71.3.234.41

This IP has been blocked, as it appears to be in use by a banned user to evade his block. You may contest this block by following the instructions here. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there an AN/I?DMSBel (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

If it is one editor, the initial block was for opening a few new talk page sections in a row. It was a minor annoyance to a few editors. It was either 24 or 48 hours. The editor did not realise a subsequent block applied to a talk page too. The block was not as wide as a total block as far as I recall. There seems to be some confusion here about blocks/bans. What a block is, what a ban is, what each covers, whether there is a ban or a block on the IP? It strikes me as understandable that the IP would not be sure what he can edit and that has more to do with poorly enacted sanctions in the first place lacking sufficient explanation. The source of the problem (as far leaving things open to misunderstanding is concerned) therefore seems to be administrative in origin. Frankly, although there was minor breach in talk page etiquette, things have become blown way out of proportion in terms of sanctions. I would ask the IP to be patient till the matter is resolved, and not edit outside scope of the block once that is made clearer, and for its duration. In my experience with this IP they have been civil and responsive to polite appeals on those occasions when they breached etiquette. It might be circumspect in this instance to tidy the matter up and let the IP return to the discussion, with the proviso that they also be mindful of etiquette. Also that they would let editors know in the future if they edit on a different IP. The amount of disruption caused by this editor was really quite minimal when compared to other past incidents on wikipedia. DMSBel (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

When will you understand that an uninvolved administrator has forbidden you to edit Talk:Abortion? Disagree with it if you want, but the ban will be enforced until it is overturned. NW (Talk) 14:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The block has been restored, as you have continued with the same abuse as before. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

...and now includes the talk-page, as it has merely been used as a continuation of disruptive behavior. DMacks (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The website of self-described "late-term" abortion provider James Pendergraft (celebrated by NOW as an abortion-provider hero) is very interesting. He has set up shop in Washington D.C. and describes his practice below. Notice that contrary to his rhetoric (first excerpt below) he highlights the tragedy of the high number of teenagers who have late term abortions and notes that most of those abortions are preformed as birth control, not because of fetal anomaly or serious health risk to the mother (third excerpt below). One of the most provocative procedures in Pendergraft's Washington D.C. practice is performing feticide via Fetal Intracardiac Injection with the intent that once the fetus is dead, the woman could go to some other ob/gyn (any one will do) who will then have to assist her in completing the abortion by removing the dead fetus (killed by Pendergraft) from the womb, and the woman would not need to divulge that the fetus was deliberately killed (second excerpt below). This allows Pendergraft to do the easy part, leaving the hard part to some other unknown doctor who likely chooses not to be involved in aborting a viable fetus (Pendergraft notes that most doctors choose not to be involved with late term abortions) but has no choice when such a patient presents herself to him. Here are the excerpts from his website:

• "LateTermAbortion.net is a medical practice that specializes in performing intra-cardiac injections of second and third trimester pregnancies (greater than 24 weeks) where fetal anomalies are found to be incompatible with life or to protect the health of the mother. The majority of these patients have already been seen several times by their own personal physicians and found to have an abnormality of the fetus through genetic studies (FISH, CVS, or amniocentesis) or a maternal complication that can be a serious threat to their life or health. After the intra-cardiac injection is performed and the patient is found to have no potential problems, she has the choice of being sent back to her personal physician if the hospital in which the physician is affiliated has no rules or regulations about refusing to accept or deliver patients where a fetal death in-utero (fetal death in the mother's uterus) has occurred. This procedure has been performed over 3000 times without a single complication at Orlando Women's Center on patients 22 to 24 weeks pregnant. There are very few, but recognized complications that can occur; however, they are extremely rare when appropriate precautions and sterility are maintained." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that in the USA doctors offer third-trimester abortions?}

• "Fetal Intra-cardiac Injection: The patient is taken to the procedure room where she is placed on an exam table. If patient elects to have a mild IV sedative it is given at this point. The patient's abdomen is cleansed with an anti-septic solution. A sonogram sector scan is placed on the patient's abdomen and the fetal abdominal cavity is isolated. A spinal needle is guided slowly into the fetal heart where a feticide agent or 50cc's of air is injected via a syringe to stop the fetal heart beat. The procedure usually takes 2 to 4 minutes to perform. The patient is then observed for several minutes in the procedure room... With or without IV Sedation patients are able to go home in 10 to 15 minutes after the procedure is performed... Once we have determined that you are ready to leave the office, you will be given your post-op packet with instructions on how to care of yourself until you follow-up with your personal physician or the proper referral where the evacuation of the uterus will be carried out. Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that in the USA doctors perform feticide (literally "killing of the fetus") during abortion?}

• "Teenagers have late term abortions for various reasons. The most common are fear of what family members may say, do or think of them; not aware that they are pregnant; denial that they are pregnant; rape victims of incest; or multiple other reasons that cause delay in it coming to the surface that the teenager is pregnant. Women who seek and have late term abortions often come from disadvantaged situations. Teenagers younger than 15, particularly of minority status, have a disproportionate number of late term abortions. Menstrual irregularity is a very important risk factor as women with irregular menses often discover late in term that they are pregnant. Other risk factors for late term abortions besides young age are low educational attainment, history of a sexually transmitted disease, unable to decide whether or not termination of pregnancy is the proper thing to do. There are many women that do not realize that the option for a late term abortion is available, they may not initially have the finances and may need weeks or even months to raise money to pay for the abortion or lack the transportation to get to a late term abortion provider. On top of that, physicians who offer late term abortion procedures are scarce." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that in the USA doctors often perform late-term abortions when there is no fetal anomaly and no serious health threat to the mother?}

