in the Americas most people do not share your disdain for Catholics who reject the extreme stance of the heirarchy. NightHeron (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

While those polls are relevant, the point is they're not fit to be highlighted or given undue weight. The only reason to do so would be to undermine the organization involved (whether it be Democrats, the Church, etc). I also again contest the wording that many of these Catholics even "reject" or "disagree" with Church dogma (sources don't use that word), but rather they "hold more permissive views". We don't know if they've read the Catechism and actively disagreed with Church teaching or if they haven't even looked up what their religions stance on abortion is. Because it isn't clear either way, we aren't fit to make a declaratory statement about it.

I never said I have disdain for Catholics who hold more permissive views than the Church on this issue, but it remains that to actively highlight this gives the impression that Catholics don't take the religion seriously. Atheists often cite the differences in opinion within believers of Christianity as a reason they reject the religion. Finally, that also gives the impression Catholics are more pro-choice than they actually are, as opposed to just giving a general overview, which does not give that impression. Edit5001 (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001: Since you have said you are a Catholic, you must be aware of what the Church itself says about those who in your words "hold more permissive views". The Vatican certainly regards that as a defiance of Church doctrine, to the extent where they feel justified in excommunicating a politician who holds views in favor of abortion rights. I do not think that the Church heirarchy would regard the words "disagree" or "reject" as too strong a characterization of the views of Catholics who support abortion rights.

Your theory that atheists "often" justify their atheism by pointing to disagreements among Catholics on issues such as abortion strikes me as bizarre. Do you have any source that supports that theory? NightHeron (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any source for your speculation that a significant proportion of lay Catholics "hold more permissive views" because they are unaware that their Church opposes all abortion? You have provided a source that says that many Catholics are unaware of Church doctrine on transubstantiation and purgatory, but that's obviously not the same thing. Transubstantiation and purgatory are not bitter controversies that are frequently in the newspapers and in the center of political debate. NightHeron (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

They justify excommunicating politicians who they know for a fact are aware of Church teaching on abortion and continue to advocate an abortion-friendly position. When someone knows something and rejects it, that's a disagreement, as opposed to someone simply unaware, so these are two very different scenarios.

It's a claim I've seen repeated ad nauseam on both atheist and Christian forums. There's probably a book/news source that discusses it more in detail but I'm not aware of it. It's simply a very, very common sentiment among atheists I've encountered (especially those who were never Christian).

The only sources we have are those that show general ignorance on a variety of Church stances among a significant portion of Catholics. Do you have a source that shows a majority of Catholics are aware of Church teaching on abortion? Edit5001 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Since NightHeron absolutely refuses to compromise on even a single point I'm making, can I ask for your thoughts on the above discussion? Do you agree that Poland and Malta are acceptable to add as I do? Edit5001 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001: First of all, it's a violation of WP:CAN to selectively solicit the opinion of another editor because they are likely to agree with you. You would be well-advised to start paying attention to such Wikipedia policies as WP:CAN, WP:EW, WP:AGF, and WP:BRD. Secondly, you falsely assert that I am unwilling to compromise. In fact, I did compromise on the Poland section and did not remove the second part of the section you created, because the second poll cited was straightforward and not confusing. The first poll cited was ambiguous, unclear, and hard to interpret. NightHeron (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I asked him because he's one of the only other editors who's been watching this page. Edit5001 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

According to Page statistics for Catholic Church and abortion, at present there are 59 editors watching the page. NightHeron (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

How does one ping them? Edit5001 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions concerning what is and what is not acceptable can be found at WP:CAN. In particular, note that notifications are required to be worded neutrally (which yours was not) and the recipients must not be selected to be those who are likely to agree with you. NightHeron (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: Pinging you because you're another relatively recent editor of the page. Can you please take a look at the current dispute above (or on the History page of the main article) and give your thoughts about whether the polls I've tried to include from Malta and Poland should be included in the article or not. Edit5001 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sentence in the opener is still inaccurate/biased and should be changed.

I propose to change the following sentence ("Many, and in some Western countries most, Catholics disagree with the official position of the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion and its legality; with views ranging from allowing exceptions in a generally anti-abortion position to acceptance of complete legality and morality of abortion.") for the below reasons.

1) The entire structure of the sentence is slanted against the Church. Why is it focusing on who disagrees? By comparison, we could simply write "A minority of Catholics hold the exact same position as the Church". We could also word it "Catholics hold a variety of positions on abortion", or "Catholics are divided in their attitudes toward abortion". There are many alternative, superior ways we could re-word this sentence to avoid slant.

2) None of the sources say the respondents "disagree" with the Church. What the sources do demonstrate is that a majority of Catholics in the Western countries surveyed hold anywhere from slightly to highly more permissive stances on abortion than the Church. However, this alone does not justify the current wording. It isn't indicated anywhere that all of these Catholics read the Church's position and actively disagreed with it.

