You have to get halfway into that article to find anything about Wikipedia. Then you see, "Now, another Internet behemoth is threatening to kick 'Gosnell' off the web. This week site users looking for the film’s official Wikipedia page found this." Displayed is a tiny screenshot, apparently from Wikipedia and showing the top of the article "Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer" a banner that says "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."
One of the film's producers, Phelim McAleer, is quoted saying, "This is part of the left’s ongoing attempt to suppress and shutdown the Gosnell movie. Not only do they want stop people finding out about it they want to deny its very existence.... hey just don’t want people to know the truth about this case … they don’t want people to know the truth about abortion... They are pathetic. The mainstream media refuses to review a film that launches in 600 theaters and crashes into the top 10 of movies in the US... This is Orwellian and won’t be allowed to stand."
McAleer is very accusatory, so Hollywood in Toto ought to have a response from someone at Wikipedia. What is the "Wikipedia's deletion policy" and what does it take to raise a banner saying the article is "being considered for deletion"? That sounds very transparent and neutral. What proof does McAleer have that Wikipedia is doing something other than its normal approach to preventing its site from getting littered with efforts to promote everybody in the world's little film project, every film-length commercial for a political candidate or issue, every bit of corporate PR that comes in film form? What does it take to begin consideration for deletion, and isn't Wikipedia running the entire process openly and subject to criticism and mass participation? Not much of a way to participate in a vast left-wing conspiracy.
At the bottom of the Hollywood in Toto article, there's a nevermind:
UPDATE: A flurry of pro-free speech Wikipedia commentators rallied on the page’s behalf. It’s off the ‘deletion’ threat at the moment.I don't know when that was published, but the Instapundit item isn't updated. Here's Wikipedia's "archived debate of the proposed deletion," so you can see the uneditable discussion of the policy, which resulted in what Wikipedia terms a "speedy keep."
I will read the debate. It begins with a proposal for deletion by XOR'easter, and you can click through to a page with an immense amount of information about this person and the deletion debates he/she has participated in. There's a long list of links, so you can see the many topics that this person works on, and it's mostly math and science.
After XOR'easter's "Delete" entry, there are about a dozen entries in the debate, and every single one of them says "Keep." The conclusion is to reject the challenge, with a link to the Wikipedia policy on "Notability (films)."
The challenge began at 18:32, 22 October 2018 and the "speedy keep" result happened 14:18, 23 October 2018. The Instapundit post happened 2:24, 25 October 2018, more than 30 hours later.
This is the one time I've stopped to take a closer look at the complaints about suppressing the "Gosnell" film, and I am unlikely to put time into this again, because this was a case of crying wolf. Fake news. Conservative bubble. Ridiculous hysteria.
Posts
65 comments:
Leftists tried but did not suppress opposing point of view.
This is dog bites man.
Predictable reaction to abortion-related movie by all actors in this play.
Even our hostess.
"Fake news. {Conservative bubble.} Ridiculous hysteria."
Advanced marketing.
Not at all. Wikipedia has a long history of suppressing conservative ... information...let's say.
https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/
You might recall Robert E. Lee was recently in the news. I went to the page and put an item into the discussion about mentioning that Lee manumitted his slaves. No way I would try to put that into an article.
Sarah Jeong.
Climategate is called a "hacking scandal"
and on and on.
I like your irritation...it sends signals that help us read you with cruel neutrality.
Wikipedia often tries to do things like this but fails because their policies are fairly content neutral. I expect that most people don't know their policies. There is no reason the film should have not been considered notable, but the attempt had to be made. It is one of the weaknesses of Wiki.
The film might sound more interesting if it the screenplay had been written by a pro-choice guy, and perhaps deletion wouldn't have been suggested at all.
And what hurts Ann's feelings here is not abortion at all I think. She loves Wikipedia! DO NOT SLUR THE WIKI!
That William Connolley thing is amazing. He worked with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. Essentially the founders of that site built a propaganda apparatus, and Connolley's job was to police Wikipedia. He did a great job.
Oh, the way she is reading this reminds me of the way the press reads Trump.
What I admire though is how she puts out in plain view what she thinks, and we are allowed and even encouraged to read her closely and critically. Sorry, just feel like I should suck up a little. ;)
McAleer is very accusatory, so Hollywood in Toto ought to have a response from someone at Wikipedia.