• "Is it legal to have a late term and or third trimester therapeutic termination of pregnancy? It is absolutely legal to have a late term and third trimester therapeutic abortion performed in certain States in an outpatient setting. The facility and place where the intra-cardiac injection will be carried out is one where the procedure is absolutely legal to perform. Late term abortion is defined by most as a termination procedure that occurs after 20 weeks of pregnancy. There are some that define late term abortion as early as 16 weeks pregnant. Third trimester of pregnancy is defined as after 24 to 28 weeks depending on the State or the Medical Professional Group. From a legal standpoint, each state defines its own regulation. The individual states also have laws that determine restrictions on how far an abortion can be performed and the criteria on where it must be carried out. There are some that will not allow abortions to be carried out except in a hospital after 12 weeks pregnant, and other states where there is no hospital requirement and no restriction on the number of weeks an abortion can be performed. There are those that declare the stopping of a fetal heart beat as the abortion, and others that indicate abortion is not defined until complete removal of the fetal and placental tissue. Once the fetal heart beat has stopped, the process of removing the fetus from the mother's womb is no longer defined as an abortion. This is the reason hospitals and other medical facilities cannot maintain the political, moral, ethical or religious controversy that comes with the abortion process; particularly when there is a threat to the mother's life or health or the fetus has abnormalities that are not compatible with life. In some states, abortions are permissible any time during a pregnancy to protect the woman's life or health, or when the fetus is affected by a genetic abnormality or deformity that is incompatible with life." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that in the USA doctors offer third-trimester abortions?}

• "Contrary to popular belief, the decision to end the life of a fetus even when severely abnormal and no chance of survival is very difficult." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that abortion doctors frankly counsel patients that an abortion ends the life of a fetus?}

71.3.234.41 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since this IP apparently continues to be used by the same banned editor to beat the same dead horse, it has been re-blocked. Please see the guide to appealing blocks should you wish to appeal this block. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Its really funny to observe you deleting information that exposes your POV disruptive editing. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• JJL started the current edit war when he seemingly ignored the years of consensus and the lengthy discussions that produced that consensus lead sentence (as well as the warning on the talk page alerting him to that consensus) with a trite and dismissive edit summary (this is clearly advocacy--"death" is a highly charged term here and not a medical one (does an embryo 'die'?), which ignored the hard work of dozens and dozens and dozens of editors over the years.

• Lionelt noted the problem with JJL's edit (lack of consensus and not respecting the genesis of the long-standing lead) and restored the long-standing consensus lead sentence.

• JJL ignored Lionelt and reverted Lionelt's reversion, thereby restoring his disruptive edit (although JJL incorrectly claimed in his edit summary that it was not a reversion).

• MastCell removed the POV tag (despite the bold warnings all over the page about the history of the lead sentence and its inclusion of the word death and despite Lionelt's mention of the lack of consensus), falsely claiming that "a single editor" objected to the deletion (and apparently MastCell considered it was good to have a POV tag when some editors wanted the word "death" removed, but after the word "death" was removed without consensus, it was suddenly a bad idea to have a POV tag?).

• Michael_C_Price restored the long-standingconsensus lead sentence.

• The article was then frozen for 3 days by Fastily.

• The article was then semi-protected by Andrew_c.

• Someone added a modifier to the word death.

• JJL restored the long-term consensus lead, giving the rationale that the a potential change to the lead sentence to remove death was under discussion (which was a good call).

• NuclearWarfare removed the long-standing consensus lead by removing the word death and substituting a reference to viability (despite objections and a clear lack of any new consensus). The contemporary talk page shows that there was no consensus for this controversial and contentious change.

• Str1977 restored the long-standing consensus lead, which was (and still is) the most recent consensus lead.

• NuclearWarfare added some cherry-picked references to the article (over the course of a few days) that would support NuclearWarfare's desired non-consensus version of the lead sentence.

• Jmh649 (aka Doc James) deleted death and added a viability reference, which did not enjoy consensus and was a contentious edit, coyly referencing the cherry-picked references cited by NuclearWarfare ("altered to reflect references"). A few minutes before he made this edit, Jmh649/DocJames was invovled in substantive discussion on the talk page in which there was clearly no consensus for the change, and in fact an objection to the change was made with copious medical references to verify the validity of the long-standing consensus version. Yet he made the edit anyway.

• JJL jumpd in to copy-edit (and endorse) the new wording.

• DMSBel tried to come up with a compromise that acknowledged the validity of the long-standing consensus, but included the concerns of the handful of edit warriors (JJL, Nuclear, and DocJames).

• ArtifexMayhem then divined that a new consensus existed, so he reverted to the new non-consensus version.

• DMSBel restored the long-standing consensus version.

• PhGustaf received the same divination as Artifex, and reverted to the new non-consensus version.

• DMSBel put in a tag since the lack of a new consensus had been repeatedly and contentiously ignored by a few agenda-driven editors.

• Lionelt chimed in to restore the long-standing consensus and note the lack of any new consensus.

• JJL reverted to the non-consensus version, voicing a desite to make the new edit-war non-consensus version the default version until there is a new consensus.

• Michal_C_Price restored the long-standing consensus version.

• OrangeMarlin reverted to the non-consensus version and labeled the long-standing vetted-by-anyone-and-everyone consensus version as the "POV" version. At about the same time he began insulting editors who disagred with him in the most uncivil and over-the-top manner.

71.3.234.41 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply