The notion that making mockery of law that prohibits one's freedom of choice being the same as mockery of the said choice itself is astoundingly absurd.
The first, mockery of law-- specially one that imposes restrictions on citizens is a political consideration, while mockery of a personal subject outside the context of politics is an ideological concern.
To make it more clear, please consider that it is possible to be against prohibition of any choice while simultaneously find said choice unfavorable.
This isn't about "freedom of choice", and the fact that you're even suggesting that means you've missed the point. This is about the fact that a joke that has anything to do with a sensitive topic like abortion is wildly inappropriate to have in technical documentation. Even if you ignore the abortion angle, this is still a political joke, which is also inappropriate for this context. In fact, most jokes are fairly inappropriate in this context, but I'm having trouble thinking of anything more inappropriate than an abortion joke.
Edit: I'm really curious what kind of people are downvoting me. To those who are, I'd really like to know what your rationale is for believing that an abortion joke belongs in technical documentation.
As already pointed out, the whole FOSS movement and so GNU project is a political enterprise, technology is only the means to an end.
In fact, it could be argued that the core principal and objective of FOSS and GNU project is reinforcement of liberty by protection and promotion of freedom of choice in the digital age.
The politics of GNU is not only completely separate from the politics of abortion debate, but we're also talking about technical documentation here, which is an apolitical thing. Someone reading technical documentation is not doing so because they're trying to be involved in the politics, they're doing so because they're looking for, you guessed it, technical documentation.
"talking about technical documentation here, which is an apolitical thing"
There's no requirement of that, just like there's no requirement that technical documentation be stab-your-eyes-out dry and boring rather than having an occasional bit of humor.
Apolitical technical documentation is a style choice, saying that you want to emulate a certain style of documentation.
I didn't say the technical documentation has to be completely dry and devoid of any humor. But when you're putting humor into technical documentation, you need to avoid any kind of divisive or political topic. The worst response to the humor you put in there should a groan.
I would argue that the texinfo documentation is not only technical documentation, but also political documentation with a cultural legacy.
RMS started the FSF for political reasons, as a reaction to the sudden intersection of code sharing, business and copyright law. Not only was it not in any way separate from RMS' political views, but it is in fact entirely an expression of them down to texinfo and his uncompromising views that helped spawn an entire culture around Free Software.
There are those that would like to separate and divide these from what they see as purely technical matter, but I would argue the mistake they are making in this case is in looking at it as merely technical documentation. It is that, but it is also more than this.
Maybe I'm old fashioned in my sensibilities, but whether I agree with someone or not is immaterial, I will always appreciate being able to catch a glimpse of the human face behind their work. RMS may not be the most agreeable man on the face of the planet, but I'm inclined to respect the man's legacy and how he sees fit to leave it, particularly as he still maintains an incredibly active role in the policies of the culture he helped to shape through his Foundation.
As others have said, the glibc is part of a political organization. If the Chinese government had forbid GNU from speaking on forks and required the exclusive use of chopsticks, you'd see a similar joke on the page for fork. Nobody is trying to deny that abortion is a sensitive topic, politics is always about sensitive topics, and it's sensitivity might have something to do with why the US government legislated on it.
The notion that making mockery of law that prohibits one's freedom of choice being the same as mockery of the said choice itself is astoundingly absurd.
The first, mockery of law-- specially one that imposes restrictions on citizens is a political consideration, while mockery of a personal subject outside the context of politics is an ideological concern.
To make it more clear, please consider that it is possible to be against prohibition of any choice while simultaneously find said choice unfavorable.