Let's just pause for a minute
Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --HMayo 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)
It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --HMayo 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--Aschlafly 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --HMayo 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --HMayo 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- In the UK NHS 'abortionists' do not receive any recompense for performing abortions, so do not profit from performing abortions. I appreciate that this is a US-centric encyclopaedia, but perhaps that caveat should be added --J00ni 19:30, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- I'd like to see citations for your astounding claim. Perhaps you mean to say that the recompense in the UK is from private sources rather than the NHS? Or that the recompense is not for the operation, but for services associated with the operation?--Aschlafly 19:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- All doctors working within the NHS framework are paid an annual basic salary, on top of which the receive banding (according to hours worked and job intensity). Consultants (Attendings) can also receive pay awards for clinical excellence. There is no extra pay granted on a per procedure basis, and so a gynaecologist will receive the same pay whether or not he/she performs abortions. In fact this has led to a de facto reduction in both the number of NHS abortions and the upper gestational limit above which an abortion is refused, as NHS doctors are refusing to perform late term abortions in most cases. In fact the number of doctors in the UK performing abortions in the NHS is declining in absolute terms (forcing the NHS to contract out to private providers)
- These private providers employ UK registered consultants and registrars (senior residents) to perform abortions, many of whom do also work in the NHS, and these doctors will be paid according to the number of procedures, so do profit from abortion. Currently in the UK it is an approximate 50:50 split between private and NHS abortions (though the only internet source I could find states 60:40 private:NHS) - which is approximately 80,000 abortions performed annually with no abortionist profiting from the procedure
It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion.--Aschlafly 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- As an outside party, I have to say that when I read your comment, the wording did seem to imply that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath and then violated it. The and connects one claim of transgression (incompetence in violation of the hospital rules they agreed to abide) with a second (abortions in violation of the Hippocratic Oath). The abortionists are posited as violators in both cases, and by a natural extension that implies that the Hippocratic Oath is a rule the abortionists also agreed to follow.
- Here's an analogous (made-up) example of liberal criticism of American enviromental policy:
- "The USA has dumped toxic materials in habitats protected by legislation and the Kyoto Protocol prohibits unchecked greenhouse gas emissions."
- Setting aside the outrageousness of the statement, let's just look at what it seems to imply. It sets up one case where the USA violates rules it agreed to, and then puts forth another rule that it's violating. The phrasing misleads the reader into assuming that the USA has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is now violating it. That's of course not true, but that's the interpretation that gets implied by the wording.
I would be interested to see some kind of factual data that backs the claim "Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". MetcalfeM 16:02, 25 February 2008 (EST)
We don't censor here
Right... --HMayo 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --HMayo 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--Aschlafly 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
- The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --HMayo 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --HMayo 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--Aschlafly 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.
- I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.
- Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --HMayo 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--Aschlafly 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)
- Here is the page content as I had it:
- An abortionist is one who performs (and profits from) abortions.
- Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the United States seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.
- == External links ==
- ==See Also==
- You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.
- As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:
- "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".
- I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are often people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.
- Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it within the last ten years.
- Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed for being psychiatrists or if many emergency room doctors have been killed for being emergency room doctors. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --HMayo 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- I never said the abortionists took the Hippocratic Oath. You don't seem willing to retract your false claim that I did, and you seem insistent on confusing people about what the Hippocratic Oath says about abortion. It prohibits it. We can continue this conversation when you let us know for comparison purposes how many psychiatrists were murdered in the last decade, which curiously you seem much less interested in.--Aschlafly 14:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- 1. The Hippocratic Oath point was dealt with in HMayo's previous post. Also, I noticed that you went and changed the definition of Hippocratic oath part way through this discussion. Interesting. The article used to say that fewer than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths prohibit abortion. That is to say over 90% contain no such prohibition. Even after you altered the article it still says: "...many medical schools now drop the prohibition on abortion and euthanasia from "modernized" versions of the Oath". I assume you made that change so that you could claim that the real Hippocratic oath did contain a prohibition and these modern medical schools are not using the genuine article. Some might regard that as deceitful.
- 2. I am happy to inform you that no psychiatrists have been murdered in the last ten years for being psychiatrists. I find it curious that you say that it is curious that HMayo is less interested in psychiatrists. Perhaps he was trying to write an article about abortionists, not psychiatrists. --GDewey 17:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Oh dear. You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. The abortionists were murdered because they were abortionists. There is no indication that Dr. Fenton's killer was motivated by the fact that she was a psychiatrist. I thought that this distinction was made pretty clear above. Perhaps if you spent more than 10 seconds... --GDewey 17:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- Folks, the psychiatrist obviously was murdered because she was the killer's psychiatrist. You're trying to draw a meaningless distinction for ideological reasons. Give it up, and start being productive on this site.--Aschlafly 18:55, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Can you not see the difference between a mentally-deranged person targetting someone with whom they had an intense and loaed relationship and a political murder where the victim was chosen in order to achieve a political goal? Aboganza 18:58, 26 February 2008 (EST) (And does your "final reply edit summary not constitute last wordism on your part?)
- Aboganza, your talk, talk, talk violates our rules, and your insistence on last wordism is tiresome. You are straining to find a distinction, to the point of baseless speculation about motives, but your distinction is not meaningful. Now contribute to the encyclopedia here in a productive way, or please leave. Thank you.--Aschlafly 19:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)