In Toto? Did a little dog eat Hollywood? What will Auntie Em say?
Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer
That's a pretty wretched title. Biggest how? Is Gosnell one of those 400-pound morbidly obese types who attract tabloid journalists? Biggest seems like a dumb adjective in context.
What proof does McAleer have that Wikipedia is doing something other than its normal approach to preventing its site from getting littered with efforts to promote everybody in the world's little film project, every film-length commercial for a political candidate or issue, every bit of corporate PR that comes in film form?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharknado_(film_series)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daan_Utsav
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelbert_Althouse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_the_Wonderful_Potato
"Littered" is not a concept that applies to Wikipedia. After examining the deletion criteria, if Sharknado is worthy of inclusion then the movie Gosnell is as well.
So...have you read the book giving the account of the investigation and trial of Gosnell?
It's not fiction, though it sure reads like it.
Yeah, I don't know about all that but I will see the film today at 11:30.
To expand on Daves comment, Wikipedia has, or had in the past and I do not know that it has changed, a pro-climate change policy.
In an interview in Wired long ago, perhaps 2005 or so, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales took the "No scientific question about" global whatsit. He said that any article questioning whether it was happening, that it was due to CO2, that it was man-made etc would be taken down. No denialist articles would be permitted.
In general, if I stay away from politically charged topics, I find Wikipedia to be fairly reliable and a very useful tool.
I did not, generally, permit my students to use it but I didn't permit them to use Encyclopaedia Britannica either.
John Henry
I watched a documentary on Amazon Prime about Gosnell. It communicated all the relevant facts.
It convinced me not to watch the movie referenced in this post. Simply because I can't take any more.
Gosnell's butchery was grim and crazy and there's nothing I can do about it.
I don't doubt that there are plenty of Gosnell's out there. But, I don't want to be on a crusade.
"This is the one time I've stopped to take a closer look at the complaints about suppressing the "Gosnell" film, and I am unlikely to put time into this again, because this was a case of crying wolf. Fake news. Conservative bubble. Ridiculous hysteria."
Thank you mom, you are so wise and always so protective of your helpless flock. We are waiting with bated breath for your cogent analysis.
Fake news. Conservative bubble. Ridiculous hysteria.
So your position is that the Left has made no effort to suppress the film?
@Althouse, I do not understand why Kermit Gosnell — the person, not the movie — is not a cause for deep shame and humiliation among pro-abortion feminists such as yourself. If abortion is going to be allowed to be just as dangerous to the mother whether it’s legal or illegal, then why bother to make it legal?
I do not understand why Kermit Gosnell — the person, not the movie — is not a cause for deep shame and humiliation among pro-abortion feminists such as yourself.
The Left feels no shame, and consider any attempt to make them do so an act of aggression.
@Big Mike
It's a source of some shame and humiliation to me that I don't want to do anything about the slaughter.
I even attended a regional Catholic pro-life dinner a couple of weeks ago and I admire the people who want to take on this fight.
And, here's the but. While I oppose abortion in the abstract, I don't care to do anything about it. I acknowledge the viciousness and craziness of the slaughter, but I can't think of any way to stop it legally in a way that makes sense.
Abortion is a very private sin. I'm inclined to leave it that way. This is one of those strange areas of life that seem to me to offer no good solution.
So your position is that the Left has made no effort to suppress the film?
The Left just wants to make sure nobody sees it. Suppression is just a right-wing fever dream. And the national Media didn't cover Gosnell because it was a local story. That's the ticket!
The uncomfortableness of Gosnell the book (and the actual story) is not just in the gruesome butchery that was carried out by this man. It is also the awful truth of the lack of coverage by the press. ALL the press. And it was not just a slighted story. This was, and continues to be, a concerted effort to give this actual event no oxygen. To let it wither on the vine. "Just don't look at it, don't write about it, don't talk about it and maybe it'll go away" seems to be the mantra of the Official Talking Heads and Degreed Journalists on this store.
The horror was the courtroom on the day of the trial, totally reserved for a throng of media expected, and no one showing up to cover the story. No one. An empty courtroom. Even traffic court has more coverage. You have to have a choreographed effort at censoring something to get that result.
Sometimes no news is also fake news. Journalists have been at this for a long time. Well before Trump.
Does anybody not know the reality of what's going on in the abortion abattoirs?
I doubt it.
So, everybody knows. The Gosnell story is out there in documentary and book form. If you can bear viewing or reading about it, nothing is stopping you.
What to do about the slaughter is another issue, one for which I have no answer. I doubt that you do either.
What Temujin said..!!!! Read the book. (You will be horrified that this went on in America) Do the job the media refuses to do.
Gosnell's butchery was grim and crazy and there's nothing I can do about it.
Bull-fucking-shit! We can demand that abortion clinics be regularly inspected for safety and hygiene. We can demand that health officials do follow-ups to make sure that patients are okay.
I have had people earnestly tell me to my face that perhaps the Gosnells of the world are the price we pay for late term abortions. Dead women are too high a price in my book. Make it as safe as any other outpatient surgery or ban it.
Hollywood in Toto's article is dated the 23rd, no idea about the time, but it does have the update concerning the rally to keep the Gosnell article up. So, in Toto was timely.
In Toto's article also discussed previous speed bumps and potholes that the movie's producers had encountered, fundraising, Facebook, etc. Sarah Hoyt, the poster, always seems to post overnight once or twice a week and seems to accumulate articles to be referenced. So, if one looks at her postings as historical records, no fake news, rather an ongoing record. In this case, one of continuing harassment from the left.
@Big Mike
Yeah, I can demand things...
Thanks for putting that in perspective.
I knew pretty much exactly how this post would play out when I saw in the title that you chose the term “anti-abortion” to describe the film. It looks like you approached this matter with a conclusion already in mind. Once you found a few facts that would fit into your conclusion you stopped looking. Moreover, it appears that you are so afraid that your conclusion might not be sustainable, you have vowed never to look this way again. Surprising.
It sickens me that anyone can see abortion as anything better than a necessary evil.
who the Hell is this "Gosnell", and why do you people keep harping about him?
*IF* there was Anything of interest to report about this "Gosnell" guy, then 60 minutes would have reported it. The fact that there is *NO* mention of him AT ALL means that he probably doesn't even exist; and If he did, he'd be a minor local character that just didn't fill out all the correct forms
The deletion was proposed on October 22. Page views had been above 1,000 every day since October 1, crested above 11,000 on the 14th, and were still running 6-8,000 per day when the deletion was requested. One proposal triggered a discussion to delete a page that was receiving thousands of views per day. The ground for deletion was that it was not a notable film, justified entirely because standard movie critics decided not to review it. The ground for keeping it was that some standard news outlets were covering the opening as a news story. The latter view won out in this case.
Thus, an article drawing thousands of views per day can be dragged into an esoteric discussion based on a single proposal for deletion. If establishment sources generally agree not to cover the subject, the article will be deleted.
will i Really need to put in a </sarc ?
Anti-abortion, yes. Pro-life, pro-human rights, certainly.
abortion as anything better than a necessary evil
Necessary evil? Perhaps. It's the wicked solution, to an albeit hard problem.
In other news: Gosnell 2.0 - a sequel or prequel.
63 remains of fetuses removed from Perry Funeral Home in Detroit
When is you fetus due? What a beautiful fetus, offspring, baby.
Apparently, the difference between a fetus and baby is three-fold. One, it is a baby when it is deemed worthy. Two, it is a technical term of art, that divides upon when the human life is inside and outside the mother's womb. Three, it is a baby for purposes of human rights, and a fetus for purposes of social progress.
I watched "Chappaquidick" last night. A well done and compelling ,and not overtly political, (meaning left/right political) movie. It paints an ugly picture of Ted Kennedy AND the people around him. After viewing the film you wonder how anyone could have supported Teddy and yet...
What hit me this morning was, "That was 50 years ago!"
So will it take the media and entertainment industry 50 yrs to openly "discuss" the horrors of Gosnell?
Before Gosnell there was another abortionist arrested who, according to co-workers, would keep aborted fetuses in the fridge in a Tupperware container and ate them in front of lunching staff. That story went down the memory hole, too. Google did a great job of cleaning the search archives, too.
Necessary evil? Perhaps. It's the wicked solution, to an albeit hard problem.