I'm open to suggestions on changing the wording of the sentence, but the current wording should change. Edit5001 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) It is not "slanted against the Church" to say that most Catholics have more moderate views on abortion than the official one. Similarly, it would not be anti-Muslim to write that "most Muslims disagreed with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie"; and it would not be anti-American to write that "in the later stages of the Vietnam War most Americans disagreed with their government about continuing to pursue that war." Many would say that it's pro-Catholic to point out that divergent views can flourish among believers.

(2) I would not object to replacing the words "disagree with" with the words "hold views on abortion that differ from". NightHeron (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If the lead is going to include Catholic laity attitudes toward abortion it shouldn't just emphasize how some holds views that differ from the Church. The polls in the body cover more than just that.

I think it's fair to reword the lead to say something such as; "Catholic laity hold attitudes on abortion that vary from country to country. Generally, Catholics hold stricter views on abortion than the general public in their respective countries. In Western countries, many also hold views that are more permissive than the Church's official position." Is this acceptable with you? Edit5001 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) The first sentence is correct and supported by sources. In my opinion it's stating the obvious and is unnecessary. Since the lead should not be longer than necessary, I'd prefer not adding that sentence.

(2) I don't believe that we have sources that support the second sentence. I would guess (but I've never seen statistics on this) that in some countries in Latin America and perhaps Africa, in which much of the population is divided between Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity, the Evangelicals on average tend toward more extreme positions than the Catholic laity.

(3) In the third sentence first of all the word permissive shows an anti-abortion bias. It's the word one uses about parents who allow their children to misbehave and is an inappropriate way to refer to the opposition to criminalizing abortion. Secondly, "many" should be "most", since only relatively small percentages are in full agreement with the official Church position (e.g., no exception for the life of the pregnant person). Thirdly, the wording of the third sentence implies that the difference between the laity's views and the Vatican's view is only observed in Western countries. Again I don't know of any polls in Vietnam or the Philippines, but I doubt that such polls would support the implication that views of Catholic laity in those countries agree with the official Church position on abortion.

Finally, the circumstance that the majority of Catholic laypeople polled expressed positions that differ from the official position of their Church is a notable fact. That a minority agree with the Church position is obvious and not notable. That there are many countries (but not necessarily all countries, as I said above) where Catholics on average hold positions that are closer than those of non-Catholics to the official viewpoint of their Church is also obvious and not notable.

As I said, I have no objection to replacing the words "disagree with" with the words "hold views on abortion that differ from" in view of the point you make that the word "disagree" can be interpreted to imply that all the people polled were aware of the Church's official position. You're correct that such an implication goes beyond what we have sources for. NightHeron (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

1) It's not a statement of the obvious at all. Some might assume that Catholics generally think the same about abortion regardless of what country they're in. That's not true, so the clarification is necessary.

2) Your assumptions go against the sources in the page. In the two examples we have on the page comparing Catholics to the general population (Northern Ireland and the US), in both cases they were more restrictive than their non-Catholic counterparts. Because of this, the sentence is warranted, though it could be clarified "Western" countries.

3) We could change "more permissive" to "less restrictive". In regards to "many vs most" - if "most" is used I think the lead needs to make it crystal clear that while "most" Catholics may not agree completely with the Church's teaching that abortion is wrong in even cases like the mother's life being at risk, most do agree with the Church's teaching that it's wrong in many other cases. They are nothing like people who look at abortion as nothing more than "just another medical procedure", for example. Finally, in regards to clarifying "Western", this is good since the body doesn't look at non-Western countries, and thus there isn't evidence to include them in the sentence. Assumptions have no place in the lead.

Lastly, I disagree with you that this phenomenon is notable enough for the lead but my compromise so far has been to modify the wording rather than simply pushing for deleting these sentences from the lead entirely. Edit5001 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead should not contain detailed elaboration. For example, if readers don't already assume that statistics regarding lay opinion on abortion vary from country to country, they'll find out soon enough from the polls described in the body of the article. Similarly, you point out that the only sources we have at present that directly compare Catholic vs non-Catholic opinion in a given country are just for a couple of Western countries. No need to attach UNDUE importance to an unsurprising statistic from a few countries that are not necessarily representative. The issue of divergence between lay opinion and official position is important and notable enough to be in the lead, but what's there now is sufficient, with further elaboration left for the main body of the article.

I made a minor edit to meet your objection to the term "disagree." NightHeron (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't detailed elaboration. It's warranted elaboration to summarize the full "Opinions of laity" section. I see no reason why what you're trying to include would be warranted but not what I'm saying. If anything, what I'm noting is even more apparent from the polls and your statement is even more [WP:Undue]. Edit5001 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution

@Elizium23: Being one of the only other active recent editors to this page, can you please look at the recent edit dispute and give your input? Edit5001 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit5001, at this point there is no danger of me agreeing with you on this. You are not respecting consensus, you are arguing fruitlessly against several editors who have explained policies to you, and worse, you are edit-warring. I really did not relish inserting myself in such an edit war as this one. You are not going to win. I would advise you to choose a hill to lie on. Elizium23 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There is only a single editor objecting to my addition of the Malta poll or the changing of the final paragraph in the lead. That's not consensus. Edit5001 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, there were two of us, Triacylglyceride and me. No one agreed with you. Keep in mind that an editor who's tried to argue with you in the past and who's not continuing to argue probably just has better ways to occupy time than to argue with someone who won't listen, won't read up on Wikipedia policies, and continues to edit-war. Also please keep in mind that the longer you continue in this pointless direction, the stronger the case is going to be when finally someone asks for strong sanctions such as topic-banning. NightHeron (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking back, Elizium23 said I was on to something about changing this line several weeks ago. That makes things two to two. Seems you're the one not paying attention, not listening, and edit warring. Edit5001 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the Malta poll. Concerning the final paragraph of the lead, perhaps you don't remember. I agreed to compromise and inserted an edit that I thought would be uncontroversial and seemed to address one of your key points, namely, that the word "disagree" implies knowledge of the official Church stance, which goes beyond what we know from the sources. No one seems to have any problem with replacing "disagree" by "differ from", which I did. However, you seem ill disposed to accepting compromise.

Please don't make false accusations of edit-warring against me. Like most editors, I assiduously adhere to Wikipedia policies. If I ever were to inadvertently violate WP:1RR, I would self-revert as soon as I was informed of my violation. That's what you're supposed to do. NightHeron (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You only addressed part of one of three points I was making despite me already bending over backwards to compromise with you in keeping this entire absurdly biased and WP:UNDUE paragraph in the lead in the first place. Edit5001 (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Edit5001: I already informed you of Wikipedia's policy on canvassing, WP:CANVAS. You are violating that policy by pinging only an editor who is likely to agree with you and not informing other editors. That is not a permitted form of "dispute resolution". What dispute resolution really means on Wikipedia is explained in WP:DR. NightHeron (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the only other active editor to make recent comments on this page. It has nothing to do with their likelihood of agreeing or not. Others who have spoken here have not been active in days, and in some cases weeks. Edit5001 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The user you pinged has a user-page disclosure as follows: "Greetings! I hereby disclose my affiliation with the following organizations: Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, Knights of Columbus. Since I would not be able to contribute neutrally to these topic areas, I pledge to refrain from making direct edits to these and other related articles." That user clearly respects Wikipedia policy, and so presumably won't participate in your violation of WP:CANVAS by selectively inviting a like-minded user.

The article WP:CANVAS is really worth reading, since it recommends several acceptable ways of notifying other users. For example, you could put a neutrally worded notice on Talk:Abortion, which is watchlisted by many more editors than this page is.NightHeron (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Daask: @Nemo bis: @Enthusiast01: Notifying the three of you because you're recent editors of this page to ask for your opinions on two issues in dispute here. Firstly, do you agree or disagree with my changes to the wording in the last paragraph of the lead from what it previously was? If you're not sure, there's a discussion above where this topic was discussed between me and NightHeron in Sentence in the opener is still inaccurate/biased and should be changed. Secondly, do you think the Malta opinion poll section should be included or not included? Edit5001 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't think it's an improvement; the sources focus primarily on the divergence between the official Catholic position and the view of individual Catholics, which is a major aspect of the topic and needs a paragraph specifically focusing on it in the lead. Also, just looking up, I see numerous people disagreeing with your change and only you supporting it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two sources out of the six being cited that focus on that. The rest do not. It's therefor WP:UNDUE to place emphasis on this specific issue and not say anything else.

In regards to people disagreeing, there were two people who disagreed, and one who agreed. That makes things two to two. Edit5001 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I count myself, NightHeron, Triacylglyceride, and (in this section) Elizium23 all either endorsing some version of the original text or telling you to stop and back down. You are the only one supporting the change at this point. --Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23's statements in favor of changing the paragraph were never addressed. Likewise, you haven't responded to what I just told you; that only two out of the six citations "focus" on how how the laity hold views different from the Church's main position. The four other citations better fit the sentences I'm attempting to add. Edit5001 (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverted added section

The main source (StayCatholic.com) for the added section "Church Fathers on abortion" is an advocacy and not a scholarly source. The sequence of cherry-picked quotations are taken out of context. For example, several historians have written that the use of the term abortion in earlier times was different from current use, and corresponds to what we would call a late (or 2nd/3rd-trimester) abortion. That is, before the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion. NightHeron (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD for Church Fathers and abortion

After I reverted the section "Church Fathers on abortion" (see above), the user Oct13 who created it then created a new article with essentially the same content (expanded). I proposed that article for deletion as a POVFORK. This is discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church Fathers and abortion. NightHeron (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)