I personally believe abortion to be an unnecessary and unmitigated evil. My comment was more along the lines of:
"It sickens me that even abortion supporters can see abortion as anything other than a necessary evil."
Sort of the way I view government.
First step, reverse normalization including promotion. It's not normal. It's a violation of human rights committed under a veil of privacy. Second step, remove the profit incentive. Corporations including Planned Parenthood Federation who process selective-child and recycled-child should be excluded from advisory roles. Third step, the fetus is a baby is fetus, and the father is responsible, and the mother has equal rights and is equally responsible. The establishment of the Pro-Choice Church, not limited to abortion rites, and the Twilight Amendment, need to be removed from public service as they normalize violations of human and civil rights.
I’ve only heard of this film due to the abortion issue. It appears that it is noteable because if it’s relationship to this issue.
Regardless, it’s not a stretch to see this as an attempt to delete information based on a political view. Should some not be paying attention, it is likely the wiki article would vanish. This isn’t a non-story: it demonstrates that there are people trying to erase information, and others who are preventing that from happening.
As a side note, this is why we have a strong military investment. ‘Why do we need such a big military, since no one is trying to attack us?’ They haven’t attacked us because we have a strong military force.
Think it can't happen again? There's this: Detroit Free Press
Interesting. I am reading the talk on the Wikipedia page. The request for deletion was closed "speedy keep", but I don't see the basis for that based on the speedy keep page.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_keep
It was closed with WP:SNOW, which means that the resolution of the discussion was that the request for deletion did not have a "snowball's chance in hell" of succeeding, but that alone does not cause a "speedy keep", but merely a "keep".
The point of this is that I think that, for once, Wikipedia went overboard to maintain neutrality here, and closed the discussion with "speedy keep" which is the equivalent of a 9-0 Supreme Court overturn. They did this even though, on the merits, "speedy keep" would not seem to apply.
I think the lack of coverage is like the dog that didn’t bark and this Wikipedia event was an attempt to create a hook to talk about that.
It may be hamhanded and overblown to discuss a potential Wikipedia deletion that failed, but it still remains true and shameful that the media has turned a blind eye to the story. Gosnell was able to carry out these gruesome acts and endanger lives of women, not only in spite of abortion being legal but precisely because Democrats are completely hypocritical about protecting women. They fail to enforce regulation of abortion, treating all concerns as though they come from a desire to oppress women.
FWIW, I had planned to go see the Gosnell movie just because I felt like tipping the people willing to tackle that subject matter in Hollywood.
I don't do opening weekend and I rarely do weekend movies at all because crowded theaters distract me too much. I checked right after opening weekend and learned it was in the top ten and was going to (or had already?) turned a profit. With that information, I assumed I still had time to see it.
I assumed wrong. Opening weekend, it was in most of our theaters. After opening weekend, it cut down to scattered matinee showings at the big, modern theaters and now the only theater showing it at all is the older theater with small screens that everybody forgets even exists because it's located behind another shopping center.
stlcdr,
I’ve only heard of this film due to the abortion issue.
And yet there isn't an "abortion issue." Gosnell was not an abortionist; he was a guy who delivered live babies and then killed them. When he wasn't dealing OxyContin. There's a hilarious scene early in the film when the DEA, the FBI, and local law enforcement get into an argy-bargy over who has dibs.
If you think this film is about abortion, I would suggest thinking twice. It's about murder. It's about a man delivering live babies and then killing them. That isn't part of the job description of an abortionist. Though the job description of the "good" abortionist in the trial testimony (did I mention that practically all of the script came straight off court transcripts?) does make the distinction shrink a bit. She says that she has performed 30,000 abortions in thirty years. (McAleer and McElhinney say that she said 40,000, but they thought that number was too large to be believed.)
But what floored me was her response to a question about what happens when a "fetus" is born alive in the course of an abortion. She said it would get "comfort care," meaning that it would be kept warm and safe until it died, nothing more. NO. If a "fetus" is born alive, it is now a "child," and your patient; you do not get to throw it into a closet until it's safely dead. I am always being told that the purpose of abortion is so that women aren't forced to gestate against their will. Very well; you are no longer pregnant. What you don't have any right to is a dead baby. Instead, you'll have a live baby, and 18 years' care for it. And if you think that's harsh, it's what men have accustomed themselves to for decades now.
The story proved too good for Glenn to check.
"What does it take to begin consideration for deletion, and isn't Wikipedia running the entire process openly and subject to criticism and mass participation? Not much of a way to participate in a vast left-wing conspiracy."
Place in context with Facebook and Google and Twitter.
On Wiki there is a chance of the public fighting the deletions.
The others -- not subject to "mass participation" in editorial decisions -- make such moves with no reprisal.
The same general people behind both; Wiki just is set up differently enough to not have the censors always win.
So "Not much of a way to EFFECTIVELY participate in a vast left-wing conspiracy" is probably more accurate.
For now.
And everyone knows anti-abortionists are mostly men who were drunken frat boys back in the day who got to study calculus before becoming splooge stooges.
I am Laslo.
Sweat bee, I went to one of the first showings in the Twin Cities. It was a Friday afternoon matinee. The auditorium was 3/4 full; probably 70 people. There was no one under 40. I do trailer checks at theaters, so I am familiar with crowd sizes during opening matinees. That was a very full theater for a Friday afternoon. A typical crowd would be 25 percent.
At the end, while the credits run, one sees bits of the real video shot at the clinic. The scenes match the movie in an uncanny way, including the scene of Gosnell playing piano while the police search his house.
The credits ended and there was silence. No one moved for about 30 seconds. I have never seen people leave a theater with the grim expressions I saw that day.
If abortion is going to be allowed to be just as dangerous to the mother whether it’s legal or illegal, then why bother to make it legal?
Tucker Carlson's book, "Ship of Fools, " makes a pretty good argument that the Democratic Party has developed into a party with one issue: Abortion.
He also makes a pretty good case that Environmentalism has evolved into Democrat politics.
Examples are the Sierra Club which is totally pro illegal immigration even though the illegals often start forest fires.
Its a pretty good, if depressing, book.
"If a "fetus" is born alive, it is now a "child," and your patient; you do not get to throw it into a closet until it's safely dead."
Yeah, this.
If I injure a bald eagle, no matter how inadvertantly or unintentionally, I'm subject to felony prosecution. If an eco-crucifix wind turbine kills ten, well, that's just collateral damage.
Omelettes, broken eggs.
Interestingly, in the documentary I watched, Dr. Gosnell continues to profess his innocence.
@Shouting Thomas, believe it or not I am pro-abortion, sufficiently pro that I won’t deign to hide it behind euphemisms like “a woman’s right to choose.” But if someone is going to put women at risk by not having a sanitary environment and safe procedures, and when “by any means” includes inducing the live birth of a viable infant, then that’s way too far over the line for me.
Pennsylvania, prior to the Gosnell episode, had suspended inspections of abortion mills for obvious political reasons, i.e., fealty to Democratic politics. In the aftermath of Gosnell, they resumed inspections.
Gosnell's actions don't even qualify as abortions. He and his staff routinely committed infanticide, delivering living babies and killing them by severing their spinal chords with a pair of surgical scissors.
Gosnell's clinic primarily served women who were so far along in pregnancy that they were almost ready to deliver. They were referred to Gosnell by clinics that refused to do late term abortions or infanticide.
Blogger Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
stlcdr,
I’ve only heard of this film due to the abortion issue.
And yet there isn't an "abortion issue." ...
Irellevant. The movie was brought up in relation to abortion, abortion rights, etc. it could just have easily been about Mary giving birth to a baby in a manger.
This is about Wikipedia and how information on the internet can be manipulated or eliminated based on someone’s potential political leaning.
“In general, if I stay away from politically charged topics, I find Wikipedia to be fairly reliable and a very useful tool.”
Except that anything can become a politically-charged topic at any time.
I was bouncing around Wikipedia one day and stumbled across an article on washing machines that disparaged them for having been available only to the rich when they were first being adopted—as if everything isn’t first adopted only by the rich and as if increasing adoption isn’t what drives increases in functionality and decreases in price anyway.
I looked again later and that section was gone; no, I didn’t check the page history.
Gosnell looks like garbage. I'm not saying it is, but it looks like it.
I remember the brouhaha over Megan McArdle's wiki page. It was deleted multiple times by Wikipedia only to be restarted by the contributors. I think Wiki backed down for the moment on the Gosnell movie, but I would not be surprised to find the page deleted 6 months from now.
Wikipedia's structure allows contributors to restart deleted pages, so it isn't quite like Facebook and Twitter, for example- pushback is more effective in the case of Wikipedia.
I haven't seen Ann get this pissy since she was called out as a co-conspirator in the attempted rape of Justice Kavanaugh's reputation, family, and career. I wonder if she went into a hysterical crying fit like she did when she had to sit with some Libertarians at a dinner party.
Ann gets pissy when people are exposed to real news like those two events above. Much like the attempts by leftists and feminists like Althouse to suppress any criticism of her beloved babykilling has her whining today about leftipedia.
Boof.
If a "fetus" is born alive, it is now a "child," and your patient; you do not get to throw it into a closet until it's safely dead. I am always being told that the purpose of abortion is so that women aren't forced to gestate against their will. Very well; you are no longer pregnant. What you don't have any right to is a dead baby. }}}}
This!! I often think of this issue, using the same logic. A woman is entitled to not be pregnant any more, based on constitutional considerations of privacy (allegedly, won't go into that). Republicans/conservatives are always grilled by the media, using the most dire scenarios such as whether abortion should be permitted in the case of rape and incest. Why aren't pro-choice advocates put on the spot with the following question: Is a woman entitled to have a fetus removed from her body, or is she entitled to a dead fetus? If she's entitled to a dead fetus, then so is the father.
I saw Gosnell. It was a better movie than I thought it would be, given the budget. I know the players and a lot of the background because I was in the Phila. district attorney's office at the time. One area that was really skirted by the film was the role played in the decision to prosecute by then District Attorney Seth Williams. Williams has since been convicted of taking gifts in connection with his office but he did a lot of good also. It was incredibly courageous of him to take on this case when it happened.
If you do see the movie, you may be interested to know that the actual ADA who prosecuted has a cameo role as one of the members of the grand jury. She's a very pretty woman with shoulder-length blonde hair. Also, the portrayal of the bombastic defense attorney is actually pretty close to reality.
Moreover, it appears that you (i.e., Althouse) are so afraid that your conclusion might not be sustainable, you have vowed never to look this way again. Surprising.
Not really. It's quite common in academia. Leopards don't change their spots when they're out of the jungle.
Althouse is contemptuous of anything that might impinge on the right to murder defenseless babies. Contemptible.
I forgot I had a tag for Gosnell. Have added it now. Click on it to see how I covered The matter when it was news. Some of you are saying things about me here that you would see are plainly wrong if you read those old posts. This post is only about the question of what Wikipedia was accused of.
I have nothing to say about the movie itself. If I had to judge it by the trailer, I’d say it looks pretty bad, but it’s a type of movie I have no interest in seeing, a crime story.
Hell, I'll rise to your defense here, prof.
You didn't express an opinion about abortion.
I'm not interested in seeing the movie either. The 60 minute documentary I watched was more than enough.
Rigeldog:
"pregnant any more, based on constitutional considerations of privacy (allegedly, won't go into that). Republicans/conservatives are always grilled by the media, using the most dire scenarios such as whether abortion should be permitted in the case of rape and incest. Why aren't pro-choice advocates put on the spot with the following question: Is a woman entitled to have a fetus removed from her body, or is she entitled to a dead fetus? If she's entitled to a dead fetus, then so is the father."
Understand your point, but I've also often wondered--if the "fetus" is old enough to be born alive, what I still don't understand is why the father can't have it alive. Whether it lives a day, or 70yrs., the mother is rid of it.
Understand your point, but I've also often wondered--if the "fetus" is old enough to be born alive, what I still don't understand is why the father can't have it alive. Whether it lives a day, or 70yrs., the mother is rid of it.}}{
Yes, that fits in exactly with my thinking---the complications that arise when a fetus is viable and the woman wants to terminate her pregnancy anyway. Late-term abortion defenders will respond that it's necessary for the woman to retain exact control over how the fetus is removed, because different methods have different consequences for her current and future health. If you could get proponents and politicians to debate this freely---which you can't---it would make sense to find out what their reactions would be if there was a way to completely and safely remove a healthy fetus someday. Is there any problem with a woman insisting that she still wants a D&E, which is 100% fatal to the fetus?
Post a Comment